The Fief of Tibnin (Toron) and its Castle in the Age of the Crusades AD (1105-1266 AH 498- 664)

A Study of its economic, political and military Role


Master's Thesis, 2014
131 Pages

Free online reading

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction
The Importance and the Objectives of This Study
Primary Sources of This Study
- Arabic and Muslim Sources
- Western Sources:
Previous Studies:

Chapter 2: The Demographic and Architecture of Tibnīn and its Socio - Economic Role
The Study Area and the Historical Background:
Populations of Tibnīn:
Agriculture:
Trade, Taxes and Currency
The Location and Architectur of the Castle:
- The location and the reasons of construction:
- The Architectural Structure of the Castle:
Conclusion

Chapter 3: The Political Role of of Tibnīn in the Latin East AD 1105-1187/ AH 498-583
The Crusader Invasion of the Levant and Tibnīn
Hugh of Saint-Omer and the Establishment of the Fief of Tibnīn
Tibnīn under the Rule of Humphrey I
The Union of the Crusader Rule in Tibnīn and Hebron under Humphrey II
The Union of the Crusader Governance in Tibnīn, Banyas and Transjordan
Tibnīn,from the Time of Humphrey II to that of his Grandson, Humphrey IV
The Fate of Tibnīn and Humphrey IV after the Death of Humphrey II
The End of the Crusader Rule in Tibnīn 1187 / 583
Conclusion

Chapter 4: The Military Role of Tibnīn against the Muslims(1105-1187 / 498-583)
Tibnīn and Its Strategic Location
The Full Military Control of Tibnīn and the Seizure of the City of Tyre in 1124
Tibnīn, Damascus, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem after the Fall of Tyre in 1124
Tibnīn an Offensive-Defensive Base in the North of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Tibnīn and the Campaigns of Amaury I against Egypt (1164-1169 / 559-564)
Muslims and the Restoration of Tibnīn
Conclusion

Chapter 5: Tibnīn between the Muslims and the Crusaders 1229-1266/ 583- 664
I-Tibnīn under the Ayyubid Rule 1187-1229/ 583- 625
- German Crusade of 1197- 98 and the siege of Tibnīn
- Tibnīn and the Crusade 1217-1221
II- Tibnīn under the Latin Rule 1229-66/ 627-64
Conclusion

General Conclusion

Appendix

Bibliography

Abbreviations:

Primary Sources
Arabic Sources:
Western Sources:

Secondary Sources:
Arabic References:
Western references:

Acknowledgements

This work is my master thesis, which was written at Georg August Universität- Göttingen, Germany. It could not have been written without the assistance of a large number of people who provide endless help and advice, although any mistakes in this work are, of course, my own. I would like to thank the Erasmus Mundus Medastar program for granting me a scholarship and the financial support to conduct my thesis at Göttingen University. At my home University, Damnhour University, Egypt, in the first place, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Aly Ahmed M. al-Sayed for all his help and encouragement throughout all the stages of this work.

At the host university, Georg August Universität-Göttingen, Germany, I would like to thank so much Prof. Dr. Frank Rexroth for his help, patience, and encouragement throughout all the stages of this work at Göttingen.I could not have been able to write this work without his advices, instructions, comments and extensive help. I owe a great debt to Dr. Adil Hilal, Damnhour University for helping me in writing and revision of this work. I would like to thank Ms. Christine Crozier, the proof-reading of this work at Göttingen.

I am very grateful to all those who made possible the completion of this book, the staff of Göttingen library and the team of Erasmus Mundus at the international office of Göttingen University for their help and for their kind collaboration. I wish also to express my gratitude for the staff of Department of Medieval and Modern History at Göttingen University and Department of History at Damnhour University.

Above all, my best word of thanks must go to to my parents, my wife and my sonwho have accepted to almost without any complaint, my hours in libraries and at the computer. Finally, I dedicate this book to my parents, my wife and to the martyrs of 25th January revolution in Egypt.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Crusade movement is one of the most important occurrences of medieval history. It took place throughout two centuries in the Levant and affected both Muslims and Crusaders and in turn changed the way in which West and East related to one another.[1] To understand the history of the Crusades, it is important to study not only the military aspects but also the socio-economic and political relationships. When the Crusaders took control of the Holy Land and many Islamic cities in the Levant, they transferred their feudal European system there. They established four main fiefdoms or lordships, Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli. In addition, there were another twelve secondary fiefdoms,[2] of which Tibnīn was one. Tibnīn was called “Toron” by the Crusaders. Once the Crusaders had captured Tibnīn, they began building its fortified castle, from which the fief of Tibnīn gained its importance throughout the period of the Crusades.

Tibnīn lies on “Jabal ‘Amil” and was strategically located on the trade route between Damascus and Tyre, in the south of present-day Lebanon.[3] Once the castle of Tibnīn was built by Hugh of Saint-Omer in AD 1103-05 / AH 496-99, it became a base from which the Crusaders could launch invasions in the area of Galilee in the northern part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It thus played an important military, political and economic role in the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem throughout the period of the Crusades. Owing to this, the Muslims constantly attempted to regain it and did so in 1187. However, the Emperor Frederick II succeeded in recapturing it in 1229, so that it resumed its political, military and economic role under the Latin rule until it fell eventually and forever to the Muslims in 1266.

The Importance and the Objectives of This Study

Tibnīn was an important Crusader fief and castle. It played a pivotal role in capturing the city of Tyre, which had received military reinforcements from Damascus before its fall to the Crusaders’ in 1124. From that time, Tibnīn and Tyre became important military and economic Crusader settlements. The fief of Tibnīn was vital for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, because it included fertile agricultural lands, was a tax collection centre, and because it controlled the Damascus-to-Tyre commercial route. Militarily, it controlled the area north of Galilee, which was a very important region for the Crusader States and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, because in addition to the importance of the defensive and offensive role of its castle in the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,[4] the rulers of Tibnīn played a major role in forming the history of the Latin East. They were key figures in the political and military events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as will be discussed throughout this work.

The present study aims at removing some of the mystery concerning the fief of Tibnīn and its castle and illustrates the importance of this relatively unknown fiefdom, its subjects and rulers in the formation of the history of the Latin East. This work thus discusses the socio-economic, political and military role of Tibnīn and its rulers in the Latin east. Moreover, the role of Tibnīn in influencing the relations between Muslims and the Crusaders in the Levant will be examined. Considerable studies exist on many of the Crusader castles and the Latin fiefdoms. However, there are no serious analyses or comprehensive examinations of the role of Tibnīn as a Latin fief in the Levant, in spite of its importance and its rulers, who played a major role in the events of the Latin East.

The questions which this study aims to throw more light on are: What is the socio-economic, military and political role of Tibnīn and its rulers in the Levant during the period of the Crusades? What about the castle and its offensive and defensive role in the northwest of Galilee and north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem? To what extent did Tibnīn and its rulers affect the internal events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem? What happened to Tibnīn under Muslim rule from 1187 to 1229? How did the Crusaders regain Tibnīn in 1229? What is the nature of Tibnīn’s role in the period 1229 to 1266 in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and against the Muslims in Egypt and Syria? How did it fall again to the Muslims in 1266?

In tracing the answers to these questions, this historical analysis examines the events in and around Tibnīn and its impacts on the study area during the Crusader period, with the hope of giving new recognition to the historical significance of Tibnīn in the annals of the Latin East.

This work is divided into five chapters. This first chapter introduces the present work and outlines its importance and objectives, and also discusses its primary and second sources as well as the previous studies in this field.

The second chapter, entitled “Demographic, Socio-Economic and Architectural Structure of Tibnīn” is a study of the people and society of Tibnīn, the architecture of the castle of Tibnīn and its importance for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It illustrates the nature of the relations between the Crusader and Muslim inhabitants in Tibnīn and the economic and agricultural importance of its lands.

The third chapter, entitled “The Evolution of Crusader Governance in the Fief of Tibnīn” deals with the issues of Crusader rule in Tibnīn, from its origins and evolution to the political role of Tibnīn and its rulers throughout the twelfth century, until its downfall at the hands of the Muslims in 1187 / 583. In addition, its political role in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its impact on the political events in the Latin east will be examined. The possessions of Humphrey I's dynasty, rulers of Tibnīn, in the Levant and their relations with the kings of Jerusalem and the Crusader nobles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem will be discussed as well. This chapter underlines the importance of Tibnīn in the Latin east, which was derived from its economic and military significance.

The fourth chapter, entitled “The Military Role of the Fief of Tibnīn against the Muslims (1105-1187 / 498-583)”, traces the military role of Tibnīn and its rulers in the Latin East against the Muslims until 1187/ 583. Tibnīn played a key role in overcoming the Muslims in Tyre and controlled it in 1124. It also played a vital role in the conflict between Damascus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Tibnīn participated in defending Antioch, Banyas, Hebron and Transjordan several times. Furthermore, its soldiers and Knights joined the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to capture Ascalon in 1153, and joined the campaigns of Amaury I, King of Jerusalem, against Egypt from 1164 to1169. The military situation of Tibnīn under the rule of the royal house until its fall to the Muslims in 1187/ 583 will be studied as well.

The fifth chapter, entitled “Tibnīn between the Muslims and the Crusaders 1229-1266/ 583- 664”, is a study of the political and military situation of Tibnīn under Muslim rule from 1187/583 to 1229/625 and under Latin rule from 1229/625 to 1266/664, and illustrates how important Tibnīn was for both the Muslims and the Crusaders and why both parties constantly fought to control this strategic stronghold. The first part of this chapter studies Tibnīn under Ayyubid rule (1187-1229/ 583- 625) and the attempts of the Crusaders to recapture it. The German Crusade of 1197-98 against Tibnīn, and the impact of the Fifth Crusade 1218-1221 on Tibnīn, will be discussed as well. The second part of this chapter deals with Tibnīn under the Crusader rule of 1229- 1266/ 625- 664. It will examine the issues involving the struggle for Tibnīn between the Teutonic Knights and Alice of Tibnīn in 1229. The military and political role of Tibnīn and its rulers in the Latin East, its role in the Seventh Crusade, the Crusade of King Louis IX, will be studied. Finally, the conclusions of this study will be discussed.

Primary Sources of This Study

The research of this work is based on twelfth- and thirteenth-century primary Arabic-Muslim and Western sources, as well as on later references that were written in the Middle Ages. Hundreds of works on the Crusades recently written in Arabic and European languages are also consulted here. Moreover, relevant MA theses, PhD dissertations and journal articles have been used to enrich the research work.

- Arabic and Muslim Sources

Some claim that Muslim historians in the Middle Ages were not aware of "the crusading ideology of the Franks in the Latin East,” and that Muslim historians contemporary with the Crusades have not mentioned much about the Crusader's internal affairs.[5] However, this is untrue as Muslim historians did indeed deal with many issues of the Crusaders, their relations, and their conflicts with the Muslims. Moreover, there are narratives about the conditions of the Muslims in the Crusaders States. Arabic and Muslim sources were criticized because they repeated the same information and extracted from each other, as it was customary for Muslim historians to extract from former historians of their period.[6] Muslim sources provided considerable information, chiefly about the events of the Levant in general, and the fief of Tibnīn and its Crusader-Muslim rulers in particular. Arabic sources provide information that the Western sources do not cover, especially with regard to the issues of Muslim attitudes toward Crusader aggression and the situation of the Muslims under Crusader rule.

The most renowned Arabic and Muslim contemporary historian of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is Ibn al-Āthīr (‘Izz ad-Din Abū-al-Ḥasan Moḥamed Ibn al-Athīr) who died in 1233/630. His most important work is al-Kamil Fi al-Tārīkh (The Perfect History, or the Collection of Histories) .[7] It is a considerable history of the entire Muslim world from pre-Islam times to the year 628/1231. The work of Ibn al-Āthīr contains a wealth of material on Islamic history in general and in particular the Muslim world in the period of the Crusades. He was an eyewitness of the events of the Crusades until 1233 and is one of the main Arabic-Muslim historians of the Crusades.[8]

The work of Ibn al-Āthīr is contained in eleven volumes and in some editions in twelve volumes. Ibn al-Āthīr provides valuable information about the Crusader-Muslim conflict and about Tibnīn, its Crusader rulers, and Humphrey’s dynasty, covering the military, political and commercial history of Tibnīn until 1233. He mentions most of the battles between the Muslims and the Crusaders in which the rulers of Tibnīn had participated. Ibn al-Āthīr was sometimes chronologically faulty or mixed up some events.

Valuable information was gained from the work of Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq (Appendix to the History of Damascus) by Ibn-al-Qalānisī (d. 555/1160).[9] This work covers the period 363-555/ 974-1160 and Ibn-al-Qalānisī was an eye-witness in the Levant to most of events through which he lived at that time. His work was very useful for this study, because he mentions certain information concerning the military activities of Ṭughtikīn of Damascus and ‘Izz al-Mulk, the ruler of Tyre, against Tibnīn after its establishment in 1105. His work illustrates the role of Tibnīn in overcoming the city of Tyre in 1124, and the role of Tibnīn and its rulers in fighting the Muslims until the death of Ibn-al-Qalānisī in 555/1160 . This source mentions some socio-economic relations between the Muslims and the Crusaders in the area of Tibnīn as well .

Bahaa al-Din Ibn-Shaddād (d. 632 / 1234), al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah wa al-Maḥāsin al-Yūsofīah , [10] is a biography of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and his life.Ibn-Shaddād was appointed as Judge "Qādī” from 1188 and was closely related to the Sultan Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn until the death of the latter in 589/1192. He described the siege of Tibnīn by the Muslims in 1187 and mentions how the castle of Tibnīn was fortified. He also dealt with some of the social aspects and the administrative systems of the Crusaders and Muslims and gives precise information about Tibnīn under the Muslims’ rule.

‘Imad al-Dīn al-Ᾱṣfahānī (d.597 / 1200) entered into the service of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn in 1174 and was his secretary. He is considered to be the military writer of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and wrote two chronicles. The first is al-Fatḥ al-Qussī fi al-Fatḥ al-Qudsī, [11] which is about the military campaigns of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn (583-89/1187-92) to regain the city of Jerusalem and others Muslim cities that had been captured by the Crusaders after 1095. This chronicle also mentions the efforts of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn to regain Tibnīn in 1187. The second chronicle is al-Barq al-Shāmī ,[12] which was written in seven volumes from 562/1167 to 589/1192. However, only the third and fifth volumes of this chronicle have been found. It dealt with the history of Nūr al-Dīn Zingy and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn Ayyubid and gives valuable information about their wars against the Crusaders, and hence also the role of Tibnīn and its rulers in these wars. It covers the events of the death of Humphrey II of Tibnīn in a battle with Muslims in 1179 and mentions the capture of Humphrey IV of Tibnīn in Hittin in 1187. Although the most of the work of al- Barq al-Shāmī has disappeared , it was summarized by al-Fatḥ Ibn Ali al-Bindārī, who was a thirteenth-century historian, in his work entitled; Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī . [13] This mostly covers the lost information in the original volume about the events of the battle of Hittin and the fall of Tibnīn to the Muslims.

Abū-Shāmah (d. 665 / 1267) is the author of two important books: the first is‘ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn fi Akhbār al-Daūlataīn al-Nūrīah wa al-Ṣalihīah ,[14] or the Book of Two Gardens , which is a history of the states of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn. The second is Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn , [15] which is acomplementary book of the first . The first book covers the conditions of the Islamic East in the period of the Crusader-Muslim conflict, and he made use of some contemporary lost sources such as Yahya Ibn-Abi-Tayy, who was a Shi'ite scholar who died in 1232.[16] The book of ‘Eīūn al-Raūḍatīncovers the campaigns of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn against the Crusaders until 590/ 1194 and the military activities of Humphrey II of Tibnīn in defending Bnays, Eziz and some other Crusader cities, as well as the battle of Hittin and the restoration of Tibnīn. The second, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn , covers the period from 590 / 1194 to 665 / 1287, which gives more information about Tibnīn under the Muslim rule (1187-1229/ 583- 625). It mentions the siege of Tibnīn in the Crusade of 1197-98 and its destruction by al-Mu’azzam–Isa in 1218, 1227. This account describes the control of Tibnīn by Fredrick II in 1229 and gives some narratives about Tibnīn under the Latin rule of 1229-1266/ 625-664.

Taqi al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442) was one of the most important historians of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and his most important work is Kitāb al-Sulūk li-M ̔arifa Duwal al-Mulūk ,[17] which covers the history of medieval Egypt from 577/1164 to 845/1441. This work gives valuable information about the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the thirteenth century in the first two volumes. It thus provides important knowledge about the history of Tibnīn under Muslim rule from 1187 / 583 to 1229 / 625, and the movement of the Egyptian army to defend Tibnīn against the Crusade of 1197-98. It also includes narratives about the events of the Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade and their impact on Tibnīn, as well as the events of the English and French Crusade of 1239-40, the fall of Tibnīn to the Muslims in 1239/636 and its recapture again by an agreement between the Crusaders and al-Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt in 1241/638.[18]

The most important Islamic traveler who provided useful information for this study is Ibn-Jubair (d. 614 / 1217), in his work, al-Riḥlah (The Travel of Ibn-Jubair), which took some three years from 578/1182 to 581/1185.[19] His travel chronicle describes the commercial road between Tibnīn and Damascus to Tyre, and the castle of Tibnīn. He gives unique information about the customs of Tibnīn and the taxes, the situation of Muslim inhabitants in Tibnīn and their relations with the Crusader inhabitants. This work was therefore a highly important source of information for the writing of the socio-economic history of Tibnīn.

Another Arabic source was the work of Badr al-Dīn al-‘Ainī (d.855/ 1451), entitled ‘Iqd al-Jumān fi Tārīkh Āhl al-Zamān (The Necklace of Pearls Concerning the History of the People of the Time ). [20] He lived in the period from 762 to 855/1360-1451 and his work was written in four volumes coving the history of the Ayyibid State between the years 565/1182 to 628/1230. al-‘Ainī derived his information from Muslim sources previous to his time which was fortunate in that this preserved information from now-lost original works. It gives more information about the history of Tibnīn under the Muslim rule from 1187 until 1230.

- Western Sources:

One of the most important Western sourcrs is thechronicle of William of Tyre , “Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum”, the English title of which is “A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea”. [21] It is considered to be the main source for the history of the Latin East until 1184/580. William of Tyre was born in Jerusalem in 1130. He went to Europe to study in the schools of France and Lombardy. In 1165, he returned to the Latin East and King Amaury I delegated him to write a history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. His work is divided into twenty-three books and covers the period from the First Crusade to the year 1184.It is believed that he died by October 21st, 1186.He was a tutor of King Baldwin IV and was appointed Archbishop of Tyre, which was the second position in the Latin Catholic hierarchy after the Patriarch of Jerusalem. As chancellor of the Kingdom, he was responsible for the royal archive, the scribes and officials of the royal chancery.[22] Although his work provides much vital information, it should be regarded with discretion because he was an important political figure and closely allied to the Kings of Jerusalem until his death.

William gives an accurate account of the rule of Tibnīn from the time Hugh of Saint-Omer had the castle of Tibnīn built in 1103-05 until the death of Humphrey II in 1179. He writes about the fate of Tibnīn and Humphrey IV after the death of his grandfather, Humphrey II. There was some confusion in the chronicle of William between the names and activities of Humphrey II and his son Humphrey III, who died in the lifetime of his father. Thus William often referred to Humphrey IV as Humphrey III. He gives an accurate account of Humphrey II of Tibnīn and his family, because Humphrey II of Tibnīn was the Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the rule of Baldwin III and Amaury I. Thus we have information about the role of Tibnīn and its castle, because its lords - and Humphrey II in particular - participated in most of the political and military events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and were therefore frequently mentioned by William of Tyre. William of Tyre described the agricultural features of Tibnīn, which was valuable for understanding the agricultural importance of Tibnīn in the Latin East.

La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyre [23] is a very important source that covered the period from 1184 to 1197; it is considered a complementary work to that of William of Tyre. There is an English translation of this work by Peter Edbury entitled The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre 1184-97. [24] In this work I refer to both the Latin and English versions. This account gives information about the conquest of Tibnīn by the Muslims in 1187 and covers the events of the Crusades of 1197-98 around Tibnīn.

A good deal of information about the Crusader States is contained in Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani .[25] It is a collection of charters and documents issued from the royal chancery of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was edited and published by Reinhold Röhricht in 1893 and 1904. It includes the charters that mention the rulers of Tibnīn and their subscription in these charters to the kings of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They sometimes signed as witnesses and or were mentioned as having made some donation.

This study has benefited from the charters of Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici, which was published by Ernestus Strehlke in Latin.[26] Although these were the charters of the Teutonic Knights, including their records, contracts and possessions in the Latin East, this book also contains some references to the history of Tibnīn. It refers for example to the exchange of Tibnīn with King Baldwin IV and his mother in 1181, and it gives important information about the conflict over Tibnīn in 1229 between the Teutonic Knights and Alice of Tibnīn. Although the charters which mention Tibnīn were limited, they were important to fill in main gaps in the history of Tibnīn.

The most significant sources of information for this study in the period 1229-66 are Philip de Novare [27] and the Chroniques d’Amadi et de Stramaldi .[28] The first was translated by John la Monte from the Latin version “Memoires de Philippe de Novare” into the English version entitled “ The Wars of Frederick II against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus” . It covers a large part of the history of the Latin East in thirteenth century, from 1218-1243, and depicts the relationships and loyalties in that century. These accounts were very important for revealing the history of Tibnīn under the Latin rule of 1229-66. They illustrate the relations between Philip of Montfort, Lord Tibnīn, and the Ibelins, the most illustrious house in the Latin East, with the royal house in Acre, and with the Genoese and Venetians.

The most comprehensive accounts up to now on the castle of Tibnīn are, firstly, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions ,[29] which were conducted by Edward Robinson and others in the middle of the 19th century. Secondly, there is the report of the The Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology , carried out by Conder and Kitchener in the 1870s.[30] These works describe the castle and inhabitants of Tibnīn. Although these travels took place in the 19th century, they provide important information about Tibnīn and its castle which was essential for this study.

Previous Studies:

On surveying the available secondary literature dealing with the history of the Crusades, it became clear that some works which dealt with the history of Tibnīn in the Latin East did so as part of a study of the Crusades in general, or within a study of one or more Crusader states and fiefdoms. There is no specific study focusing on the whole history of the fiefdom of Tibnīn in the Latin East, though there are some that deal with a few aspects of the history of Tibnīn and its castle. A few recent studies in Arabic and European languages were useful for this study.

Mathias Piana recently wrote two archaeological articles on the Castle of Tibnīn. The first is “The Crusader Castle of Toron: First Results of its Investigation,”[31] published in 2006. The second was published in 2008, entitled “Die Burg Toron (Qal’at Tibnīn) Im Südlichen Libanon" in Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit,[32] a complementary study with the first. They are archaeological studies on the castle of Tibnīn and provide valuable information about the architecture and topography of the castle, from which significant insights can be derived regarding its fortifications and design – and hence its importance as a fortification. These insights confirmed the need to discover the socio-economic, military and political role of Tibnīn as a fief and castle in the period of the Crusades, which has been the objective of the present study.

al-Khalīl wa al-Haram al-Ibrāhīmī fi ‘Aṣr al-Ḥurūb al- Ṣ alībīah 492-583/1099-1187 was written by Aly al-Sayed in Arabic; it is a study of the history of Hebron in the period of the Crusades from 492/1099 to 583/1187.[33] Humphrey II of Tibnīn ruled Hebron in 1149. This means that he united Hebron and Tibnīn under his rule at that year, and later his son, Humphrey III, ruled Hebron from 1152 to 1170.[34] Aly al-Sayed studied the issues of the Crusader rule in Hebron under these lords of Tibnīn, but he did not discuss their role in Tibnīn. This work describes the importance of relations between the Crusader fiefdoms in the Levant in general, and the relations between Tibnīn and Hebron during this period in particular. Thus it gives useful knowledge for discussing the political and military roles of the lords of Tibnīn in the Kingdom of Jerusalem throughout the present study.

The second recent important study in Arabic is an article entitled “ Himfirī al-Rābia Saaīd Tibnīn (Humphrey IV of Tibnīn)” by Aly al-Sayed.[35] This article deals with the personality of Humphrey IV of Tibnīn and his role in the events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1181 to 1192. Hence this article does not cover the entire history of Tibnīn, because it was under the royal house during this period. However, it gives information about Humphrey IV of Tibnīn as a descendant of the dynasty of Humphrey I of Tibnīn and was thus highly useful for this study’s pursuit of the fate of Tibnīn and the sons of its rulers in the twelfth century until its fall to the Muslims in 1187.

Finally, there are several studies which helped to enrich the present one, which will be mentioned in the bibliography of this study. The above-mentioned studies are the main recent ones that examine some aspect of the history of Tibnīn, especially in twelfth century. They have encouraged me to discover and to study the social, economic, political and military history of Tibnīn in the period of the Crusades until 1266, andto explore the extent to which Tibnīn contributed to the history of the Latin East, as will be shown through the next chapters.

Chapter 2:The Demographic and Architecture of Tibnīn and its Socio - Economic Role

The arrival of the Crusaders to the Near East area at the end of the eleventh century gave rise to new demographic, cultural, socio-economic, and architectural features. New inhabitants, new traditions and new languages came with the European inhabitants. Islam and Christendom, Arabs and Franks, East and West met face to face in the Levant.[36] This chapter is a study of the demographic and socio-economic structure of Tibnīn, and discusses the architecture of the castle of Tibnīn and its importance.

The Study Area and the Historical Background:

Tibnīn “تبنين”, was located in mountain of Amil (Arabic:جبل عامل‎ Jabal ʿĀmil), a mountainous region of southern Lebanon, which was an important area in the period of the Crusades. This area was known as Jabal 'Amilah, and later as Jabal 'Amil. Most historians have thought that the naming of this land goes back tothe tribe of Banu 'Amilah “بنو عاملة", which emigrated from Yemen to the Levant in pre-Islamic times and settled in these lands, because of a flood caused by thedestruction of the Maārib Dam "سد مأرب".[37] It was also named Jabil al-Jālīl and Jabal al-Khalil. Jabil ʿĀmil included several mountains and areas: Jabil Tibnīn, Jabil Hunin, the coast of Tyre, Shaqif Arnun and others.[38]

Geographically and historically, Lebanon was part of Greater Syria. The natural borders of Jabal ‘Amil were the Horn River “al-Qarn” near of Ṭīr-Shiḥah "طيرشيحا" south of Acre, Jordan and part of the Lebanese mountains to the east, the al-Āwali River "نهر الأولي" on the north, and the Mediterranean Sea on the west.The region of Jabal ʿĀmilbecame part of the Islamic State from the seventh Gregorian century. When the Crusaders invaded the Levant, they advanced to control the cities and villages of Jabal ʿĀmil because of this area’s importance, geographically, strategically, and economically, as will be illustrated.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map3: Jabal ‘Amil and Southern Lebanon[39]

The area of Jabil ‘Amil included many villages which were divided into several fiefdoms; Tibnīn was one of these fiefdoms in the south part of Jabal ‘Amil.[40]

Tibnīn was an ancient city and a castle was built there by the Aramaic King Hazael (842-805 B.C) when his conquests reached Palestine. The castle was built to dominate the commercial roads that linked Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. It was named Tibnīn, which in Aramaic means “constructed and fortified building”.The castle was destroyed by the hands of the Assyrians and the Chaldeans and was rebuilt in the Greco-Roman period, when it was garrisoned to protect the commercial caravans.[41]

Tibnīn Castle lies on top of Jabal ‘Amil, between Damascus and Tyre,[42] at a distance of 25 kilometers southeast of the city of Tyre. Geographically, it belonged to Upper Galilee (الجليل: G alīl).[43] Tibnīn is the Arabic equivalent of the crusader name “Toron”. Hugh Saint-Omer, the first lord of Tibnīn in the age of the Crusades, built the castle of Tibnīn, which he called Toron, on the highest ridge of the mountainbetween 1103 and 1105/496-499.[44] It looked down on the Wadi al-͑Ain, and the largest part of the city of Tibnīn was on a lower ridge and south west of the castle.[45] Western historiographical sources and Latin charters mention it under the name of Toron. It is called Tibnīn, the original name, in the Arabic sources.This study often uses and mentions the original name, Tibnīn.

Populations of Tibnīn:

The human factor had a great influence on the Crusade movement and on its outcome. The overpopulation in Europe was one of the factors that led to conquest of the Near East in 1095. Moreover, the Islamic world was badly divided at that time. The Syrian climatic conditions were more favorable than those in Europe, and the Europeans would find sufficient food by cultivating the arable lands in the Levant. The growth in numbers of younger sons of the noble and royal houses of Europe motivated them to discover new lands for their own. The Crusade movement was also an opportunity for soldiers, seculars, knights and others to acquire new possessions in the Levant.[46] The population increase of European areas that participated in the Crusades can be estimated as follows (in millions):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Russell, C. “The Population of the Crusader States,” p. 298

Although there were big urban cities in the Levant, the majority of the Latin population settled in villagesand combined European agricultural experience with the local farming practices.[47] Tibnīn was commercial-agricultural and one of the most suitable areas to settle. It was a place where taxes were collected from the commercial caravans traveling between Damascus and Tyre.[48]

Throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it is estimated that the average population density of cities in general was about 125 persons to the hectare and that population of Syria was estimated at about 2.7 million people.[49] The average size of the villages near Tyre was about 120 villages with in 450 km2 and their size was about 3.75 km2 per village.[50] This means that we can expect the villages of Tibnīn to also be about 3.75 km2 in size, because they were located near Tyre and some of the villages near Tyre actually belonged to the fief of Tibnīn. Although it is difficult to estimate the population of inhabited Syrian areas because of its mountainous character and extended desert, the villages were estimated to have about 200-210 persons.[51]

It is difficult to define the borders of the fief of Tibnīn throughout the period of the Crusades. It is estimated that there were about 120-133 villages in the extended region between Tibnīn and Tyre.[52] The fief of Tibnīn included some villages in the vicinity of Tyre, as can be derived from a description by Willam of Tyre, who mentions that Humphrey I of Tibnīn held the hilly county around the city of Tyre, which extended almost to Lebanon and that he held both strongholds and fields in peace.[53]

The demography of the Crusader States varied from the north to the south and from the east to the west. In general, there were more Muslim inhabitants in the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem than in the south, because of the fear that had spread among them in the first ten years of the Crusade conquests. They left their homes and lands, going to more secure cities in the north that the Crusaders had not captured. The Muslims and Arabic inhabitants formed ethnic and linguistic blocks in the Crusader fiefdoms, at least throughout twelfth century.[54]

The inhabitants of Jabal ‘Amil were from a variety of Arabic tribes, and were the descendants of a population that had lived there since time immemorial.[55] From the beginning of the eleventh century, the areas of Transjordan and north of Palestine were mostly Shī ͑ite. The native Christians of Syria shared a common faith with the Franks, but they were closely linked to their Muslim neighbors by language, customs and history. Sometimes they suffered under the Crusaders and sometimes some helped the Crusaders against the Muslims. "They gave the Franks no trouble, but they could regard the prospect of Muslim rule with equanimity." Both the Crusaders and the Muslims preferred who were loyal to them.[56]

Edward Robinson was one of the first modern travelers to Tibnīn in the middle of the 19th century.[57] He reported that “the village of Tibnīn has 380 male inhabitants, of whom 250 were Metāwilech and 130 were Christians.”[58] Thus there were Christian inhabitants in Tibnīn in the mid-1800s, but the majority during the period of the Crusadeswere Shi’ite Muslims. Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map4: The fiefdom of Tibnīn at the time of their greatest expansion in the middle of the twelfth century, in Piana, "Die Burg Toron,″ p. 398

Crusader society was a mixture of Eastern and European culture. There were numerous languages, cultures and traditions. Inhabitants of the Levant shared each others’ celebrations, festivals and special occasions. Although the most widely spoken language between the Crusaders was French and the language of the churches and monasteries was Latin, many of the Crusaders learned and spoke Arabic.[59] Ibn-Shaddād mentions that Humphrey IV of Tibnīn was the interpreter in the negotiations between the Muslims and the Crusaders in 1192, and it was said that Humphrey IV learned the Arabic language during his two years of captivity, 1187-89.[60] This indicates that daily life between the Crusader and Muslim inhabitants was completely different from the life of war between the Muslim and Crusader leaders. There not was only warfare but also mutual cultural and social relationships.

In the time when Tibnīn and the area of Jabal ‘Amil were captured, the Franks committed many atrocities. However, the villages did not suffer much torture or murder, because the Crusaders needed the villagers to cultivate the lands to provide sufficient food.[61] In 1113, during the war between Ṭughtikīn of Damascus and the Crusaders in the area of Tibnīn and Galilee, the Muslims raided Tibnīn and Galilee, which led to a rebellion of the Muslim inhabitants against the Latin rule in these areas. To counter this, King Baldwin settled Syriac Christians in this region, but he also kept the Muslim inhabitants because of their experience in cultivating the land.[62]

The Muslim peasants paid the usual taxes they were accustomed to pay after the Crusaders conquered an area and controlled it.[63] When Ibn Jubair visited the area of Tibnīn and its neighboring villages in 1184, he reported that most of the inhabitants of Tibnīn and the neighboring area were from Muslim tribes. They cultivated the lands and lived a pastoral and rural life. Both Latin and Muslim inhabitants enjoyed a stable life under Frankish rule in Tibnīn. The crops and livestock were divided between the Franks and Muslims and they lived together in peace.[64]

Although the situation of the Muslim peasants and inhabitants was bad under Crusader rule in general, there were some exceptions such as the peasants of Tibnīn, whose situation was better than others in neighboring Crusader areas. The Crusader lords of Tibnīn and the Kingdom of Jerusalem needed them to cultivate the land of Tibnīn, which was an important crop-growing area that provided food for the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.[65]

After the battle of Hittin in 1187, the Muslim forces recovered Tibnīn on Sunday, July 29th, 1187 / 18th Jumada II 583.[66] The Crusaders lost their lands in Galilee, Tibnīn and other areas, and were replaced by some Muslims tribe who were loyal to the Sultan, Ṣalaḥal-Dīn, but the Eastern Christians remained living alongside the Muslims.[67] With this reconquest, the Muslims controlled Tibnīn and dominated the commercial road. In addition, Tibnīn became the headquarters of the Muslim army for its military operations against the Crusaders in the city of Tyre.[68] Owing to the importance of Tibnīn economically and strategically for the Crusaders, they constantly attempted to regain it. They laid siege to it by helping the German troops in 1197-98, but they did not recapture it.[69]

Ibn-al-Āthīr mentions that when German troops surrounded Tibnīn in 1197-98/ 593, the Muslims wanted to surrender the city to the Crusaders in exchange for their safety. Some Frankish inhabitants warned the Muslims at Tibnīn, saying that, “If you give the castle to the Germans, they will take you captive.” The Muslims therefore defended the castle and did not leave it.[70] This appears to show that the relations between the local Crusader and Muslim inhabitants were close and friendly, and that they were socio-economically related.

On February 18th, 1229/ 638, Emperor Frederick II formed a treaty at Jaffa with Sultan al-Kāmil, under which the Crusaders regained Tibnīn and the extended region from Jerusalem to Jaffa. They maintained a truce for ten years, which will be discussed in further chapters.[71] Tibnīn was ruled by the Franks from 1229 until Sultan Bībars took control the city of Tibnīn and its castle in 1266/664.[72] During this period, there were socio-economic ties between the Latin and Muslim inhabitants of Tibnīn.

Agriculture:

Agriculture played a significant role in the Crusader States and was the basis on which the Crusader economy and Crusader settlements in the Levant were built. However, historical sources fail to mention agricultural aspects in their narratives. The agricultural characteristics of the mountains of ͑Amil, in Tibnīn, the south of Lebanon and the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, were somewhat similar to those in the south. This mountainous area, Tibnīn, included cultivable soil and had the necessary water sources to irrigate the land, and the coastal plain was a narrow area with large cultivations and got water from some conduits cut in the mountains.[73]

The lands of Tibnīn as well as the area of Jabal ‘Amil were known to be arable,[74] because the mountainsides were formed as terraces, which kept the arable soil in place and retained the abundant rainfall, thus assuring the moisture needed for crops.[75] William of Tyre described the environment, soil and climate of Tibnīn as “famed for its salubrious air and delightful climate, [it] lies in the tribe of Asher between the sea and Mt. Lebanon and is about equally distant from the two cities, Tyre and Banyas.” The soil of Tibnīn was fertile and well suited to the cultivation of vines and trees, producing abundant crops worked by the peasants. He describes the advantages of the site of Tibnīn, which was able to provide the needs of the Crusaders and its founder, Hugh of Saint-Omer, because of its fertile soil. Moreover, it was a very fortified place, which was important for capturing the city of Tyre, and thus important for the whole area at that time.[76]

The waters of the Litany River originate in the plains of Baalbek and the Bekaa, and the al-Zahrani River stems from east of the Mountain Niha, heading south-west and flowing into the sea, a distance of seven kilometers south of the city of Sidon.[77] The lands of Tibnīn got water from the nearby springs and watercourses. The nearest valley was Wadi ͑Ain al-Mizrāb, which had great springs to irrigate the fields, and from Wadi al-͑Ain, north of the castle.[78] This increased the agrarian importance of Tibnīn, in addition to its being a fortified fortress.

The army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem under the leadership of King Baldwin I attacked the city of Tyre in November 1111 / Jumada I 505. Ṭughtikīn of Damascus immediately dispatched some of his forces to attack the Crusader-held lands in Tibnīn and north.[79] King Baldwin ordered his army to return,[80] because he was afraid that the Muslims would take control of their wheat and vineyards crops cultivated in this area.[81] This demonstrates the economic and agricultural importance of the area of Tibnīn as a source of food, which increased its strategic, political and military importance as well.

The village was the basic unit of rural life in the Crusader States in the Levant.[82] This underlines the importance of agriculture for both the Crusaders and Muslims. Most inhabitants of Tibnīn and Jabal ‘Amil were skilful farmers and peasants, who represented an economic necessity for the Latin fiefdoms.[83] This fact was illustrated when the Muslim inhabitants rebelled against Latin rule in these areas; King Baldwin I moved Syriac Christians from near the Kingdom of Jerusalem to settle in this region, Jabal ‘Amil, Tibnīn and Galilee. However, King Baldwin ordered the Crusader rulers to treat the Muslim peasants well, because they needed their experience in farming the land in this area.[84]

The area of Jabal ‘Amil and the fief of Tibnīn comprised flat plains,mountainous and plateaus, both highlands and lowlands. The first was suitable to cultivate lemon, banana and palm trees, while the soil of the mountain land was good for producing timber and some kind of fruit trees.[85] This was confirmed by Ibn-Jubair in his travels in 1184; he said that there were roads through land full of trees and forests between Tibnīn and Hunīn, the neighboring castle to Tibnīn.[86]

The land in northern Syria and the fief of Tibnīn had important vineyards and plantations of olive trees at the period of the Crusades. Vegetables and legumes, such as beans, lentils, peas, were important in the diet of the Muslims and the Franks, and were grown in the same soil. The lords of every fief held the villages with their arable lands under his own control. Nevertheless, there was a waste of potential farmland in this area as the other areas at that time.[87]

Sugarcane and cotton were important crops that had been planted in the Levant since the tenth century, and both of these crops were exported to southern Europe. Cotton and sugarcane require large amounts of water, which came from the local springs and rivers.[88] These crops and also grapes were grown in the interior valleys in the area around Tyre and in Galilee territory. It was said that the vineyards became more widespread after the beginning of the Crusades, which might mean that they were cultivated by the Crusader settlers. The most suitable lands for conversion to vineyards were around and near Tyre.[89] All of these sources confirm that these crops and fruits were planted in the lands of Tibnīn and Jabal ‘Amil in the north of Galilee and around Tyre, and that there were watercourses and springs for irrigation.

Throughout the twelfth century, when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was at its height, the Crusaders benefitted considerably from their control of the fertile agricultural areas, receiving payment for and taxes on the harvests from the Muslims. There was also agricultural cooperation between the Crusaders and Muslims. For instance, in 1185, Raymond III of Tripoli made an agreement with Ṣalaḥal-Dīn, by which he brought much wheat into the Frankish lands.[90] After 1187, the Franks lost much of their lands, including Tibnīn, and their Kingdom was limited to the coast. However, the region of the fertile coast could not provide sufficient food.[91]

Trade, Taxes and Currency

The mainstay of the Crusader economy was trade. The Crusader kings were therefore eager to develop the commercial structure of the Levant. There were several factors that helped the Crusaders to develop trade in the Crusader States. The most prominent factor was the existence of several internal commercial roads in the Levant, which increased their commercial activities and their commercial relations with Muslims and European merchants.[92]

The Crusaders had the castle of Tibnīn built in 1105, by which they controlled the commercial road from Tyre to Damascus and threatened the Muslim trade caravans that went along the Transjordan road and south of Hebron. The latter route posed a lot of difficulties,[93] so traders turned to the Damascus-to-Tyre route. The castle overlooked the road between Tyre and both Damascus and Banyas and controlled the commercial movement between Tyre and the Muslims in the inland cities.[94]

The commercial caravans came from Damascus and went through Tibnīn to Tyre in particular and to the south in general. Ibn Jubair wrote that the Crusaders collected taxes “المكوس: al-Mūkūūs” from the commercial caravans at Tibnīn, saying “we reached to a big fortified Crusader fortress called Tibnīn, which was a place where taxes were collected from the caravans,موضع تمكيس القوافل, and it was under the hand of the Pig, mother of the Pig King.” The taxes were “Dinar and carats of Tyrian dinars on the head (per person),الضريبة فيه دينار وقيراط من الدنانير الصورية على الراس". He mentions that the Crusaders forced the Moroccans in Tibnīn, who were merchants possibly living in Tibnīn, to pay the above-mentioned taxes, because they had joined in the wars of Nūr al-Dīn against them.[95]

The description of Queen Agnes and her son King Baldwin IV by Ibn-Jubair as “Pigs”, the meat of which Muslims are forbidden to eat, reflects the attitudes of this time, where both Muslims and Crusaders were enemies and each described the other with the worst attributes. Nevertheless, there were many of socio-economic interrelationships between the Muslim and Crusader inhabitants of the Levant, regardless of the warfare between them. Trade was important for both the Crusaders and Muslims, because it was the main source of revenue for both in the Levant. Both were eager to maintain their commercial relationships and were strongly motivated to encourage the merchants and help them to carry out their business of buying and selling.[96]

The peasants of Tibnīn and other Crusader States, some of whom were free and others who were bound subjects, had to pay taxes to the Crusader overlords. Some of these were paid as part of the harvest “Kharāj” and others as rents "redditus". They also paid some form of tax on livestock.[97] Ibn Jubair mentions that the Muslim inhabitants of Tibnīn and the neighboring area lived in peace with other Latin inhabitants. However, they paid half of their yields “:غلةghallat” and paid a poll tax “: جزيةJizīah”, which was about “one dinar and one dinar five carats”. They had to pay small taxes on the fruits tress as well.[98]

The nineteenth century traveler, Edward Robinson, reported that the inhabitants of Tibnīn were still paying taxes. "They pay a land tax of 12,000 piastres. There is also a poll tax of 2,100 piastres. Another tax of 2.300 piastres had been remitted by the Sultan, not long ago."[99] This confirms that Tibnīn was a commercial centre and agricultural village that provided its rulers with significant taxes and payments.

There were other taxes paid in the Crusader ports and fiefs in general. Theses taxes varied from fief to fief and from one commodity to another. Indeed, the feudal system of the Crusaders in the Latin East largely depended on the local peasants, who paid a huge number of the taxes. In addition to the taxes they paid on their crops, livestock and themselves, they had to pay the tax of Xenia, which was in eggs, chicken, cheese and timber. This was paid three times a year, at Christmas, Easter, and Lent.[100]

The crops grown in Tibnīn contributed to the prosperity of trade in the Latin East in general. Specifically, sugarcane and cotton were the most important crops and were exported to Europe.[101] This means that Tibnīn was an important economic fief. It controlled the commercial routes, was tax collection centre and itself also produced some of the crops that were exported to Europe. This increased in general the revenue of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and gave Tibnīn much political and military importance as well.

Although the coinage was a royal monopoly, some fiefdoms and barons, including Tibnīn, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, had the right to strike currency.[102] The lords of Tibnīn struck a feudal currency, but they did not put their names on the coins.The crusader name of Tibnīn, i.e. Toron, was on the face of this currency.[103] When Tibnīn and Tyre were united under the rule of Philip of Montfort in the middle of thirteenth century, he founded a powerful commercial fief at Tyre and Tibnīn and struck a copper currency.[104] The name Philip of Montfort is on the face and the name of Tyre on the back.[105]

The use of feudal currency in the Latin East was limited in general, because these coins were low-value, used mainly in simple and domestic daily transactions. It seems that the minting of this sort of currency meant political independence from the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[106]

In 1256, the conflicts between the Venetians and Genoese escalated. Philip of Montfort Lord of Tibnīn and Tyre supported the Genoese and expelled the Venetians from their properties in Tyre and in the area between Tyre and Tibnīn.[107] The Genoese were given the confiscated property by Philip of Montfort in order to gain their support.[108] This was part of a political-economic conflict between Philip of Montfort and his rivals in Acre. This means that the economic role of Tibnīn was exploited by its lords to play an important political role, which will become clear later.

The Location and Architectur of the Castle:

- The location and the reasons of construction:

The castle of Tibnīn was an important offensive base and defensive bastion in the period of the Crusades and gave the fief of Tibnīn and its lords a significant political and military role. The castle of Tibnīn was built high on a steep mountain in 1103-05 and was given the name of Toron by its builder, Hugh of Saint-Omer.[109] It is located about 25 kilometers southeast of the city of Tyre,[110] on the highest hill of a ridge ranging in altitude from 700m to 800m above sea level.[111]

Conder and Kitchener, conducting a comprehensive survey of western Palestine, reported that “the castle was situated on a small round hill to the north-east of the village of Tibnīn. The hill itself is on a ridge, which is separated on the north and south from the surrounding country by deep valleys with steep sides.” It stands at a great height above the neighboring counties and dominates the area as far as the River of al-Kāsīmiyeh. It defended the area between Safed and Tyre and protected the routes between Tiberias and Banyas to Tyre.[112] This indicates that the castle controlled Tibnīn to the south and its dependencies.[113] Moreover, the castle overlooked the costal and mountains towns of Jabal ‘Amil, Safad,Golan, Wadi al-Tīm, and it included water wells which were sufficient for the people in the case of siege and war. At the foot of the castle, in the plain to the East, there was a “Khan” or inn, to provide food and lodging for the travelers and for the storage of goods.[114]

There were several reasons for building the castle of Tibnīn and the Crusader castles in the Latin East in general. The main reason for construction of the castle of Tibnīn was to control the Damascus-to-Tyre route, defend the northwest of Galilee in the west, and to also defend the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Castle of Tibnīn was strategically located for attacking the Muslims in the upper Galilee region and the city of Tyre.[115] It was also built to overcome the problem of the deficiency in the number of Crusader soldiers.[116]

The castle was the administrative base of the fiefdom and was the place where the taxes were collected, being a military fortified centre. It played a religious role in defending the Christian pilgrims and protected the merchants. There was a socio-economic life inside the castle. Knights, lords, senior employees and clerks lived inside the castle, forming a social and civilian society alongside the military life of the castle’s soldiers.[117] The castle was a significant element of the feudal system, but its architecture has been more studied than its social functions. The leader or master of the castle imposed his authority over the neighboring district, and the castle was the centre of feudal governance from which judicial and administrative authority was exercised over the inhabitants.[118]

The castle of Tibnīn frequently played these roles and its lords, such as Humphrey II, controlled several neighboring areas and cities, including Banyas and Hunīn. But Humphrey II was also the Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,[119] which shows the importance of the castle in the Latin East, in particular, the significance of the castle of Tibnīn economically, politically and military. This will be discussed further in the following chapters.

- The Architectural Structure of the Castle:

Thestyle of the castles and buildings in the Latin East in the period of the Crusades falls into two main categories, Romanesque and Gothic. The first was the prevalent style used in the middle of the twelfth century and the second replaced it. The Crusaders in the Latin East built their fortresses and castles in a style to distinguish them from the local architecture.The Frankish establishments in the Levant sometimes displayed features not found in Europe at that time.[120]

It is not always possible to determine chronologically the building phases of medieval constructions. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the layout of TibnīnCastle was completed in the first half of the twelfth century. It is similar to contemporary buildings such as Saȏne (Ṣahyūn; Qal‘at Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn) and Giblet (Jbail), especially with regard to the design of the towers. It is believed that the major building phase was finished at the end of 1120. Most of the towers were destroyed in the siege of 1197-98, when German troops laid siege to the castle and destroyed its walls. There were some repairs during the Ayyubid period. It is estimated that there was wide rebuilding in the thirteenth century.[121] al-Mu’aẓẓam-Isa of Damascus destroyed some parts of the castle, when the Crusaders attacked Egypt in 1218-21.[122] When al-Mu‘aẓẓam learned of the departure of Frederick II from Europe heading for the East in 1227, he destroyed the castle of Tibnīn.[123] His aim was to defortify the Castle in case it fell into the Crusaders’ hands, which it did in 1229.

The castle of Tibnīn was designed to play both an offensive and defensive role. It was built to fit its location on top of a hill, "and is roughly circular, with round and square towers to flank the sides. The slopes of the hill were faced with smooth-dressed stones." The walls were about six feet thick, and formed an irregular rectangular space.[124] The entrance of the castle could be reached by a steep ascent in the southwest (A), and in this entrance was a gothic portal, which included vaulted passages. In the southwest is a projecting window or balcony which overlooked the country to the northeast. There were made of stones on the inside as well as on the outside.[125] There were great towers (A, F, M, I and L) surrounding the castle.[126]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1: Plan of the castle, in Conder and Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, p. 133 ; Mathias Piana, “Die Burg Toron” p. 400.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2: The gate of the Castle, inMathias Piana, "Die Burg Toron,” p. 401.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3:Theentrance looking north-west,in Mathias Piana, "Die Burg Toron,” p. 401.

Mathias Piana considers that the fortress of Tibnīn was the largest of the Crusader donjons built. It was one of the most symmetrical western types, which was derived from north-western France and was a type known as early as the tenth century. “The characteristic features are the rectangular outline, the elevated entrance, the cross-wall, the water-supply installation, and the massive walls with mural stairs.”[127] This all points to the castle of Tibnīn having played a major role in the period of the Crusades, and indicates that it and its rulers were of significant political and military importance in the Latin East.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has dealt with the socio-economic and demographic structure of Tibnīn and its area, Jabal ‘Amil. The majority of its inhabitants were Muslim Shi'ites and the importance of its population and its peasants in cultivating the lands has been shown. The area produced abundant crops, which were important in feeding both the Crusaders and Muslims in the Levant. Some crops were also exported to Europe. Tibnīn was a strategic economic location in upper Galilee and controlled the commercial road from Tyre to Damascus. It was the place where the taxes were collected. It occupied a significant position in the Latin East and played a substantial role in the economic events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This in turn was linked to its prominent military and political role, which will be discussed in the next chapters.

Features of the architecture of the Castle of Tibnīn have been described. The castle was designed to fulfill an offensive and defensive role. It was a fortified castle, strategically placed to play a key position in the defence of the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Galilee. It played a crucial military role against the Muslims in the cities of Tyre and Damascus, among others. Tibnīnwas a base from which to mount attacks against the Muslims in the north and sometimes in the south of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The castle gave the fief of Tibnīn and its rulers an even more prominent role during the period covered in this study, as will be illustrated in the chapters that follow.

Chapter 3:The Political Role of of Tibnīn in the Latin East AD 1105-1187/ AH 498-583

This chapter deals with the issues of crusader governance in Tibnīn, from its origins and evolution tothe political role of Tibnīn and its rulers throughout the twelfth century,untilits downfall at the hands of Muslims in 1187 / 583. In addition, the possessions of Humphrey I's dynasty,rulers of Tibnīn, in the Levant and their relations with the kings of Jerusalem and thecrusader nobles in the kingdom of Jerusalem will be discussed.

The Crusader Invasion of the Levant and Tibnīn

The Islamic Near East region, specifically the Levant area, was a place of conflict between the Seljuk Turks and the Fatimids, both of whom intended to impose their control and exercisepower in the Levant area and the coastal cities. At the same time, the First Crusade forces invaded Asia Minor in response to a pronouncement fromPope Urban II (1088-99/ 481-92) in the city of Clermont, France, in 1095, in which he called for an armed pilgrimage[128] to free the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre from Muslim control. These forces defeated the Seljuk Turks in the battle of Nicaea and Dorylaeum in 1097/ 490, victories which opened the way to the north of the Levant directly, and to Antioch, which was the gateway to the north.[129]

The division of the Levant areas between the Seljuk Turks and the Fatimids, and their continuous conflicts,was the main weak point which allowed the Crusaders to successfully invade the Levant and to conquer one city after another.[130] The ostensible objective of the invasion of the Franks into the Levant was to protect the Christians in Jerusalem. To do so, they had to go through many cities and lands on their way to Jerusalem, such as Tripoli, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Acre, Haifa and Caesarea.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map3:“The political boundaries of Eastern Mediterranean 1190 shortly before the arrival of the first Crusade.”[131]

Afterwards, they continued advancing southward under the leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon until the city of Arsuf, and from there moved to inside Ramallah and Lod (al-lid). From here the way was clear and they were poised to invade Jerusalem, which was reached in 1099 / 492.[132] At the same time, his co-commander, Tancred, marched up to the city of Bethlehem (Baīt-Laḥim) and was warmly welcomed by the Christian inhabitants,[133] because they believed that he had good intentions toward Christianity.[134]

After several attacks from the Crusaders, Jerusalem fell to them after 40 days of siege on the 15th of July, 1099 / 13 Sha'bān 492, in spite of the resistance of the Fatimid Garrison and Fakhr al-Daūlah, the ruler of the city. In the wake of their conquest, the Latin army committed dreadful carnage against both the civilian and military inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fact that was described by many contemporary sources. For instance, Ibn-al-Jauzī mentioned that the Crusaders killed about seventy thousand Muslims in Jerusalem.[135] Ibn-al-Athīr said that those seventy thousandMuslims were mostly Imams and scholars.[136] In fact, this numberseems highlyexaggerated, but it indicates that a large numbers of citizens were certainly killed in the city of Jerusalem at that time.This was described by Guibert of Nogent, when he said that the Frankssavagely pursued the Muslim “pagans” to kill everyone, “more in slaughter than in battle, through the streets, squares, and crossroads, until they reached what was called the Temple of Solomon. So much human blood flowed that a wave of damp gore almost covered the ankles of the advancing men."[137]

At the same time, Muslim leaders were not able to organize sufficiently to face the danger of the Latin invasion into the Levant area and Jerusalem. The evidence for this is that when the Abbasid Caliph al-Mostaẓher (المستظهر) sent al-Fuqaha[138] and Imams to the Muslim princes and people in order to encourage them to fight and call them toJihad, no leader responded because “there were many conflicts between the Muslims leaders (…) so the Frankswere able to conquer their countries.”[139] The Crusaders – under the leadership of Godfrey – advanced to control all the rural land in the holy land, marching both northwards and southwards.[140] Their movement toward the north formed the nucleus, which led to the establishment of the fief of Tibnīn in the age of the crusades.

The decisive crusader endeavors to control Tibnīn began when Tancred seized the strategic areas to the north of Galilee. Then he advanced northwards to attack the Arab tribes there between August and October 1099 / Shawwal and Dhu'l-Qa'dah 492, and he eventually controlled the whole of Galilee[141] and its capital, Tiberias.[142] Although the historical sources do not mention a specific date for when Tibnīn fell under Latin rule, it is estimated that it was at the same time, as it was located in north-westernGalilee.

The absence of concerted resistance by the inhabitants of these cities helped Tancred and his troops to invade Tibnīn and the surrounding areas. This invasion led to unprecedented fear among Muslims in the Levant.[143] Moreover, lack of defence by the leaders of Damascus on many occasions, especially after the defeat of Muslims at Ascalon in August, 1099, facilitated the crusader invasion to those areas. This poseddifficulties for contact between the Fatimids inEgypt and their followers in the north of Syria.[144] Many Muslims left their homes to avoid the possibility of a new carnage. Hence the crusader fief of Tibnīn emerged for the first time as a subject city to the ruler of Galilee.

Regarding the administrative and political system of the crusader rule in Tibnīn and Jerusalem, some terminology and titles mentioned in the historical sources require explanation. There were two kinds of fiefdoms in the constitutional system in Jerusalem: the first was “feudum”, which meant that the king in person was the lord, and the other was “dominium”, meaning that the nobles who were under the authority of the king werelords.[145] The Kingdom of Jerusalem also included twelve small fiefdoms, of which Tibnīn was one.[146]

Hugh of Saint-Omer and the Establishment of the Fief of Tibnīn

Hugh of Saint–Omer[147], the successor of Prince Tancred of Galilee, had the castle of Tibnīnbuiltbetween (1103-05/496-99).[148] Itwould become the basis of the fiefdom of Tibnīn during the age of the crusades. The town and its castle gained great strategic importance during the age of the crusades, and the lords of Tibnīn played a considerable role in the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[149]

Muslims were aware of the seriousness of the position of Tibnīn and its castle, and they realized that it was a strategically important location that could help to control a number of Islamic citieswhich had not fallen in the hands of the Crusaders even at that time. It also controlled the roads between the north of the Levant and the coastal cities, which extended from Damascus to Tyre, thus confirming its strategic importance.[150] Accordingly, ‘Izz al-Mulk, the Prince of Tyre, attacked the fortress of Tibnīn, killed some of the Crusaders soldiers, and plundered it in 1107 /500.[151] When Baldwin I (1100-1118), King of Jerusalem, learned about these events, he advanced to Tiberias, the capital of Galilee. ‘Izz al-Mulk withdrew and returned to Tyre.[152] This attack was immediately after the erection of the castl, and isclear evidence of its military and political importance.

After the death of Hugh of Saint-Omer, Tibnīn became independent from the Principality of Galilee, thus becoming an independent dominion. However, it is not obvious whether this happened immediately after the death of Hugh or later. At thattime, it was under the direct rule of the King of Jerusalem, who managed the death of Hugh to reduce the power of the Principality of Galilee, especially because Hugh died without heirs. It is believed that Tibnīn was put under the rule of someone who could restrain Muslims in the city of Tyre and protect the eastern borders,[153] and this surely was Humphrey I of Tibnīn.

Tibnīn under the Rule of Humphrey I

Hugh of Saint-Omer, Lord of Tibnīn, died in 1105/499 due to a fatal injury he had received during a fight against the Muslims.[154] The importance of the fief of Tibnīn became obvious under the rule of Humphrey I, who was granted Tibnīn by King Baldwin I in 1107.[155] Humphrey I was a powerful noble who had held the hilly countyaround the city of Tyre, which extended almost to Lebanon. He then held both strongholds and fields in peace,[156] and he created a dynasty that governed Tibnīn during the age of the crusades.

Sources show that Tibnīn remained, as other cities in upper Galilee, in conflict between the Muslims and the Crusaders. Sometimes Muslims controlled it; sometimes it was ruled by the Crusaders. This continued until Joscelin, count of Edessa, ruled the principality of Galilee[157] and held large possessions in the extended mountain area from Tyre to Tibnīn.[158] However, the political and military situation in Tibnīn was unstable, due to the fact that it was continually attacked by Muslims, until it was finally held by the crusader forces in 1117 / 510.[159] It did not return to Muslims until the battle of Hittin in 1187/583. Although the castle was built in 1105, it remained the point of conflict between Muslims and the Crusaders until 1117. This illustrates the importance of Tibnīn on the borders for both parties.

The lord of Tibnīn belonged to the senior nobles in the Levant. The charters often referred to him as a witness, and he was mentioned under Humphrey of Toron"Umfredus de Torum " in the charter dated 1115,by which Baldwin I King of Jerusalem granted some possessions to the church of St. Mary Josaphat.[160]

In April 1118 / Dhu’l-Hijja 511, Baldwin I died and was succeeded by Baldwin II (1118-31), who created a strong administrative system in the Levant. The dominium system included five main cities: Jerusalem, Nablus, Acre, Darum, and Tyre,the last of which was added after its fall to the Crusaders in 1124. In this hierarchy, four senior nobles, the princes of Jaffa, Galilee, Sidon, and Transjordan came next after the King in the administrative system. The other cities in the Kingdom of Jerusalem were ruled by about twelve nobles, the two most important onesbeing the lords of Tibnīn and Caesarea.[161]

Accordingly, Tibnīn was an independent and powerful fief by the end of 1120,[162] and Humphrey I of Tibnīn is mentioned in the charter dated the 30th of December, 1120,inwhich Baldwin II gave some possessions to the knights Hospitallers.[163] "Honfrodus de Corone(Torone)" was mentioned again in the charter dated 2nd of May, 1125, under which the King of Jerusalem granted some privileges to the Venetians.[164] For the last time, Humphrey I "Henfredus de Torone" appeared in a charter dated in 1128, under which Baldwin II "Balduinus Rex Iherusalem Latinorum secundus" gave some donations to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.[165] Humphrey I was closely related to the King of Jerusalem. He probably died a short time later in that year, 1128, because he was last mentioned in the charters and sourcesin 1128. In fact, the date of his death is unknown. Afterwards, his son, Humphrey II was mentioned in the sources in 1137.[166]

The Union of the Crusader Rule in Tibnīn and Hebron under Humphrey II

Humphrey II’s debut mention in the literature was in 1137 /531, when he – together with the king and others – was besieged at the fortress of Montferrand (Montfort) by ‘Imad al-Dīn Zangī.Humphrey II was described at that time as a new knight and very young,[167] but he joined the king to defend Montferrand, which was near Tibnīn. When the Second Crusade reached the Levant in 1148, the Crusaders held a general council in the city of Acre, and Humphrey II was present as one of the secular nobles who attended that council.[168] Tibnīn was more significant under the rule of Humphrey II, who imposed himself strongly on the political and military events in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The fief of Tibnīn began to appear strong since the reign of Humphrey II,who expanded his possessions outside its boundaries. He subscribed to the charter of 1148, in which the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Foucher“Fulcherius” (1145-57) confirmed the donation of Humphrey II to the brothers of Saint Lazare near Jerusalem; this was about ten quintals of raisins and ten bezants annually obtained from the fertile lands around Hebron.[169] The witnesses of this charter included a citizen member of the court of Jerusalem, two knights from Hebron, one of the Syrians from Hebron, and Guy, a relative of Humphrey.[170]

It is recognized that Humphrey II governed Hebron as well as Tibnīn since 1148, so he granted the above-mentioned donation to the brothers of Saint Lazare from the resources of Hebron. In addition, he was mentioned in a charter dated in July 1149 / 544 and was the lord of the castle of Saint Abraham (Hebron), "Anfroi, Chatelain de Saint Abraham " . This charter confirmed a grant by Hugh II, the former ruler of Hebron, and Humphrey II to a person called Martin Caroara and his heirs.[171] Also, Humphrey again confirmed the privileges of Martin Caroara in a charter dated in August 1151-52.[172]

Humphrey gained some authority in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he was one of the senior nobles in the Levant. Humphrey II was likely member of the High Court as well,[173] because the witnesses of the later charter were members of the High Court in Jerusalem, especially Roghart the Great, who was Viscount of the Kingdom.[174] Hamilton mentions that Humphrey II’s membership of the High Court from 1137 to 1179 was the longest.[175]

In 1152/546 Humphrey II became the Constable[176] of the kingdom.[177] At that time, the political conflict between Baldwin III and his mother, Melisende,overthe throne of the kingdom began. Melisende ruled the kingdom after the death of King Fulk (1131-43/526-38), being the legal guardian of her son, Baldwin III. When Baldwin reached the age of maturity, his mother refused to crown him alone, as she wanted to participate in the rule of the kingdom. This led to the barons of the kingdom being divided into two groups, one of which supported Baldwin III and his right to govern, while the others supported his mother, Melisende.[178]

Humphrey II of Tibnīn supported Baldwin III,whichreinforced his position.[179] For this reason, King Baldwin appointed him Constable of the realm instead of Constable Manasses of Hierges, who was one of Melisende's strongest supporters . [180] Then Baldwin III decided to divide the realm between himself and his mother: Jerusalem and Nablus went to Queen Melisende, Acre and Tyre wereto be ruled by himself. However, this did not last long,becauseBaldwin advanced and besieged his mother in Jerusalem. Melisende withdrew from the city of Jerusalem. In return, Baldwin III gave her the fief of Nablus,[181] and later in 1153, she was reconciled with her son and became one of his chief advisors.[182]

Humphrey II of Tibnīn was appointed Constable, because he had supported the king against his mother.[183] The charters by which Baldwin III granted some privileges to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and which were dated 27th June 1155 and 13th July 1155, called him "Humfredus de Torono constabularius.”[184]

In the summer of 1157, King Baldwin III sent an embassy to Constantinople under the leadership of Humphrey II in order to ask the emperor about a bride from the imperial family. Humphrey II was warmly welcomed by the emperor, who chose his niece Theodora to be the future wife of Baldwin III, with a dowry of 100,000 golden hyperperi. He also sent another 30,000 as gifts. In return, he demanded the city of Acre and its dependencies as Theodora's dower. When Humphrey II and his embassy returned to the Levant, the King accepted these conditions. Theodora reached Acre in September 1158, after which she went with the king to Jerusalem.[185]

The Union of the Crusader Governance in Tibnīn, Banyas and Transjordan

Humphrey II governed Hebron in 1149 and became Constable of the Kingdom in 1152. Being its Constable,[186] he was in charge of Tibnīn, Hebron, and theKingdom of Jerusalem and was in need of his son, Humphrey III,[187] to help him in theadministration of Hebron. Humphrey II married the daughter of Renier de Brus, who was the Lord of Banyas, in order to increase his possessions, and he inherited Banyas[188] in 1157/552.[189] The charter of October 4th,1157, mentioned that Humphrey granted half of Banyas and Chastel Neuf[190] to the Hospitallers to defend them against Muslim attacks.[191]

William of Tyre alsosaid thatHumphrey gave one-half of the city of Banyas and its dependencies to the Hospitallers in 1157.[192] This meant that Chastel of Neuf was one of the dependencies of Banyas, which belonged to Humphrey II.[193] Moreover, in order to acquire the fief of Transjordan, his son, Humphrey III, married Stephanie de Milly, the daughter of the Lord of Transjordan[194] in 1163/ 558.[195] Due to this, the possessions of Humphrey II then included Tibnīn, Hebron, Banyas and Transjordan.

It was said that Philippe de Milly, the father-in-law of Humphrey III, gave some properties in the extended mountains between Tyre and Tibnīn to King Baldwin III in 1161, as part of a broad exchange of the lands between them.[196] According to Tibble, this meant that Philippe de Milly held lands in the fiefdom of Tibnīn, properties that returned to the king in 1161.[197] Although Tibnīn was under the rule of Humphrey’s family until that year and later, it is estimated that these properties were in the mountainous neighbourhoods between Tyre and Tibnīn. This illustrated the desire of Humphrey II to relate the two families, Milly and Humphrey, by the marriage of Humphrey III to Stephanie de Milly, in order to combine these regions as well as the fief of Transjordan under his authority.

Humphrey III took part in the charters of July 26th, 1160 and July16th,1164 with his father, Humphrey II, "Henfredus de Torono constabularius et filius eius Henfredus" under which the privileges of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre were confirmed,[198] and he was last mentioned in the chartersof1168/ 564.[199] Aly al-Sayed writes that Humphrey III died in that year, 1168,which would mean thathe died during the lifetime of his father.[200] On the other hand, the Arabic sources mention that Humphrey III died in February-March 1170 / Jumada II 565 and call him Humphrey the son of Humphrey “Ibn al-Hinfiry”;sources therefore appears to confuse Humphrey III and Humphrey II.[201]

This mix-up between Humphrey II and his son was a result of the long and extensive authority of Humphrey II.He governed Tibnīn and Hebron, became the constable, and he was also one of the persons most closely related to the kings. Humphrey III, on the other hand, was not an independent ruler, but under the authority of his father. His not being powerful or influential ruler in the Levant would explain why the sources rarely referred to him and occasionally mistook him for his father.

Tibnīn,from the Time of Humphrey II to that of his Grandson, Humphrey IV

Humphrey III died and left his young son, Humphrey IV, who was born in 1166, under the guardianship of his wife, Stephanie de Milly.[202] Humphrey IVinherited considerable estates, including Tibnīn and Hebron from his paternal grandfather, Humphrey II, as well as possessions from his maternal grandfather, Philip de Milly, the lord of Transjordan, Kerak, and Montroyal (al-Shūbuk).[203] He became the richest noble in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and was closely related to the illustrious Latin nobles in the Levant.[204] In addition to this, with Humphrey IV these fiefdoms were united under one heir and ruler for the first time in the age of the crusades.[205]

Humphrey II prevented Stephanie from re-marrying for three years, in order toprotect Humphrey’s IV estates, as he fearedthat the inheritance of his grandson would be threatened if Stephanie re-married a strong noble. It might be argued that Humphrey, as grandfather of the boy, was in a position to be his guardian, and that these fears would then be unnecessary, but the guardianship of a son by his mother, in this case Stephanie de Milly,was ordinary and legal according to the customs and traditions at the time of the crusades in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[206] In the end, Stephanie re-married Milon (Miles)dePlancy in 1172, and Humphrey II of Tibnīn remained the defender of his grandson possessions; for example he marched from Tibnīn to defendthe castle of Kerak against the attack of Nour al-Dīn in 1172/567.[207]

In November 1174 / Safar 569, King Amaury I died and was succeeded by his young son, Baldwin IV. Humphrey II of Tibnīn remained Constable of the king and was responsible for the army under Baldwin IV. However, Milon de Plancywas put in charge of the kingdom and became the guardian of the King. For Humphrey IIit was very difficult to deal and work with Milon.[208] He was extremely worried about any threat to the possessions of his grandson and endeavoured to reduce the authority of Milon de Plancy, who imposed his controlover the Kingdom and the possessions of Humphrey IV as well. Then however, Raymond III,[209] Count of Tripoli (1152-87), asked to be the King’s regent,as he was his closest kinsman. Humphrey II exploited this chance to reduce the power of Milon and supportedthe request of Raymond III, trying to convince the King to appoint Raymond III. While Humphrey and the King were discussing this issue, Milon de Plancy was killed in 1174.[210]

Humphrey II again succeeded in delaying the re-marriage of Stephanie for three years, in order to protect the inheritance of his grandson. Nonetheless, Stephanie re-married in 1177 / 573, this time thepowerful noble, Raylandof Châtillon,[211] and the fears of Humphrey II rekindled with regard to the possessions of his grandson.The position of Humphrey II was becoming weak, so he married Lady Philippa, who was the daughter of Prince Raymond of Antioch and the sister of Bohemond III, the ruler of Antioch at that time.She was also the sister of Maria, Empress of Constantinople.[212] With this marriage, Humphrey II could obtain the support of Bohemond III against Rayland of Châtillon. At the same time, he wanted to have another child, another heir who would help Humphrey IV to maintain the family’s huge possessions in Hebron, Tibnīn and Transjordan.[213] Humphreysuffered from some disease, and his wife died as a result of a grave illnes within a few days.[214] The authority of Humphrey II became extremely weak,as indicated by the fact that when King Baldwin IV appointed Joscelin of Courtenay[215] as his Counselor, Humphrey II’s signature came after that of Joscelin of Courtenay in future.[216]

In April 1179 / Dhu'l-Qa'dah 574, Humphrey II of Tibnīn died of the fatal wounds he had received during the battle against the Muslims at Hunin near Banyas.[217] It is significant that al-Ainī in his chronicle, U‘aqd al-Jumān, referred to Humphrey II in that battle as the ruler of Nazareth, i.e. “Humphrey owner of Nazareth”.[218] It is estimated that Humphrey held Nazareth as well as other his possessions at that time or a short time before. Although Humphrey was an aggressive knight againstthe Muslims, they considered him a brave knight, and Ibn al–Āthīr described him a strong and extremely brave. At the same time, they were glad when he died.[219]

This confirms that the fief of Tibnīn under the rule of Humphrey II played a considerable military role against the Muslims, which gave it and its rulers an important political position in the Latin East.It could be said that the power of Tibnīn and Humphrey’s family wasweakened by the death of Humphrey II.

The Fate of Tibnīn and Humphrey IV after the Death of Humphrey II

HumphreyIV of Tibnīn was named by the Arabic sources "Ibn al-Hnfiry, al-Hinghry"and his mother, Stephanie, was called "the princess, the daughterof Philippe and mother of Humphrey."[220] Ibn Shaddād said of him that “he was the most illustrious Frankish person in the Levant at that time, a senior noble and son of the senior noble, andagood youth, but he shaved the beard, was beardless”.[221] The Latin sources mentioned him “Anfroi, amfird, and Reunferd du Touron".[222] Ernoul described him as being inactive, spineless and cowardly,whichcaused a number of noblesto reject his leadership.[223] Others said he “was a youth of extraordinary beauty and great learning, more fitted in his tastes to be a girl than a man”.[224] Despite all these poor images, he behaved well.[225]

Humphrey IV received his hereditary rights in Tibnīn, Banyas, and in the territory of Tyre-nominally- after the death his grandfather in 1179.[226] A number of nobles demanded that Humphrey IV relinquish Tibnīn, if he wantedto keep his otherpossessions,[227] and the charters mentioned that someone called Baldwin became the protector of Tibnīn in 1180 / 576 and 1181/577.[228] It was also mentioned that in 1181,theseventh year of King Baldwin IV’sreign, Humphrey IV exchanged these possessions with the king under specific conditions, which were dictated by William of Tyre, and thatthis charter was deposited in the royal archives.[229] This confirmed that Tibnīn was ruled directly by the king Baldwin and the royal house.

Ibn Jubair visited Tibnīn in 1183 /579.He said that Tibnīn was under the rule of Queen Agnes,mother of King Baldwin IV and owner of Acre.[230] Tibnīn was an important economic fief, and might explain why Queen Agnes wanted to control it. After the death of King Baldwin IV in 1185, Queen Agnes, mother of Baldwin IV, became Regent and completely controlled Tibnīn and Châtillon dominated Transjordan and Hebron.[231]

In 1186, the fief of Tibnīnand its appurtenances were granted to Joscelyn de Courtenay, Agnes’s brother,but the overall royal administration in Tibnīn continued to be under Queen Agnes.[232] However, Humphrey IV remained nominallythe ruler of Tibnīn, and Rayland of Châtillon, his stepfather, was the guardian of his possessions in Hebron and Transjordan[233].Thus, not all of Humphrey's possessions were under his control.

Rayland of Châtillon was closely related to Queen Agnes and her family, theCourtenays,so he played a major role in transferringthe ownership of Tibnīn to her.[234] This strengthenedhis relationship with the royal house.On other hand,itis worth noting that Isabella, sister of Humphrey IV, was called the Lady Isabella of Toron (Tibnīn) at her marriage to the Armenian Prince Roupen in 1180, and this confirmed that Humphrey IV and his family remained the nominalrulers of Tibnīn.[235]

AlthoughTibnīn was no longer ruled by Humphrey IV at this time, the latter continued to play a major role in the political events in the kingdom of Jerusalem. King Baldwin IV chose him to marry his stepsister, Isabelle,the heiressto the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the daughter of King Amaury I and his wife Maria Comnen.[236] Their betrothal was in October 1180 / Rajab 576, even though Humphrey IV was fifteen years old and Isabelle was only eight years old at that time.[237] Thus Humphrey IV became closely related to the royal house in Jerusalem, and he was a potential co-King of Jerusalem.[238]

There was hatred between the families of Ibelin and Courtenay, and the King wanted to unite them throughthe marriage of his half-sisterIsabelle to Humphrey IV, because Maria Comnen, Isabelle’s mother, wasthe wife of Balian of Ibelin, while Rayland of Châtillon, who was Humphrey’s stepfather, and his mother Stephanie, were supported by Courtenay and Queen Agnes of Courtenay, the King’s mother.[239] In addition, Humphrey IV was a grandson Humphrey II, the great Constable,who rescued King Baldwin IV from the Muslim forces in the battle of 1179/ 574, at which Humphrey II died as a result of the dreadful wounds he had received.[240] Humphrey IV was the heir of the vast lands and titles, so he was the most eligiblenoble for the King’s half- sister.[241]

Thismarriage reinforced the position of Humphrey IV in the Latin East. The charters dated April 21st,1183 /25th Muharram 579, reported that Humphrey IV granted the monks of St.Lazare revenue annually from the resources of Acre customs by the consent of Rayland of Châtillon and Stephanie.[242] According toAli al-Sayed,this charterindicated that the policy of Rayland of Châtillon aimed to so occupy Humphrey IV with new possessions, such as collecting the customs of Acre, that his attention would be distracted from his properties in al-Khalīl (Hebron), Transjordan and Tibnīn. Raylandalso wanted to have a child to inherit the holdings of al-Khalīl and Transjordan, but the sources do not mentionhis havinga child of his own, thusthe rights of Humphrey IV in al-Khalīl and Transjordanwere reinforced.[243]

Humphrey IV continued to consider Rayland of Châtillon as his Lord until 1183/ 579, although Humphrey IV was 18 years old and should have been released from the guardianship of Rayland. Thisshows that Humphrey IV accepted the guardianship of his stepfather, which would usually have only been until the age of fifteen, and also shows that the authority of Rayland in Hebron and Transjordan was extremely powerful.[244]

Although theobjective of the marriage Humphrey IVand Isabelle was to unite the crusader families, it led to more conflict from the first moment. For instance;atthe wedding party, Stephanie, the mother of Humphrey IV, played the role of mother-in-law and prevented Isabelle from meeting her own mother, Maria Comnen, which led to an increase thehatred between them. Such conflicts aggravated the existing ill-will between the two families, and the purpose of the marriage’s was not achieved.[245]

Baldwin IV suffered from leprosy, and conspiracies developed around who was to hold the throne of Jerusalem. Baldwin IV looked for a suitable husband for his elder sister, Princess Sybille, marrying her to Guy of Lusignan[246] in 1180 /576. Guy of Lusignan had come from France and became co-King of Jerusalem.[247] However, conflict flared between the King’s sisters, Sybillaand Isabelle, and their husbands, Guy and Humphrey IV, because Isabelle and her husband also wanted to be the guardians of the Kingdom.

Guy of Lusignan was determined to be the King of Jerusalem and he rejected the offer of the King to hold the city of Tyre as a pension for him during his lifetime.[248] Owing to this, Guy was dismissed by Baldwin IV and the council of barons in November 1183,andthey crowned Baldwin V[249], who was five years old,as co-King of Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.The assembled clergy and citizens acclaimed the coronation, and all the royal vassals paidhomage to Baldwin V,exceptGuy of Lusignan, his stepfather. Raymond III,[250] Prince of Tripoli, became the regent of the Kingdom at that time.[251]

Baldwin V died in August 1186 / Jumada II 582, which led to renewedconflict between the two sisters, Isabelle and Sybilla and their husbands.[252] The nobles of the kingdom divided among two irreconcilable. the first one was Isabelle, Humphrey IV, the nobles of Ibelin, the nobles of Garniee, and a number of the native nobles under the leadership of Raymond III, all of whom supportedIsabelle’sand Humphrey’s IV claim to the throne of the Kingdom.[253] The second camp was Guy of Lusignan and his wife Sybilla, Joscelyn III, Rayland of Châtillon, and other nobles,whosupportedSybilla and Guy to rule the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[254] This is the reasonthat Jocelynof Courtenay, who was Queen Agnes’s brother and Sybilla’s uncle,wasgranted Tibnīn in 1186,[255] as hesupported Sybilla and her party.

Rayland of Châtillon joined the side of Sybilla and Guy of Lusignan.This was strongly supported by the relatives of his mother, Courtney, because it was in his personalinterest,[256] and he was one of the strongest supporters of Guy.[257] Moreover, he played a significant role in convincing some nobles to join his party.[258] By 1186, the Latin East was close to open war between these two camps,[259] when Humphrey IV and his wife Isabelle were invited to attend thecoronation by Patriarch Heraclius of Sybill as Queen of Jerusalem.[260]

Those whosupported the rights of Princess Isabelle and Humphrey IVmarched to Jerusalem to take their rights by force[261] ; as they controlled Tyre, Beirut and Acre, this meant a possible civil war in the Latin East.[262] These political conflicts drove the Crusaders to ally with the Muslims.[263] Islamic sources mention that Raymond III of Tripoli, who was a supporter of Humphrey IV, asked Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn to support him against his rivals, Guy and Sybille. These disputes werethe main causeweakeningthe Crusaders, and were exploited by the Muslims to defeat themin1187.[264]

Furthermore, there was rivalry between Raymond III, the former regent of King Baldwin V,and Guy,who had become the King.The first wanted to recover hiscontrol over the Kingdom, and the latterwas determined to maintainhis position as King, which had been his dream since he came to the Latin East.

When the Kingdom of Jerusalemerupted into a real civil war, Humphrey IV refused to continue this conflictand secretly went to Jerusalem with his soldiers to announce his allegianceto Sybilla and her husband.[265] Humphrey IV was like anashamed child and said to Sybillathat his party was forcing him to claim thethrone, but he did not want to. Sybille responded, “Sir Humphrey, you are right. And since you have acted in this fashion, I will spare you my anger. Now go, and do your homage to the king.”[266] This action on the party of Humphrey IV weakened the position of Raymond IIIand his followers, who then decided to swear allegiance to the new King of Jerusalem.[267] Thus Humphrey IV’s decision was wise, as he hoped to savethe Latin East from a civil war.

The End of the Crusader Rule in Tibnīn 1187 / 583

The Islamic forces under the leadership of Ṣalah al-Dīn took advantageof the conflicts between the Crusaders andleda decisive attack againstthemonJuly 4th, 1187 /25Rabi II 583 at the battle of Hittin.The Crusaders were defeated and the Muslims recoveredthe city of Jerusalem after about 90 years of crusader rule.[268] Humphrey IV, Rayland of Châtillon, Guy of Lusignan, and a number of the crusader princes were captured. Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn killed Rayland of Châtillon because the latterhad announced his desire to invade Mecca and Medina, the most important Islamic holy cities, and because Raylandhad violated his promises to the Muslims when heattackedan Islamic caravan,killinglarge numbers of Muslims during a period of truce.However, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn dealt well with Humphrey IV and the others.[269]

Taqi al-Dīn, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn’s nephew,marched to control Tibnīn,[270] and after five days of siege, the Crusaders offered to relinquish Tibnīn and its castle, in exchange for the safety of the Crusader inhabitants in the city. Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn accepted this offer andTibnīn was restored to the Muslims on Sunday, July 29th, 1187 / 18 Jumada II 583.[271] Stephanie, Humphrey’s II mother, asked Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn to release her son in return for surrenderingto him the fortress of Kerak.Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn agreed and Humphrey was released in 1189 / 585, two years after the start of his captivity.[272] Ibn Shaddādmentined that Humphrey IV was the interpreter in the negotiations between the Muslims and the Crusaders at that time, and it was said that Humphrey IV learned the Arabic language during his two years of the captivity.[273]

In 1190, Sybilla Queen of Jerusalem and her two daughters, Alice and Maria, mysteriously died,[274] and the conflict between the Crusaders resumed regardingthe governance of the Crusader Kingdom. Sybilla’s death deprived Guy of Lusignan legitimacy as the rulerof the Kingdom of Jerusalem.Hence, Isabelle should have become the queen and her husband, Humphrey IV, should have become the King.However, Conrad of Montferrat[275] conspired to separate Isabelle from Humphrey IV,[276] and some nobles and clergy helped Conrad to carry out this plot.[277]

Conrad and his supporters made several allegations to justify their conspiracy against Humphrey. They said that Isabelle had been married to Humphrey when she was underage and without the approval of her mother, and Humphrey was an effeminate person.[278] It is said that the men of Conrad of Montfort abducted Isabelle,removing her by force from her husband,[279] while she was in a tent next that of her husband, Humphrey, at the camp outside Acre.[280] Conrad married Isabelle and became King of Jerusalem and ruled the Latin East in her name.[281]

Humphrey IV of Tibnīnplayed a diplomatic role during the Third Crusade (1189-92), when he was the interpreter in the negotiations between Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and King of England, Richard I.[282] Humphrey IV was one of Richard’s men in the Levant and again became aninfluential noble.Hesubscribed tothe treaty of Ramla[283] in September 1192/ 588as one of the senior nobles anddeputies of King Richard I.[284] However, Humphrey IV of Tibnīn no longer played a political or diplomatic role after Richard I left the Levant in 1192, and thesourcesdo not refer to him again until his death in 1198.[285]

Conclusion

In conclusion,this chapter has dealt with the evolution of the crusader governance in the fief of Tibnīnand thepolitical role of its rulers in the Levant. Tibnīnwas astrategic location in upper Galilee and controlledthe commercial road from Tyre to Damascus. Thus its rulers held a significant position in the Latin East and played a substantial role in the political events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; this in turn made Tibnīn more prominentin its military and economic role as well.

The features of the crusader rule of Tibnīncan beillustrated through three phases. The first was the establishment of the castle in 1103-05 and the intermittent conflicts between the Muslims and the Crusaders. In 1117/ 510 the Crusaders completely held Tibnīn, which became an independent fief under the rule of Humphrey I. It played a crucial military role against the Muslims in the city of Tyre until that city was captured by the Crusaders in 1124, giving Tibnīn an even more prominent role at that time.This emphasizes the importance of Tibnīn’smilitary role in the Levant, which will be studied in the next chapter.

The second phase began from the rule of Humphrey II in1137 until his death in 1179, when Tibnīn was a more prominent dominion because of the importanceof Humphrey IIin the Latin East at that time. Humphrey signed several charters with the King and became the Constable of the Kingdom in 1152 He united Tibnīn, Hebron, Banyas, and Transjordan under his rule and that of his son, Humphrey III. Humphrey II’s membership of the High Court from 1137 to 1179was also the longest.[286] Accordingly, under the leadership of Humphrey II, the fief of Tibnīn played a great political and military role against the Muslims.

Finally, Tibnīncame directly under the governance of the royal housefrom 1180 onwards. Humphrey II died in 1179 and was succeeded by his grandson, Humphrey IV as lord over Tibnīn. The latter was under the regency of his mother and his stepfather, Rayland of Châtillon, who imposed his authority over all the possessions of Humphrey IV. This phase is characterisedby the impact of the internal conflicts in the Kingdom of Jerusalem on the fief of Tibnīn, which was taken from its ruler and granted to King’s mother, Queen Agnes, because of internal interests. In the second part of the twelfth century, the internal policies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem towards the small fiefdoms in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem - fiefdoms such as Tibnīn - sought to weaken the authority of the nobility in the Levant. This led to increase conflicts between the Latin nobles in the Levantand became a main reason for the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem at Hittin in 1187.

The small fiefdoms such as Tibnīn playeda vital role in the events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and its rulers wereimportant key players in the Latin East. Tibnīn was one ofthe most important of the twelve small fiefdoms in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, giving itconsiderable military, economic and historical significance in the Latin East.

Chapter 4: The Military Role of Tibnīn against the Muslims (1105-1187 / 498-583)

The crusader governance of Tibnīn, its political role, and it rulers in the Latin East during the twelfth century have been discussed. This chapter examines the military role of Tibnīn and its rulers during the twelfth century until its conquest by the Muslims in 1187/ 583. Tibnīn had a leading strategic, economic, and military role in its control of the commercial roads between Damascus and Tyre. Through their control of Tibnīn, the Crusaders managed to capture the city of Tyre in 1124, and Tibnīn also played a main role in the conflict between Damascus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It participated in defending Antioch, Banyas, Hebron and Transjordan several times under the leadership of Humphrey II of Tibnīn. Furthermore, the latter led the soldiers and Knights of Tibnīn to join the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to capture Ascalon in 1153, and he joined the campaigns of Amaury I, King of Jerusalem, against Egypt 1164-1169. The military situation of Tibnīn under the rule of the royal house until its fall to the Muslims in 1187/ 583 will be studied in this chapter.

Tibnīn and Its Strategic Location

The Latin forces captured the city of Jerusalem in 1099 and advanced to control the other cities southwards and northwards up to Tibnīn.[287] There was a great conflict between the Crusaders and the Muslims in the west of Galilee.[288] Hugh of Saint-Omer, who pursued an aggressive policy against the Muslims, had the castle of Tibnīn built in 1105 to protect his fief, Galilee in the west, and to defend the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as well, because he was the counselor to King Baldwin I of Jerusalem at that time.[289] Tibnīn was strategic for attacking the Muslims in Upper Galilee region[290] and the city of Tyre, and it controlled the commercial roads between Damascus, Banyas[291] and Tyre. From the time the Crusaders captured Tibnīn and built its castle in 1105, the Muslim forces launched repeated attacks on the castle of Tibnīn, but the Crusaders eventually managed complete control if the area in 1117 / 510.[292]

King Baldwin I (1101-1118) followed a military strategy resembling the blitzkrieg, turning his army quickly from the north to the south and from the east to the west as needed. The castles were one of the most important pillars for carrying out this military policy and for overcoming the problem of the deficiency in the number of fighters.[293] The castle of Tibnīn played an important role in implementing this policy and allowed the Crusadersto control the city of Tyre. Moreover, a number of the knights of Tibnīn contributed to the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, because every fief in the Latin east, according to the administrative and military system of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, was required to send a number of soldiers and knights to participate in the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[294]

The Full Military Control of Tibnīn and the Seizure of the City of Tyre in 1124

When Hugh of Saint-Omer ruled Galilee, he sallied forth from Tiberias, Galilee’s capital, to attack the Muslims at Tyre. His soldiers were in considerably danger while crossing the distance of thirty miles back and forth between the two cities, because there was no fortified castle in this area.Hugh of Saint-Omer therefore had the castle of Tibnīn built to protect the Crusader army marching to Tyre,[295] and it became a base to counter the incursions of the Muslim garrison in Tyre.[296] In 1106, Hugh of Saint-Omer led seventy knights to attack the Muslims, engaging in a battle against thousands of Damascenes. Although he was hit by a fatal arrow and died in the same year, theMuslims lost about two hundred soldiers in this battle and the Crusaders took two hundred horses.[297]

After Hugh of Saint-Omer died, Humphrey I of Tibnīn held the hilly area, strongholds, and fields between Tyre and Tibnīn in peace, and launched sudden attacks against the city of Tyre from the strongly fortified castle of Tibnīn.[298] Because of the extreme importance of the city ofTyre in controlling the coast for both the Crusaders and Muslims, in addition to its commercial and military role, the Latin forces at Tibnīn mounted constant attacks against Tyre. The leaders of the Fatimid army at Tyre called for Damascus to join them to defend Tyre and to attack Tibnīn.[299]

Ezz al-Malik Ᾱnushtukīn, Prince of Tyre, and Ṭughtikīn (Toghtekin), ruler of Damascus agreed to fight the Crusaders at Tibnīn.[300] Ezz al-Malik attacked Tibnīn in 1107 /501 and killed some of its Latin inhabitants. When King Baldwin Ι learned of this, he immediately marched to defend it and Ezz El-Malik withdrew to Tyre.[301] These military events confirm the importance of Tibnīn for both the Crusaders and Muslims. At the same time, this illustrates that the Crusaders did not so far have full control Tibnīn. Baldwin I renewed his attacks against Tyre in 1108/501, but he failed to take it,[302] though he did alleviate the Muslim pressure on Tibnīn.

In November 1111 / Jumada I 505, King of Jerusalem, Baldwin I, attacked the city of Tyre. Ṭughtikīn immediately dispatched some of his forces and mounted fighters to attack the Crusaders’ holdings in Tibnīn and north Galilee, trying to control this area in order to surround King Baldwin I.[303] The Damascene forces attacked King Baldwin Ι and his troops from the mountainous region between Tibnīn and Tyre.[304] Some of the volunteers from the mountain of ͑Amil, where Tibnīn is located, attacked the Crusader army by crossing this mountain as well, in order to distract them from the siege of Tyre. This led to the failure of the siege of Tyre,[305] and King Baldwin ordered his army to return to Acre in April 1112.[306]

The strategy of Ṭughtikīn was to put pressure on the Crusader strongholds in the Tibnīn area and the north of Galilee, and he succeeded in disrupting the Latin expansion in this region for a long time. For their part, the Crusaders were eager to preserve their agricultural crops of wheat and vines in the area of Tibnīn and Marj Banī Amir, so they withdrew from Tyre in 1112 /505.[307] The conflicts between Crusaders and Toghtekin erupted numerous times in the mountains of Tibnīn and Tyre, but there were no decisive outcomes.[308]

According to Ibn al-Qalānisī and Abū al-Maḥāsin; the Muslim inhabitants who lived in the area of Jabal ̔Amil and Tibnīn, helped their brothers in Tyre.[309] This meant that the area of Tibnīn and Jabal ̔Amil was not completely subject to the Crusaders until 1112 / 505, in spite of the fact that the Crusaders controlled the castle of Tibnīn.

Tibnīn remained a point of conflict between the Muslims and the Crusaders. In 1113/506, King Baldwin resumed his military activities against the Muslims in the area of Tibnīn and Tyre, and he took control of the commercial roads between Damascus, Tibnīn and Tyre.[310] Ibn al-Qalānisī reported that Baldwin became frustrated at not being able to achieve any compromise with Ṭughtikīn of Damascus, who had stopped the progress of the Crusaders toward Tyre, so he increased his attacks against the area of al-Thamānīn, which was located in Jabal ̔Amil.[311] al-Thamānīn was most likely Tibnīn, because the city of Tibnīn and its castle are located in this area.[312]

Latin sources mention that some pilgrims, about fifteen hundred, wanted to return to Europe from Jerusalem after Easter in 1113/507. The King ordered three hundred soldiers to accompany them until they crossed the mountains area between Tibnīn of Tyre, in order to defend them against the attacks of Muslims. As he expected, five hundred Muslim soldiers attacked the pilgrims outside the city of Tibnīn. When the King heard about this, he marched to attack these soldiers and defend the pilgrims. Although many of Muslim soldiers were able to retreat to the city of Tyre, the King captured and killed hundreds of them.[313]

The Crusaders used their Galilean bases, Tiberias and later Tibnīn, to try to capture Tyre, but they failed due to the resistance ofTyrians and help from the Muslims of Jabal ͑Amil. They were unable to impose their sovereignty over all the lands of Tibnīn. However, they succeeded in controlling the rural region, which extended between Tibnīn and Tyre.[314]

The difficult geographical nature of the region between Tyre and Tibnīn played a strategic role in the military relations between the Muslims of Tyre and the Crusaders in Tibnīn and Galilee. This terrain was complicated and difficult, the land from Tyre rising gradually in altitude until Tibnīn. However, it also contained cultivated lands that produced good crops and timber, and the city of Tyre got its water from the springs and wells present there as was mentioned previously.[315] The Crusaders realized that control of this region would help them to seize Tyre.

The most important battle affecting Tibnīn was the battle of al-Ṣonburah (الصنبرة) in 1113 / 507, which took place on the land of Galilee. King Baldwin I of Jerusalem and Jocelyn, Lord of Galilee, led the Crusader forces and Sharaf al-Dīn Maūdūd, Ṭoghtakīn’s son, was the leader of Muslim army in this battle.[316] Maūdūd had launched numerous attacks against the Crusaders in Edessa, so in early 1113 / Rajab 506, the Latin forces attacked and seized a large Muslim trade convoy heading from Damascus to Egypt through Tibnīn.[317] In reply, the attacks of the Damascenes against the Crusaders were intensified. King Baldwin I ordered Jocelyn to negotiate with Ṭughtikīn and his son, Maūdūd, to identify the common boundaries between them in this region and to negotiate a truce as well.[318]

The Crusaders offered to leave the al-Thamānīn area, Tibnīn and Jabal ͑Amil to the Damascenes, in return for keeping the castle of Habīs-Jaldik[319] and half of al-Saūād. Ṭughtikīn refused,[320] and the clashes between them were renewed. Maūdūd pretended that he would attack the city of Jerusalem, and while his main army marched to attack the east side of Galilee, he dispatched some knights of Tyre and Damascus to attack Tibnīn.[321]

The Latin forces withdrew beyond Tibnīn and returned to the fortress of Tiberias and the Muslims advanced to the west Galilee and Tibnīn.[322] The Fatimids at Ascalon took advantage of this situation and launched a raid on the city of Jerusalem. They reached the outer wall and set fire to the harvest of the Latin peasants there, but in the evening of this day, they retreated to Ascalon.[323]

In spite of the fact that the outcomes of these engagements were indecisive, the Muslims raided Tibnīn and Galilee, which led the Muslim inhabitants to rebel against the Latin rule in these areas. Because of this rebellion, King Baldwin invited theSyriac Christians near the Kingdom of Jerusalem to settle in this region of Jabal Amil, Tibnīn and Galilee.[324]

Although the military activities of Maūdūd "Maledoctus" greatly frightened the Latin inhabitants in the region of Tibnīn and Galilee,[325] Fulcher praised him in his chronicle; "Maledoctus was very rich and powerful and very renowned among the Turks. He was extremely astute in his actions but could not resist the will of God. The Lord permitted him to scourge us for a while but afterwards willed that he should die a vile death and by the hand of an insignificant man."[326] The death of Maūdūd ended his invasion in the lands of Tibnīn and Galilee area.[327]

Humphrey I of Tibnīn held the castle of Hunin, which was located between Banyas and Tibnīn, in 1115 / 509,[328] in order to defend his fief eastwards and to help increase Crusader attacks against Damascus. In 1116-1117/510-511, King Baldwin ordered Jocelyn of Galilee to build the castle of Alexandrium (Scandalium) between Tyre and Tibnīn, to protect the western side of Tibnīn.With Hunin in the east and Alexandrium in the west, the Crusaders took completely control of Tibnīn in 1117, from which they were then able to capture Tyre.[329] The two castles, Alexandrium and Tibnīn, gave the Crusaders the support they needed to move forward to capture Tyre quickly.[330] Moreover, Jocelyn controlled the arable lands and orchards in the region between Tyre and Tibnīn, and he was now able to tighten up his control of this area and to surround it militarily and economically.[331]

When the Fatimid ruler of Tyre heard about the intention of the Crusaders and their preparations to attack the city, he sent to the Caliph to ask him for help. The Fatimid Caliph decided to return the rule of Tyre to Ṭughtikīn so that he would continue to defend it. Nevertheless, the Crusaders laid siege the city, and Ṭughtikīn had to surrender it in July 1124 /Jumada I 518, in return for safety.[332] Some sources mention that the weakness of the Fatimid rulers was the main reason to fall Tyre.[333] When the city of Tyre came under Latin rule in 1124 / 518, Tibnīn took on a defensive role for both of Tyre and Galilee against the Muslims.[334]

There is no doubt that the desire of Damascus to maintain its monopoly over the commercial routes and to protect its caravans was the main reason for its conflicts with the Crusaders at Tibnīn and Tyre, which were the main cities overlooking the commercial roads. Because of this, Damascus constantly tried to regain Tibnīn as well as Tyre.

Tibnīn, Damascus, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem after the Fall of Tyre in 1124

After the city of Tyre fell in 1124, Ṭughtikīn of Damascus continued to fight the Crusaders in Tibnīn and Tyre. The Crusader-Damascene strife around Tyre and Tibnīn was one of the most important episodes of conflict between Muslims and Crusaders in the Levant at that time. Damascus had an important role in fighting the Crusaders throughout the twelfth century, because of its geographical location in the north and its being the strongest Muslim power in the Levant at the time.[335] The dominance of the Crusaders over Tyre and Tibnīn was the source of severe political, military, and economic disadvantage for Damascus in particular, and for the Muslims in general. Tyre was the main commercial seaport for Damascus, and Tibnīn was the overland commercial gate to Damascus.

Ṭughtikīn formed an alliance with the Assassins (al-Ḥashshāshīn)[336] and granted them Banyas, the neighboring city of Tibnīn and its castle in 1126, in return for fighting the Crusaders at Tibnīn and Tyre and preventing them from advancing toward Damascus. When Tāj al-Mulūk al-būrī ruled Damascus after the death of Ṭughtikīn in 1228, his prime minister, al-Mzdaghany and the Ḥashshāshīn conspired with the Crusaders against Damascus in 1129/523, in exchange for giving them the city of Tyre. The ruler of Damascus discovered this conspiracy and killed about 6,000 of the Ḥashshāshīn, but Ismail, leader of the Ḥashshāshīn and the ruler of Banyas, had already surrendered Banyas to the Crusaders.[337] Banyas was closer to Damascus than Tibnīn and control of it by the Crusaders helped to fortify Tibnīn against the Damascene’s attacks. At the same time, the Crusaders were now able to launch attacks on Damascus from Banyas.[338]

In 1131 / 525, King Baldwin II died and Fulk of Anjou (1131- 1143) succeeded him.[339] Tāj al-Molūk al-Būrī, ruler of Damascus, died in the same year and his son, Shams al-Molūk, succeeded him.[340] There were no military activities against Tibnīn at this time, but the forces of Shams al-Molūk invaded the lands of Galilee and reached the city of Acre and Tyre.[341] This invasion reached the city of Tiberias and Nazareth and the neighboring cities, but its aim was to pillage and to plunder only.[342] This means that the forces of Shams al-Molūk must have marched to Tiberias and Nazareth through the region of Tibnīn, because they would have had to cross Tibnīn to reach these cities; it is therefore possible that Tibnīn was also attacked.

In February 1137 / 531, ͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy, ruler of the city of Mosul, took control of the city of Homs, which belonged to Damascus, and demanded that Ma‘īn al-Dīn Ānar (معين الدين أنر), the ruler of Damascus, surrender Damascus to him. However, Zingy withdrew on July 12th, 1136/20 Shawwal 531, when he learned that the Crusaders were marching to fight him.[343] Now both the Crusaders and the Damascenes were preparing to fight ͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy, who was an enemy of both. This led to the formation of an alliance between them against Zangy.[344] Ibn-al-Āthīr reports that when ͑Emad al-Dīn Zangy learned that the Crusaders were underway to fight him at Homs, he marched to meet them at the fortress of “Ba ͑erīn”[345] on August 19th, 1137 / 30th Dhu’l-Qa'dah 53.[346]

William of Tyre mentions that ͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy took advantage of the death of the Count of Tripoli and launched a siege on the castle of Montferrand “Ba ͑erīn”. Humphrey II of Tibnīn, who was described by William as"a young man without experience in warfare”,joined the Latin forces to defend this castle. The forces of Zingy besieged King Baldwin III, Humphrey II of Tibnīn, and other Crusader princes inside the castle for a long time, and their situation became extremely desperate. They therefore made an agreement with Zingy and surrendered the fortress to him, in exchange for their safety conduct.[347]

Although the Damascenes had allied themselves with the Crusaders against Zingy,[348] the Second Crusade came to the Levant in 1148 and the Crusaders attackedDamascus. When the army of the Second Crusade reached Acre, they held a council to decide which part of the Muslim lands to attack.They besieged Damascus, but in the end failed to capture it.Humphrey II of Tibnīn was present at this council, as he was one of the lay nobles in the Latin East.[349] Thus, the knights of Tibnīn under the leadership of Humphrey II participated in the army of the Second Crusade against Damascus.

͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy died in 1146 / 541. His son, Nour al-Dīn, who succeeded him, was more dangerous than his father for both the Crusaders and the rulers of Damascus. Damascus formed an alliance with the Crusaders to fight him, but Nour al-Dīn brought it under his rule in 1154 / 549.[350]

Tibnīn an Offensive-Defensive Base in the North of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

After Zingy's death, the Crusaders were ambitious to regain the cities they had lost to Zingy, launching attacks against the Muslim possessions in the north of Syria from Antioch. Nūr al-Dīn moved to fight them on the borders with Antioch, and he destroyed the fortress of Haram. Raymond, Prince of Antioch, engaged in a battle with the forces of Nūr al-Dīn at Inab in 1149 where he was killed along with many of his knights.[351] Tibnīn was one of the most fortified cities in the north of Syria and the center from which the forces of the Kingdom sallied forth to defend the other cities in the north. In June 1149/ early 544, when the King of Jerusalem and the Lord of Tibnīn learned of the death of Raymond, Prince of Antioch, they collected their forces and rode to defend Antioch.[352]

While Nūr al-Dīn was attacking the Latin strongholds in the north, Sultan Massoud of Iconium, son of Qilij Arslan, moved down into Syria, attacking many cities and castles in this area and laying siege to Turbessel (Talbāshirتل باشر).[353] Baldwin III dispatched sixty knights under the leadership of Humphrey II of Tibnīn to reinforce the castle of Ezaz (إعزاز) in the north of Syria.[354] It is interesting that William of Tyre mentions Humphrey II of Tibnīn as the Constable in 1149. He writes, “The King sent Humphrey the Constable with sixty knights to protect the fortress of Ezaz,”[355] although the Lord of Tibnīn was actually appointed as Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1152. This fact that was confirmed by William of Tyre himself, when he said that King Baldwin III appointed Humphrey II as Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and commander of the army in 1152.[356]

This perhaps means that Baldwin III had appointed Humphrey of Tibnīn as his commander and his constable for this military campaign, but that he was not the Constable of the Kingdom. Baldwin III was under the regency of his mother at this time, in 1149, and the Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was Manasses of Hierges.[357] Later, when Baldwin became King in 1152, he officially appointed Humphrey as Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in 1152. Thus, when Humphrey II of Tibnīn joined King Baldwin to defend Antioch and Ezaz in 1149, he participated in this campaign as the Lord of Tibnīn.

Unpleasant news came to Baldwin III. Jocelyn, the Count of Edessa had been captured by the Turkmen nomads and sold to Nur al-Dīn.[358] Edessa and Antioch became entirely without defenders, and Nūr al-Dīn and his forces captured many of the castles in this area including Turbessel and Ezaz.[359] Muslims threatened all the Latin territories in Edessa and Antioch. Consequently, King Baldwin III accepted the offer of the Emperor of Constantinople, Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180 /538-576), which stipulated that the Emperor would receive some of the crusader fortresses and cities, in return for which the imperial forces would defend the remaining Crusaders’ possessions in Edessa and Antioch.[360]

Humphrey of Tibnīn rejected this agreement, but he could not convince King Baldwin to repeal his consent. On the return march of Baldwin III and Humphrey of Tibnīn, Nur al-Dīn’s forces assaulted them.[361] The King and his forces hastily turned around to the fortress of Hantab (عنتاب) for protection. Humphrey told the King that he would protect this fortress of Hantab, and that he wished to continue in charge of it so as to hold and use this fortress against the Muslims. Baldwin III rejected this offer and said no one had adequate strength for this task and, insisting on maintaining his agreement with Manuel Comnenus, he surrendered the place to the Emperor’s men.[362]

After sunset the next day, Humphrey proved to the King that he was able to defend the Crusader’s lands when some Turkish forces attacked them again. Humphrey of Tibnīn and the Count of Tripoli led their forces to resist these attacks. The Turkish forces withdrew and Humphrey followed them with his bow. One of the Turkish soldiers talked to Humphrey II - he was a confidential messenger from one of the Turkish nobles who had a good relation with Humphrey. This soldier informed the Lord of Tibnīn that Nūr al-Dīn and his army could not pursue the Crusaders, because he would have to return to his land at night. Humphrey went to the King and informed him of this news, and they resumed their march towards Antioch without danger.[363]

Humphrey II of Tibnīn became the most prominent commander in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and was closely allied with the King. He supported the King in his conflict with his mother regarding the throne of Jerusalem. He also accompanied Baldwin III to take control of Ascalon.[364] Humphrey led his forces and reached Ascalon on Sunday, January 25th, 1153 /27th Shawwal 547. There were internal conflicts between the Fatimids in Egypt, which allowed the Crusaders to surround Ascalon and lay siege to it for five months with a severe blockade under the leadership of the lord of Tibnīn. Eventually, Ascalon fell on August 22th, 1154 /29th Jumada I 548.[365] This war against Nūr al-Dīn and the Egyptians was the most significant event in the reign of Baldwin III.[366]

With Tibnīn in the north-west of Galilee and east of Tyre, with Hebron and with Ascalon, Humphrey II and the Crusaders took control of the overland commercial routes between Damascus in the north and Egypt in the south. This enabled Tibnīn to play a very considerable role in defending the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This role will be made clearer by the following events, during which the territory of Tibnīn was a central base for many of the military movements against the forces of Nūr al-Dīn and the Muslim forces.

Tibnīn guarded Banyas,[367] northeast of Tibnīn, which included one of the granaries of the Crusader Kingdom, so it was too important.[368] Humphrey II of Tibnīn married the daughter of Renier de Brus, Lord of Banyas and thus inherited Banyas in 1157/552,[369] The Hospitallers of St John joined equally in defending the castle of Tibnīn in Banyas in return for one-half of the city of Banyas and all outlying dependencies. Baldwin III confirmed this agreement between the Hospitallers and Humphrey II in the charter dated 4th October 1157.[370]

Nasr al-Dīn, Prince of Miran and brother of Nūr al-Dīn, directed a surprise attack on the city of Banyas and killed some of the Latin forces there. Meanwhile, the Knights Hospitallers and Humphrey II advanced from Tibnīn to defend the city, but the forces of Nūr al-Dīn fiercely attacked them. The reason for the hostilities was that the Crusaders had violated a treaty and truce which had been agreed between the two sides after these forces had attacked and killed the Turkmen, Arabs shepherds at the forest of Banyas.[371] A huge number of Humphrey’s forces and the Hospitallers were killed. At Banyas, Nūr al-Dīn’s men captured the city on May 21st, 1157/7 Rabi II552 and laid siege toHumphrey and his knights in the castle of Banyas, which they called Qala'at al-Subayba(قلعة الصبيبة).[372]

Owing to their defeat at Banyas and because they were afraid of a new disaster, the Hospitallers withdrew from their agreement with Humphrey II of Tibnīn and returned one-half ofBanyashim.[373] Humphrey II and his son, Humphrey III,continued to defend their hereditary lands at Banyas, but they offered to surrender the city in exchange for their safety - however, no one responded them. King Baldwin III quickly led his army to help Humphrey at Banyas. When Nūr al-Dīn learned this news, he withdrew from the city. He saw that the city had been fully destroyed and that the Crusaders would not be able to fortify it again soon. He was therefore sure of being able to recapture it at some later date - but for the present he could avoid engaging in a battle with the King at this time, the outcome of which was uncertain.[374] Thus, the King released Humphrey and his forces,who were inside the castle.

Ibn al-Qalanisi mentions that King Baldwin III came from the mountain of “al-Jabal” to rescue Humphrey at Banyas.[375] This indicates that he marched to Banyas through the mountains of Amil and Tibnīn. Humphrey in Banyas received reinforcements from the castle of Tibnīn, which was located near Banyas, and the King marched via Tibnīn to help his Constable.

When Humphrey left Banyas, he gave control of the cityto his relative, Guy of Scandaliam. Nūr al-Dīn reiterated his attacks on Banyas[376] and took the lower town, but he could not capture the citadel, which was about two miles away, up a steep mountain, where Humphrey had already been able to hold it.[377] On October 4th, 1157/27th Sha’ban 552, after the King of Jerusalem returned to Acre, he convinced the Hospitallers to maintain their agreement with Humphrey and granted them the castle of Hunin and other possessions in Tibnīn as well.[378]

While Humphrey II of Tibnīn was with the King of Amaury I fighting his war against Egypt, Nūr al-Dīn took over the city of Banyas in 1167 / 560.[379] This opened the way to Tibnīn directly, and the Muslims were now established within a few miles of Tibnīn. However, Tibnīn continued to protect the Latin possessions in Jabal Amil and participated in defending the south of the Kingdom as well.

Humphrey II was responsible for the defense of Hebron since 1149, became responsible for Transjordan as well when his son, Humphrey III, married Stephanie of Milly, Lady of Transjordan in 1163/558.[380] Humphrey II of Tibnīn realized the importance of the contact between Damascus and Egypt, so he refortified the castles of Tibnīn, Kerak and Montroyal (al-Shūbuk) in Transjordan, and others, in order to control the commercial and strategic roads that linked the north and south of the Kingdom. In April 1170 / Rajab 565, Humphreyled his mounted knights to defend Kerak, because he learned that Nūr al-Dīn had attacked and laid siege to this fortress for four days. Nūr al-Dīn led several attacks against the Crusaders but then returned to Damascus in response to news of a strong earthquake that had taken place in Syria, and which had caused horrible destruction for both the Crusaders and the Muslims. Many Muslim and Crusader cities were destroyed. Both Muslim and Crusader forces returned to rebuild their cities and castles, because each of them was afraid of the other.[381]

According to Aly al-Sayed, Humphrey III was the leader of the crusader army in this campaign, being the ruler of Hebron.[382] Ibn-al-Athīralso mentions that the Crusader army was under the leadership of Humphrey and described him as a “Knight of the Franksفارس الفرنجة",[383] which means the leader of the crusader forces. Ibn-Kathīr described Humphrey, who was the Latin leader in these clashes as "The bravest of the Frankish Knightsأشجع فرسان الفرنجة".[384] These sources confirm that Humphrey II of Tibnīn was the leader of the crusader army defending Kerak in 1170, and it is logical that his son, Humphrey III of Hebron, who died in the same year, 1170, joined him.

In 1172/567, Nūr al-Dīn renewed his attacks against Kerak, and Humphrey II of Tibnīn continued to defend this fortress, which was now legacy of his grandson, Humphrey IV.[385] At this time, Malih, who was the brother of Thoros, Prince of Armenia, wanted to seize all Armenian lands after the death his brother, so he formed an alliance with Nūr al-Dīn to gain his support against his rivalsamongst the Armenians and Byzantines.[386] King Amaury I and Humphrey II marched to Antioch to convince Malih to maintain the peace.[387] Nūr al-Dīn took advantage of this situation and attacked Kerak; Humphrey hastily led his troops to defend it. Some disputes occurred between Nūr al-Dīn and Ṣalah al-Dīn at that time, which led to the withdrawal of Nūr al-Dīn from Kerak and his returned to Damascus.[388]

Tibnīn and the Campaigns of Amaury I against Egypt (1164-1169 / 559-564)

Tibnīn not only played a role in defending the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but it also joined the Latin forces in attacking Egypt between 1164-1169 /559-564.[389] The internal Egyptian situation was extremely bad and disordered because of the death of Fatimid Caliph al-Fayez ((الخليفة الفايزin 1160 / 555. He was succeeded by Caliph al-͑Aāḍid ( العاضد). There was a power struggle between the senior commanders to gain control, and the defense situation became dangerously weak. King Amaury I exploited this dissention to interfere in Egypt's internal affairs and attacked it. Nūr al-Dīn dispatched the leader of his army, Shīrkūh, and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn, nephew of Shīrkūh, to fight the Crusaders and to prevent them from capturing Egypt.[390]

Humphrey II of Tibnīn led his forces to catch up with King Amaury I at Egypt in 1164/ 559. When he reached Egypt, he was welcomed in the Crusader camp, because he was the kind of brave and powerful fighter they needed. Humphrey found the forces engaged in a battle with Muslims troops at Mahalla Island,[391] which was about eight miles below their camp. Humphrey of Tibnīn and the other Crusader leaders had decided to attack this island at night, and they succeeded in taking it.[392] The warfare continued between Shīrkūh’s troops and the Crusaders in various places in Egypt for a long time, and both sides achieved some victories and suffered some defeats, but there were no decisive outcome.[393] During this Egyptian campaign, Nūr al-Dīn captured Banyas, which opened the way to Tibnīn directly. Humphrey and the King negotiated a truce with Shīrkūh and returned quickly to rescue Tibnīn and other holdings.[394]

The interests of the Crusaders in the Levant came into extreme danger when Caliph al-͑Aāḍid appointed Shīrkūh as his minister in Egypt. After the death of Shīrkūh, his nephew, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn, succeeded him in 1169 / 564, later becoming Sultan of Egypt in 1171 /565, after the death of Fatimid Caliph. Nūr al-Dīn died in May 1174 / 569, and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn united Syria and Egypt under his rule, becoming Sultan of Ayyubid State in the Levant. As a consequence of this union, the Crusader States were in grave danger.[395]

King Amaury I decided to direct a nautical campaign against Egypt in October 1169/565, in the fifth year of his reign. He marched overland through the desert and the fleet followed him by sea.[396] Humphrey II of Tibnīn led some of his troops and joined the king. When the Crusader fleet arrived in Egypt and entered the Nile River, the Egyptian navy blocked the river with many of ships to prevent it reaching King Amaury. The Lord of Tibnīn advanced with a number of horsemen to take control of the other shore of the Nile River, so that the fleet could meet the Latin army without difficulties. There was a rumor that Shirkūh was approaching Humphrey and his knights, so the plan was changed, and the King ordered the fleet to sail back out to sea and return to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.[397] Owing to this and to the sustained resistance of the Egyptian army, this campaign failed and Humphrey also returned to Tibnīn. This was the last contribution of Tibnīn to the war of King Amaury against Egypt, but Tibnīncontinued to play a defensive role against the Muslims in the north.

King Amaury I died in November 1174 / Safar 569, and Baldwin IV succeeded him under the regency of Milon of Plancy, who married Stephanie, mother of Humphrey IV.[398] Humphrey II remained the Constable of the King and the commander of the army under the leadership of Baldwin IV. Tibnīn not only was an important fortified city in the north but it also joined the Latin forces to attack the Muslims in the city of Homs near Damascus at this time. After the death of Nur-al-Dīn in 1174, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn became the Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He took control of the city of Homs in December 1174/ 570, which was extremely important for maintaining communication with Damascus.[399]

The rulers of Aleppo and Homs sent to Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, to fight Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn to regain Homs in exchange for releasing the crusader prisoners at the castle of Homs. Humphrey II of Tibnīn joined the campaign of Raymond III against Homs. When Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn learned of this, he made an agreement with Raymond III and released all the crusader hostages. Although Lord of Tibnīn joined this assault on Homs, he played a diplomatic role and was the mediator in these negotiations between Raymond and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn. William of Tyre mentioned that Humphrey had a close relationship with Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn.[400]

In 1176/571, King Baldwin IV appointed Reynald of Châtillon the commander in chief of the army, Constable of the King, and he appointed Jocelyn de Courtenay a counselor to him in the same year. The authority of Lord of Tibnīn was thus weakened in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and his signature appears after that of Joscelin of Courtenay in the charters from this time onwards.[401] However, Humphrey II was known locally as the constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem until his death in 1179,[402] and Tibnīn continued to play a leading military and economic role on the road from Damascus to the south. Humphrey is known to have marched from Tibnīn to defend Ascalon in 1177 so it is clear that Tibnīn had participated in capturing Ascalon in 1154/ 548 and it defended it in 1177.

When the crusader army advanced to surround the fortress of Harem near Antioch in 1177, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn invaded Ascalon that the same year. Humphrey marched to defend Ascalon; although he suffered he was dangerously ill at the time.[403] When the troops of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn withdrew from Ascalon, Humphrey II returned to Tibnīn and increased dramatically his control of the roads from Damascus to Tibnīn. He recovered from his illness and refortified the fortress of Hunin in 1178 near Tibnīn, on the road from Banyas to Tibnīn.[404] This strengthened the advantage of Tibnīn economically, strategically, and militarily.

In the summer of 1178, the King of Jerusalem ordered the walls of Jerusalem to be rebuilt, and he marched to fight the Muslims and capture Damascus.[405] Humphrey II had refortified Tibnīn and Hunin, from which he launched an attack on the Muslims near Damascus. In reply, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn ordered his forces to attack Humphrey at Hunin in 1179. Humphrey was defeated and died from the fatal wounds he received in this battle in April 1179/Dhu'l-Qa'dah 574.[406] In the chronicle of Sibṭ al-Jūzū, it was recounted that this battle was at Marj al-'uyūn (مرج العيون), near the fortress of Shàqīf arnūn (شقيف أرنون).[407] This illustrates that the Muslim army wanted to capture Hunin and Tibnīn, from which the Crusaders had been mounting intermittent attacks against Damascus. Humphrey’s death was clearly a severe loss for the Crusaders in the Latin East.[408]

After the death of Humphrey II, Tibnīn became indefensible without his protection. His grandson, Humphrey IV was young and under the guardianship of his mother, Stephanie, and her husband, Reynald of Châtillon. A number of the nobles demanded that Humphrey IV abandon Tibnīn, and the charters in 1181/577 mention that someone called Baldwin became the protector and the Lord of Tibnīn.[409] This meant that Tibnīn had come under the direct control of King Baldwin IV and his mother Queen Agnes. Ibn Jubayr confirmed this, when he visited Tibnīn in 1183 /579. He said that Tibnīn was under the dominion of Queen Agnes, mother of King Baldwin IV and Queen of Acre,[410] and that Agnes and her relatives ruled it until 1187 / 583.[411] This indicates the importance of Tibnīn for the Kingdom of Jerusalem and for its security, as well as illustrating the desire of Queen Ages and the royal house to seize control of the commercial roads through Tibnīn.

Humphrey IV, who was the Lord of Tibnīn in name only at this time, joined Reynald of Châtillon to defend Galilee against an attack by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn on September 19th, 1183 / 29 Jumada I 579.[412] However, the forces of Humphrey IV were defeated and the Muslims forces killed most of his soldiers.[413] In July 1187 / Rabi II 583, Humphrey IV participated in the Battle of Hittin, where the Crusader army was defeated. Humphrey IV, Guy of Lusignan, and a number of Crusaders princes were captured[414] and Reynald of Châtillon was killed.[415]

Muslims and the Restoration of Tibnīn

After the defeat of the Crusaders in Hittin, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn dispatched his nephew, Taqī al-Dīn, to subdue Tibnīn and its castle with the aim of protecting commutation with Damascus in the north. Taqī al-Dīn found Tibnīn impregnable, so he requested his uncle to send military reinforcements to overcome it.[416] The forces at Tibnīn, heavily beleaguered, offered to surrender the city in return for their safety and released one hundred Muslim prisoners who had been held in the castle.[417] Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn accepted their offer and gave them five days to move out with their goods and families. When the Crusaders had left the city, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn sent some of his soldiers to protect them until their arrival at the city of Tyre. The Muslim forces entered Tibnīn on Sunday, July 29th, 1187 / 18th Jumada II 583.[418]

Ibn Shaddād recounts that Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn took over the castle of Tibnīn by force. He describes it as a heavily fortified castle and describes that a mangonel (“Mangānīk”) and powerful and professional fighters were needed to subdue it.[419] This indicates that the castle struggled to survive for a long time, but could not endure the seige and was surrendered. Queen Stephanie, Humphrey IV’s mother, asked the Sultan to release her son in exchange for her surrendering the Fortress of Kerak, which she had controlled. Her offer was accepted,[420] and all the lands of Humphrey’s dynasty came under Muslim rule.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map4: The conquest by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn 1185-1189, in Setton, vol. 1, p. 602.

There were many repercussions for the Crusaders from the fall of Tibnīn and their defeat in the Battle of Hittin. A significant number of the Crusader knights and men of Tibnīn were killed, and the Muslims captured many of the crusader forces. Tibnīn controlled the commercial route to the north of the Kingdom and this control fell to the Muslims the Crusader’s loss of Tibnīn. With control of the Damascus-to-Tyre route, to the Muslims were able to besiege the surviving Crusader forces at Tyre. There is no doubt that Tibnīn was extremely important for the conquest of Tyre in 1124 / 518, and it played the same role for the Muslim’s subduing the Crusaders at Tyre in 1187 / 583.

Conclusion

In conclusion, from the time the Crusaders first invaded the Levant, they went ahead to expand their possessions and to conquer one city after another. Damascus represented a considerable danger to the Crusaders from the north, as did Tyre on the coast. Hugh of Sanit-Omer had the castle of Tibnīn built in 1105. The castle overlooked the road between Damascus and Tyre, and from here, the Crusaders launched their campaign to capture Tyre and attack Damascus. For the first two decades of the twelfth century, Tibnīn managed to defend the north of Galilee and to attack Damascus, as well as to ward off attacks from Damascus.

Tibnīn overlooked the main and commercial road between Damascus and Tyre and linked the Muslims’ power centers in the north and south. For this reason, Damascus and Tyre mounted constant attacks against Tibnīn to regain control of this route. The lands of Tibnīn were a center of conflict between the Muslims and the Crusaders, although the latter had controlled the castle from 1105. Humphrey I of Tibnīn held the castle of Hunin in 1115/509 and King Baldwin ordered Jocelyn of Galilee to build the castle of Alexandrium (Scandalium) between Tyre and Tibnīn in 1116-1117/510-511. This helped to defend Tibnīn from the east and the west, and give Tibnīn complete control of the region in 1117. With this advantage the Crusaders increased their attacks against Damascus and were eventually able to capture Tyre in 1124.

In the next years, the force of Tibnīn joined the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to fight ͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy until his death in 1146. Nūr al-Dīn controlled Damascus in 1154 and was able to increase his attacks against the Kingdom of Jerusalem from this closer power base in the north. Tibnīn under the rule of Humphrey II usually played a defensive role, reinforcing the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in defending the Latin possessions in the north, including Antioch, Banyans, and other cities. It also contributed towards defending the south, i.e. Kerak, Hebron, and Transjordan. And finally,Tibnīn played an offensive role with the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, to capture Ascalon in 1153 and to invade Egypt between 1164- 1169.

There is no doubt that Tibnīn was highly important military in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, overlooking as it did the commercial route between the north and south. This was the main reason the royal house took control of Tibnīn in 1180-81. Following the death of its powerful ruler, Humphrey II, in 1179, as the castle and control of the commercial road was inherited by his young grandson, Humphrey IV under the guardianship of his mother. Tibnīn fell into Muslim hands in 1187 and reversed its position to play a military, strategic, and political role against the Crusaders, its former owners. This will be studied further in the next chapter.

Chapter5:Tibnīn between the Muslims and the Crusaders 1229-1266/ 583- 664

This chapter is a study of the political and military situation of Tibnīn under Muslim rule1187-1229/ 583- 625 and Latin rule 1229-1266/ 625-664. The first part of this chapter studies Tibnīn under Ayyubid rule 1187-1229/ 583- 625. The German crusade 1197-98 against Tibnīn and the impact of the Fifth Crusade 1218-1221 on Tibnīn will be discussed as well. The second part of this chapter deals with Tibnīn under the Crusader rule of 1229- 1266/ 625- 664. It will examine the issues involving the struggle for Tibnīn between the Teutonic Knights and Alice of Tibnīn in 1229. Additionally, the military and political role of Tibnīn and its rulers will be studied.

I-Tibnīn under the Ayyubid Rule 1187-1229/ 583- 625

The Muslims recovered Tibnīn on July 12th, 1187/ 18 of Jumada I 583. After the fall of Tibnīn, Sultan Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn turned to the northern cities and his brother, al-͑Adil, remained in Tibnīn to contain the Crusaders at the city of Tyre and to control the commercial road. The Muslims’ forces at Tibnīn managed to seize the fortress of Kerak and the other neighboring cities.[421] It is notable that Tibnīn played an important role in the launch of raids against the city of Tyre, a role similar to the one it had previously played in the fall of Tyre to the Crusaders in 1124.

The Islamic troops at Tibnīn joined the Islamic army to take possession of the fortress of Saqīf at Ārnon, situated between Tibnīn and Sidon, in 1189/ Jumada I 585. The Crusaders fortified at Tyre were mobilized to fight these forces, but were defeated.However, large numbers of Crusaders re-assembled at a bridge between Tyre and Sidon to counterattack the Muslim forces. Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn consulted with his men and they agreed to attack the assembled Frankish troops, but when the Ayyubid forces progressed to the bridge, the Crusader forces returned to Tyre. Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn ordered his army to return to their camp at Tibnīn, in order to prepare themselves for the march toward Acre and to complete the construction of its walls.[422] According to Ibn-Shaddād, the Sultan ordered Prince al-Farāḥ to return with his forces to Tibnīn,[423] which indicates that Tibnīn was the main Muslim camp from which they organized their military activities in this region.

Moreover, Tibnīn was the headquarters of the Muslim army for its military operations against the Crusaders at the city of Tyre. In July 189/Jumada II 585, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn was informed that some Crusader soldiers and knights had gone to collect firewood near Tibnīn. He therefore planned to set an ambush for these Crusader forces. On 8 Jumada II, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn ordered the forces of Tibnīn to launch an attack against Crusader troops near Tibnīn and they also made a plan to lead them into an ambush. At the same time, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn asked his troops at the Acre camp to attack simultaneouslyfrom the south. The Muslim forces enthusiastically engaged with the Crusaders in a real battle and they continued fighting until sunset. When Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn heard about this, he sent reinforcements to support them. Eventually, the Latin soldiers were defeated and withdrew, returning to Tyre.[424]

Tibnīn remained an important strategic location to fight the Crusaders until the departure of the leader of the Third Crusade, King Richard I of England[425] from the Levant to England in 1192. Acre and the coastal cities, from Tyre to Jaffa, were recaptured by Richard I according to the treaty of Ramla in September 1192/ 588, and Tibnīn remained in Muslim hands.[426] Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn ordered the repair of the castle of Tibnīn and all the other castles of Galilee,[427] because they were extremely important for confronting the Crusaders at Acre, which by then had become the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Levant as well as the other coastal cities.

Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn died in March 1193, and his state was divided between his sons and his brother, al- ͑Adil. Tibnīn was among the possessions of the elder son of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn, al-Malik al-Āfḍl (1193-96/ 589-92), who ruled Damascus, Jerusalem, Tibnīn and the coastal cities.[428] There were disputes between al-Āfḍl and his brother, al-‘Azīz of Egypt, in 1194. Although their uncle, al- ͑Adil, managed reconciliation between them, thedissension rekindled between them in 1195.[429] al- ͑Adil and al-Āzīz of Egypt made an alliance against al-Āfḍl of Damascus in June 1196 and they controlled Damascus in July. al- ͑Adil governed Tibnīn, Damascus, and other cities, and al-Āfḍl of Egypt became Sultan of the Ayyubids.[430]

- German Crusade of 1197- 98 and the siege of Tibnīn

Prince Osama of Beirut launched several intermittent attacks against the Crusaders and theircaravans. When the Crusaders complained to al- ͑Adil and al-Āzīz, they did nothing, so the Crusaders sent to Western Europe saying" If you did not rescue us, Muslims would be taken all our lands."[431] For this reason and due to the disputes between the Ayyubids, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI was encouraged to dispatch a Crusade against the Muslims in the Levant.

The German Crusade came to the Levant in 1197. When they arrived at the city of Acre, Henry the count-Palatine was appointed as the leader of the German forces.[432] Meanwhile, al-͑Adil marched to attack Jaffa[433] and recovered it on 12th September 1197/ 27th Shawwal 593.[434] Henry of Champagne, King of Jerusalem (29thJuly 1166 – 10th September 1197) died and Amaury I of Lusignan of Cyprus succeeded him and married his widow, Isabella, Queen of Jerusalem. Amaury I of Lusignan united the two kingdoms and became King of Jerusalem and Cyprus.[435] He led the Crusaders and German forces to protect Jaffa, but it had already fallen to al-͑Adil’s forces. Amaury I and the German troops captured Beirut in October as a compensation for the loss of Jaffa[436] and they marched to attack the city of Jerusalem. On the way to Jerusalem, they besieged the city of Tibnīn on 28th November 1197/ 10th Muharram 594.[437]

German and Crusader troops attempted to demolish the walls of the city of Tibnīn, but the Islamic forces in the city resisted them. al-͑Adil demanded that his nephew al-͑Aziz, Sultan of Egypt, come to help them, so al-͑Aziz marched to rescue al-͑Adil at Tibnīn. In addition, the other Ayyubid princes marched to defend Tibnīn against this German-Crusader attack,[438] but the forces in the city were not able to hold out against the crusader attacks any longer. They sent messengers to the German troops offered the surrender of Tibnīn and released the five hundred Christian captives at the fortress of Tibnīn in return for an assurance of the Muslims’ safety (al-Āmān).[439]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Map5: The Crusade of 1197-98 against Tibnīn (Toron), in Setton, vol. 2, p. 123.

The barons of the Latin East wanted to establish peace with al-͑Adil in exchange for giving al-͑Adil Beirut and his giving them Jaffa, but the German forces and Archbishop Conrad insisted that the city surrender without any conditions.[440] The walls of the city fell, and the German troops tried to take the city, but the Muslims steadily held out and defended the cityuntil the arrival of the relief from Egypt. Once more, representatives of the Tibnīn families offered to surrender the city without any conditions and to give back the Latin hostages, asking only for their lives in exchange. Shortly after, the Muslims sent forth the hostages but postponed the surrender of the castle till the morning.[441] In the meantime, while the German forces were waiting to enter the city of Tibnīn, a number of Islamic soldiers and knights were coming from Egypt to rescue Tibnīn.[442]

On September 28th, 1198, the German Emperor Henry VI died, the news of his death reaching the German army at Tibnīn. The imperial chancellor in the Levant became disturbed, especially, when he learned of the crisis of 1198 that had broken out in Germany.[443] The German forces became extremely frightened and wanted to return home,[444] so they withdrew from Tibnīn to the city of Tyre. The Islamic forces under the leadership of al-͑Adil and his nephew continued to pursue them. Eventually, al-͑Adil and the Crusaders held a truce for three years.[445] Therefore, the German Crusade did not succeed in taking control of Jerusalem and Tibnīn.

The opinion of Saeīd Ashour was that the march of the German crusade to the Levant without the leadership of the German Emperor Henry IV was the main reason for the failure of this Crusade to recover Tibnīn and Jerusalem. This Crusade also increased the conflict between the Muslims and the Crusaders in the Levant, although the Latin kingdom was extremely weak because of lacking strong leadership.[446] Steven Runciman mentions that the German Crusade was extremely unsuccessful, and did not do anything to "restore the German prestige". However, it recovered Beirut for the Crusaders and left the Teutonic Knights to become a permanent German institution in the Latin East henceforth.[447]

From the Islamic aspect, this crusade revealed al-͑Adil as a wise Muslim ruler, who could unite the Islamic armies under his leadership. In spite of the disputes between the sons of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn, they responded to the call of al-͑Adil to rescue Tibnīn. Because of the important role of Egypt in defending the Islamic cities in the Levant, as well as its active opposition of the Crusader progress in the Levant, Europe and the Pope called for a crusade against Egypt.[448]

The failure of the Crusade against Tibnīn in 1197-98 was one of the main events which brought to the attention of the papacy the importance of Egypt in disrupting Crusader progress in the Levant. This Crusade also showed the importance of Tibnīn for the Muslims, because it was a key city from which to observe the Crusaders at Tyre and Acre and to maintain communication between the possessions of the Ayyubid state at Damascus and in Egypt.

In 1200/ 597, al-͑Adil united the Ayyubid State under his rule, and he proclaimed himself Sultanof Egypt and Syria.[449] Tibnīn was in the hands of Hossam al-DīnBishara, who was allied with Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn’s sons, al-Ẓāhir and al-Āfḍl, against al-͑Adil. The latter controlled Tibnīn and gave it and all the possessions of Bishara to his son,al-Mu’aẓẓam-Isa, who ruled Damascusand other Syrian cities as well.[450] Fakher al-Dīn Jahraks[451] was appointed as a Prince of Tibnīn on behalf of al-Mu’aẓẓam of Damascus.[452] Meanwhile, Tibnīn had been devastated and many of the inhabitants perished due to a severe earthquake that took place in the same year, 1201/ 597.[453]

In 1204/600 King Amaury II of Cyprus and Jerusalem mounted an attack against Galilee and Tibnīn and marched to attack the city of Jerusalem, assisted by the Hospitallers and Knights Templar. al-͑Adil went out to prevent them from capturing the city of Jerusalem and the Galilee region, and then made a reconciliation agreement with King Amaury II.[454] In 1205/601 King Amaury II died, and the two Kingdoms, Cyprus and Jerusalem, were separated. Maria, daughter of Henry I of Champagne and Queen Isabelle I, ruled the Kingdom of Jerusalem under the guardianship of John of Brienne, who married her in 1210 and became King of Jerusalem. There were some clashes between the Muslims and the Crusaders in 1206-07, but John of Brienne renewed the truce with al-͑Adil until 1217.[455]

In 1210/607 the Prince of Tibnīn, Fakher al-Dīn Jahraks, died; al-͑Adil appointed his young son as Prince of Tibnīn under the guardianship of Prince Ṣārim, who was named al-Tibnīny. The son of Jahraks died shortly later, and Prince Ṣārim al-Tibnīny succeeded him as Prince of Tibnīn until 1215. After this, al-Mu’aẓẓam-Isa of Damascus granted Tibnīn and all the possession of Jahraks to al-͑Azīz ͑Osman, al-͑Adil’s son, and his wife, daughter of Jahraks.[456]

- Tibnīn and the Crusade 1217-1221

In 1217, a new Crusade came from the West under the leadership of King Andrew II of Hungary and Leopold of Austria. They reached Acre in the autumn of 1217/ 614, where they held a council with the Latin nobles in order to decide which part of the Islamic lands to attack.[457] They decided to attack the territory of Galilee.[458] Arabic sources mentionthat this crusade under the leadership of Andrew II attacked Banyas, the neighboring town of Tibnīn, which was besieged for 3 days in November 1217, and the Lebanon Mountains region. Andrew II and his forces did not continue their crusade and returned to Europe in 1218.[459] It could be deduced that the soldiers of this crusade assaulted Tibnīn during the attack of the Lebanon Mountains area, but they could neither control it nor any other cities in this region.

In 31 August 1218/ 615, al-͑Adil died, having divided his lands and titles between his sons before his death. Tibnīn remained in al-Mu’aẓẓam–Isa’shands, and al-Kāmil ruled Egypt and was proclaimed Sultan.[460] In the same year, the main army of the Crusade of 1217, known as the Fifth Crusade, reached Egypt in 1218 and the city of Damietta was besieged and fell to the Crusaders in 1219.[461] al-Kāmil of Egypt offered to give the Crusaders the city of Jerusalem, Tibnīn, Tiberius, and others areas which had been taken by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn in Hittin in 1187, except the castle of Kerak and Montreal,[462] in exchange for abandoning Damietta and leaving Egypt. However, the Crusaders refused this offer.[463]

Consequently, al-Mu’aẓẓam -Isa marched to join his brother to defend Egypt and to recover Damietta. He destroyed the castle of Tibnīn, Banyas, the walls of Jerusalem and others towns on his way to Egypt, because he did not want to give these cities in a defensible condition to the Crusaders, in the case that they accepted al-Kāmil’s above-mentioned offer of exchange.[464] He also calculated that even if the Frankish forces did occupy these cities he would be able to regain them, because they would be vulnerable without defenses.[465] al-Kāmil sent two of the Crusader prisoners, Andrew of Nanteuil and John of Arcis, to renew his former offer and to declare an armistice for the second time.[466] He also offered to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, Safad, and the castle of Tibnīn. He furthermore promised that he would send twenty Muslim nobles as hostages until the restoration of these fortresses and cities.[467] However, the Crusaders rejected any reconciliation with al-Kāmil, so Muslims had to fight them to release Damietta and to protect Egypt.[468]

al-Mu'aẓẓam returned to Damascus at this time, in order to mobilize the Islamic forces to fight the Crusaders in Egypt and to launch attacks against their possessions in Syria so as to distract the Crusaders’ attention from Egypt. Meanwhile, disputes broke out between King John of Brienne of Jerusalem and the papal legate, Pelagius, over the leadership of the Crusaders in Damietta, and King John of Brienne and his forces retuned to defend Acre and their possessions in Syria.[469] After several clashes between the two sides in Damietta, they came to an agreement and there was a truce for eight years. Accordingly, the Franks left Egypt on 7th September 1221/ 7th RaJab 618, and all the Crusader and Muslim prisoners were released.[470]

Several years later, there were some conflicts between al-Kāmil and al-Mu'aẓẓam. Owing to this, al-Kāmil asked his friend, Emperor Frederick II to help him against al-Mu'azzam, in return for giving Frederick II the city of Jerusalem, as well as Tibnīn, Tiberius and others towns that had been taken by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn in Hittin in 1187 - except the castles of Kerak and Montreal.[471] When al-Mu‘aẓẓam learned about the departure of Frederick from Europe heading to the East, he destroyed the castle of Tibnīn in 1227.[472] al-Mu‘aẓẓam died in the same year and was succeeded by his son, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn Dāwūūd and by his brother al-Āshrāf in Damascus and Tibnīn, after which they reconciled with Sultan al-Kāmil.[473]

In spite of the death of al-Mu'aẓẓam and the reconciliation between al-Kāmil and both his brother and his nephew, Frederick II[474] arrived in the Levant in 1229, took control of the city of Sidon and marched to Jaffa.[475] Eventually, the treaty of Jaffa was agreed between Frederick II and his friend al-Kāmil on 18th February 1229/ 638,[476] under which the Crusaders regained Jerusalem,[477] Tibnīn, and the extended region from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and they held a truce for ten years.[478] Frederick II[479] proclaimed himself King of Jerusalem as regent for his infant son Conrad.[480]

II- Tibnīn under the Latin Rule 1229-66/ 627-64

The Crusaders regained control over Tibnīn with the treaty of Jaffa in 1229, which stated that they would not refortify and rebuild any fortresses or castles during the ten years of the truce.[481] It is said that the Teutonic Knights bought - nominally - Tibnīn as a part of the possessions of Joscelin of Courtenay in 1120, so they claimed their rights to rule it in 1129. At the same time, Alice of Armenia[482] demanded possession of Tibnīn, being the niece of Humphrey IV and heiress of the fief of Tibnīn.[483]

Frederick granted Tibnīn to the Teutonic Knights at the outset, but Alice also strongly demanded Tibnīn. She proved her claim at the High Court, and John of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut and a powerful noble, supported her claim there. She successfully took over lordship of Tibnīn despite the fact tht Frederick favored the Teutonic knights, who were his most powerful supporters in the Levant. It is though that the High Court forced Frederick II to accept their decision regarding Tibnīn and gave him and the Teutonic Knights some prerogatives and possessions in the port of Acre as a compensation for Tibnīn.[484]

On the question of the conflict concerning Tibnīn, there was a charter dated May 1120, under which the King of Jerusalem, Jean de Brienne, confirmed that the Teutonic Knights had bought certain lands from Beatrix, the daughter of Jocelyn III, and her husband, Otto of Henncberck, and their son Otto. However, these possessions did not include Tibnīn,[485] which indicates that the Teutonic Knights had never bought Tibnīn in 1120 as they claimed in 1229. In addition, in the letter dated in 1229, Hermannus, Master of the Teutonic Knights, described to Pope Gregory IX the situation of the crusade of Fredrick II, and he recounted the cities and the castles which were held by the emperor Frederick II. He mentioned Tibnīn as one of the cities held by Fredrick II and said that the Teutonic Knights held and refortified the castle of Montfort in the mountains, but he did not mention the acquisition of Tibnīn by the Teutonic Knights or any disputes concerning it.[486]

It was said that the vassals and the nobles of the Latin Eastobjected to the confiscation of the fiefs of Ibelin by Frederick II at Acre and opposed the acquisition of Tibnīn by the Teutonic Knights, so they withdrew from the service of Frederick II.[487] They stated that they would return to serve the Emperor, if he accepted the decision of the High Court concerning Tibnīn. It was believed that these disputes occurred after the departure of Frederick II from the Latin East in 1229, and he left Balian of Sidon and Garnier l’Aleman as his representatives in the east to negotiate the matter of Tibnīn. Riley-Smith mentions that these disputes took place while Fredrick II was in Jerusalem. The Emperor negotiated the treaty of Jaffa on 18th February and did not go to Acre until March 23rd, 1229. Hence it is thought that the withdrawal of the vassals was in the period from 18thFebruary to 23rd March, 1229, and that the disputes on the issue of Tibnīn were in that period as well.[488] al-‘Ainī recounts that Frederick II demanded Tibnīn from Sultan al-Kāmil, because of the desire of its heiress, Alice, to have it.[489] The outcome of this dispute was an indication for the weakness of the Emperor as opposed to the strength of the nobility,[490] and this also demonstrats that the Teutonic Knights did not hold Tibnīn in 1229.

Accordingly, the rule of Humphrey I's dynasty at Tibnīn was restored by Alice in 1229. In the charter dated in November 1234, Alice of Tibnīn “Alis, princesses et dame de Toron”, confirmed the donation of 30 besants to the monastery of Saint-Lazare, which had been granted to this monastery by Humphrey II of Tibnīn in 1151.[491] It is estimated that Alice ruled Tibnīn until 1239.

When the ten-year truce, which had been held by al-Kāmil and Fredrick II in 1229, was ended in 1239, Pope Gregory IX preached for a new crusade to completely seize the city of Jerusalem. The French Crusade by Theobald IV of Champagne reached Acre in 1239.[492] Meanwhile, the Crusaders rebuilt the city of Jerusalem’s walls and established some defensive means, and this led to the invalidation of the agreement of 1229 between the Muslims and the Crusaders. When al-Nāṣir Daūūd, Prince of Kerak, learned about the arrival of the Crusade of Theobald to Acre, he marched to take Jerusalem, Tibnīn, Sidon and Châteauneuf (Hiunn), and all that had been held by the Crusaders in 1229.[493]

al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl seized the city of Damascus from his nephew, al-Ṣālih Ayyūb, who ruled Egypt after the death of al-Kāmil in 1238, and he approached the Crusaders and made a treaty in 1240 with Theobald against al-Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt.[494] al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl promised to give Tibnīn, Galilee, Jerusalem, Bethlehem,[495] and some coastal cities to the Crusaders, in return for supporting him against his nephew in Egypt.[496] Nevertheless, the Crusade of Theobaldwas defeated in Gaza in November 1239.[497]

The Teutonic Knights and the Hospitallers were on the side of Fredrick II and supported the alliance with Egypt, so they strongly rejected the agreement between Theobald and al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl of Damascus. They succeeded in establishing a comparable agreement with the Egyptian Sultan, al-Ṣālih Ayyūb, by which the Crusaders’ prisoners were released.[498] Theobald had to accept this new agreement and forgot his reconciliation with the ruler of Damascus, al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl. He left the Levant and returned to Europe in September 1240.[499]

In October 1240, the crusade of Richard of Cornwall (1240-41) - brother of the King of England, Henry III – reached the Levant. He initially refortified the city of Ascalon[500] and refused to participate in the permanent conflict between the Hospitallers, who supported the reconciliation with Egypt, and the Knights Templar, who saw the necessity of an alliance with Damascus against Egypt. In March 1241/638, Richard of Cornwall was reconciled with Sultan al-Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt, and the latter confirmed the Crusaders’ possessions in Tibnīn, Galilee, Jerusalem, and others.[501]

Philip of Montfort came to the Levant in the Crusade of Theobald in 1239, being the Lord of la Fertē-Alais, andmarried Maria of Armenia in 1240.[502] Maria was the granddaughter of Alice of Tibnīn and the heiress of Tibnīn through her great-grandmother Isabelle, sister of Humphrey IV; Owing to this, Philip of Montfort ruled Tibnīn in 1241.[503] Philip of Montfort was the son of Guy of Montfort[504] and Helvis of Ibelin, who was the sister of John of Ibelin, lord of Beirut and head of the house of Ibelin in the Levant.[505] When Philip of Montfort acquired Tibnīn, he was supported by the lords of Ibelin, who were the most prominent nobles in the Levant at that time. Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, refortified Tibnīn, and the Crusaders rebuilt all the other castles they recaptured by the treaty of 1241.[506]

Since Tibnīn was ruled by Philip of Montfort, the latter joined the lords of Ibelin and others in the struggle against Fredrick II, the Regent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Philip of Montfort, John of Arsur, Geoffrey of Estraing, and the Lord of Haifa wrote a letter on 7th June, 1241, to Richard of Cornwall to negotiate with the Emperor on their behalf. They demanded that Fredrick II forgive the baronial party for all their" misdeeds", and they asked him to appoint Simon of Montfort[507] as the Emperor’s administrative representative in the Levant. Simon would control both Tyre and Acre and would have to swear an oath to protect the possessions of Fredrick’s II son, Conrad in the Levant. This appointment would have continued until Conrad came to the age of maturity and the emperor would have remained the regent of his son. However, their demands were rejected,[508] and Richard Filangieri, Frederick's lieutenant in the Kingdom, surprisingly attacked Acre with the assistance of the Hospitallers and a powerful group of burgesses. Therefore, the wish of Philip of Montfort to appoint his cousin, Simon of Montfort, as the guardian of the Latin Kingdom failed.[509]

In October 1241, taking advantage of the absence of the Ibelins, Riccardo Filangieri attempted to take control of Acre with the complicity of the Hosiptallers and the support of two burgesses, William of Conches and John Vaalin. When Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, who was the only person of the Ibelin clan at that time in Acre, learned of this conspiracy, he marched to confront Filangieri and arrested the two burgesses, sending a message to inform Balian of Ibelin,[510] Lord of Beirut. It seemed that there were other supporters to the Hohenstaufen at Acre, but Philip of Tibnīn trusted particularly the support of the Genoese and the Venetians at Acre. Riccardo Filangieri realized that he had failed and escaped, returning to Tyre.[511]

In 1243, the High Court of Jerusalem asked Conrad, son of Frederick II, to come to the Levant to declare himself as the King of Jerusalem, since he had become fifteen years of age on April 25th, 1243.[512] Conrad announced that he would not come to the Levant in the near future, and sent Thomas of Aquino as his representativeto the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Philip of Tibnīn and Balian of Ibelin refused to acknowledge any representatives and decided to deny any authority to Frederick II or his son Conrad, unless they came to the Levant.[513] Fredrick II was no longer the Regent of the Kingdom, so Philip of Tibnīn with his closest ally, Balian of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut, aimed to impose their ascendancy on the city of Tyre, which was under the authority of Frederick II through his lieutenant, Richard Filangieri.[514]

The Lord of Tibnīn and Beirut sought with a legal stratagem to elect Alice of Cyprus as Regent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as she was the eldest daughter of Isabelle and Henry of Champagne. Alice accepted their proposal, and they were able to convince a member of the High Court to accept her regency, in return for saving the possessions of Conrad. Alice became the Regent of the Kingdom in 1243 until her death in 1246;[515] however, she did not have strong authority in the Kingdom, because Philip and Balian exercised such power in the Levant.[516] Thus Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, and Balian of Beirut were the effective authority in the Kingdom of Jerusalem at Acre; this also indicates that the fief of Tibnīn had a strong position among the other crusader fiefdoms in the Levant at that time

Philip of Tibnīn and Bilian of Ibelin made a secret agreement with Alice of Cyprus, which stated that they should be in charge of the royal castles until the arrival of Conrad. Philip of Tibnīn and Balian exploited this agreement and occupied the city of Tyre in 1243, although the High Court rejected this agreement.[517] Tyre became a subject city of the Ibelins and was ruled by Philippe of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, from 1243.[518] He became the ruler of Tibnīn and Tyre together from that year and participated in safekeeping the castle of Acre.[519] Henry of Cyprus, who succeeded his mother, Alice, as Regent of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, confirmed the claims of Philip of Tibnīn and his descendants in Tyre in 1246.[520] When the possession of Tyre was confirmed by Henry, he minted a coin illustrating his rule of Tibnīn and Tyre.[521]

Nobles of the Latin East and the military forces did not maintain their agreement with the Egyptian Sultan, al-Ṣālih Ayyūb, which they had made in 1244. The Templars, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights and the Order of Saint Lazarus[522] made an alliance with al-Mansur of Homs and al-Nāṣir Daūūd of Kerak under the leadership of al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl of Damascus against Egypt in 1244.[523] The fief of Tibnīn joined this Damascus-Frankish alliance and contributed six hundred lay horsemen under the leadership of its ruler, Philip Montfort. Owing to this alliance, the Egyptian Sultan, with the help of the Khwarazmians[524], completely recovered Jerusalem in 1244/642 in the battle of Gaza,[525] which was metaphorically named the Battle of Hittin II.[526] Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn and thirty-three Templars, twenty-seven Hospitallers, and three Teutonic Knights survived the battle and fled to Ascalon.[527]

The Crusaders thus lost most of the lands they had held in peace since 1129. The problem of a shortage of manpower was exacerbated because European recruiting for campaigns to the Levant had ceased. Therefore, the Crusaders depended on their castles to counter the pressure of the Egyptian Sultan at that time.The castle of Tibnīn was one of the most important castles for this purpose.[528] Tibnīn came into great and continuous danger when al-Ṣālih Ismā ̒aīl of Damascus surrendered to Sultan al-Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt and the latter controlled Damascus from 1245.[529] Tibnīn was then threatened by al-Ṣālih Ayyūb from Damascus in the north and from Egypt in the south.

In 1247, Balian of Ibelin, the foremost lord and supporter of Philip of Montfort of Tibnīn, died, and John of Ibelin, who was a minor at that time, succeeded his father, Balian, as Lord of Beirut. When John of Arsuf, who replaced Balian of Ibelin as bailiff in Acre, retired in 1248, Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, recommended appointing John Foigno, who was an unknown person, as bailiff in Acre. However, John Foigno was removedthe next year, and John of Arsuf was again reappointed as a bailli in Acre.[530] This illustrates the effective authority of Lord Tibnīn in the kingdom of Acre at that time.

The fief of Tibnīn contributed to the Crusade of Louis IX against Egypt in 1249, when the Lord of Tibnīn led some soldiers and joined it.[531] King Louis IX attacked the city ofDamietta in Egypt, because he realized that control of Egypt was the only way to preserve the Latin Kingdom in the Levant.[532] However, he was defeated and held captive by the Egyptian army and was released by paying approximately 800,000 bezants as ransom. This crusade did not lead to improving the Crusaders situation in the Levant, but it increased the hostility between them and the Muslims.[533] This negatively affected the situation of the fief of Tibnīn, when Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, joined the captivity of Louis IX in April to May 1250 in Egypt.[534]

Philip of Montfort, lord of Tibnīn, was a member of the Court of Burgesses at Acre. It was recounted that he joined the meeting “the parlement” of 1251, which was held at the Lord of Beirut’s house, attended by the members of the High Court, Royal Burgess Court of Acre, the Lord of Arsuf and the Constable of the Kingdom to discuss procedures concerning the general legislation of the Kingdom. The main objective of this “parlement” was the acceptance of “everything which was said and done in the courts of secular justice,” but Philip of Montfort argued some decisions and demanded that “the memory of the Court should have precedence over written records.”[535]

Although the Kingdom of Jerusalem was under threat from the Muslims, the Latin nobles sought to ruleindependently. Philip of Montfort took advantage of the conflict between the Venetians and Genoese in Acre to turn the Venetians out of their possessions in Tyre, which they held in 1124, and the Genoese were given the confiscated property by Philip of Montfort in order to gain their support.[536] He took part in an agreement with the High Court in August 1257, by which some privileges were given to the Genoese merchants in Acre,[537] and he continued to support their position in the Burgess Court and the High Court.[538]

In February 1258, Plaisance, Queen of Cyprus, with her young son, King Hugh, went to Acre, to receive the regency of Conradin[539] of Hohenstaufen (1254-68), son of Frederick II, and heir of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The claim of Plaisance and her son was recognized by the Venetians, Ibelins, Templars, and Teutonic Knights. However, Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, the Hospitallers, and the Genoese refused to recognize the claim as they were the defenders of the Hohenstaufen. The Crusaders were drawn into a civil war, Philip of Tibnīn and the Genoese leading their party in this war from Tibnīn and Tyre, and the Venetians and Ibelins theirs from Acre. The government of Acre was afraid, because Philip of Montfort intended to become an independent ruler and created a powerful commercial fief at Tyre and Tibnīn, rivaling the city of Acre.[540]

The Latin Kingdom came under threat from the Mongols, who reached the Levant in the winter of 1259-60. The Crusaders and Popes had attempted to negotiate a co-operation with the Mongols against the Muslims in Egypt and Syria since 1240,[541] but nothing was achieved at that time because the Mongols wanted to control both the Islamic and the Crusader cities in the Levant. Hülegüe, Leader of the Mongols, destroyed Bagdad in 1258, and then he marched to Syria and captured the two Islamic cities, Aleppo and Damascus. At the same time, he invaded the city of Sidon and sent a challenge to the Crusaders in Acre, who became in terribly alarmed. However, the Crusader lands were spared; Hülegüe returned to Asia to choose the new Kahn, and his leader marched to meet the Egyptian forces at ̔Ain Jālūt “عين جالوت” in 1260.[542]

The Crusaders in the Levant needed to combine their forces to face this danger, so an agreement was made between the party of Philip, Lord of Tibnīn and the party of Plaisance to be reconciled. However, the conflict was soon renewed again,[543] and at the same time, the Mongol forces received a crushing defeat in the battle of ̔Ain Jālūt by the Muslims under the leadership of Qutuz, Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, in 1260.[544] The disputes between Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, and the government of Acre were exploited by the Mamluks to surround the Crusader cities and fortresses.[545] However, Philip of Tibnīn formed an alliance with the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, Baibars, against the government of the Regent at Acre and its supporters in 1263.[546] It is thought that Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, had calculated that he and his fief could best survive by forming an alliance with the Muslims, by controlling the whole of Tyre and Tibnīn, and through support from some of Genoese.

It is important to point out that some might believe that the Teutonic Knights received Tibnīn from Philip of Montfort in 1261, according to the charters of the Teutonic Knights in which they refer to having large possessions at the fief of Toron Ahmud in 1261.[547] However, Steven Tibble states that the lordship of Toron Ahmud "has never been recognized as such or commented upon by historians of the Latin East," and he says that this lordship was independent or semi-independent in the east of the Lordship of Beirut.[548] It is clear that this fief is completely different from the fief of Tibnīn (Toron), which was ruled at that time by Philip of Montfort. In addition to this, the fief of Tibnīn was located between Tyre and Damascus, but Toron Ahmud was situated between Beirut and Sidon.

Bībars[549] adapted a military strategy to conquer the Crusader cities, which depended on the control of their fortified castles, and he pursued an intelligent policy to deal with the Crusader power. On the one hand, he did not accept the reconciliation with both of them simultaneously. On the other hand, he refused a truce with either of them, in order to avoid their becoming allied against him. He accepted the reconciliation with Beirut, Tibnīn, and Tyre, while he refused to be reconciled with Jaffa, Antioch, Acre, which helped him to attack northwards and southwards to seize one city after another. He next controlled the city of Tibnīn and its castle in 1266/664,[550] and he used it as a centralized base to attack the Christian village of Qara which lay between Horns and Damascus and which was presumably in touch with the Crusaders.[551]

Due to the fall of Tibnīn to the Muslims, Philip of Montfort became submissive. The nobles of the Ibilen family and the government of Acre made peace and formed a settlement with him.[552] Thus arose the possibility of a union between the Crusaders, so Bībarsarranged to kill Philip in order to weaken them. Shortly after, on August 17th, 1270, while Philip and his older son were praying in a chapel, Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn and Tyre "Philippo de Monteforte signor de Sur et de Thoron" was killed at Tyre by one of the Assassins of Syria on the orders of Sultan Bībars.[553]

Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the Ayyubid and the Latin governance of Tibnīn from 1187 to1266/ 583 to 664. In spite of the severe blow to the Franks as a result of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn’s victory at Hittin, the Kingdom of Jerusalem managed to survive for another century. The Muslims retook Tibnīn in 1187, and it became the main base for the Muslim movement against the Crusaders in Tyre and other neighboring cities at the end of twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. When Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn died in 1193, Tibnīn was inherited by al-Malik al-Āfḍl (1193-96/ 589-92), after which al- ͑Adil and his son, al-Mu’aẓẓam-Isa, governed Tibnīn from 1196. The German Crusade attacked and laid siege to Tibnīn in 1197-98, but it could not control it. When the Fifth Crusade (1218-21) attacked Egypt, Tibnīn was devastated by al-Mu’aẓẓam–Isa. The latter believed that even if the Crusaders conquered Tibnīn, it would be weak without defenses, and he could thus regain it again easily. This illustrates the importance for both the Crusaders and Muslims of Tibnīn, although it returned to the Crusaders by the treaty of Jaffa in 1229.

The Crusaders ruled Tibnīn from 1229 to 1266/ 625 to 664. Alice, the heiress of Tibnīn, became its ruler in 1229 after several disputes with the Teutonic knights. In 1239, the ten-year truce between the Crusaders and Muslims ended, and the Muslims recaptured Tibnīn. The Crusade of Theobald IV (1239-40) attempted to regain Tibnīn, but Theobald was defeated in Gaza in November, 1239. Richard of Cornwall came to the Levant in 1240 and formed an agreement with Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt, by which Tibnīn was returned to the Crusaders yet again. It was ruled from 1240by Philip of Montfort on behalf of his wife, Maria, the granddaughter of Alice of Tibnīn.

While Philip of Montfort ruled Tibnīn, he was supported by the lords of Ibelin, and Tibnīn therefore had a considerable position in the Latin East at this time. Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, joined the struggle against Fredrick II and his son, Conrad. He took control of Tyre from Filangieri, Frederick II's lieutenant, in 1243. He supported the appointment of the Queen of Cyprus, Alice, as the regent for Conrad in the Latin East, which gave him and Tibnīn effective authority over the Kingdom of Jerusalem at Acre. The fief of Tibnīn contributed six hundred lay horsemen to the battle of Gaza in 1244 under the leadership of Philip of Montfort, who joined the Crusade of Louis IX against Egypt (1248-52). Tibnīn continued to play a leading role in the Levant under the leadership of Philip of Montfort, who was a member of the Court of Burgesses at Acre, and it became semi-independent and rivaled the government of Acre until it fell to Bībars in 1266/664.

It is interesting to note that Philip of Montfort minted a coin showing the rule of Tibnīn and Tyre, which confirms that Tibnīn played a significant economic role at this time; a fact that has been discussed previously. Furthermore, it is clear that the Crusader fiefs such as Beirut, Tibnīn and Tyre and their rulers had considerable power in the Latin East in the second half of the thirteenth century, whereas the authority of the Latin Kingdom at Acre was extremely weak in this period. This led to an increase in the power of the nobility in the Levant as the Crusader nobles attempted to rule independently, which further weakened the Latin Kingdom until its downfall in in 1291.

General Conclusion

The central aim of this study has been to explore the socio-economic, political, and military importance of Tibnīn, its rulers and its castle in the Latin East throughout the period of the Crusades. An examination of the history of Tibnīn in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and how it contributed to the Crusader movement, how it made itself and its rulers an important role in the Latin East, and how it has been mentioned through Crusader and Islamic sources and literature, demonstrates that Tibnīn as a fief and fortified castle played a key part in the period of the Crusades and was not isolated from events in the Holy Land.

The geographical conditions and location contributed in forming the distinctive socio-economic, political, and military attributes of Tibnīn. These attributes enabled it to oversee the trade caravans and military activities in the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Upper Galilee area. The mountainous nature of its location enabled the castle to exercise an influential offensive and defensive role as well. Moreover, this mountainous area included cultivable soil and had important water sources to irrigate crops, so that it was possible to establish a stable agricultural society that contributed towards supporting the economic structure of the Latin East.

This study has discussed several important aspects of the fief of Tibnīn, from its establishment and settlement by the Latins to its final fall to the Muslims in the second half of the twelfth century. When the Crusaders invaded the Latin East, they advanced to capture the rural and agricultural areas, which were important for settling and building the Crusader institutions. Tibnīn and the Jabal ‘Amil area became one of the most important agricultural and economic regions, because of its existing agricultural and economic structures. Although the majority of its inhabitants were Muslim Shi'ites, the Crusaders always tried to retain the Muslims inhabitants because of their experience in cultivating the land. Tibnīn was an important economic fief for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It produced abundant crops that were important for feeding the Crusaders as well as Muslims in the Levant. Some crops were even exported to Europe. Furthermore, Tibnīn controlled the commercial road from Tyre to Damascus.

Tibnīn was a tax collection centre. As such, it gained a significant position in the Latin East and played a substantial role in the economic events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This in turn made it more prominent in its military and political role. The architecture of the castle shows that it was designed to play both an offensive and defensive role. It was a base from which to mount attacks against the Muslims in the north and sometimes south of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, when necessary.

Therefore, the rulers of Tibnīn held a significant position in the Latin East and played a substantial role in the political as well as the military events of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Hugh of Saint-Omer had the castle built in 1103-05 as a Crusader military bastion. In 1117/ 510 the Crusaders completely held Tibnīn, which became an independent fief under the rule of Humphrey I. It oversaw the road between Damascus and Tyre, and from here, the Crusaders launched their campaigns to capture Tyre and attack Damascus. For the first two decades of the twelfth century, Tibnīn managed to defend the north of Galilee and to attack Damascus, as well as to ward off attacks from Damascus. Thus, it contributed to consolidating the possessions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and gave the Crusaders and their settlements more power in the Levant.

The Muslims at Damascus and Tyre mounted constant attacks against Tibnīn to regain control of the commercial route. The lands of Tibnīn were therefore a center of conflict between the Muslims and the Crusaders, although the latter had controlled the castle since 1105. Humphrey I of Tibnīn held the castle of Hunin in 1115/509 and King Baldwin ordered Jocelyn of Galilee to build the castle of Alexandrium (Scandalium) between Tyre and Tibnīn in 1116-1117/510-511. These helped to defend Tibnīn from the east and the west and to give Tibnīn complete control of the region in 1117. With this advantage, the Crusaders increased their attacks against Damascus and were eventually able to capture Tyre in 1124.

The most important phase in the history of Tibnīn in the Latin East began with the rule of Humphrey II in 1137 until his death in 1179. During this period Tibnīn was a highly prominent dominion and its ruler, Humphrey II, played a considerable role in the Latin East. Humphrey signed several charters with the King and became the Constable of the Kingdom in 1152, uniting Tibnīn, Hebron, Banyas, and Transjordan under his rule and that of his son, Humphrey III. Humphrey II’s membership of the High Court from 1137 to 1179 was also the longest. Accordingly, under the leadership of Humphrey II, the fief of Tibnīn played a great political and military role against the Muslims.

At that time, the force of Tibnīn joined the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to fight ͑Emad al-Dīn Zingy until his death in 1146. Nūr al-Dīn controlled Damascus in 1154 and was able to increase his attacks against the Kingdom of Jerusalem from this closer power base in the north. Tibnīn, under the rule of Humphrey II, usually played a defensive role, reinforcing the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in defending the Latin possessions in the north, which included Antioch, Banyans, and other cities. It also contributed towards defending the south, i.e. Kerak, Hebron, and Transjordan. Tibnīn also played an offensive role with the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, capturing Ascalon in 1153 and invading Egypt between 1164- 1169.

Following the death of its powerful ruler, Humphrey II, in 1179, Tibnīn came directly under the governance of the royal house from 1180 onwards. The internal policies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem towards the small fiefdoms in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem - fiefdoms such as Tibnīn - sought to weaken the authority of the nobility in the Levant. This led to increased conflicts between the Latin nobles in the Levant and became a main reason for the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem at Hittin in 1187. Tibnīn fell into Muslim hands in 1187 and reversed its position to play a military, strategic, and political role against the Crusaders, its former owners.

Tibnīn became the main base for the Muslim movement against the Crusaders in Tyre and other neighboring cities at the end of twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. When Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn died in 1193, Tibnīn was inherited by al-Malik al-Āfḍl (1193-96/ 589-92), after which al- ͑Adil and his son, al-Mu’aẓẓam-Isa, governed Tibnīn from 1196. The German Crusade attacked and laid siege to Tibnīn in 1197-98, but it could not control it. When the Fifth Crusade (1218-21) attacked Egypt, al-Mu’aẓẓam–Isa destroyed the defenses of Tibnīn, as he believed that in the event that the Crusaders took Tibnīn, they would be unable to keep it without defenses and he would thus be able regain it easily. However, it was returned to the Crusaders by the treaty of Jaffa in 1229. This illustrates its importance for both the Crusaders and Muslims.

The Crusaders ruled Tibnīn from 1229/ 625 to 1266/ 664. Alice, the heiress of Tibnīn, became its ruler in 1229 after several disputes with the Teutonic Knights. In 1239, the ten-year truce between the Crusaders and Muslims ended, and the Muslims recaptured Tibnīn. The Crusade of Theobald IV (1239-40) attempted to regain Tibnīn, but Theobald was defeated in Gaza in November, 1239. Richard of Cornwall came to the Levant in 1240 and formed an agreement with Ṣālih Ayyūb of Egypt, under which Tibnīn was returned to the Crusaders yet again. It was ruled from 1240 by Philip of Montfort on behalf of his wife, Maria, the granddaughter of Alice of Tibnīn.

Philip of Montfort, Lord of Tibnīn, was supported by the lords of Ibelin. Tibnīn therefore had a prominent position in the Latin East at this time. He joined the struggle against Fredrick II and his son, Conrad and took control of Tyre from Filangieri, Frederick II's lieutenant, in 1243. Philip of Montfort of Tibnīn supported the appointment of the Queen of Cyprus, Alice, as the regent for Conrad in the Latin East, which gave him and Tibnīn effective authority over the Kingdom of Jerusalem at Acre. This in turn allowed him to mint coin showing the rule of Tibnīn and Tyre, which confirms that Tibnīn played a significant economic role at this time; a fact that has been illustrated previously.

The fief of Tibnīn contributed six hundred lay horsemen to the battle of Gaza in 1244 under the leadership of Philip of Montfort, who also joined the Crusade of Louis IX against Egypt (1248-52) and fell into captivity. Tibnīn continued to play a leading role in the Levant under the leadership of Philip of Montfort, who was a member of the Court of Burgesses at Acre, and it became semi-independent and rivaled the government of Acre until it fell to the Sultan Bībars of Egypt in 1266/664. It is clear that the lords of Tibnīn had considerable power in the Latin East in the second half of the thirteenth century, whereas the authority of the Latin Kingdom at Acre was extremely weak in this period. This led to a decrease in the central power of the king in the Levant as the Crusader nobles attempted to rule independently, which further weakened the Latin Kingdom until its downfall in 1291.

Appendix

Notes of transliteration and nomenclature from Arabic to English:

The chief alternative system, in which every Arabic character is represent a single Latin character as follows:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The Rulers of Tibnīn through the period of the Crusades (1105 -1266)

Bibliography

Abbreviations:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Primary Sources

Arabic Sources:

- Abū-al-Fidā, Ismā ͑īl ibn-͑Ali Mahmoud Saḥib Humāah, al-Mukhta ṣar fi Ākhbār al-Bashar (The Summary of the History of People), 4 vols. edited by Mohammed Zenhom et al. Cairo: Dar al-Mā ͑arif, nd.

- Abū-al-Maḥāsin,Jamal al-Din, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah fi Mulūk Misr wa al-Qāhirah (The Brilliant Stars in the History of Kings of Egypt and Cairo), edited by Mohamed Hassan shams-al-Din, vols, 7-8. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmyah, first edition, 1992.

- Abū-Shāmah, Shīhab al-Din al-Maqdīsy, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn fi Akhbār al-Daūlataīn al-Nūrīah wa al-Ṣalihīah (Book of Two Gardens in the States of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn), edited by Ahmed al-Besomy, 2 vols. Damascus, 1991.

- ـــ ــ ـــ, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn (Appendix of Book of the Two Gardens) , edited by Mohammed Zahid Ibn-al-Hassan: Beriut-Lebenon: Dar al-Jīal, ed.2: 1974.

- Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ualaīmy, Abd-al-Riḥīm ībn-Majīr al-Dīn, al-Ānas al-Jalīl Bitārīkh al-Quds wa al-Khalīl {In the History of Jerusalem and Hebron }, 2 vols. Beirut: 1966.

- al-‘Ainī, Badr al-Dīn, ‘Iqd al-Jumān fi Tārīkh Āhl al-Zamān (The Necklace of Pearls Concerning the History of the People of the Time), edited by Mahmud Rizq, 4 vols. Cairo: Dar al-Kutub wa al-Wathāiq al-Qaūmīah, second edition, 2010.

- al-Ᾱṣfahānī, ‘Imad al-Dīn , al-Barq al-Shāmī (A Chronicle about the History of the States of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn from 562/ 1167 to 5 89/ 1193 ), edited by Falih Salih Husain, 3-5 vols. Jordon: 1987.

- ــــ ـــ ـــ , al-Fatḥ al-Qussī fi al-Fatḥ al-Qudsī (A Chronicle about the Military Activities of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn 583-89/1187-92), edited by Mohamed Subaih. Cario: Dar al-Manār,2004.

- al-Bindārī, al-Fatḥ Ibn Ali Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī (A Summary of the Book of al-Barq al-Shāmī), edited by Fatḥīah al-Nabrawy. Cario: Maktabat al-khanjy, 1979.

- al-Harīrī, Ahmed Ibn-Ali, al-I‘alām wa al-Tibīīn fi Khorūdj al- Firingj al-Malā‘aīn ‘Ala Dīār al-Muslmīn ( The History of the Frankish Invasion of the Muslim Lands), edited by Suhail Dhakkar. Damascus: 1981.

- Ibn-al-Athīr, ‘Izz ad-Din Abū-al-Ḥasan, Kītāb al-Kāmil fi al- Tārīkh (The Perfect History or the Collection History), edited by Mohamed Yusuf, 9, 10 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmyah, Fourth Edition,2003.

- Ibn-al-‘Adīm, Kamal al-Din, Dhubdat al-Halab fi Tārīkh Ḥalab (About the History of Aleppo), 2 vols. edited by Suhail Dhakkar. Damascus, Cairo: Dār al-kitab al-Araby, 1997.

- Ibn-Jubair, Muhammad, al-Riḥlah (The Travel of Ibn- Jubair). Beirut: Dār Ṣādir.

- Ibn-Kathīr, ‘ Imad al-Dīn Ismail, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah (The Beginning and the End), 16-17 vols. edited by abd-Allah al-Turkey. Egypt: Dar Hajr, 1998.

- Ibn-al-Jauzī, Abū-al-Farāj Άbd-al-Raḥman, al-Muntaʐam fi Tārīkh al-Umamm wa al-Mulūk ( In the History of Nations and Kings), edited by Mohamed ‘Ata, Mustafa ‘Ata,vol. 17. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmyah, 1992.

- Ibn-Wāṣil, Gamal al-Din Mohamed, Mufarrij al-Kurūb fi Akhbār Banī Āyyūb (A Chronicle about the Ayyubids), edited by jamal al-Din al-Shaiyal, vols 1-3. Cario: 1953-1960.

- Ibn al-Qalānisī, Abū Y‘ali Ḥamzah al-Tīmimy, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq (Appendix to the History of Damascus). Beirut: 1908.

- Ibn-Shaddād, Bahaa al-Dīn, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah wa al-Maḥāsin al-Yūsofīah (The Biography of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn), edited by Jamal al-Dīn al-Shīal (Cario: Maktabat aL-Khndjy, 1994)

- al-Maqrīzī, Taqī al-Dīn Ahmed Ibn-Ali, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-M ̔arifa Duwal al-Mulūk ( Chronicle of Maqrīzī about the History of Medieval Egypt) , edited by Muhammad Abd al-Qadir Ata, vols. 1, 2. Beriut-Lebenon: Dar al-Kutub al-‘lmyah, 1997.

- Sawīrus Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh Misr Min: Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah li- Sawīrus Ibn al-Muqaffa (a History of the Coptic Church and its Patriarchs), 4 vols. edited by Abd-al-Aziz Jamāl al-Dīn. Cairo: Makitabit Madbūly, 2006.

- Sibṭ ibn-al-jūzī, Mi’rāt al-Zamān fi Tārīkh al-Ā‘aiyān (The Chronicle of Mirror of Time in the History of Notables). Ḥīdār Ābād: 1951-1952.

- Yàkut al-Hamawy, Shīhab al-Dīn al-Roomy al-Baghdadi, Mu‘agam al-Bīldān (Lexicon of the Countries), 5 vols. edited by Farid abd-al-Aziz al-Gendy. Beirut: 1990.

Western Sources:

- Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion- Heart, translated from old French by Hubert Merton Monte. New York: 1941.

- Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem,edited and translated by Susan B. Edgington. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2007.

- Arnoldi of Lübeck, Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. I.M. Lappenbergii, In: M.G.H.R.F.G.H.P. Germany, Hannover: 1868.

- Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève, le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint – Sepulcre de Jerusalem. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1984.

- Beugnot M. Le Comte, ed., “Livre des Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois.” In RHC Lois, tomes 2. Paris: Académie Royal des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1843. Pp. 227-352.

- Conder, Claude R., and Horatio H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs of the Topography Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology, 1: Galilee, ed. E. H. Palmer and Walter Besant. London: 1881.

- Delaville le Roulx, ed. Cartulaire General de l' order des Hospitaliers de St Jean de Jerusalem (1100-1310), vol. II. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1894.

- De Marsy, Le Comte, ed., "Fragment d'un Cartulaire de L'ordre de St.Lazare en Terre Sainte", en: A.O.L, tome II, 2 (Paris: 1882).pp. 121-158.

- Ernoul, La Chronique d'Ernoul, edited by Bernard le Trésorier. Paris: 1871.

- Eracles, Estorie d’Eracles, Empereur et de Conquest de la Terre d’outreMer, in: R.H.C.H.Occ., tome II. Paris: 1859.

- Edbury, W. Peter, trans., "The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, 1184-97,"in the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA: Ashgate, 2nded, 1998. Pp. 11-145.

- ــــ ــــ ــــ, “The Marriage of Guy of Lusignan and Sibylla (1180)", in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA: Ashgate, 2nded, 1998. Pp. 149- 153.

- ــ ـــ ــــ, "The Coronation of Guy and Sibylla (1186),"in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA: Ashgate, 2nded, 1998. Pp. 54-55.

- ــ ــ ــــــ, "The Battle of Hittin (4 July 1187) and its Aftermath ,in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA: Ashgate, 2nded, 1998. Pp. 158-163.

- ــ ــ ــــــ, "The Siege of Acre (1189-91),"in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA: Ashgate, 2nded, 1998.Pp. 167- 174.

- Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, translated by Frances Rita Ryan, Sisters of St. Joseph, edited with an Introduction by Harold's Fink. USA: University of Tennessee press, 1969.

- Greilsammer, Myriam ed. Le Livre au Roi. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 1995.

- Guibert de Nogent , The Deeds of God through the Franks "Gesta Dei per Francos", Translated by Robert Levine. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997.

- Huillard-Bréholles, Jean. L. A., ed., Historia Diplomatica Frederici Secundi, Tomus III. Paris: 1852.

- John of Ibelin, Livre des Assises, edited by Peter W. Edbury. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

- Matthew Paris, English History from the year of 1235 to 1273, translated by the Rev. J. A. Giles, D.C.L. London; 1852.

- Morgan, Margaret Ruth, ed., La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyre (1184-1197). Paris: Librairie Orientalist Paul Geuthner, 1982.

- Nielen, Marie-Adélaïde, ed., Les Lignages D'Outremer: in Documents Relatifs à l'Histoire des Croisades, XVIII. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2003.

- Philip de Novare, The Wars of Frederick II against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus, translated by John la Monte. New York: Columbia University Press: 1936.

- Renē de Mas Latrie, M., ed., Chroniques d’Amadi eT de Stramaldi, 2 Parts. Paris: Imprimerie National, 1889.

- Richard of Holy Trinity Itinerary of Richard I and others to the Holy Land (formerly ascribed to Geoffrey de Vinsauf), translated by a Classical Scholar and a Gentleman Well-Read in Medieval History .Cambridge, Ontario: Medieval Latin Series. 2001.

- Roger of Hovden, Annals of Roger Hovden: Comprising History of England and Other Countries of Europe from 732-1201, 2 vols. translated from Latin with notes by Henry T. Riley. London: 1883

- Robinson, Edward. And E. Smith, and Others, "Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions,"Journal of Travels in the year of 1852, edited by Edward Robinson. Boston, London: Crocker and Brewster: 1856.

- Rozière, M.Eugène, ed. Cartulaire de L'Eglise du Saint Sepulcre de Jerusalem. Paris: imprimerie nationale, 1849

- Röhricht, Reinhold, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII –MCCXCI). Libraria Academica Wageriana 1893, with Supplement (1904).

- ـــ ـــ ــــ”Acte de Soumission des Barons du Royaume de Jerusalem a Frederic II,” A.O.L, tome I: Paris, 1881. Pp. 402-403

- Röhricht, R. and Gaston Raynaud. “Annales de Terre Sainte 1095-1291,” A.O.L, II. Paris: 1883, Pp. 427- 61.

- Strehlke, Ernestus, ed., Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici. Berlin: 1869.

- Shirley, Janet, Trans., Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: The Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre Text. USA, England: Ashgate, 1999.

- William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, translated by. E. A. Bacock and A.C.Krey, 2 vols. New York: 1943.

Secondary Sources:

Arabic References:

- Abd al-Wahab, Hassan, Tārīkh Jama‘at al-Fursān al-Tītūtūn fi al-Ārāḍy al-Muqadasah 1190-1291/586-69 0 (The History of the Teutonic Knights in the Holy Land). Egypt- Alexandria: 1989.

- Abd-al-Moneim Ali, Ṣalaḥ al-Din,"al-Rīīf fi Bilād al-Shāām 1099-1192 / 492-588 (The Countryside in the Levant 1099-1192 / 492-588)."PhD. diss., ‘Ein Shams University, Faculty of Arts, Cairo, 2007.

- Abd-al-Rashid, Rehab, “Masālat ‘Arsh Mamlākat Baīt al-Maqdis al-Ṣalībīah 1099-1291 (The Issue of the Throne of Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291.” PhD. diss., Alexandria University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 2008.

- al-Āmīn, Muḥsan, Khuṯaṯ Jabal ‘Amil , edited byḤassan al-Āmīn, vol.1. Beirut: al-Enṣāf, 1983.

- ͑Ashour, Saeīd Abd al-Fattah, al-Mamālīk wa al-ʾAyyūbiyyūn fi Misr and al-Shāām (Ayyubids and Mamluks in Egypt and the Levant). Cairo, Egypt: 1996.

- ــ ــ ــــ“al-Embraṭūr Frederick II wa al-Sharq al-͑Araby ( Fredrick II and Arabic East),” in Buḥūth fi Tārīkh al-͑Uṣūr al-Ūs ṭa (Studies in the Medieval History). Breiut, 1977.

- ـــ ـــ ـــ, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah (The Crusade Movement ), 2 vols. Cairo: 1963.

- ‘Aāmer, Ṣafāa Osman, Mamlakiat Baīīt al-Maqdis fi ‘Ahd al-Mālik Baldwin II (The Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Age of King Baldwin II). Cairo: Dār al ‘alām al-arabī,2008.

- al-Banna, Adel Abd al-Hafiz, Āsūāq al-Sām fi ‘Aṣr al-Ḥurūb al-Ṣalībīah 1099-1291(The Markets of the Levant in the Period of the Crusades). Cairo: ‘Ein for Human and Social Studies, 2007.

- Fayyaḍ, Nawal, Ṣafaḥāt min Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil fi al-͑Ahdīn al-͑ Osmâniyye wa al-Farancy (Form the History of Jabal Amil in the Ottoman and French Eras). Lebanon- Beirut: 1998.

- Hilal, Adil, al- ͑Ailāqāt Baīn al-Maghūl and Āūrūpa wa Ātharahā ͑Ala al- ͑Aālam al-Eslāmy (The Relationships between the Mongols and Europe and Its Impact on the Islamic World). Cairo: Dar ͑Ein, 1997.

- al-Henawy, Mustafa Mohamed, “Jamāat al-Esbitāriah wa Dūrahā fi al-Ṣirāa̔ al-Islamy al-Ṣalīby fi ‘Asr al-Ḥrūb al-Ṣalībīīah 1099-1291/ 493-690 (The Hospitaller Knights and Their Roles in the Crusader-Islamic Conflict in the Age of the Crusades }.” Master thesis, Alexandria University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 1980.

- "Jabal Amel: The Cradle of Knowledge and the Land of Freedom", Noor al-Islam: Islamic cultural magazine. Beirut, Lebanon: Imam Hussain Foundation. 6th Year, 2000: no. 71-72.

- Kurd Ali, Mohamed, Khuṭaṭ al-Shām (Sham's Maps), vol.1. Demascus, 1925-1928.

- al-Khitti, Issa“ Iqtā‘eīat Sharq al-Uardun fi ‘Asr al-Ḥurūb al-Ṣalībīīah 492-583/1099-1187 (The Fief of Transjordan in the Age of the Crusades 492-583/1099-1187).”Master thesis. Damanhur University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 2008.

- Osman A., Sir-al-Khitm, “Madīnat Suūr fi al-Qarnīn al-Thāny Ashar wa al-Thālith Ashar 1097-1291(The City of Tyre in the Twelfth and Thirteen Centuries 1097-1291). PhD. Diss., Cairo University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 1971.

- Omran, Mahmoud Said, Tārīkh al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah 1095-1291(The History of the Crusades). Egypt- Alexandria: Dar al-M ͑arifah al-Jami ͑eīah, 2000.

- - - -, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah 1218-21/615-18(The Fifth Crusade). Egypt- Alexandria: Dār al-M ͑aārif, 1985.

- al-Sayed, Aly Ahmed Mohamed, al-Khalīl wa al-Haram al-Ibrāhīmī fi ‘Aṣr al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah 492- 583/ 1099-1187 (Hebron in the Age of the Crusades). Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-‘Araby, 1998.

- - - -,"Emārit al-Jālīl Taḥt Ḥukm al-Latīn wa Durha al-Sīāsī fi al-Ṣirā‘a al-Ṣalībī al-Islāmī 1099-1154 / 492-549, (The Principality of Galilee under the Latin Rule and Its Political Role in the Crusader-Islamic Conflict in the Levant)."Master Thesis, Alexandria University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 1988.

- - - -, Himfirī al-Rābia Saaīd Tibnīn (Humphrey IV the Lord of Tibnīn),” in Mijalit al-Mūarikh al-Masrī ( Journal of the Egyptian Historian). Cairo University, July, 2008.

- Sanīūr, Ahmed Faraj “al-Ḥmalāt al-Far ͑aīah al-Ṣalībīah ͑Ala Manṭqat al-Sharq al-Ādna al-Islamy 1095-1198 {The Secondary Crusade Campaigns on the Islamic Near East Region}.” Master Thesis, Damanhour University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 2006

- al-Ṣafā, Mohamed Jabir, Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil (History of Jabal Amil). Beirut: nd.

- al-Tahawy, Hatem, al-‘Eqtiṣādal-alīby fi Bilād al-Shām (The Crusader Economy in the Levant). Cairo: ‘Ein for Humain and Social Studies, 1999.

- Ṣawafi, Ṭālib Abd al-Fattah “al-Qilā‘a fi Shamāl Filisṭīn 1099-1291/492-691(The Castles in the North of Palestine1099-1291/492-691).” Master thesis, Yarmouk University, Faculty of Arts, Jordan: 1997.

- Taqy al-Faqīah, Mohammed, Jabal ʿĀmil fi al-Tārīkh (Jabal Amil in the History). Beirut: Dār-al-Āḍūāʾ , 1986.

- Thabit, Iman Kamal, "al-Qilā‘a al-Ṣalībīah fi Bilaad al-Shāām fi al-Qarn al-Thalith ‘Ashr al-Mīlady (The Crusader Castles in the Levant in Thirteenth Century)." Master thesis, ‘Ein Shams University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt: 2009.

- al-Zein, Ali, Llbaḥth ͑an Tārīkhanā fi Lebnān (Search for our History in Lebanon). Beirut: 1973.

- Ẓāhir, Sulaymān, Muʻjam Qurá Jabal ʻĀmil (Lexicon of the Villages of Jabal Amil), vol. 2. Lebanon: 2006.

Western references:

- Bayer. G., “Die Kreuzfahrergebiete von Jerusalem und St.Abraham (Hebron),” in Z.D.P.V. LXV, 1942.

- Baldwin, Marshall W., Raymond III of Tripoli and the Fall of Jerusalem 1140-1187. Amsterdam: 1969.

- - - -, "The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem 1174-1189,” In Setton, vol. 1. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp, 590-621.

- - - -, "Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric 1143-1174, "in Setton, vol. 1. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp, 528-562.

- Bishop, Adam M.“Criminal Law and the Development of the Assizes of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century”. PhD. Diss., Center of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 2011.

- Boas, J., Adrian, Domestic Settings: Sources on Domestic Architecture and Day-to-Day Activities in the Crusader States. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010.

- - - - , Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

- - - -, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Frankish Period: A Unique Medieval Society Emerges.” Near Eastern Archaeology, vol. 61, no.3, Sep. 1998. pp. 138-173. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210688.

- Cole J, Penny, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of America, 1991.

- Daftary, Farhad, The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines . England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

- Deschamps, Paul , Les Chateaux des Croises en Terre-Sainte, la Defense du Royaume de Jerusalem, II. Paris: 1939.

- Donovan P., Joseph, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade. United Sates: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950.

- Edbury, W. Peter, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.Uk, Woodbridge: the Boydell Press, 1997.

- Edbury W., Peter and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre, Historian of the Latin East. UK: Cambridge University press, 1988.

- Ellenblum, Ronnie, Crusader Castles and Modern Historians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

- Faris, Nabih Amin “Arabic Culture in Twelfth Century,” in Setton, vol. V. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985. Pp. 3-32.

- Fedden, Robin , The Castles of the Crusades: a Brief Study in the Military Architecture of the Crusaders. London: 1950.

- Gibb, Hamilton A. R., "The Career of Nūr-ad-Din."in Setton, vol. I. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 563-89.

- Gabrieli, Francesco, Arab Historians of the Crusades, Translated from the Italian by E.J.Costello. USA and Canada: Routledge, 2010.

- Grousset, Renė, Histoire des Croisades, et du Royaume France de Jerusalem, Tomes 1-3. Paris: 1948.

- Hamilton, Bernard, The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2000.

- - - -, “The Elephant of Christ, Reynald of Chatillon.” In Monastic Reform Catharism and the Crusades 900- 1300. London: 1979.

- Hardwicke, Mary, "The Crusader States, 1192-1243,"in Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 522-556.

- Hodgson R., Natasha, Women,Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007.

- Hurlock, Kathryn, Wales and the Crusades 1095-1291. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2011.

- Hubatsch, Walther, "Montfort und die Bildung des Deutschordensstaates im Heiligen Lande,"Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse,1966.

- Jacoby, David, “The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Collapse of Hohenstaufen Power in the Levant,” Dumbarton, vol. 40, 1986. Pp.83-101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291530

- Jackson, Peter, "The Crusade Against the Mongols (1241),"Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 42, no. 1, January-1991.

- - - -, “The Crusades of 1239-41 and Their Aftermath,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London, vol. 50, no. 1, 1987. Pp. 32-60 http://www.jstor.org/stable/616893?origin=JSTOR-pdf

- - - -, "The End of Hohenstaufen Rule in Syria,"Historical Research, vol. 59, issue 139, 1986. Pp. 20-36.

- - - -, "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260,"The English Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 376, July, 1980. Pp. 481-513. http://www.jstor.org/stable/568054?origin=JSTOR-pdf

- Johnson, Edger N., “The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI,” in: Setton, vol II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1977. Pp. 87-122.

- Kinnamos, John, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, translated by Charles M. Brand. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

- Kostick, Conor , The Crusades and the Near East: Cultural Histories. London and New York: Rutledge, 2011.

- Lower, Michael, "The Burning at Mont-Aime´: Thibaut of Champagne’s Preparations for the Barons’ Crusade of 1239,"Journal of Medieval History 29, 2003. Pp. 95–108. www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist

- La Monte, John L. , Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1100 to 1291. USA: the Medieval Academy of America, 1932.

- Mallett, Alex, “The Battle of Inab,” Journal of Medieval History, vol. 39, no. 1, 2013. Pp. 48–60.

- Madden, Thomas F., ed. Crusades: the Illustrated History. USA: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

- Mayer, Hans E., “The Latin East, 1098–1205,” in New C.M.H., vol. II, Part II, Cambridge University, 2008. Pp. 644-674.

- - - -, “DieHerrschaftsbildung inHebron.” Z.D.P.V, vol. 101, 1985.

- - - -, “Ibelin Versus Ibelin: The Struggle for the Regency of Jerusalem 1253-1258,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 122, no. , Feb. 15, 1978. Pp.25-57

- - - -, “Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem,” in Dumbarton, vol. 26, 1972. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291317.

- Marcombe, David, Leper Knights: The Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, C1150-1544(Studies in the History of Medieval Religion).Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004.

- Markowski, Michael, "Crucesignatus: Its Origins and Early Usage,” Journal of Medieval History 10, 1984. Pp. 157- 165.

- Murry, Alan V., ed., The Crusades an Encyclopedia. United States: Library of Congress, 2006.

- Nicolle, David, Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1192-1302. Oxford: 2005 .

- Nader, Marwan, Burgesses and Burgess Law in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus (1099-1325). England, USA; Ashgate, 2006.

- Nicholson, Robert Lawrence, Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States 1134-199. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1973.

- Powicke, F. M., "Guy de Montfort (1265-71),” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, Vol. 18 (1935), Pp. 1-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678601 .

- Painter, Sidney “The Crusade of Theobald of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall 1239-01241,” in Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 463-486.

- Piana, Mathias, "Die Burg Toron (Qal’at Tibnīn) Im Südlichen Libanon"in Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit: Studien zur international Architektur-und Kunstgeschichte 65. Michael Imhof Verlag, Petersberg, 2008.

- - - - , “The Crusader Castle of Toron: First Results of its Investigation,” in SSCLE, vol. 5, 2006.

- Pringle, Denys, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: a Corpus, vol. 2: L-Z. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

- - - - , Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

- Prawer, Joshua, Social Classes in the Crusader States: the Minorities, in Setton, vol. V. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985. Pp. 59-116.

- - - - , Crusader Institutions. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1980.

- - - - , The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972.

- Rey, E.C, les Familles d’Outer-Mer de Cange. Paris: 1869.

- Regan, Geoffrey, Lion Hearts: Saladin and Richard I. Constable. London: 1998.

- Raphael, Sarah, Climate and Political Climate: Environmental Disasters in the Medieval Levant. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.

- Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

- - - -, the Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem 1174-1277. London: Macmillan press, 1973.

- - - -, “The Assise Sur la Ligece and the Commune of Acre,"Tradito, vol. 27, 1971. Pp. 180-205 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27830920.

- - - -, The Knights of St.John in Jerusalem and Cyprus 1050-1310. London: Macmillan Press, 1967.

- Russell, Josiah Cox, “The Population of the Crusader States,” in Setton, vol. V. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985. Pp. 295-312.

- - - -, Medieval Regions and Their Cities. Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1972

- Richard, Jean, “Agriculture Conditions in the Crusader States,” in Setton, vol. V. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985. Pp. 251-294

- - - - , The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vols. A, B. translated Janet Shirley. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company, 1979.

- Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. USA: Cambridge University Press, 15thed, 1995.

- - - -, “The Crusader States 1243-1291,” in Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 557- 598

- Slack K. Corliss , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades: Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest, no. 25. Lanham, Maryland, and Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003.

- Smail R. C., Crusading warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2nded, 1995.

- ـــ ـــ ــــــــ, " Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century ," Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, 1951. Pp. 133-149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021083?origin=JSTOR-pdf

- Strayer R., Joseph, "The political Crusade of Thirteenth Century ," in Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 343-76

- Tibble, Steven, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Oxford University Press: 1989.

- Turner, Ralph V. and Richard H. Heise , The Reign of Richard Lion heart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199. Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000.

- Valente, Claire "Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the Utility of Sanctity in Thirteenth-Century England,"Journal of Medieval History, 21, 1995. Pp, 27-49

- Van-Cleve, Thomas C. “The Crusade of Frederick II,” in Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 377-420.

- - - -, “The Crusade of Frederick II,” In Setton, vol. II. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969. Pp. 429- 462.

[...]


[1] Kathryn Hurlock, Wales and the Crusades 1095-1291 (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2011), p. 1.

[2] Aly Ahmed Mohamed al-Sayed, al-Khalīl wa al-Haram al-Ibrāhīmī fi ‘Aṣr al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah AH 492- 583 / AD 1099-1187 (Hebron in the Age of the Crusades) (Cairo, Dar al-fikr al-‘Araby, 1998), p. 13.

[3] Yàkut al- Hamawy, Mu‘egam al-Buldān {Lexicon Countries}, ed. Farid Abdel Aziz El Gendy, vol. 2 (Beirut: 1990), p. 14.

[4] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2 (USA: Cambridge University Press, 15th ed., 1995), p. 95; Ronnie Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Historians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), Pp. 112, 135.

[5] Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Pp. 16-17.

[6] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 40.

[7] ‘Izz ad-Din Ibn-al-Athīr, Kītāb al-Kāmil fi al-Tārīkh, ed. Mohamed Yusuf, 11 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmyah, 4th ed, 2003).

[8] Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, translated from the Italian by E.J.Costello (USA and Canada: Rutledge, 2010), the introductory chapter: the authors and works, p. XXII; al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 43.

[9] Abū Y‘alī Ḥamzah al-Tīmimy Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq ( Beirut: 1908).

[10] Bahaa al-Din Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah wa al-Maḥāsin al-Yūsofīah, ed. Jamal al-Dīn al-Shīal (Cario: Maktabat aL-Khndjy, 2nd ed, 1994).

[11] ‘Imad al-Dīnal-Ᾱṣfahānī , al-Fatḥ al-Qussī fi al-Fatḥ al-Qudsī, ed. Mohamed Subaih (Cario: Dar al-Manār, 1sted, 2004).

[12] ‘Imad al-Dīn al-Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Barq al-Shāmī. ed. Falih Salih Husain, vols. 3,5 (Jordon: 1987).

[13] al-Fatḥ Ibn Ali al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī, ed. Fatḥīah al-Nabrawy (Cario: Maktabat al-Khanjy, 1979).

[14] Shīhab al-Din Abū-Shāmah al-Maqdīsy, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn fi Akhbār al-Daūlataīn al-Nūrīah wa al-Ṣalihīah, ed. Ahmed al-Besomy, 2 vols. (Damascus: 1991).

[15] Shīhab al-Din Abū-Shāmah al-Maqdīsy , Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, ed. Mohammed Zahid Ibn-al-Hassan ( Beriut-Lebenon: Dar al-Jīal, 2nd ed, 1974).

[16] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 47.

[17] Taqi al-Din al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-M ̔arifa Duwal al-Mulūk, ed. Muhammad abd al-Qadir ‘Ata, vols. 1, 2. (Beriut-Lebenon: Dar al-Kutub al-‘lmyah, 1997).

[18] Ibid , vol.1, Pp. 253, 329, 351,407.

[19] Ibn-Jubair Muhammad, al-Riḥlah, ( Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, nd).

[20] Badr al-Dīn al-‘Ainī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān fi Tārīkh Āhl al-Zamān, ed. Mahmud Rizq, 4 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub wa al-Wathāiq al-Qaūmīah, 2nd ed, 2010).

[21] William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. E. A.Bacock and A.C.Krey, 2 vols. (New York: 1943).

[22] Peter W. Edbury and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre, Historian of the Latin East (Uk: Cambridge University Press, 1988), Pp. 15-18; Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 6-7.

[23] Margaret Ruth Morgan, ed. La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyre (1184-1197) (Paris: Librairie Orientalist Paul Geuthner, 1982).

[24] Peter W. Edbury, trans., "The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre 1184-97,"in the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (USA: Ashgate, 2nd ed, 1998), Pp. 11-145.

[25] Reinhold Röhricht, Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII –MCCXCI) (Libraria Academica Wageriana: 1893) with Supplement (1904).

[26] Ernestus Strehlke, ed., Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici (Berlin: 1869).

[27] Philip de Novare, The Wars of Frederick II against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus, trans. John la Monte (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936).

[28] Renē de Mas Latrie, M., ed., Chroniques d’Amadi ET de Stramaldi, part 1 (Paris: Imprimerie National, 1889).

[29] Edward Robinson, E. Smith, and Others, "Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions,"Journal of Travels in the Year of 1852, ed. Robinson (Boston, London: Crocker and Brewster: 1856).

[30] Claude R. Conder and Horatio H. Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology, 1: Galilee, ed. E. H. Palmer and Walter Besant (London: 1881).

[31] Mathias Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron: First Results of its Investigation,” SSCLE, vol. 5, (2006).

[32] Mathias Piana, "Die Burg Toron (Qal’at Tibnīn) Im Südlichen Libanon"in Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit: Studien zur international Architektur-und Kunstgeschichte 65 (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2008).

[33] This study is a PhD dissertation by Aly al-Sayed, Faculty of Arts, Alexandria University, Egypt, which was published in 1998 by Dar al-Fikr al-‘Araby, Cairo-Egypt.

[34] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, Pp. 142, 149.

[35] Aly Ahmed al-Sayed, “Himfirī al-Rābia Saaīd Tibnīn (Humphrey IV of Tibnīn),” in Mijalit al-Mū ʾ arikh al-Masrī (Journal of the Egyptian Historian). Cairo University, (July-2008).

[36] Nabih Amin Faris, “Arabic Culture in Twelfth Century,” in Setton, vol. V (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985), p. 3.

[37] Ismā ͑īl ibn-͑Ali Abū-al-Fidā, al-Mukhta ṣar fi Ākhbār al-Bashar (The Summary of the History of People, vol. 1. ed. Mohammed Zenhom et al (Cairo: Dar al-Mā ͑arif, nd), p. 133; Mohamed Jabir al-Ṣafā, Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil {History of Jabal Amil }( Beirut: nd),p. 24; Ali al-Zein, Llbaḥth ͑an Tārīkhanā fi Lebnān (Search for our History in Lebanon) ( Beirut: 1973), p. 25.

[38] Mohammed Taqy al-Faqīah, Jabal ʿĀmil fi al- Tārīkh (Jabal Amil in the History) (Beirut: Dār-al-Āḍūāa̕ , 1986), p. 18.

[39] This map is taken from the current official website of the Town of Tibnīn. http://www.tibneen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=22.

[40] Muḥsan al-Āmīn, Khuṯaṯ Jabil ‘Amil , ed. Ḥassan al-Āmīn, vol.1 (Beirut: al-Enṣāf Press, 1983), p. 108; Taqy al-Faqīah, Jabal ʿĀmil, Pp. 15, 18.

[41] Sulaymān Ẓāhir, Muʻjam Qurá Jabal ʻĀmil{ Lexicon of the Villages of Jabal Amil}, vol. 2, (Lebanon: 2006), p. 169.

[42] al- Hamawy, Mu‘egam al-Buldān, vol. 2, p. 14.

[43] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p.173.

[44] William of Tyre, vol.I, p. 469; Denys Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p.102.

[45] Robinson, "Later Biblical Researches in Palestine,” p. 57.

[46] Josiah Cox Russell, “The Population of the Crusader States,” in Setton, vol. V (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985), Pp. 296-299.

[47] Sarah Kate Raphael, Climateand Political Climate: Environmental Disasters in the Medieval Levant (Leiden. Boston: Brill, 2013), p. 32.

[48] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah, p. 274.

[49] Josiah Cox Russell, Medieval Regions and Their Cities (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1972), p. 200; Russell, J. “The Population of the Crusader States,” p. 305.

[50] Russell, Medieval Regions, Pp. 205-06.

[51] Russell, “The Population of the Crusader States,” Pp. 307-308; Russell, Medieval Regions, p. 206.

[52] Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), Pp. 146-48.

[53] Willam of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 19-20.

[54] Joshua Prawer, “Social Classes in the Crusader States: the Minorities, in Setton, vol. V (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985), Pp. 61-62.

[55] al-Ṣafā,M., Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil, p. 25 ; Taqy al-Faqīah, Jabal ʿĀmil, Pp. 34-40.

[56] R.C. Smail, Crusading Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2ed., 1195), Pp. 52-53.

[57] Piana, M., "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 175.

[58] Robinson, "Later Biblical Researches,” p. 59. Metāwilech(المتاولة) are the Muslim Shiites who lived in Jabal Amil See: Nawal Fayyaḍ, Ṣafaḥāt min Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil fi al-͑Ahdīn al-͑ Osmâniyye wa al-Farancy{ Form the History of Jabal Amil in the Ottoman and French Era}, ( Lebanon- Beirut: 1998), p. 14.

[59] Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn Abd-al-Moneim Ali,"al-Rīīf fi Bilād al-Shāām 1099-1192 / 492-588 (The Countryside in the Levant 1099-1192 / 492-588)."( PhD.diss., ‘Ain Shams University, Faculty of Arts, Cairo, 2007), Pp. 250-256; al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 328.

[60] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādir, p. 304; Abū-al-Yaman al- ‘Ualaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, vol 1, p. 379 .

[61] Aly Ahmed al-Sayed ,"Emārit al-Jālīl Taḥt Ḥukm al-Latīn wa Durha al-Sīāsī fi al-Ṣirā‘a al-Ṣalībī al-Islāmī 1099-1154 / 492-549, (The Principality of Galilee under the Latin Rule and Its Political Role in the Crusader-Islamic Conflict in the Levant)."(Master Thesis, Alexandria University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 1988),Pp. 327-28; "Jabal Amel: The Cradle of Knowledge and the Land of Freedom", Noor al-Islam: Islamic Cultural Magazine (Beirut, Lebanon: Imam Hussain Foundation). 6th Year (2000: No. 71-72), p. 3.

[62] Renė Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, et du Royaume France de Jerusalem, tome 1 (Paris: 1948) p.484 ; al-Sayed , “al-Jālīl,”Pp. 327-28

[63] Russell, “The Population of the Crusader States,” p. 304.

[64] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah , Pp. 274-75 .

[65] Hatem al-Tahawy, al-‘Eqtiṣādal-alīby fi Bilād al-Shām{The Crusader Economy in the Levant} (Cairo: ‘Ein for Human and Social Studies, 1999), p. 196.

[66] al- Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Fatḥ al-Qussī, Pp. 58-59; al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī, p. 296.

[67] Raphael, S., Climate and Political Climate, p. 38; al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 321.

[68] al-‘Ainī ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. II, Pp. 120-21.

[69] Morgan, La Continuation de Guillaume, Pp, 187, 195-97.

[70] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 247.

[71] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol. 1, Pp. 353-54.

[72] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk , vol. II, p. 36; Adrian J. Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East (London and New York: Rutledge, 1999), p. 5.

[73] Jean Richard, “Agriculture Conditions in the Crusader States,” in Setton, vol. V (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1985), Pp. 251, 253.

[74] al-Fqiah, Jabal ͑Amil, p. 9.

[75] Richard, J., “Agriculture Conditions,” p. 253.

[76] William of Tyre, vol. I, p. 469.

[77] al-Fqiah, Jabal ͑Amil, Pp. 28-30.

[78] Robinson et al, "Later Biblical Researches in Palestine," p. 57.

[79] abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah fi Mulūk Misr wa al-Qāhirah (The Brilliant Stars in the History of Kings of Egypt and Cairo), ed. Mohamed Hassan Shams- al-Dīn, vol. 5 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmyah,1992), Pp.178-180; Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 178.

[80] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 230.

[81] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, p. 146

[82] Richard, J., “Agriculture Conditions,” p. 254.

[83] Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 54.

[84] Grousset, Croisades, vol.1,p.484 ; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 327-28

[85] Nawal Fayyaḍ, Ṣafaḥāt min Tārīkh Jabal ʿĀmil, Pp. 19-20.

[86] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah, p. 274.

[87] Richard, J., “Agriculture Conditions,” p. 254, 257-258.

[88] Raphael, S., Climate and Political Climate, p. 32.

[89] Richard, J., “Agriculture Conditions,” Pp. 259-61.

[90] Ibid, p. 263-64.

[91] Raphael, S., Climate and Political Climate, p. 37.

[92] Adel Abd al-Hafiz al-Banna, Āsūāq al-Sām fi ‘Aṣr al-Ḥurūb al-Ṣalībīah 1099-1291{The Markets of the Levant in the Period of the Crusades} (Cairo: ‘Ein for Human and Social Studies, 2007), p. 19.

[93] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 193

[93] PaulDeschamps, Les Chateaux des Croises en Terre-Sainte, la Defense du Royaume de Jerusalem, II. (Paris: 1939), p. 112.

[95] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah , p. 242, 274; Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 54.

[96] al-Banna, Āsūāq al-Sām, p. 59.

[97] Richard, “Agriculture Conditions,” Pp. 255, 256.

[98] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah , Pp. 273-75.

[99] Robinson, "Later Biblical Researches,” p. 59.

[100] al-Tahawy, al-‘Eqtiṣādal-alīby, Pp. 131-133, 196-97. Lent is (Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity the period of forty weekdays lasting from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday, observed as a time of penance and fasting commemorating Jesus' fasting in the wilderness.

[101] al-Banna, A., Āsūāq al-Sām, Pp. 38-39.

[102] John La Monte , Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1100 to 1291 (USA: the Medieval Academy of America, 1932), p. 174.

[103] al-Tahawy, al-‘Eqtiṣādal-alīby, p. 163 ; Joshua Prawer , The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972), p. 391.

[104] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem 1174-1277 (London: Macmillan Press, 1973), Pp. 27-65; Hans Mayer, “Ibelin versus Ibelin: The Struggle for the Regency of Jerusalem 1253-1258,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 122, no. 1 (Feb. 15, 1978), p. 50.http://www.jstor.org/stable/986261.

[105] al-Tahawy, al-‘Eqtiṣādal-alīby, p. 162 ; Prawer, The Latin Kingdom, Pp. 384, 390-91.

[106] Ibid,p. 162 ; Ibid, p. 391.

[108] Peter W. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Uk, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), p. 91.

[108] Mayer, H., “Ibelin versus Ibelin,” p. 48.

[109] William of Tyre, vol. I, p. 469; Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 2: L-Z (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 367.

[110] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p.173.

[111] Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), p.146; al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p.126.

[112] Conder and Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, Pp. 133-34.

[113] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 177.

[114] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah , p. 274; al-Faqīah, Jabal ʿĀmil, Pp. 22-23.

[115] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 95; Ellenblum, Crusader Castles, Pp. 112, 135.

[116] Saeīd ‘Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah ( The Crusade Movement ), vol. 1(Cairo: 1963), p. 291

[117] Ṭālib Abd al-Fattah Ṣawafi, “al-Qilā‘a fi Shamāl Filisṭīn 1099-1291/492-691{The Castle in the North of Palestine},” Master thesis, Yarmouk University, Faculty of Arts, Jordan: 1997), Pp. 85-86, 110-112; David Nicolle, Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1192-1302 ( Oxford: 2005), p. 39.

[118] R. C. Smail, "Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century ," Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. 10, no. 2 (1951), p. 133. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021083?origin=JSTOR-pdf.

[119] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 205, 256.

[120] Adrian J. Boas, Domestic Settings: Sources on Domestic Architecture and Day-to-Day Activities in the Crusader States ( Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010), p. 33.

[121] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 185; Piana, "Die Burg Toron,”p. 406.

[122] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 156.

[123] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk , vol. I, p. 351.Piana, “ The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 174.

[124] Conder and Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, p. 135.

[125] Robinson et al, "Later Biblical Researches in Palestine," Pp. 58-59.

[126] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” Pp. 184-85.

[127] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p.182.

[128] The term “crusade” was first used by Pope Innocent III in the fourth Lateran in 1215, who preached for the Fifth Crusade and used the term "crucesignatus”. When Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade, he used a phrase that sounds much similar to the word Crusade, i.e. "Crucesignatus", but which does not mean crusade . He described the Latin forces destined for the Levant in his speech as "hominum multitudo cruce signata." This phrase was not the same as the term that later came to mean “crusade”, but the term of crux and signare together was uncommon at this time. Moreover, Archbishop Simeon wrote a letter during the blockade of the city of Antioch in 1097, and he mentioned those who took the vow of the crusade, but they did not embark yetas “quicumque fuerint sancta cruce signati". This means that while Pope Urban II did preach for a crusade, he did not mention directly the word “crusade” in his speech. Thus at the beginning of the crusade movement, the term of the crusade was uncommon and not used until 1215. Markowski, "Crucesignatus: Its Origins and Early Usage,"Journal of Medieval History 10 ( 1984), p. 158.

[129] Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, trans. Frances Rita Ryan, Sisters of St. Joseph, ed. with an Introduction by Harold's Fink (USA: University of Tennessee Press, 1969), Pp, 3, 91-92.

[130] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p . 97.

[131] Conor Kostick, The Crusades and the Near East: Cultural Histories (London and New York: Rutledge, 2011), p. 7.

[132] They reached the city of Jerusalem on the 6th of July, 1099/ 14 of Rajab 492.

[133] The predominant inhabitants of Bethlehem were Christians. al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 102

[134] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 15-17; al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, Pp.101-102.

[135] Ibn-al-Jauzī, al-Muntaʐam fi Tārīkh al-Umamm wa al-Mulūk { In the History of Nations and Kings}, ed. Mohamed ‘Ata, Mustafa ‘Ata ,vol. 17 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutuob al-’Ilmyah,1992), p.43.

[136] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, p.19.

[137] Guibert de Nogent, The Deeds of God through theFranks "Gesta Dei per Francos", trans. Robert Levine (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), p. 130.

[138] al-Fuqaha’ “الفقهــــاء” means the most illustrious and the biggest religion scholars in the Islamic state at that time.

[139] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, p. 20.

[140] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p.102.

[141] William of Tyre, vol 1. p. 399; Grousset, Croisades, tome. 1, Pp. 179-180.

[142] al-Sayed, “al-Jālīl,” Pp. 99-101. ; Grousset, Croisades, vol. I, p. 179.

[143] Mohamed Kurd Ali, Khuṭaṭ al-Shām (Sham's Maps), vol. 1 (Damascus: 1925), p. 283. ; Al-Sayed, al-Jālīl, p.102.

[144] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, Pp.20-21. ; Ibn-al-Jauzī , al-Muntaẓam, vol. 17, p. 47.

[145] G. Bayer, "Die Kreuzfahrergebiete von Jerusalem und St.Abraham (Hebron)," Z.D.P.V. LXV (1942): Pp, 170-71.

[146] Abd-al-Moneim, “al-Rīf fi Bilād al-Shām,” p.55.

[147] Hugh ofSaint-Omer belonged to a prestigious family and perhaps this led to his prominent position in the Holy Land. His father was a Castlin of the castle of Saint Omer, and his mother Mislesende belonged to the family dynasty of Charles the Great. Cf. Rey E.C, Les Familles d’Outer-Mer de Cange (Paris: 1869), p. 444.

[148] William of Tyre, vol. 1, p.469; Pringle, Secular Buildings, p. 102.

[149] Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croises, p. 118.

[150] Piana, “The Crusader Castle of Toron,”P. 173.

[151] Ibn-al-QaLānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 151; Piana, “The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 173.

[152] Ibn-al-QaLānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh, p. 151.

[153] Steven Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), Pp. 13-14.

[154] Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana [ History of the Journey to Jerusalem], ed. and trans. Susan B.Edgington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Pp.724-25

[155] Jean Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol .A, trans. Janet Shirley(Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company, 1979), p. 86.

[156] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 19,20.

[157] Grousset, Croisades, tome. 1, p. 284 ; al-Sayed, ″ al-Jālīl, ″ Pp.132-40.

[158] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 20.

[159] al-Sayed, “al-Jālīl,” p. 178.

[160] Röhricht, Regesta (1893 ), Doc. 79, p. 18.

[161] Ṣafāa Osman ‘Aāmer, Mamlakiat Baīt al-Maqdis fi Ὰhd al-Mālik Baldwin II {The Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Age of King Baldwin II} (Cairo: Dār al-Ὰlām al-‘Arabī,2008), p. 164.

[162] Piana, “ The Crusader Castle Toron,” p. 174.

[163] Röhricht, Regesta , ( 1904), Doc. 90a, p. 6.

[164] Ibid,(1893), Doc.105, p. 25.

[165] M.Eugène de Rozière, ed. Cartulaire de L'Eglise du Saint Sepulcre de Jerusalem (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849), Doc. 44, Pp. 81-82.

[166] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 87.

[167] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 87; Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 33.

[168] William of Tyre , vol II, 185.

[169] Röhricht , Regesta (1893), Doc. 251, p. 63; De Marsy Le Comte, ed. "Fragment d'un Cartulaire de L'ordre de ST.Lazare en terre sainte", en : A.O.L, tome II, 2 ( Paris: 1882).p. 127.

[170] Tibble, Monarchy, Pp.70-71.

[171] Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, le Cartulaire du Chapitre du Saint –Sepulcre de Jerusalem (Paris:Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1984), Doc, 110, Pp. 230-231 ; Rôhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 169. p, 42.

[172] Ibid, Doc. 113, Pp. 233-234; Ibid, Doc. 265-66, Pp. 67.

[173] Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 33.

[174] HansMayer, “DieHerrschaftsbildung inHebron,” Z.D.P.V, vol. 101(1985),: Pp.70-74; Bayer, “Die Kreuzfahrergebiete,”Pp, 171-74.

[175] Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 33.

[176] "The Constable was the chief military officer of the Kingdom of Jeusalem,” and he held a huge powers. According to the ''Livre au roi'', the Constable presided over the Haute Court, the land's highest assembly, whenever the king was absent". He was king-person of the army, and he was in charge of the appointment of the commanders of the various army subdivisions. He was a commander to a group twice the size of the others and led the vanguard of the heavily armed knights. He was responsible for military justice in the army. Cf. Hans Mayer, “Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem,” in Dumbarton, vol. 26 (1972): p.116 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291317.

[177] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 205; Marshall.W.Baldwin, "Latin States under Baldwin III and Amalric 1143-1174, "in Setton, vol. 1 (Madison, Milwaukee and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 535.

[178] William of Tyre, vol. II, p.204;Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, Pp. 334-335 ; Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” p. 98 .

[179] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 156.

[180] Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” Pp. 95, 168; La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 18.

[181] William of Tyre, vol II, p. 205 ; Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” p. 95.

[182] Adam M. Bishop , “Criminal Law and the Development of the Assizes of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century” (PhD diss, Center of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 2011), p. 3.

[183] Hans Mayer, “The Latin East, 1098–1205” , New C. M. H., vol II, part II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 654.

[184] Rozière, Cartulaire de L'Eglise,Doc.51, 53, p. 93, 97.

[185] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 264-265 ; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, p. 350 ; Bishop , ″ Criminal Law,″p. 3.

[186] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 156-57.

[187] William of Tyre called Humphrey III, the younger Humphrey, but he was called Humphrey III of Toron in the history of the Crusades in general. Cf. William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 401.

[188] Banyas was located at the foot of a mountain in Lebanon and was an very ancient city. It was called Dan in very early times.“It is also known as Paneas, but our Latinas corrupted the name, as was generally their custom with names of cities, and called it Belinas."Cf. William of Tyre, vol. II, p.309

[189] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 256,309 ; Tibble, Monarchy, p. 15.

[190] It known as Castellum Novum or Qal‘at Hunin and located on the Damascus-Tyre road in the north of Galilee, overlooking Banyas andthe upper Jordan Valley. Perhaps Hugh of Fauquembergues, Lord of Tiberias, built it. See: Alan V. Murry, ed. The Crusades an Encyclopedia (United States: Library of Congress, 2006), p. 241; Tibble, Monarchy, p. 13

[191] Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 325, Pp. 83-84.

[192] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 256.

[193] Tibble, Monarchy, Pp.17- 18 .

[194] Transjordan fief was about five thousand square kilometers including Kark, Montroyal {الشوبك: al-Shobak}, valley of Musa, and Tafalh. It extended from Amman to Aqaba, for three hundred kilometers, and from al-Kerak to Khalil, Hebron, about sixty kilometers . See: Deschamps, les Chateaux des Croises, p.49

[195] William of Tyre, vol II, p.401 ; Grousset, des Croisades, vol II, p. 554.

[196] Strehlke, Tab. ord. Theutonici, Doc.3, p. 4; Tibble, Monarchy, p. 89.

[197] Tibble, Monarchy, p. 89.

[198] Rozière, Cartulaire de L'Eglise, Doc. 54,144.Pp, 107, 262.

[199] Röhricht , Regesta (1893) Doc. 454. ; Mayer, “Hebron,” Pp. 76-77.

[200] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 149.

[201] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 23; al-Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Barq al-Shāmī, Pp. 148-49.

[202] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 401 ;Mayer , “Hebron,” Pp. 73,76

[203] Kerak and Montréal (al-Shūbuk) were a castles and towns in Transjordan, and were very fortified crusader strongholds, but later the Ayyubids held them. Cf. Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, Pp. 706, 853.

[204] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 451; Robert L. Nicholson, Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States 1134-1199 (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1973), p. 91.

[205] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p.159-60

[206] Ibid, p. 159-60.

[207] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 386-88.

[208] Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 89.

[209] He was supported in his application to be the regent by the major barons of the kingdom, including Humphrey II of Tibnīn, Balian of Ibelin, and Rayland of Sidon who was the husband of Agnes of Courtenay, the King's mother, at that time. See; Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 89.

[210] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 401; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 405.

[211] He was a crusader knight, and his life could be summarized in two phases; first, he was a Frankish crusader knight who came to the Levant and joined the army of King Baldwin III. Then, he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, and became an illustrious noble. But the Muslims captured him and held him prisoner from 1160-76 / 555-72. Secondly, when he was released from the captivity, he married Stephanie de Milly, mother of Humphrey in November 1177. This enabled him to rise again to become one of the most powerful Crusaders nobles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 284,414 ; Mayer, “The Latin East,” p. 660

[212] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 416-17.

[213] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, Pp. 151, 160-61.

[214] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 416-17; Hamilton, The Leper King, Pp. 88- 89.

[215] He was the brother of Queen Agnes of Courtenay, mother of Baldwin IV and Sibylla. Nicholson, Joscelyn III, p. 94. For more information about his role in the age of the Crusades: Cf. Nicholson, Joscelyn III and the Fall of the Crusader States 1134-1199.

[216] Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 553; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 416-17.

[217] al-‘Aynī,‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 1, Pp. 272-73; Myriam Greilsammer, ed. Le Livre au Roi (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 1995), p. 90.

[218] al-Aynī , al-Jumān, vol. 1, p. 272-73.

[219] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, p. 93

[220] al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī, p.312. ; Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, p. 148. This is the Arabic original text, Humphrey was named “ابن الهنفري أو ابن الهنغري“ and his mother “البرنسيسة أم الهنفري”.

[221] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sū lṭanīah, p.274.

[222] Ernoul, La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Teresorier, ed. Bernard le Trésorier (Paris: 1871), p. 267; Roger of Hovden, Annals of Roger Hovden: Comprising History of England and other Countries of Europe from 732-1201 A.D, vol. II, tran. from Latin with notes by Henry T.Riley ( London: 1883), P.172

[223] Ernoul, Pp. 267-68.

[224] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, Pp. 441-442.

[225] Grousset,II, Croisades, p. 691.

[226] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 452. As William of Tyre said that Humphrey IV received nominally the territory of Tyre, so it is believed that this means the territories and the neighborhoods between the city of Tyre and Tibnīn, meaning that he and his grandfather did not rule the city of Tyre.

[227] al-Sayed, “Himfirī al-Rābia,” p. 5.

[228] Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 606, 615. ; Mayer, “Hebron,” Pp. 77-78.

[229] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 452; Ernoul,Pp. 81-82.

[230] Ibn-Jubaīr, al-Riḥlah , p.274.

[231] Mayer, “The Latin East,” p. 661.

[232] Strehlke, Tab. ord. Theutonici, Doc. 21, p. 19 ; Tibble, Monarchy, Pp.90-91, 97.

[233] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p.161.

[234] Mayer, “Hebron,” p. 67.

[235] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 422; Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 167.

[236] Isabelle’s mother, Maria Comnen, married Balian Ibelin, one of the senior nobles in the Latin East, after the death of Amaury I. The Ibelin family played an important role in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. See, William of Tyre, vol. II, p, 459.

[237] Greilsammer M. ed. Le Livre au Roi, p. 84;Röhrecht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 596, p. 159.

[238] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 459.

[239] Ibid; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, Pp. 424-25.

[240] al-bindārī, Sanā al-Barq, p.160; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp.401,459. al-Ᾱṣfahānī described the Muslims´ attempts to kill the King; The King fell down and the Muslims injured his horse, then Humphrey came to protect him….etc.This is the Arabic original text "وطلب أصحابنا طلب الملك فوفروا سهامه من السهام وظفروا اللتوت بالهام الهام وما ترك مماليكنا الترك الملك حتى طرحوا حصانه وجرحوا فرسانه فحمل طل هنفري ليحميه وأبى اله أنه كما رمي الملك الا أن يرميه وقتل دونهما رهان صاحب الناصرة وجماعة من مقدميهم رموا بالفاقرة ونجا الملك بجريعة"al-Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Barq al-Shāmī, vol. 3, p. 150.

[241] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, Pp. 424-25.

[242] Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 628, p. 166; De Marsy, ed., "Fragment d'un Cartulaire de L'ordre de St. Lazare," p. 146; Delaville le roulx, Cartulaire General de l' order des Hospitaliers de St Jean de Jerusalem (1100-1310), vol. II (Paris:1894), p. 146.

[243] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p.163.

[244] Ibid

[245] al-Sayed, “Himfirī,” p. 7.

[246] Guy of Lusignan was a son of Hugh VIII of Lusignan, a nobleman from Poitou in Southern France. In 1180, he was proposed as a husband for Sibylla by his brother Aimery, who came to the Levant in 1174. Sibylla was the elder sister of Baldwin IV, King of Jerusalem, (born ca. 1161). See. Peter. W. Edbury, trans., “The Marriage of Guy of Lusignan and Sibylla (1180)", in the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (USA: Ashgate, 2nd ed, 1998), Pp. 149- 51.

[247] Ernoul, Pp. 59-60. ; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p. 766; Edbury, “The Marriage,” p. 151.

[248] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 503.

[249] He was Sybilla’s son from and her firsthusband William of Montferrat, and born in the winter of 1177–1178. Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, p. 139.

[250] For more information about the role of Raymond III in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during this period and his relation with Humphrey‘s dynasty: Cf. Marshall W.Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem 1140 - 1187 (Amsterdam: 1969).

[251] Ernoul, Pp. 115-116;Hamilton, Bernard, The Leper King, Pp. 194-95.

[252] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp .141-42. ; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 501-02

[253] La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 35; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 109-10

[254] Nicholson, Joscelyn III, Pp. 88-92,117, 132; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 109-10.

[255] Strehlke, Tab. ord. Theutonici, Doc. 21, p.19 ; Tibble, Monarchy, Pp.90-91, 97

[256] al-Sayed ,“Himfirī,” p. 34; Bernard Hamilton, The Elephant of Christ, Rayland of Chatillon: Monastic Reform Catharism and the Crusades 900- 1300, (London: 1979), p. 104.

[257] La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 36.

[258] Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, p.109-10.

[259] al-Sayed, “Himfirī,” p. 8.

[260] Peter. W. Edbury, trans.,"The Coronation of Guy and Sibylla (1186),"in the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. USA, Ashgate, 2nded, 1998). Pp. 54-55; al-Sayed, “Himfirī,” p.8. It is also worth mentioning that under the influence of Queen Agnes, the King’s mother, Patriarch Heraclius was chosen to be a Patriarch instead of William of Tyre in 1180. Since that date and owing to this, he played a major role in the political issues of the Kingdom. For instance, he persuaded the king to accept the marriage of Guy of Lusignan to his sister, Sybille. CF. William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp, 451,508-09; Eracles, L'Estoire d'Eracles Empereur et de Conquest de la Terre d'OutreMer, en: R. H. C. H. Occ., Tome II, (Paris: 1859), p. 88. The Patriarch talked to Sybilla and said "Lady, you are a woman; it is fitting that you should have a man by you who can help you govern your kingdom. You see that crown there. Now take it and give it to such a man as can govern your kingdom." She called her husband, Guy, and took the crown and said to him: "Sire, come up and receive this crown, for I do not know where better I can bestow it." He bowed to her, and she put the crown on his head. Morgan, La Continuation de Guillaume, p. 33; Edbury, "The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre,” p. 26.

[261] Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripoli, p. 80.

[262] Marshall.W.Baldwin, "The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem 1174-1189,” in Setton (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 601.

[263] Eracles, p. 31; Baldwin Marshall, Raymond III of Tripoli, p. 79.

[264] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol 10, Pp. 141-42 ; Baldwin, "The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem”, p. 601.

[265] Morgan, La continuation De Guillaume, p. 34; Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 12.

[266] Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," p. 27; Ernoul, p. 136; Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripoli, p. 80. "Dame, je n'en puis mais.Car l'on me voleit faire roi a force. Et la reyne dist : Sire Hanfrei, vos aves droit. Despuis que vos l'aves ensi fait, je vos pardonrai mon mal talant. Or ales, si faites vostre homage au roi." Morgan, La continuation De Guillaume, p. 34.

[267] al-Sayed, “Himfirī,” p.10; Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripoli, Pp. 80-81.

[268] Ahmed Ibn Ali al-Harīrī, al-I‘alām wa al-Tibīīn fi Khorūdj al- Firingj al-Malā‘aīn ‘Ala Dīār al-Muslmīn(The History of the Frankish Invasion of the Muslim Lands), ed. Suhail Dhakar (Damascus: 1981), Pp. 81,82,87

[269] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol, 10, p. 148. ; al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq, p. 296.

[270] Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ualaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl Bitārīkh al-Quds wa al-Khalīl {In the History of Jerusalem and Hebron }, vol. 1 (Beirut: 1966), p. 325.

[271] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 148. ; al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq, p. 296.

[272] al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq, Pp. 312-313; Baldwin, "The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem,” p. 619.

[273] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawāder, p. 304; Abū-al-Yaman al-U‘alaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, vol. 1, p. 379.

[274] Morgan, La continuation De Guillaume der Tyre, p.105; Peter W. Edbury, "The Siege of Acre (1189-91),"In the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (USA: Ashgate, 2nd ed, 1998), p. 168.

[275] He was marquis of Montferrat’s son, born around 1146. Emperor Fredrick I Barbarossa and King Louis VII of France were cousins of Conrad. When the Crusaders were defeated at Hattin in 1187, Conrad of Montferratmarched to the city of Tyre and defended it against the Muslims, after which, based from Tyre, he led the Crusaders in the Levant, in place of Guy of Lusignan, King of Jerusalem, who was in captivity at that time. Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, Pp. 272-73

[276] Edbury, "The Siege of Acre,” p. 168; Roger of Hoveden, vol. II, Pp.172-73.

[277] Roger of Hoveden, vol. II, p.172-73; Natasha R. Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007), p. 80.

[278] Morgan, La continuation de Guillaume der Tyre, p.106; Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," Pp. 95-96; Roger of Hoveden, vol. II, Pp.173-74; Riley-Smith, TheFeudal Nobility, Pp. 114-15; Hodgson, Women, Crusading, p. 80.

[279] Edbury, "The Siege of Acre,” p. 172.

[280] Innocent III, ‘Litterae ejusdem de incestuoso matrimonio comitis Henrici (anno 1200)’, Patrologia Latina 26 (3), col. 981, cited in Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, p. 115, and in Hodgson, Women, Crusading, Pp. 145-46.

[281] Roger of Hoveden, vol. II, Pp.172-73 ;Thomas F.Madden, ed., Crusades : the Illustrated History (USA: University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 95.

[282] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādir, p. 305; Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ualaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, vol. 1, p. 379.

[283] The treaty reduced the Latin Kingdom to the coastal strip that extended from Acre to Jaffa and Ascalon, which was destroyed; the southern cities were held by Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn. Then, the Sultan, Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn announced that he held the reconciliation with the Crusaders and everybody could have gone to their cities and they could have come to the Islamic countries. And that is the original Arabic text of Ibn-Shaddād : " ألا أن الصلح قد أنتظم ، فمن شاء من بلادهم أن يدخل بلدنا فليفعل ، ومن شاء من بلدنا أن يدخل بلادهم فليفعل" Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nāwadir, Pp. 347-48; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kamil, vol. 10, p. 218.

[284] al-Sayed, Himfirī,” p. 26 ; Madden, Crusades, p. 91.

[285] Edbury, "The Siege of Acre,” p. 168; Roger of Hovden, II, p. 269; al-Sayed, “Himfirī”, p. 26.

[286] Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 33.

[287] Adrian J. Boas, “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Frankish Period: A Unique Medieval Society Emerges.” Near Eastern Archaeology.vol. 61, no. 3 (Sep., 1998), p. 154.

[288] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p.181.

[289] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 95; al-Sayed, al-Jālīl, Pp.123-24.

[290] Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croises, p.118; Sir-al-Khitm Osman Ali, “Madīnat Suūr fi al-Qarnīn al-Thāny Ashar wa al-Thālith Ashar 1097-1291( The City of Tyre in Twelfth and Thirteen Centuries 1097-1291)” (PhD.diss, Cairo University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt: 1971), Pp. 42-43.

[291] Banyas, “Belinas or Paneas in ancient Caesarea Philipp,” located on the major road between the city of Tyre and Damascus. Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, p. 151.

[292] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, Pp. 95-96; Robin Fedden, The Castles of the Crusades: A Brief Study in the Military Architecture of the Crusaders (London: 1950), p. 24.

[293] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 1, p. 291,

[294] al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 175.

[295] William of Tyre, vol. I, p. 469; Fedden, The Castles, p. 18; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 217.

[296] Richard, The Latin Kingdom, vol. A, p. 25.

[297] William of Tyre, vol. 1, Pp. 469-70; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 1, p. 306 .

[298] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 19-20.

[299] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 218.

[300] Osman, “Madīnat Suūr,” Pp. 47-48

[301] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 151; Sibṭ ibn-al-jūzī, Mi’rāt al-Zamān fi Tārīkh al-Ā‘aiyān {The Chronicle of Mirror of Time in the History of Notables}, vol. 8, section 1 (Ḥīdār Ābād: 1951-1952), p. 19 .

[302] Osman, “Madīnat Suūr,” Pp. 47-48; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 226.

[303] Abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah, vol. 5, p. 178.

[304] Albert of Aachen, Pp. 833,835; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 145-46.

[305] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 178 : Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, p. 94.

[306] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 230.

[307] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, p. 146.

[308] Ibid, Pp. 227-29; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.211-12; Sibt al-jūzī, Mi’rāt al-Zamān, vol. 8, sec. I, p.111.

[309] Abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah, vol. 5, Pp.178-80; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 178.

[310] Albert of Aachen, Pp. 827-33,231; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 231.

[311] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p.184; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 234.

[312] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp. 234, 302.

[313] Albert of Aachen, p. 839.

[314] Prawer, Crusader Institutions, p. 112.

[315] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah, p. 283; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 8-9, 19-20

[316] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p.160.

[317] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, p. 149-150; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp. 160,183.

[318] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 184; Grousset, Croisades, vol. II, Pp. 847-48 .

[319] Habīs Jaldik)in Arabic: حبيس جلد) was a castle in the neighborhood of Damascus, which was called the area of al-Saūād (الســواد). It was an important strategic location for Damascus. al-Hamawy, Mu‘agam al-Bīldān, vol. II, p. 216.

[320] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.184; Grousset , Croisades, vol. II, p. 848.

[321] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 184; Albert of Aachen, p. 839; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp. 306-07.

[322] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 149-50.

[323] Fulcher Charters , A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, p. 208.

[324] Grousset, Croisades, vol.1 , p. 484 ; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 327-28

[325] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 327.

[326] Fulcher Charters , A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, p. 209.

[327] Grousset, Croisades,vol. 1, p. 484.

[328] Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom, p. 79.

[329] William of Tyre, vol. I, Pp. 514-515.

[330] Ibid, p. 20.

[331] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 238.

[332] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 227-29; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.211-12; al-jūzī, Mi’rāt al-Zamān, vol. 8, Sec. I, p. 111.

[333] Abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah, vol. 5 , p . 178; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, p. 94.

[334] Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croises, p. 112; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, p. 219 .

[335] Kurd Ali, Khuṭaṭ al-Shām, vol. 1, p. 305 .

[336] In ArabicحشاشينḤashshāshīn orباطنیانBāteniān was derived from Shiites' Ismailia, and this expression was used by Muslims sources metaphorically in the abusive sense, meaning persons who were socially and religiously outcasts. The European use of this term to mean intoxicated, hashish-consuming assassins is rooted in the imagination of medieval Westerners and their ignorance of Islamic doctrine. Farhad Daftary, The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines ( England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), Pp. 12-13 .

[337] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, Pp. 236, 250-51; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.215, 221, 224; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp. 350-58.

[338] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp. 155, 359-60.

[339] William, vol II, Pp. 71-72.

[340] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, p. 265.

[341] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp. 242-43.

[342] al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp.375-76.

[343] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol . 9, Pp. 298-99; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 258.

[344] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 243; al-Sayed , “ al-Jālīl, Pp. 376-77.

[345] Ba´rīn(بعرين) is a town between the city of Homs and the coast, and between the city of Hamah and Aleppo. al-Hamawy, Mu‘agam al-Bīldān, vol. I, Pp. 321, 452 ; “This castle was situated in the land of Tripoli on the heights above the city of Raphania.” William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 85.

[346] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 298-99.

[347] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 85- 87, 91.

[348] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p. 600; Grousset, Croisades, tome. II, p. 143.

[349] William of Tyre , vol. II, P.185-86.

[350] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, Pp.398-99; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.327-29.

[351] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, Pp.362-63; ; Alex Mallett, “The Battle of Inab, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 39, no. 1 (2013), Pp.48, 53, 56.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2012.744699

[352] William of Tyre, vol. II, P. 200; Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” p. 129; Mallett, “The Battle of Inab,” p. 49.

[353] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp.362-63; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.308-10; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 329.

[354] Abū-Shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol.Pp.212-13; William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 200.

[355] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 200.

[356] Ibid, p. 205.

[357] Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” Pp. 95,168; La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 18.

[358] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p.310; Mayer, "Hebron," Pp.74-75; Mallett, “The Battle of Inab,” p. 58.

[359] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 9, Pp. 369-370.

[360] John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M.Brand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), Pp.141-43; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 207-08.

[361] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p.314 ;William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 210.

[362] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 210-11; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, 329.

[363] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 211-12.

[364] Abu-Shamah, aL-Raūḍataīn, vol. 1, p. 234 ; Baldwin, "Latin States,” p. 537. Ascalon was one of the five Palestine cities. It was located on the coast in southern Palestine. The Crusaders did not succeed in conquering it in 1099, and it remained in the Fatimids’ hands until its fall to the Crusaders in 1153. Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, p. 112; William of Tyre described it as being in the form of a semicircle upon the seacoast, “the chord or diameter of which extended along the shore, while the arc or bow lies on the land looking toward the east. The entire city rests in a basin, as it was, sloping to the sea and is surrounded on all sides by artificial mounds, upon which rise the walls with towers at frequent intervals.” William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 219.

[365] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 9, Pp.391-92; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp. 321-22; William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 218.

[366] La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 18.

[367] Banyas (Bāniyās) was recovered by the Damascenes in 1132/527. It came under the control of ‘Emad Zangy in 1137. The Crusaders then captured it in 1140/ 534, when it was granted to the noble Rene or Bruce. See: Abū-al-fidā, al-Mukhtaṣar fi Ākhbār al-Bashar, vol. 3, Pp. 2, 7; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, Pp. 286, 14;William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 73-74.

[368] Raphael, Climate and Political Climate, p. 35.

[369] Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, p.18;Mayer, " Hebron," p. 73.

[370] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 256; Röhricht, Regesta (1893) Doc. 325, p. 83-84.

[371] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.338-39; Mustafa Mohamed al-Ḥenawy, “Jamāat al-Esbitāriah wa Dūrahā fi al-Ṣirāa̔ al-Eslamy al-Ṣalīby fi ͑Asr al-Ḥurūb al-Ṣalībīīah1099-1291/493-690{The Hospitaller Knights and Their Role in the Crusader-Islamic Conflict in the Age of the Crusades}” (Master Thesis, Alexandria University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 1980), Pp. 145-46.

[372] Kamal al-Dīn Ibn-al-͑Adim, Dhubdat al-Halab fi Tārīkh Ḥalab( about the History of Aleppo ), vol. 2, ed. Suhail dakkar (Damascus, Cairo: Dār al-Kitab al-‘Araby, 1997), p. 308; Abū-Shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol. 1, p. 107; Richard, The Latin Kingdom, vol. A, p. 44.

[373] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 257; Deschamps, Les Chateaux des Croises, p.156. Paul Deschamps reports that Humphrey of Tibnīn took control of the town of Banyas, after which the Hospitallers retained their responsibilities at the castle of Banyas(Qala'at al-Subayba) See: Deschamps , Les Chateaux des Croises, p.156 n. 3; Jonathan Rilley-Smith, The Knights of St.John in Jerusalem and Cyprus 1050-1310 (London: Macmillan, 1967), p.72. n3 ; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, Pp.16-18.

[374] Abū-shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol. 1, p. 107-08; Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, p. 341; Willam of Tyre ,vol. II, Pp. 263-64

[375] Ibn-al-Qalānisī, Dhīl Tārīkh Dimashq, Pp.339, 341.

[376] Willam of Tyre ,vol. II, p. 263; al-Ḥenawy, “al-Esbitārīah,” p. 148.

[377] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 343 ; Hamilton A.R.Gibb, "The Career of Nur-ad- din", In Setton, vol. I (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 524.

[378] Röhricht, Regesta (1893) Doc. 325, Pp.83-84; al-Ḥenawy, “al-Esbitārīah,” p. 148.

[379] Abū-Shāmah, al-Raūḍatīn, vol. 1, p. 277-278; Abū-al-Fidā, al-Mukhtaṣar, vol. 3,p .55.

[380] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 401; Grousset, Croisades, vol. II, p. 554.

[381] Ibn-KĀthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah (The Beginning and the End ), vol. 16, ed. Abd-Allah al-Turkey ( Egypt: Dar Hajr, 1998), p. 442; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, Pp. 23-24; al-Sayed , al-Khalīl, p .216.

[382] al-Sayed , al-khalīl, p .216.

[383] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 10, p. 23.

[384] Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, p. 442; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, p. 23.

[385] Abū-shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol.1, Pp. 322-23; Issa al-Khitti, “ Iqtā‘eīat Sharq al-Urdun fi ‘Asr al-Ḥurūb al-Ṣalībīīah 492-583/1099-1187 (The Fief of Transjordan in the Age of the Crusades 492-583/1099-1187)” (Master thesis, Damanhur University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 2008), p. 132.

[386] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, p. 46; Ibn-Kathīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, p. 465.

[387] William of Tyre, vol. II,Pp. 386-88.

[388] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, Pp. 35-36; Ibn-al-‘Adīm, Dhubdat al-Halab , vol. 2, Pp. 339-41; Abū al-Fidā , al-Mukhtaṣar, vol. 3, p. 69.

[389] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 326;al-Sayed, al-Khalīl, p. 214.

[390] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 9, Pp, 466-67; Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādir al-Sūlṭanīah, Pp. 75-76.

[391] It has a very productive soil and abounds in all good things. the waters of the Nile separate at this point and form this island, and the branches which part here do not again join the main stream until they reach the sea William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 327. Now:the city of Mahala belonged to the cities of the Nile Delta, which is located between the Damietta branch and the Rosetta (رشيد) branch; it lies midway between Mansoura, Kafr al-Sheikh and Tanta, about 25 km from each of these cities.

[392] William of Tyre,vol. II, Pp. 325-27.

[393] Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, Pp. 421-22; Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, Pp. 4-5;William of Tyre ,vol. II, Pp. 228-33 .

[394] Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, Pp. 411, 469-70; William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 310 .

[395] Ibn-Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-Kurūb fi Akhbār Banī Āyyūb( A Chronicle about the Ayyubids), ed, Jamal al-Dīn al-Shaiyal, vol. 1 (Egypt: Cario, 1953), p. 179; Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sulṭanīah, Pp. 79-81; Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, Pp. 430-31 .

[396] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 351; Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, p. 440

[397] Ibn-Kāthīr, al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, Pp. 440-41; William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 353-54.

[398] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp, 400-01.

[399] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil , vol. 10, p. 67; Ibn-Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-Kurūb, vol. p. 179; Hamilton, The Leper King, Pp. 86, 98

[400] William of Tyre, vol. II, Pp.409-410; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 396; Hamilton, The Leper King, Pp. 98- 99.

[401] Rohricht, Regesta ( 1893) Doc. 553

[402] al-Sayed , al-Khalīl, Pp. 222.

[403] Wlliam of Tyre, vol. II, Pp. 426-27.

[404] Boas, Crusader Archaeology, p. 100; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, p. 418; Hamilton, The Leper King, Pp. 108, 133, 141.

[405] al-‘Aynī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 1, p. 272; Hamilton, The Leper King, p. 141.

[406] Abū-Shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol. 2, p. 56; al-‘Aynī ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 1, Pp. 272-73; Nicholson, Joscelyn III, p. 86; Richard, The Latin Kingdom, vol. A, p. 52.al-Ᾱṣfahānī described the wounds of Humphrey II that he had received in this battle; he said that his teeth were broken, many arrows injured him in his legs, knee, and chest, and his ribs were brokenetc. The following is the original text; "حمل هنفري جريحا وأودع بعد يومين ضريحا وناح في نواحيهم النادب بندوب صريعهم صريحا وحاز هنفري جراحات فاز الهوى منها براحات إحداها نشابه وقعت في مارنه فجدعته ونفذت إلى فيه ومرت بضرسه فقلعته وخرجت من تحت فكه ففكته وصرعته وأخرى في مشط رجله نفدت إلى أخمصه وأخرى في ركبته جرعته صاب أوصابه وغصته وكان هلاكه بلت في جنبه كسر له ضلعين وقرب له حين الحين وقتلت عدة من الخيالة وثلث ثلة من الرجالة فما انضم طرفهم حتى انتظم تلفهم وما نابت روعتهم حتى بانت عورتهم وما ارتفع عثيرهم حتى اتضع عاثرهم وما لغب ناظمهم حتى غلب ناثرهم وما راع فارسهم حتى عراه فارسه وما نهض راجلهم حتى محصه ممارسة وما زالت الرماة يرمونهم ويرامونهم ويدنون منهم ويدانونهم حتى نفضت الكنائن وانفضت الضغائن” al-Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Barq al-Shāmī, vol. 3, p. 151

[407] Sibṭ Ibn-al-jūzī, Mi’rāt al-Zamān, vol. 8, p. 223.

[408] Abū-Shāmah, ͑ Eīūn al-Raūḍatīn, vol. 2, p. 56;Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 2, p. 419.

[409] Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 606, 615; Mayer, Hebron, p. 77-78.

[410] Ibn-Jubair, al-Riḥlah, p. 892.

[411] Tibble, Monarchy, p. 91.

[412] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah, p.110; Ibn-Kāthīr, Al-Bidāīah wa al-Nihāīah, vol. 16, Pp. 565-66;Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, Pp.437-38.

[413] William of Tyre, vol. II, p. 499; Hodgson, Women, Crusading, p. 128.

[414] Peter W. Edbury, trans.,"The Battle of Hattin (4 July 1187) and its Aftermath ,in the Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (USA: Ashgate, 2nd ed, 1998), p. 161; Ibn Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah, p.127-130; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. II, p.459.

[415] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol. 10, 148; al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī, p. 296.

[416] Ibn-al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil vol 10, 151; Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ualaīmy, al- Ānas al-Jalīl, vol.1, p. 325.

[417] Edbury,"The Battle of Hattin,” Pp. 162-63; Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ualaīmy, al- Ānas al-Jalīl, vol.1, p. 325.

[418] al- Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Fatḥ al-Qussī, Pp. 58-59; al-Bindārī, Sanā al-Barq al-Shāmī, p. 296.

[419] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādir al-Sūlṭanīah, p. 132.

[420] al-bindārī, Sanā al Barq alshāmī, p. 312-313; Ernoul, p. 240.

[421] al-‘Aynī ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 2, 107; Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ulaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, vol.1, p. 355.

[422] al-‘Aynī ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 2, Pp. 118-19; Abū-al-Yaman al-‘Ulaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, vol.1, p. 357.

[423] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah, p. 158

[424] al-‘Ainī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. II, Pp. 120-21.

[425] He was the third son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine and was named Richard the Lionheart, due to his fame as a powerful military leader. See: Ralph V. Turner, Richard H. Heiser, The Reign of Richard Lion Heart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199 (Harlow, Essex: Longman, 2000). Pp. 70-71; Geoffrey Regan, Lion Hearts: Saladin and Richard I (Constable. London: 1998), Pp. 21-31. For more information about the Crusade of Richard I; Cf. Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, trans. from old French by Hubert Merton Monte (New York: 1941). Richard I of England was called by the Islamic sources “Malik al-Inkitar ملك الأنكتار ” which means King of England. Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nawādiral-Sūlṭanīah, p. 239 ; Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 204 .

[426] Ibn-Shaddād, al-Nāwadir, p. 347-48; Mahmoud Said Omran, Tārīkh al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah 1095-1291{The History of The Crusades} ( Egypt- Alexandria: Dar al-M ͑arifah al-Jami ͑eīah, 2000), Pp. 183-84.

[427] Piana Mathias, “ The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 174.

[428] al- Ᾱṣfahānī, al-Fatḥ al-Qussī, Pp. 328-29; Omran, al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah, p. 185; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2,Pp. 874-75.

[429] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 243; Omran, al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah, Pp. 186-87.

[430] Ibn-Wāṣil, Mufarrij al-Kurūb, vol. III, p. 61; Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 243.

[431] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 246.

[432] Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," Pp. 139-40; Morgan, La continuation De Guillaume, p, 187; Ahmed Faraj Sanīūr, “al-Ḥmalāt al-Far ͑aīah al-Ṣalībīah ͑Ala Manṭqat al-Sharq al-Ādna al-Islamy 1095-1198 {The Secondary Crusade Campaigns on the Islamic Near East region}”(Master Thesis, Dmanhour University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt, 2006), p. 234.A large number of impressive German princes had participated in this Crusade. See: Edger N.Johnson, “The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI ,” in Setton, vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 120

[433] The city of Jaffa was a nominal subject city of the King of Cyprus, Amaury I Lusignan of Cyprus at that time. However, the King of Jerusalem, Henry I, defended it and asked Amaury I Lusignan to join him in the defense of Jaffa in return for allowing Amaury I to govern the city of Jaffa directly. Amaury agreed and sent one of his men to lead the Crusaders. However, al-͑Adil captured it. Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol.2, p. 883.

[434] Arnoldi of Lübeck, Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. I.M. Lappenbergii, In: M.G.H.R.F.G.H.P., (Germany, Hannover: 1868), p. 199; Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," p. 143; Morgan, La Continuation de Guillaume, Pp. 191, 193.

[435] Corliss K. Slack , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades: Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest, no. 25 (Lanham, Maryland, and Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003), p. xxi.

[436] al-‘Aynī ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 3, p. 49; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol.2,p. 884.

[437] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp. 246-74; Arnoldi of Lübeck, Arnoldi Chronica, p. 205. Arabic and Western narratives mention different dates concerning the arrival of the German Crusade to lay siege to Tibnīn. Arabic sources recount that this was in Ṣafer, and others say that the German forces reached Tibnīn on 16th Muharram 594. Western sources mention that the siege of Tibnīn began on 18th November, 1197/ 10 Muharram 594. As Ahmed Sanīūr points out, the accurate date on which the Crusader and German forces reached Tibnīn was 16th Muharram 594. The reason for this disagreementwas that the German forces reached Tibnīn in groups over an entire week.Sanīūr, "al-Ḥmalāt al-Far ͑aīah al-Ṣalībīah," p. 251.

[438] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol.1, p. 253; Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 247.

[439] Morgan, La continuation de Guillaume, Pp. 195-97; Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," p. 144.

[440] Edbury, "The Old French Continuation," p. 144; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 97.

[441] Morgan, La continuation de Guillaume, Pp. 195-97; al-‘Ulaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, p. 399.

[442] Abū-al-Fidā, al-Mukhta ṣar, vol. 3, p. 118; al-‘Ulaīmy, al-Ānas al-Jalīl, p. 399.

[443] Johnson, “The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI,” Pp. 120-21.

[444] Arnoldi of Lübeck, Arnoldi Chronica, Pp. 205, 212; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 97.

[445] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk , vol. I, p. 253; Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, p. 13.

[446] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2,p. 881.

[447] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 97.

[448] Sanīūr, "al-Ḥmalāt al-Far ͑aīah al-Ṣalībīah," Pp. 253-54.

[449] Abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah, vol. 6, Pp. 144-47; Slack , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades, p. xxi

[450] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp. 265-66; Abū-al-Maḥāsin, al-Nujūm al-Ẓahirah, vol. 6, Pp. 144-47.

[451] He was Prince Abd-Allah al-Nāṣiry al-Ṣāliḥy from the princes of Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn. He was a generous nobleman who joined the side of al-͑Adil after his conflict with his nephews; he ruled Tibnīn, Banays, Castle of Abū-al-Ḥasan and Saqīf of Ārnon. Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, p. 79.

[452] al-‘Aynī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 3, Pp. 123-26.

[453] Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, p. 20 ; al-‘Aynī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 3, p. 128-29.

[454] Ibn-al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 291; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 903-04.

[455] Ibn-al-Athī, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp. 341-42; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 907-08, 911-12.

[456] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk , vol. I, p. 291; Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, p. 113.

[457] Joseph P.Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade (United Sates: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950), p. 30; Slack , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades, p. 91.

[458] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 916-17; Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade, p. 34.

[459] Abū-al-Fidā, al-Mukhta ṣar, vol. 4,p. 147; Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, Pp. 102-03.

[460] Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp. 393-94.

[461] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 920-23; Slack , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades, p. 91.For more information on the Crusade conquest of Damietta, see: Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade, Pp. 38-68; Mahmoud Said Omran, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah 1218-21/615-18{Fifth Crusade }(Egypt- Alexandria: Dār al-M ͑aārif, 1985) , Pp. 229- 86.

[462] Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade, p.62; Omran, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah, Pp. 237-39.

[463] Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 379; Penny J.Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of America, 1991), p. 143-144. Indeed, King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne preferred to accept this offer, but Pelagius, who was the papal legate, Hospitallers, and Templers rejected. Eventually, the offer of al-Kāmil was rejected. See: Donovan, J., Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade, Pp. 62-63; Omran, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah, Pp. 239-43.

[464] Thomas C. Van-Cleve, “The Fifth Crusade,” in Setton, vol. II (Madison, Mikwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 410. ; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 156.

[465] al-Harīrī, al-I‘alām wa al-Tibīīn, p. 91; Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, Pp. 155; Omran,M, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah, Pp. 250-52 .

[466] Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusades, p. 62; Omran, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah, p.264.

[467] Van-Cleve, “The Fifth Crusade,” p. 415.

[468] Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 379.

[469] Donovan, Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade, p. 70-71; Omran, al-Ḥmlah al- Ṣ alībīahal al-Khāmisah, p. 298.

[470] Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, p. 380; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol. I, p. 329.

[471] Omran, Tārīkh al-Ḥurūb al-alībīah, Pp. 282-85.

[472] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol. I, p. 351.Piana, “ The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 174

[473] Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp.473-74, 481-82 ; Omran, Tārīkh al-Ḥurūb al- Ṣ alībīah, p. 286.

[474] Fredrick II was named al-Ānburū “الأنبرو” – which means the King of the Princes- by Most of Arabic sources. Ibn al-Āthīr, al-Kāmil, vol. 10, Pp. 478, 481; al-‘Ainī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol 4, p.196.

[475] Sawīrus Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh Misr: Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah li- Sawīrus Ibn al Muqaffa(A History of the Coptic Church and its Patriarchs), vol. 4.1 . ed. Abd-al-Aziz Jamāl al-Dīn (Cairo: Makitabit Madbūly, 2006), p. 288-90. It was recounted that the messengers of Frederick II went to al-Sultan al-Kāmil in Nablus to give him precious gifts from Emperor Frederick II. Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah, vol. 4.1, Pp. 283-84.

[476] On the one hand, it is said that the friendship of al-Kamil and Frederick II made the latter to prefer Islam to Christianity, (Grousset, Croisades, III, p. 280). On the other hand, it is believed that the hatred between the Popes and Frederick II was the main reason for his friendship and alliance with Muslims. Whatever the reason, the relationship between Frederick II and the Muslims was friendly and intimate. See: Saeīd Abd al-Fattah Ashour, “al-Embraṭūr Frederick II wa al-Sharq al-͑Araby (Fredrick II and Arabic East),” in Buḥūth fi Tārīkh al-͑Uṣūr al-Ūs ṭa(Studies in the Medieval History) ( Beirut: 1977), Pp. 111-29.And one of the charges against Frederick II to depose him at the council of Lyons in 1245 was "undue intimacy with Saracens (Muslims)." Joseph R. Strayer, "The political Crusade of Thirteenth Century ," in setton, vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 355.

[477] Although the city of Jerusalem was held by Frederick II according to the Jaffa treaty in 1129, it remained without defensive means and in co-administration between al-Kāmil and Frederick II. Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p. 967.

[478] al-Maqrizi, al-Sulūk, vol. 1, Pp.353-54; Ashour, “al-Embraṭūr Frederick II,” p. 124.

[479] In 1225 Emperor Frederick II married John of Brienne’s daughter, Queen Isabella II (Yolanda), who was the heiress of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Frederick II therefore became King of Jerusalem in her name. See: Slack , Historical Dictionary of the Crusades, p. xxiii. Queen Isabella died shortly before the departure of Frederick II to the Levant, leaving her young child, who had been born in 1228. Frederick II reached the Levant at the city of Acre in September 1228, and he was formally recognized by the nobility of the kingdom as a regent of his infant son Conrad. Frederick negotiated with Sultan al-Kāmil of Egypt to cede the city of Jerusalem to the Christians without bloodshed. al-Maqrizi, al-Sulūk, vol 2, Pp. 353-54; Mary Nickerson Hardwicke, "The Crusader States, 1192-1243,"in Setton, vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), Pp. 542-43.

[480] Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah, vol. 4.1, p. 289-90; al-Maqrizi, al-Sul ū k, vol 2, p. 354.

[481] Thomas C. Van Cleve, “The Crusade of Frederick II,” In Setton, Vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 455.

[482] Alice remained as the titular ruler of Tibnīn until he received it in 1229, because she was the daughter of Isabelle of Tibnīn, Humphrey’s IV sister. She was called “Lady of Toron, Kerak, Montreal and Saint-Abraham (Hebron).” Richard, The Latin Kingdom, vol. B, p. 308; al-Sayed, Himfirī”, p. 26.

[483] al-‘Ainī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 4, p.196 ; John of Ibelin, Le Livre de Assies, ed. Peter Edbury (Brill: 2003), Pp. 687-88; Piana, “The Crusader Castle of Toron,” p. 174.

[484] Jean L.A. Huillard-Bréholles, ed., Historia Diplomatica Frederici Secundi, Tomus III (Paris: I852), Pp.123-25; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 171-72. Regarding the possessions of Teutonic Knights in the Levant; see W.Hubatsch, "Montfort und die Bildung des Beutschordensstaates im Heiligen Lande", Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse (Göttingen: 1966). Pp. 183-4.

[485] Strehlke, Tab. ord. Theutonici, Doc. 53. Pp. 43-44. The villages and possessions which were bought by the Teutonic Knights in this charter were: "Tersyha, Cnrphasonic. Samohete, Geelin, Zoenitc.Belctim, Tarphile, Rassabde, Suphcye. Capharra, Noseoquie, Danehyle,Lebcync, Lubic. Bcchera.Habclyc. Amca, Gez Clil et medietas Noie.Similiter sunt de pcrtincnciis predictis Fasocc, Achara. Taycretrane,Tayerebika, Fennes, Carsilic. Serouh, Gabatyc. Horfeis, Roeis Camsara, Cassie, Deleha, Derbasta, Rahcb, Eerzei, Berzei. similiter et tercium feodi de sancto Georgi, cuius pertincncie et casalia sunt hec : Arket, Yanot, Cabra, Meblic. Saphet, Lemezera., Kemelye et tercium casalis dou Bokehcl cum pcrtinenciis ciusdem et tercium de assisia."

[486] Huillard-Bréholles, Historia diplomatica, III, Pp. 90-92.

[487] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades ( Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 134.

[488] Jonathan Riley-Smith,"The Assise Sur la ligece and the Commune of Acre,"Tradito, vol. 27,(1971), 192-3 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27830920

[489] al-‘Ainī, ‘Iqd al-Jumān, vol. 4, p. 196.; Hassan Abd al-Wahab, Tārīkh Jama‘at al-Fursān al-Tītūtūn fi al-Ārāḍy al-Muqadasah 1190-1291/586-690 {The History of the Teutonic Knights in the Holy Land} (Egypt- Alexandria: 1989), Pp. 203.

[490] Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p. 134.

[491] De Marsy,ed., "Fragment d'un Cartulaire de L'ordre de St.Lazare", p. 153. "Alis, princesses et dame de Toron, à la demande de frère rainaud de Fleury, Maltre de saint lazare des lèpreux de jèrusalem, une donation de trente besants faite à ce monastère, en 1151, par Humfrio de Toron, et confirme cette donation"

[492] Sidney Painter, "The Crusade of Theobald of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall 1239-01241,"in Setton, vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 469. For further information concerning this Crusade; Cf. Michael Lower, "The Burning at Mont-Aime´: Thibaut of Champagne’s Preparations for the Barons’ Crusade of 1239,"Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003) 95–108. www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist

[493] Peter Jackson, "The Crusades of 1239-41 and Their Aftermath, "Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,vol. 50, no. 1 (University of London: 1987), p. 42 ; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 987-89

[494] Matthew Paris, English History from the Year of 1235 to 1273, trans. The Rev.J.A.Giles, D.C.L., vol.1 (London; 1852), p. 303.

[495] Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah, vol. 4.1, Pp. 514-51; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol.1, p. 407 ; Abū-Shāmah, Dhīl al-Raūḍatīn, p. 170 .

[496] Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 986, 990; Murry, The Crusades an Encyclopedia, p. 310.

[497] Painter, “The Crusade of Theobald,” Pp.478-80; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, Pp. 987-89.

[498] Estorie d’Eracles, Pp. 419-20; Abd al-Wahab, Tārīkh Jama‘at al-Fursān al-Tītūtūn, Pp. 236.

[499] al-Henawy, “Jamāat al-Esbitāriah,” p. 316 ; Cole J, The Preaching of the Crusades, p. 163.

[500] Estorie d’Eracles, p. 421; Richard, The Latin Kingdom, vol. B, Pp. 325-26Ascalon remained in a non-defensive situation from 1192/ 588 until the coming of the Crusade of Richard Cornwall in 1240. Richard refortified the city and gave it to the imperial representative in Jerusalem. It was then held by the Hospitallers until 1247, when al-Ṣālih Ayyūb took it again in that year. Abd al-Wahab, Tārīkh Jama‘at al-Fursān al-Tītūtūn, Pp.230-31.no.13 ; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.John, Pp. 177-78.

[501] Matthew Paris, English History, vol.I , Pp. 263-66 ; Ibn al-Muqaffa, Tārīkh al-Baṭārikah, vol. 4.1, Pp. 585- 86; Jackson, “The Crusades of 1239-41,” p. 47.

[502] John of Ibelin, Le Livre de Assies, p. 777; Marie-Adélaïde Nielen, ed., Les Lignages D'Outremer: in Documents Relatifs à l'Histoire des Croisades, XVIII (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 2003), Pp. 61- 62, 66.

[503] Piana, "The Crusader Castle of Toron," p. 174; Iman Kamal Thabit, "al-Qilā‘a al-Ṣalībīah fi Bilaad al-Shāām fi al-Qarn al-Thalith ‘Ashr al-Mīlady(The Crusaders’ Castles in the Levant in the Thirteenth Century)", ( Master Thesis, ‘Ein Shams University, Faculty of Arts, Egypt: 2009), p.113.

[504] Guy of Montfort, Philip’s Father, was a French noble, who came to the Levant on the Fourth Crusade and remained in the Levant until 1210. He was renowned as the leader of the Albigensian Crusade. After the death of Helvis, he returned to France about 1210. Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 25.

[505] Steven Runciman, "The Crusader States 1243-1291,"in Setton, vol. II (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 560; Mayer, “Ibelin versus Ibelin,” p. 29.

[506] Thabit I., “al-Qilā‘a al-Ṣalībīah”, p. 97; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 205.

[507] Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester and Duke of Narbonne, was the cousin of the lord of Tibnīn, Philip of Montfort, and his wife was the sister of Richard of Cornwall and King Henry III of England,. He led a revolution against Henry III in thebthirteen century. For more information: See. Claire Valente, "Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the Utility of Sanctity in Thirteenth-Century England,"Journal of Medieval History, 21 (1995) 27-49; Mayer, “Ibelin Versus Ibelin,” p. 29.

[508] Röhricht, R., "Acte de Soumission des Barons du Royaume de Jerusalem a Frederic II," In A.O.L, Tome I (Paris: 1881), Pp. 402-03; Röhricht, Regesta (1893), Doc. 1098, p. 286 ; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 207-08. It could be said that this document indicated more knowledge about "the constitutional realities of the early twelve-forties than do the writings of the jurists twenty years later." Peter Jackson, "The End of Hohenstaufen Rule in Syria,"Historical Research, vol. 59, issue 139 (May 1986), p. 22.

[509] Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 207-08; F. M., Powicke, "Guy de Montfort (1265-71),"Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, vol. 18 (1935), p. 8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678601.

[510] He was a cousin of Alice, “dowager queen of Cyprus,”, and he was the eldest son of John of Ibelin “old lord of Beirut “and Ibelin’s house. He was a brother of John, Lord of Arsuf. His cousins were John, “who was the leading Lawyerof the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Baldwin and Guy, who were the most illustrious nobles in Cyprus. Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 560.

[511] M. Renē de Mas Latrie, ed., Chroniques d’Amadi et de Stramaldi, part I (Paris, Imprimerie National, 1889 ), Pp. 187-9; Philip de Novare, The Wars of Frederick II Against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus, trans. John la Monte (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1936), Pp.171-72; Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 69.

[512] Runciman, "The Crusader States," p. 559; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp, 210-11.

[513] David Jacoby, “The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Collapse of Hohenstaufen Power in the Levant,” Dumbarton, vol. 40 (1986) Pp.86, 87.http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291530 .

[514] Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp, 210-11

[515] Although Alice became the regent in 1243, the Kingdom of Jerusalem remained legally subject to the Emperor Frederick II until 1268. Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p. 975.

[516] Chroniques d’Amadi, Part I, Pp. 190-91, 198; Jacoby, “The Collapse of Hohenstaufen”, Pp. 90-91; Runciman, “The Crusader States,” Pp.559-60.

[517] Philip de Novare, The Wars of Frederick II, Pp. 212, 215.It was recounted that Philip of Montfort and Balian had intended to attack Tyre before the arrival of Alice to the Levant. Philip of Novara is a medieval historian and lawyer, born into a noble house at Novara, Italy. He spent his whole life in the Levant and was a primary ally to the Ibelin family. He persuaded the Lord of Tibnīn and Balian to delay their attack until the arrival of Alice to the Levant. Alice rewarded Philip of Navare for this and gave him thousands of marks of silver and besants. He became the representative of Alice and Royal Protector, setting the conditions of surrender of the castle of Tyre. See. Philip de Novare, The Wars of Frederick, Pp. 9-11, 176,178, 183;Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 34.

[518] Osman, “Madīnat Suūr”, p. 246; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 3, Pp. 222, 230.

[519] Jackson, "The End of Hohenstaufen,"p. 29; Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 560 .

[520] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 3, Pp. 222, 222, 230; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 212, 215

[521] Osman, Sir-al-Khitm, “Madīnat Suūr”, p. 247; La Monte L.J., Feudal Monarchy, p. 174.

[522] David Marcombe, Leper Knights: The Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem in England, C1150-1544(Studies in the History of Medieval Religion) (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004), Pp. 13-14; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol.1, p. 419.

[523] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol.1, Pp.419-20; Chroniques d’Amadi, Part I, p.198.

[524] When Khorezm-Shāh Jalāl-al-Dīn died in 1223, his troops became leaderless and were ready to work for the highest bidder. Therefore, they agreed to join the Egyptian Sultan’s army against the Damascus-Frankish alliance. Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 561.

[525] Janet Shirley, trans., Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: The Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with part of the Eracles or Acre text (USA: England: Ashgate, 1999), p. 64-65; Runciman, The Crusade, vol. 3, p. 225; Cole J, The Preaching of the Crusades, p. 164.

[526] ‘Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p. 999; Grousset, Croisades, III, p. 415.

[527] Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 563; al-Henawy, “Jamāat al-Esbitāria”, Pp. 326- 27.

[528] Thabit, “al-Qila‘a al-Ṣalībīah,” p. 127.

[529] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, vol.1, p. 423.

[530] Röhricht, R. and Raynaud G. “Annales de Terre Sainte 1095-1291,” in A.O.L, II (1884), documents, Pp. 442-43; Chroniques d’Amadi, part I, Pp. 198-99.

[531] Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Pp. 84- 85.

[532] ‘Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p.1009.

[533] Runciman, The Crusades,vol. 3, Pp. 255- 82; Ashour, al-Ḥarakah al-Ṣalībīah, vol. 2, p.1024- 25.

[534] Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Pp. 84-85.

[535] M. Le Comte Beugnot, ed. “Livre des Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois,” in RHC. Lois, tome 2 (Paris: Académie Royal des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1843), Pp. 247-49, quoted in Marwan Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus( 1099-1325) ( England, USA; Ashgate, 2006), Pp. 47-48.

[536] Mayer, “Ibelin versus Ibelin,” p. 48.

[537] Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, p. 216; Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 3, p. 283.

[538] Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law, Pp. 173, 175, 176.

[539] Conrad of Hohenstaufen died in 1254, and the crown of Jerusalem was given to his son Conradin, who was two years old. Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 567.

[540] Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 568; Mayer, “Ibelin versus Ibelin,” p. 50.

[541] Peter Jackson, "The Crusade Against the Mongols (1241),"Journal of Ecclesiastical History , vol. 42, no. 1, (January 1991), p. 2.

[542] Adil Hilal, al - ͑Ailāqāt Baīn al-Maghūl and Āūrūpa wa Ātharahā ͑Ala al- ͑Aālam al-Eslāmy (The Relationships between the Mongols and Europe and Its Impact on the Islamic World) ( Cario: Dar ͑Ein, 1997), Pp. 100-02; Peter Jackson, "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260,"The English Historical Review, vol. 95, no. 376 (July- 1980), Pp. 481-82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/568054?origin=JSTOR-pdf .

[543] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. 3, Pp. 284-85.

[544] Mamālīk state in Egypt began since 1250, when the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt,al-Salih Ayyūb, died and his wife Shajar al-Durr succeeded him in1250, then al-Muizz Izz-ad-Din Aybak( 1250- 1257), al-Mansur Nur-ad-Din Ali ( 1257-1259), al-Muzaffar Saif ad-Din Qutuz ( 1259-1260), al-Zahir Rukn-ad-Din Baibars al-Bunduqdari ( 1260- 1277), ...etc. See: Saeīd Abd al-Fattah ͑Ashour, al-Mamālīk wa al-ʾAyyūbiyyūn fi Misr and al-Shāām(Ayyubids and Mamluks in Egypt and the Levant) (Cairo, Egypt: 1996), Pp. 175-202.

[545] Edbury, John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Pp. 60-61 ; Hilal, al- ͑Ailāqāt Baīn al-Maghūl, p. 102.

[546] Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, Pp. 27-28.

[547] Strehlke, Tab. ord. Theutonici, Doc. 120, 122, Pp.109, 114

[548] Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships, Pp. 60-63.

[549] Despite being a Muslim, Bībarsbecame allied with “Barakah Khan”, who was the ruler of the Ulus of Jochi or Kipchak Khanate 1262-63/660-61 in order to fight the Crusaders and their alliance with the Persian Mongols. Additionally, he formed an agreement with the Byzantine emperor, Michael VIII (1259-82) Palaiologos, to maintain military neutrality in the conflict between himself and the Crusaders. Thabit, ”al-Qila‘a al-Ṣalībīah,” p. 161.

[550] al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk , vol. II, p. 36;Thabit, “ al-Qila‘a al-Ṣalībīah,”p. 158, 162, 168-170; Boas, Crusader Archaeology, p. 5.

[551] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 321; Runciman, "The Crusader States,” p. 576.

[552] Runciman, The Crusades, vol. III, p. 329.

[553] Chroniques d’Amadi, part I, p. 211; Ibid, p. 333.

131 of 131 pages

Details

Title
The Fief of Tibnin (Toron) and its Castle in the Age of the Crusades AD (1105-1266 AH 498- 664)
Subtitle
A Study of its economic, political and military Role
College
University of Göttingen  (History Department)
Course
History of the Crusades and the relation between the East and West
Author
Year
2014
Pages
131
Catalog Number
V286483
ISBN (Book)
9783656869450
File size
2603 KB
Language
English
Notes
I would like to thank a lot Prof. Aly al- Sayed, Damnhour University, Egypt. and Prof. Dr. Frank Rexroth, Göttingen University, Germany, for their help, patience, encouragement throughout all the stage of researching and writing this work. I could not have been written this work without their advices, instructions, comments and extensive help.
Tags
fief, tibnin, toron, castle, crusades, study, role
Quote paper
MA Ahmed Sheir (Author), 2014, The Fief of Tibnin (Toron) and its Castle in the Age of the Crusades AD (1105-1266 AH 498- 664), Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/286483

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: The Fief of Tibnin (Toron) and its Castle in the Age of the Crusades AD (1105-1266  AH 498- 664)


Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free