Masculinity and Crusade: the influence of martial activity in the Latin East on Norman and Frankish warrior identity, the material culture, c. 1095-1300. Department of Archaeology University of York This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the course requirements for the MA in Medieval Archaeology Exam Number: Y3588203 Word Count: 18,853 August 26, 2015 1 Abstract This dissertation argues that masculine identity in the era of the Crusades developed with Christological and martial focus. The knight was the highest ideology of masculinity in Western Medieval culture and his association with Crusader activity increased his prestige and social station which was denoted by his armour. In the first two chapters arguments will be made for the development of the faith-based armament of the warrior’s body and its impracticability in the Middle East. The next chapters will then use surviving material culture to illustrate the importance of armour and arms in the presentation of masculinity and piety. 2  Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..4 Introduction: Masculine Identity……………………………………………………….7 Chapter 1: Potential for Material Culture in the Study of Masculine Identity 1.1 Previous Literature…………………………………………………………….9 1.2 Potential for use of Material Culture…………………………………….........12 Chapter 2: The Crusades & the Medieval Warrior of God 2.1 Context of the Crusader………………………………………………….......14 2.2 Medieval Masculinity Defined: milites Christi………………………………….15 2.3 Ghazi (Soldier of Allah) & the Medieval Muslim Warrior………………….19 2.4 Crusade & Jihad: Medieval Holy War as an Idea…………………………..22 Chapter 3: War in the Medieval West & East 3.1 Frank & Norman Military Structure …………………………………….........28 3.2 Western Armour & Arms ……………………………………………….........31 3.3 Muslim Military Structure …………………………………………………...46 3  3.4 Muslim Armour and Arms …………………………………………………...48 3.5 Warhorses: evidence for size and use…………………………………………53 3.6 Medieval Holy War in Action: the Battle of Hattin …………………………..56 Chapter 4: The Aesthetic of the Medieval Knight: imagery and ideology 4. Chivalry……………………………………………………………………......62 4.2 The milites Christi in Contemporary Words……………………………………63 4.3 The milites Christi in Contemporary Images…………………………………67 4.4 Effigies and Monuments of milites Christi………………………………………..70 Chapter 5: Conclusions ………………………………………………………………...75 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….. 77 List of Figures Figure 1. Mounted knight, Harley Penitential, copy of the Summa de vitiis et virtutibus by Willelmus Peraldus, f.28r., MS 3244 (c.1236) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library, London bl.uk/manuscripts/fulldisplay.aspx? ref=HarleyMS3244 Figure 2. Fragment from the Temple Pyx (c. 1130) [Bronze gilt], possibly German, discovered in Temple Church London, now at the Burrell Collection in Glasgow, Scotland. Collections.glascowmuseums.com/starobject.html?aid+33187 4 Figure 3. Bayeaux Tapestry, William Rides to War-Scene 2 (c1070) [wool embroidery on linen] English or Norman, at the Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Bayeaux, Normandy, France. bayeauxtapestry.org.uk/index.htm Figure 4. Wells Cathedral Knights, West Front, 123 & 124 (c.1230) [carved freestone], at Wells Cathedral, Somerset, England. Warfare.altervista.org/13/wells_cathedral_west_front_statues_ 123_124.htm Figure 5. Death of St. Thomas Beckett in Psalter, with Canticles, f.32, Harley 5102 (c. 1250) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library. bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp? MSID=8758&CollID=8&NStart=5102 Figure 6. Saul Slays Nahash, Morgan Bible, Fol. 33v, MS m.638 (c. 1240) [parchment codex] French, at the Morgan Library and Museum, New York. Themorgan.org/collection/crusader-bible/46# Figure 7. Silver Shrine of Charlemagne, Aachen Cathedral, (c.1215) [gilt, silver, copper, and enamel] Frank, at Aachen, Westphalia, Germany Myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spot_ghelm05.jpg Figure 8. Rochester Bestiary, f.11r, MS 12 FXIII (c. 1230) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library, London bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_12_f_xiii-f003r Figure 9. Ehad, a Clever Leader; Deborah, a Prophetess, Morgan Bible, fol. 12r, MS M.638 (c.1240) [parchment codex] French, at the Morgan Library and Museum, New York Themorgan.org/collection/crusader-bible/23# Figure 10. Plan of Jerusalem, The Hague, KB 76 F 5, (c.1200) [parchment codex] French, at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Netherlands manuscripts.kb.nl/show/manuscript/76+F+5 5 Figure 11. Effigy of Knight (attributed as Gilbert Marshall) (c. 1240) [plaster cast of original in Temple Church, London (c.1852)] at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London Vam.ac.uk/users/node/15435 Figure 12. Effigy of Knight (c.1280) [carved freestone] at Pershore Abbey, Worcestershire, England Warfare.altervista.org/13/pershore_abbey_knights_tomb.htm Figure 13. Supplicating Knight, Westminster Psalter, f.220, Royal 2 A XXII (c. 1200) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library, London Bl.uk/catalogues.illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP? Size=mid&IllID=38924 Figure 14. St. Maurice, Magdebourg Cathedral (c.1250) [carved freestone] at Magdebourg, Germany En.wilipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice Figure 15. The Longest Day; Israel’s Enemies Humiliated, Morgan Bible, Fol 11r MS M.638 (c.1240) [parchment codex] French, at the Morgan Library and Museum, New York Themorgan.org/collection/crusader-bible/21 Figure 16. Miniature from Arthurian Romances, f. 337v, MS 229 (c. 1275) [parchment codex] French, at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University beinecke.library.yale.edu/collections/highlights/arthurian- romances-ms-229 Figure 17. Historia Anglorum, Chronica Majora by Matthew Paris, Part III, MS 14 C VII (c.1250) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library, London bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_14_c_vii Figure 18. The Army of Varqa, The Romance of Varqa and Gulshah, page 4, 38 and 36b (c. 1250) Seljuk, at the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul Warfare.altervista.org/Turk/Romance_of_Varqa_and_gulshah.ht m Figure 19. Mamluk spearmen, Book three of Nihāyat al-su’l, Add MS 18866, 97r 205/602 (1371) [codex] Egypt or Syria, now in British Library, London qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100000000044.0x0003ca 6 Figure 20. Baptistery of St. Louis by Mohammad ibn al-Zain, LP 16 (c. 1320) [inlaid metal] Egypt or Syria, now in the Louvre, Paris Warfare.altervista.org/14/baptisterie_de_saint_louis.htm Figure 21. Nureddin, Sultan of Damascus Flees, History of Outremer by Willam of Tyre, f. 132r, Yates Thompson MS 12 (c. 1232-1260)[parchment codex] French, at the British Library, London. warfare.altervista.org/13/Histoire_dOutremerYates_Thompson_ 12-132.htm Figure 22. Knight and Muslim in Combat, Psalm 41, Luttrell Psalter, f.82, Add. MS 42130 (c. 1325) [parchment codex] English, at the British Library, London bl.uk/turning-the-pages/?id=a0f935d0-a678-11db-83e4- 0050c2490048&type=book Figure 23. Monument of Robert de Vere, Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Essex, England (c.1221) in Chancellor, Frederick (1890) The Ancient Sepulchral Monuments of Essex. Chelmsford: E.F. Kell. Effegiesandbrasses.com/783/1207 Figure 24. Monument of Robert, Duke of Normandy, Gloucester Cathedral (c. 1250) [wood] in Gloucestershire, England Churchmonumentssociety.org/Gloucester.html Figure 25. Effigy of Knight in Dorchester, Dorchester (possible William de Valence the Younger) Dorchester Abbey (c. 1282) [carved freestone] Themcs.org/churches/Dorchester%abbey.html 7 Introduction I.1 Significance of masculine identity The study of the Crusades is multi-faceted and itself has a long history. However, there is probably no more abused historical event than the colonization of the Latin East. The history of the Crusades has been manipulated and re-created numerous times for the advantage of current ideals and expectations almost from its inception, both in Europe and the Middle East. The French Right and Spanish Resistance during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte, Catherine the Great and Paul I, The British Empire during the wars in the Balkans, and more recently al-Qaeeda, Saddam Hussayn, and George W. Bush have referenced the Crusades to justify behaviors and beliefs which have very little to do with the men, Christian or Muslim, who fought and died on the battlefields of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant in the 12th and 13th centuries, nor with any real understanding of the sociopolitical context in which the battles occurred (Knobler 2006, 297-299, 304, 322). Modern scholars accept that the Crusades were vitally important culturally, as they occurred as well as in memory, but just how and why is not often clearly articulated, except in the case of Historical Architects and possibly scholars of medical history, whose understanding of the influence of Islamic culture in Europe is relatively well 8 studied in those contexts. In other words, there is general consensus that the Crusades were vitally important in the development of medieval culture, especially in regards to trade, but the mechanisms by which the Crusades affected the development of identity, collectively and individually, is somewhat lacking. Much of the study of Crusader activity has been relegated as military history and the sphere of men and their accepted dominance; this dominance has rendered medieval men, as D.M. Hadley states, “everywhere and nowhere” (1999, 4). This is especially true in regards to the lay warriors, the knightly class who both heavily financed campaigns as well as participated directly in state affairs and in engagements with the enemy, sacrificing money, time, and sometimes life. In the past decades, under the guise of feminist history, men have been marginalized as collective political entities seeking economic gain. The study of masculinity, especially that which is perceived as a “reductionist or re-representation of unchanging ‘male power’” (Hadley 1999, 3), can be perceived in some spheres of scholarly research as threatening. However, ‘men’ is not a single category or identity, rather various models of masculinity were constructed, reconstructed, and challenged in the high medieval (Hadley 1999, 2-3). The elite warrior class produced knights which dominated the different models of masculinity, they were in essence the highest degree of male ideology. Medieval conception of identity was corporate in nature by modern standards, but an individual’s station in the social hierarchy, including actions he participated in in order to facilitate social movement, such as the 9 Crusades, was vitally important to his kin and descendants (Dressler 2004, 3; Bennett 1999, 76). The men who chose to pursue Crusader activity in the late 11th through 13th centuries profoundly affected medieval society; their identity and the way in which they demonstrated that identity through material culture had lasting effects on perceptions of masculinity and Western society. The material culture, especially the armour, arms and furniture of knighthood, designated the medieval warrior as an elite knight. Armour set the knight apart from other social classes and positions, and as the class and position gained social importance through its association with milites Christi through Crusader activity, so too did the importance placed on the aesthetic representation of the male ideal in armour. Chapter 1: Previous Scholarship & Potential for Material Culture in the Study of Masculine Identity 1.1 Previous Literature Crusader scholarship has at each time been studied by a relatively small community of scholars. The 19th century saw a resurgence of chivalric idealism during the Romantic Movement and the expansion of European empires to the Middle East, where antiquarians took an interest in the study of the physical remains of the Latin East. In Europe, the same movement saw the study and repair of many effigies and churches associated with Crusaders such as Temple Church in London. Despite what damage may have been done to monuments by attempts at restoration and the Victorians’ romanticized ideals of the Crusades, early work on the subject of knighthood 10 and masculine theory in the middle ages was paramount in developing discussions on the topic that are still relevant today. It also facilitated an interest in the translation of many Arabic manuscripts such as the al-Nawadīr al-Sultaniyya wa’l-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya (The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin), translated by Richards in 1897, as well as numerous other manuscripts. In the 20th century a more scientific approach was taken towards Crusader studies, with a particular focus on military theory, for example the study of the development of arms and armour undertaken by Claude Blair (1958). Blair published one of the first comprehensive studies on armour and arms, European Armour; circa 1066 to circa 1700, which addressed a lack of material evidence and artistic license in evidence from manuscripts and statuary. In the 1980s, David Edge and John Miles Paddock (Edge and Paddock 1988) studied the development of armour and its impact on warfare and to some extent the warrior himself and the society he lived in. Edge and Paddock’s Arms & Armour of the Medieval Knight is chronological in the development of armour and allows for discussion of non-European influence on this development. David Nicolle’s vast works on military theory covers the arms of both European and Middle Eastern warriors as well as archaeological studies of garrison sites (Nicolle 1970, 1983, 1993, 1999, 20002) and military theory. This, coupled with his understanding of primary documentary sources, makes him one of the most paramount scholars of Crusader military theory and history. Discussions on military tactics and armour have also been enhanced by the works of John France (1999, 2000), 11 who raises important questions as to the advantages and adaptations of military strategy. France’s Crusading Warfare and its Adaption to Eastern Conditions in the Twelfth Century, is perhaps the first discourse on the effects of Western armour and military strategy on Eastern forces and vice versa. France’s position is that adaption to Middle Eastern geography and Muslim military tactics were addressed and successfully surmounted by Frankish Crusaders. France’s study concludes that in a period of relatively little technological changes, the formation of mobile siege units and the heavy cavalry charge were in fact developed to combat the opposing forces in the Middle East (France 2000, 60-62). While France’s research raises important questions about the ability of Europeans to understand and address Muslim military tactics, historian Perter Newark counters this argument in Sabre & Lance (1987) where he raises questions that focus on the European inability to utilize light cavalry or mounted archers and highlights cultural reasons for this. Likewise, in Saladin and Military Muslim Theory, William Hamblin (1992) addresses the Battle of Hattin as an example of European military strategy gone wrong and uses it as an example for overall lack of European adaptability in the Middle East. Battle and siege victory and loss are multi-faceted events often comprised of political events as much as those on the battle field. However, important evidence as to the maintenance of supply lines, tactics, including arms and armour, and individual and group actions can illustrate trends and are often indicative of larger scale systems of operation and cultural expectations. 12  Other historians, especially those concerned with horses, such as Ann Hyland (1994) have contributed new textual and archeological evidence to Crusader history based on the size and origin of European warhorses in order to help establish evidence for the tactics of European and Middle Eastern armies. Phillip Sidnell (2006) also focuses on warhorses via Muslim documentary sources such as Usāmah ibn Munqidh’s accounts of afrendji. Equestrian studies in general appear to be severely lacking in larger anthologies on Crusader history and archaeology. Considering that both the Franco-Norman elite warrior class and the Muslim militaries were horse cultures, the lack of equestrian studies in most Crusader histories and studies is disappointing. The size, build, and origin of warhorses can highlight numerous components of Crusader theory, including heaviness of armour, tactics, and desire to maintain use of Occidental horses and the cultural implications associated with that. The Study of Muslim military theory has gained popularity in recent decades, as seen in Mohsen Zakeri’s Muslim ‘Chivalry’ at the Time of the Crusaders (1997). Zakeri’s work uses primary sources to develop discussion on both Muslim military tactic and the concept of masculinity in medieval Islam and the Muslim medieval cultural experience during the Crusades. This is important in establishing context for the Crusader experience in the Middle East. However, critical analysis of the individual Muslim warrior identity and experience must be further addressed. Crusader studies, which have traditionally focused on the Western perspective, have enjoyed a refreshing influx of information from scholars such as William Hamblin (1992) and 13 Geoffrey Tantums’s Muslim Warfare: a study of a medieval Muslim treatise on the art of war. These scholars focus on Middle Eastern sources and the Muslim experience in their own right which un-attaches medieval Muslim military and masculinity theory from that of constant comparison with the West. This has opened dialogue and broken long established biased ‘truths’, allowing the Crusades to be studied more objectively. 1.2 Material Culture in the Study of Masculine Identity This current work has been developed to address a key component which is lacking in current Crusader studies, namely the effects of the Crusades on the development of ideas of masculinity in Western Europe, especially the Frankish, Norman, and Angevin controlled regions, and its relation to the martial asceticism and aesthetics of the knight, primarily his armour. It is not the aim of this dissertation to either prove or disprove the tactical advantages of European or Middle Eastern military theory. Rather, this study will use discussion on military theory, especially arms and armour, to illustrate that the heavy armour utilized by European knights was as much aesthetic as it was practical (or impractical as the case may be), and was as much a component of elite warrior identity as it was effective, or non- effective, in the Middle East. Therefore, the armour will be examined in light of both military theory as well as social theory. Contemporary accounts of battles and sieges, relevant literature and chronicles, modern military theory, depictions in art and sculpture will be utilized. A considerable amount of this dissertation will be dedicated to Muslim military theory, the identity of the 14 Medieval Muslim warrior, and masculinity in the Middle East as a broader context for the creation of the milites Christi in the West, as well as to provide a counterpoint to the use of European arms and armour in the Levant. The purpose is to answer the question of why Frankish and Norman knights in the Latin East for 200 years did not adapt more Middle Eastern military techniques and practices, to be better suited to that theatre of activity. This paper hopes to prove that the European resistance to the adoption of Muslim war theory was based on a masculine ideal of Chivalry and milites Christi, of which the armament of the knight’s body and display of that armour was paramount to the masculine identity of medieval warriors and men. The word ‘masculine’ was introduced to England after the Norman Conquest and gained popularity during the ensuing high medieval period. Leo Braudy argues that “while male biology may, depending on the degree of scientific sophistication, be described in terms of seemingly quantifiable physical forms, masculinity is a more unstable concept and can rarely be defined once and forever” (Braudy 2003, 15). However ritualization across cultures and time has generally distinguished maleness, or masculinity, via warrior activity. “War,” Braudy states, “has been one of the few social initiations that binds together this otherwise wide variety of masculine rites and traditions” (Braudy 2003, 21). Arms and armour in medieval Europe played an important symbolic role which helped define constructs of masculinity within society. The symbolic use of arms and armour would also have material consequences in military strategy, and thus, in military campaigns and the outcome of regional 15 disputes. That is not to say that arms and armour across time and place have not been both symbolically and materially important to societal function, rather that the high Medieval period saw an increase in distinction in armour across class and social standing. It directly facilitated and illustrated the medieval idealism of masculinity. It would be this symbolic importance placed on the armoured body of the milites Christi and the deficiency it produced in the development and adaptation of new battle strategy which would eventually cost the Normans and Franks the Latin states in the Near East to their Muslim counterparts while emphasizing these very Crusader campaigns to develop the highest degree of masculine identity. Chapter 2: The Crusades and the Medieval Warrior of God 2.1 Context of the Crusaders For the purpose of this dissertation the term Crusade will be used to define the military campaigns and garrison by Western Europeans which directly led to the formation and sustainment of the Latin States in the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant between c. 1095-1291. It must be stressed that in the 200 years of Latin settlement, most interaction with locals and leaders of surrounding Caliphates and Sultanates was peaceful despite often strained relations (Marshall 1992, 19). These relations between leaders of these polities were most often no different in many respects than those relations between Western leaders of the time (Kӧhler 2013, 2). 16 Treaties and alliances all took place between Latin and Muslim leaders. The surviving chronicles of contemporaries such as Hamza ibn Asad abu Ya’la Ibn al-Qalanisi (d. 1160) and Usāmah ibn Munqidh (d. 1188) support this (Kӧhler 2013, 4). The cause for the Crusades is debatable. While the First Crusade was initially a response to Byzantine request for military assistance from the West, it is impossible to determine whether Pope Urban II had further plans for a Roman Catholic and Eastern union (Kӧhler 2013, 22). Nor is it possible to determine Alexius Comnenus’ intended use for the Western military he took partial control over by requiring that knights swear allegiance to him. Whatever the initial intention of the First Crusade, it is unlikely that the Byzantine court was expecting the eclectic mix of combatants and pilgrims which arrived. The First Crusade was composed of everything from professional military elites to poor pilgrims. (Constable 1998, 390). By 1098 neither Pope Urban II nor Alexius Comnenus had full control over the Crusading army. Rather a mix of Norman and Frankish elites such as Raymond of Toulouse and Bishop Adhemere of le Puys, who was a proponent of relations between elite knights and the poorer pilgrims, were essentially in charge of bands of militarized people (Kӧhler 2013, 25). When, after the Prince’s Crusade and the remnants of the ill-fated People’s Crusade merged and defeated the Seljuk Turks at Nicaea, they marched south on accord of their own will to eventually take Jerusalem and establish the first Latin States. The individuals who participated in the First Crusades would set an 17 idealistic precedence for later crusades. It also established Norman and Frankish political monopoly in the region. 2.2 Masculinity Defined: milites Christi Prior to the Crusades, the term milites Christi often referred to priests and other clergy. Their armour and weapons were metaphorical and spiritual in nature. It was not expected that a man in Holy Orders should fight physically, but rather spiritually. Roman soldier Martin of Tours, who became a bishop, wrote in the 4th century, “I am a Soldier of Christ, I am not allowed to fight” and later Pope Gregory I (590-604) used it as a term for priests while the Rule of St. Benedict directly envisioned a military-ordered domestic and service structure, albeit only with spiritual weapons (Smith 2008, 578). However, by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) the term began to be used to describe laymen whose activities focused on the sanctity of theirs or others’ souls, such as the Lorocati, so-called after the Italian Dominic Loricatus, a hermit and ascetic. As K.A. Smith (2008, 585) states, these men are the earliest example of the “armor clad ascetic.” Their use of armor however was purely symbolic for these men did not use it to protect their bodies; rather they used the armor to mortify their flesh and often partook in self- flagellation. Nevertheless, Loricatus and his followers are often seen as the point in which oratores and bellatores merged in the medieval mind and began changing the definition of milites Christi. These men were not merely spiritual warriors, but their “feats of endurance” (Smith 2008, 585) and athleticism promoted the physical presence and prowess of the male body in 18 the spiritual battle for Christ. At the same time there was a renewed interest in martyred Roman soldiers, warrior-saints, like Sebastian, George, Maurice, and Eustace “which took root…[and] provided powerful, martially inflected models of male sanctity that preachers encouraged members of the knightly class to emulate” (Smith 2008, 583). Despite Pope Urban II’s distinction between the pilgrims and fighters he sent on the First Crusade, with pilgrims and priests having been generally held higher spiritual worth, it was imperative that spiritual sanctity also be offered to the men who were fighting. He assessed that “…the Holy Land required fighting knights, not singing monks” (Smith 2008, 580). Thus, it appears that by 1095 practical necessity facilitated the further transition of the milites Christi from a priest in cloth to a layman in armour. By the early 12th century comparisons between miles temporalis and miles spiritualis, such as in the Similtudo Milites from Canterbury, draw ever more comparison between the two roles. The bellatore became more spiritual, his battlefield actions, and his life in general, becoming that of a defender of Christendom (Constable 1998, 383). Likewise, oratores became more militaristic, their spiritual armour being referred to in specific terms: “The worldly knight is fortified with worldly arms, so the spiritual knight [to fight] against a visible enemy, the intellectual [arms] are very necessary for the spiritual knight who [fights] in the spirit against an invisible enemy” (Smith 2008, 581). The author then lists the expected equipment as required for a milites spiritualis, including “a horse, bridle, saddle, spurs, hauberk, helmet, shield, lance, and 19 sword” (Smith 2008, 581). Bernard of Clairvaux, when writing about milites temporalis, assigned spiritual meaning to the arms of the knight such as “the shield of patience, chain mail of humility, the lance of love.” And Herbert of Lasinga wrote of the “shield of obedience, sword of patience, and the spear of providence” (Constable 1998, 381-383). An illustration of the Summa de vitiis et virtutibus in the Harley (c.1236) illustrated the relationship between sanctity and armour (Fig. 1). In the image the knight is watched by an angel and above him the inscription reads Milicia est vita hominis super terram (The life of man upon the earth is warfare). His helmet is also labeled as Spres future gaudii (For a helmet the hope of salvation). Likewise the rest of his armour is also labeled with virtues and his shield represents the Holy Trinity. Christ Himself is increasingly depicted in a martial role such as in the Ancren Riwle, which informs its female intended audience that Christ is in fact a knight in tournament (Constable 1998, 381). Christ then is depicted embodying the martial qualities associated with the physical prowess and power of the masculine man of arms. Christ is no longer passive and in the realm of the spiritual, but temporal, aggressive, and physically powerful. 20 Figure 1. A mounted knight’s armour is labeled with virtues and his shield bears the symbol of the Holy Trinity. From the Summa de vitiis et virtutibus. 21  The merging of the bellatore and oratore may have preceded the Crusades, but it was the Crusades which brought the milites temporalis as a milites Christi into mainstream culture. Prior to the Crusades, the Lorocati were a small subculture as was the cult of the warrior-saints. The explosion of milites Christi culture is most tangibly obvious in the formation of the Military Orders such as the Templars and the Hospitallers, but did not ever exclude the lay knight. One did not have to join a Holy Order to serve Christ nor did one have to give up a martial identity, rather it was promoted. The Crusades facilitated travel and movement of people which helped negotiate the spread of chivalric idealism, especially in the Franko-Norman courts of the Angevins. The ideal medieval male, the milites Christi, was almost universal in Western Christendom. This would not have developed so fully nor spread so widely in art, literature, fashion, and social function if not for the colonization of the Latin East. As David Edge and John Miles Paddock state, “[the] Social and military effects of the Crusades on Europe for the next two centuries were almost as dramatic and some would say altogether out of proportion to the actual numbers of combatants involved” (1988, 40). In fact, according to the historian Maurice Keen “….the impact of the crusades on medieval civilization, and indeed European attitudes and civilization for long after the middle ages, was profound, almost incalculable” (1984, 44). 2.3 Ghazi (Soldier of Allah) & and the Medieval Muslim Man 22  Prior to Islam, and in many respects Christianity, the Middle East and Europe were united under Hellenism. It must be remembered that many of the shared aspects of masculinity and ‘Chivalry’ between Europe and the Middle East may not be an exchange so much as a continuation of a shared past (Zakeri 1996, 46). Despite this, it is important to remember that although a parallel exist between European knighthood and Muslim warrior culture, and the “Muslim Knight” is implied through various manuscripts and illustrations, differences in custom and even the structure of landholding between the regions make an exact parallel impossible. Nevertheless, during the colonization of the Latin East, both European and Middle Eastern chroniclers described each other using words commonly associated and sometimes used exclusively with knighthood and Chivalry. One of these terms was futuwwa, a term popularized by Caliph al-Nāsir li-Dīn Allāh in his Kitāb al-Futuwwa, a manual for initiation rites which also included codes of moral and a religious conduct (Zakeri 1996, 31). The men who participated in an internal organization of futuwwa joined a brotherhood of sorts and were called fityān. Although they had no obvious martial role as an organization or individually within it, there were three distinct categories or ranks of men which denote a martial ascetic. The first was the men by words (qawli), the second was those who drank the salted water (şurbi) and those men who wore the sword (sayfi), with the men who wore the sword being the highest level within the futuwwa (Zakeri 1996, 32). This is reminiscent of the division of social class commonly referred to in medieval Europe: those who work, those who pray, and those who fight. 23  A direct parallel between futuwwa and chivalry was first made by Joseph von Hammer- Purgstall in the mid-19th century but was later refuted by Peter Salinger in the 1950s who claimed that it was impossible as Chivalry was directly related to feudalism. However, as Mohsen Zakeri points out, while the codes of Chivalry were rather uniform across Western Europe, and seemed to be recognized and paralleled in the Middle East, feudalism was anything but consistent (1996, 36). Iqta was the system of landholding in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk polities in which an amīr was allotted a specific amount of land and its whole or partial revenues. In return the amīr was expected to provide military service and troops to the state. While many amīrs were chosen based on their own ability to rise through the ranks of the mamlūk, there is some evidence that certain holdings were hereditary such as those of Nur al-Dīn and Salah al-Dīn (Zakeri 1996, 35). And there is evidence of ceremony and initiation in the granting of iqta such as the account of Abu’l-Fida when his cousin al-Muzaffar Mahmoud was given the land of Hannah in 1284 by the Mamkuk Sultan Qalawun. This ceremony included the giving of cloth, clothes and sword. Similar accounts of ceremonial court function were recorded by John of Tours in Historia Goffredi Plantagenistae (c. 1127) which illustrate a symbolic component to the granting of land as well as other court activity (Leaf and Purcell 1985, 43). Another word which is commonly translated to mean knight is fāris which literally means horse rider. Zakeri points out that while the word itself is not indicative of a knightly or even martial distinction, it is the derivative of the word furūsīya which is commonly used in Arabic manuscripts of the time to indicate a person or action of “high moral character” or “chivalry” (Zakeri 1996, 33). Abul-Mahasin Yusuf’s definition of furūsīya is a ‘true’ horseman, or a man who along with excellent martial qualities, also possesses high moral and religious qualities as well (Leaf and Purcell 1985, 44). 24  It must be remembered however, that masculinity in the medieval Middle East is not dependent on its European parallel. It must be accepted that codes of honor and moral principle which defined the male Muslim experience during the Crusades are just as deserving of standing alone as Chivalry is in the West. The men who embodied the highest marks of knighthood or futuwwa such as Godfrey of Bouillon (d.1100), Richard I (d.1199), Usāmah ibn Munqidh (d.1188), and Salah al-Dīn (d.1193) were often educated and born into families of high political and economic standing and in some respects may have had more similar life experiences than they did with they did with lower social classes in their own societies. From both Europe and the Middle East it was men such as these who were afforded the position of commander and possessed the means to purchase the armour and other trapping which such a position required. However, positon and rank appear to have been viewed quite differently by Muslim and Christian chroniclers. While Western knights appear to unapologetically adorn their own persons and accept marks of courage and fame, Muslim chroniclers such as Abū al-Hasan Alī b. Abī Bakr al-Harawī describe the Franks and being preoccupied with rank and status among their kings and nobles, as well as the “things of this world”, understandably this is taken to mean against good moral character (Hamblin 1992, 238). While bias must be taken into account with al-Harawī, it is interesting to note that individuality and a lack of unit cohesion seem to illustrate much of the crusader experience in the Levant. 2.1 Crusade & Jihad: Medieval Holy War as Idea The first crusade was instigated by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in Auvergne in 1095. Although no dictation of the sermon survives, several witnesses to it did later record the words of Urban II and his call to Holy War. The cause for the initial Crusade is multi-faceted, and its significance and components vary between religious figures, elites, and poor 25 pilgrims who participated, who all had motivations whether spiritual, political, or economic. Ironically it is from Muslim sources such as the historian Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al--̒Azīmī (d.1161) and the chronicler Usāmah ibn Munqidh who gave various answers to the question of the crusaders’ motivations. Al--̒Azīmī concludes that the Crusaders were seeking the treasures of Baghdad while Usāmah ibn Munqidh practically states in his Lubab al-Adab (The Best Parts of Culture) that Crusader activity was a response to Christian pilgrim routes being blocked by Muslim powers. This illustrates both the variety of reasons Muslim contemporaries formulated, but can also possibly illustrate the variety of motivations of the Crusaders themselves. Urban II’s own motives remain elusive. He did receive a request from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus for military assistance against the Seljuk Turks, but why he was so zealous in his support of the military campaign is not easily answered. Michael Kӧhler questions whether it was possible that Urban II saw a potential union between the Western and Eastern churches (2013, 22) at a time when the Eastern Church was under direct threat of invasion. Urban II appointed two men to physically lead the army, Raymond IV of Toulouse (ironically it was at the battle of Toulouse that Duke Odo of Aquitaine defeated an Umayyad Muslim army in 721, essentially halting Muslim conquest of Western Europe) and Bishop Adhemere of Le Puys (Kӧhler 2013, 25). There is some question as to how far Urban II initially considered the appropriate extent of the campaign under the banner of the Holy See. In the 26 decades leading up to 1095, Norman conquests of Sicily, Calabria, and Malta under Roger I had expanded Norman territory against Muslim rule. While Norman expansion during the 11th century is usually viewed as political and economic in nature, the 1066 invasion of Britain by William was given a papal edict from Pope Alexander II (d. 1073). Norman conquest of Muslim territory in the Mediterranean under the de Hautevilles may be viewed as part of a greater Norman expansion of surrounding regions. However, in his sermon it is clear from the surviving accounts that Urban II mentioned Jerusalem specifically. He also offered spiritual reward for those who participated (Christie and Gerish 2003, 146) and unlike the contemporary Norman expansions, the Church itself would essentially lead the campaign. It is clear that he and those elites who participated, mainly Franks and Normans, had their goals set beyond the protection of the Byzantine border in Anatolia. After the Siege of Nicaea in 1097 they set themselves south to the Levant. Scriptural justification for Holy War is not clearly defined in the Bible. Whereas there are instances of God ordering the Hebrews to make war against enemies such as those in Canaan, the New Testament almost exclusively forbids violence (Christie and Gerish 2003, 143). But, as Niall Christie and Deborah Gerish discuss, when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, it needed to justify its campaigns and sometimes brutal enforcement of its borders was required in order to maintain unification. St. Augustine (d.430) addressed this quandary when he explained that Christian 27 conquest of other people was a sort of tough love; it was better to convert through force, or even kill a non-Christian for the good of his own soul than to let him continue to live without Christ. Christians could conquer and even kill non-Christian enemies of the state without endangering their souls as long as the campaign was done under the auspices of evangelism. Whatever the personal or political purposes behind crusade, the Church did profit considerably (Edge and Paddock 1988, 40) as did numerous individuals, however it is impossible to measure the spiritual rewards participants experienced and they should not be discounted as equal motivation. European participants in the crusades were able to bypass monastic intervention for their souls, with special emphasis being placed on those who fought. In many respects medieval sanctity was just as integral in creating justification for economic and political mobility (Dressler 2004, 92). In contrast to Christianity, Islam has literal source, tradition, and utilization of Holy War, or lesser jihād, al-jihād al-asghar (the making of war), which is not to be confused with greater jihād, al-jihād al-akbar, which is an internal struggle or war within one’s own soul for purity. Instructions on the correct implementation of jihād al-asghar are found in the Qur’an, especially in Sūratu t-Tawbath (the Repentance, chapter 9) which clearly defines the use of one’s money and body in that dua. It also exalts men who participate in jihād al-asghar, bestowing praise on them from God above other men (Dawood 1959, 322). This component of Islam was especially useful during Prophet Muhammed’s lifetime, as illustrated in the Hadith, and the Umayyad 28 Caliphate around 750, during which time Sunnīte doctrine followed strict observance of the conversion of all people to Islam or instituting them as dhimmīs (non-Muslims allowed to live within Muslim controlled regions for a tax and set of laws governing them). This doctrine was adhered to in the ensuing centuries which saw vast regions conquered relatively swiftly by Muslim forces under the Abbasid Caliphate. Political turmoil within the Muslim world, especially the rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt around 900, and the strong resistance of forces in Byzantium, the Iberian Peninsula, and Central Asia turned jihād al-asghar into something more symbolic, ritualistic, and even nostalgic in nature while maintaining frontier border regions (Christie and Gerish 2003, 140-142). Not all adherence to sustained offensive jihād al-asghar was lost however. Preachers such as Ibn Nubāta I-Fāriqī (d.984) who delivered sermons in Aleppo, facilitated popularity in the offensive wars against the Byzantines using Qur’anic scripture (Christie and Gerish 2003, 142). Thousands of men joined this fight under the banner of Islam. By the time of the first Crusader campaign, Islam had a long history of jihād al-asghar which gave a faith based purpose for the conquest of new regions and peoples as well as the protection of borders. As mentioned previously, Muslim contemporaries had varied -̒ determinations for the Crusader’s activity, but it was Alī b. Tāhir al-Sulamī (d. 1106) whose insight first recognized a faith based component to Crusader activity and he responded by preaching a counter offensive jihād al-asghar against the Frankish and Norman forces in Damascus. A diction of this sermon survives and is known as the Kitab al-Jihād (Book of Jihad). It is unclear how al-Sulamī became aware of the faith based component to the Crusades (Holt 2004, 17). Military conflict with invading forces was not uncommon in the medieval Middle 29 East, and conflict between Muslim states sometimes carried a faith based component as well, whether sectarian in origin, or more commonly, political. It is possible that al-Sulamī was witness to European hostages or prisoners of war or had access to proceedings between the newly formed Latin States and Damascus or perhaps as Christie and Gerish point out, there was an overall understanding of Holy War across Europe and the Middle East at this time, which is quite intriguing as the two grew in isolation from one another (2003, 140). Whatever the case al- Sulamī did not see the first Crusade as an isolated incident but rather as part of a larger assault by Christendom on Muslim territories including Sicily and areas of Spain (Holt 2004, 17). There are obvious parallels and correlations between Holy War in the form of Crusade and Jihād al-asghar. Milites Christes had a possible counterpart in the term ġāzī. However while milites Christi was often used as a blanket term for all those men who fought in the Crusades, the term ġāzī appears to refer more specifically to certain orders of fighters of specific campaigns, and the word itself originates from the Qur’an in which battles led by the Islamic Prophet Muhammed are called ġazwah. While Christianity had a precarious history of synthesizing military campaign with the teachings of Jesus Christ, Islam had no such issues and indeed a Muslim warrior would have considered all his campaigns and activities to be faith based. There was no need then for Muslim men be delivered a new word to distinguish those who fought for God from those who did not. One was either a Muslim warrior or one was not, while one may be a Christian Knight but prior to the crusades, not necessarily a Knight of Christ or milites Christi. Although the late historian Maurice Keen urges caution when determining that Chivalry was both directly reflexive and causal of the Crusades, he states “Christian rituals and church law did much to underscore the special significance of Crusading in the level of Chivalry one was associated with. The crusader took his vow in church, in the presence of a priest; he sewed onto his garment the emblem of the cross…which secured to him special advantages… [And] 30 Jerusalem did acquire, in the eyes of knighthood, a significance that no other earthly city could possess” (1984, 56). Despite Keen’s argument that a Christian component is found in the earlier Chansons de Geste and Chanson de Roland, specific church sanctioned warrior culture and chivalry was not commonplace or even widely acceptable until the Crusades when it became a major component of Medieval masculinity and society. As a warrior in Islam, one’s masculinity was already sanctioned by God, physical prowess and the use of one’s body in battle to serve God was intrinsic. The Muslim man used his person to fight for God as is called for in Sūratu t-Tawbath. The Christian warrior however needed to negotiate the meaning of his actions with the teachings of Christ and therefore negotiate his masculinity. Warrior culture is inherently at odds with the New Testament, as Christ himself lived by words alone and was executed by soldiers. Codes of Chivalry then were all the more important in delegating certain acceptable warrior behaviors while admonishing others. Once the milites Christi was sanctioned by the church for his military actions against non- Christians, a limitation of sorts needed to be set in place to keep him in line and indeed, keep him Christian. Chivalry then was a response to the uneasiness that Church sanctioned masculinity created in Europe (Dressler 1999, 84), though it was needed in the East to conquer an enemy the most devout of which were warriors. This is not to say that Islam had no tenants related to Chivalric ideals, there were certainly codes of ethical behaviors as was discussed previously, but that they were easy to administer through scripture and were an integral part of Islam since its inception. Chapter 3: War in the Medieval West & East 3.1 Frank and Norman military structure 31  According to John France, there are four main factors when considering the military structure of Western Europe during the time of the crusades: “dominance of land as a form of wealth; limited competence of government; technology broadly favored defensive rather than offensive strategy; geography and climate of Western Europe” (1999, 2). Because the economy of Western Europe was land based its warfare was primarily proprietorial, whether land dispute was the cause for instigation or not. Likewise, land was relatively difficult to convert to money and it was nearly impossible to retain a standing army or support military infrastructure such as state provided arms, shelter, food and payment. Armies and the scale of warfare were generally small, consisting of men raised ad hoc from “allies and friends in the zone of activity” (France 1999, 6). Local populations were usually not supplied with arms for various reasons. The first is that warfare rarely reached the scale in which untrained men were needed for sheer numbers. The second is that the stratification of the social order in medieval Western Europe was not often conducive to an armed populace, except in places such as Spain, which experienced constant warfare with a constant and consistent enemy (France 1999, 5). The third is that war activity was not necessarily a public affair, but often a private one between elite landholders. The complex feudal system rarely lent itself to a simple pyramid structure of vassal and lord, rather vassals often owed allegiance to a network of lords and vice versa. An armed populace could easily be used against oneself in the shifting tides of allegiance. This is not to say that large scale operations did not take 32 place, many did and of those many drew troops from laypersons. The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 had over 14,000 men of which at least 3,000 were cavalry and in southern Italy, Norman conquest of Sicily and Malta took considerable numbers, but these were exceptional cases and most campaigns and engagements were smaller. This is another reason that the Crusades were so exceptional: their numbers. The first crusade had over 60,000 men, of which up to 7,000 were cavalry and the battle of Hattin in 1187 had over 20,000 Latins (France 1999, 57-58). The economic changes of the 12th century saw in increase in professional soldiering as well as mercenaries. A large portion of whom may have been landless knights, other than first sons of elite landholders. These men increased the scale of warfare by some amount, but the structure of militaries stayed the same and men very rarely were retained (France 2000, 8). The nature of militarized warriors in Western Europe was relatively loosely organized. Ad hoc armies rarely lent themselves to cohesion. The economic and social structure led to disparity between elite landed knights who made the bulk of the heavy cavalry and the infantry and archers who were usually of lower social standing. The increase in landless knights may have led to the development of the sergeants à cheval, or lightly armoured mounted warrior, but it does not appear that this ever developed into an acceptable role within ranks and there is some evidence to suggest that they were held in some disdain by elite knights (France 2000, 50).There was little focus on the unit in Medieval Western warfare. Rather than tactic which requires unit cohesion, medieval Western European warfare tended to rely on bravery for the 33 individual and shock tactics for the unit when in battle. Men fought side by side who may have never met. For this reason individual persona was important, including one’s genealogy, bravery, and chivalry (France 2000, 52) as well as one’s armour and arms which visually increased the warrior’s aesthetic appeal as well as denoted his superior lineage through his ability to purchase such items. The Medieval warrior, while ideally courageous on his own account, also inhabited a world in which economic and genealogical origins could emphasize his social position and were often done through material culture. Individual bravery, prowess and even apparel were important in the Crusades, despite some evidence that units within the Levant acted, at times, with more cohesion than in the West out of necessity, John France states that “there was a culture of military individualism; the most important leaders of an army were there as a consequence of personal rank and importance, and in these relatively lose formations personal bravery was a vital quality” (2000, 51). It may appear that such individualism is a severe handicap within a military, and indeed, the Franks and Normans appear to have adapted to the East best when they fastened themselves to one another, such as under Richard I (France 2000. 56). One’s experience in battle was not merely martial in nature, but also sanctified by the church. Service to God was a personal experience and while it may have ended for the knight upon his death, his Crusader status could be vitally important for his kin. The high Medieval saw the beginning of funerary monuments, personal and family chapels, and the beginning of heraldry used to distinguish individuals and families. Individuality within 34 religion was an experience both acceptable as well as physically advertised within space. A Knight’s body was used in such a way which displayed his prestigious rank and seat in society through expensive armour and arms. It also advertised his commitment to Holy War, physically and metaphorically. While a warrior may not necessarily have partaken in Crusade, by the mid- 12th century the knight in general was associated with milites Christi (Dressler 1999, 92). 3.2 Western Armour In 1066 the Norman knight was generally equipped with a half sleeved hauberk, and conical helmet with nose guard under which he wore a mail coif. (Edge and Paddock 1988, 43-45). A sword and or a spear seem to be standard as well as a kite shield, which due to its weight and length was strapped to the left arm of the warrior for both infantry and mounted, rather than carried by hand, and acted to protect the entire length of his left side (Nicolle 2002). These shields appear to have continued into use well into the 12th century as seen in the Temple Pyx c.1140-50 (Edge and Paddock 1988, 38) (Fig. 2). Depictions such as the Bayeux Tapestry illustrate the overall lack of leg and forearm protection and the lack of plate armour, although some figures appear to have mail clad legs (Fig. 3). There is some speculation that 35 certain individuals in the Bayeux Tapestry appear to be wearing lamellar armour and jazerans, but as John France states it is unlikely that armour from the East would have been used that early and instead determines that it was a depiction of something else, such as a decorated undershirt (France 1999, 21). It is also worth considering that it could be scale armour. Throughout the 12th and 13th centuries chainmail remained the standard heavy body armour. It is difficult to establish whether the mail itself changed. Artistic license must be taken into consideration when analyzing contemporary depictions of mail. Evidence of ‘banded’ mail comes from depictions which illustrate mail in largely segmented sections or bands. However, no known mail of this style has survived and it is possible that it was a style of depiction (Blair 1958, 35). Yet, it is worth considering two knight statues on the west face of Wells Cathedral (c.1230) (Fig. 4) and the difference in the depiction of the mail on the legs, neck, and arms. It appears that the mail on the chausses is banded in a different direction than the hauberk and also that a different size ring may have been used on parts of the body which required less mobility such as the trunk, while smaller rings were used on the arms. (France 1999, 17). 36 Figure 2. Knights from the Temple Pyx showing early 12th century kite shields and conical helmets with nose guards. Figure 3. The Bayeux tapestry illustrates the lack surcoats and the exposure of forearms in the late 11th century, but also shows the early Norman charge with spears held in hand rather than couched. 37 Figure 4. The Wells Cathedral Knights in mail, surcoat, bevors, arming cap and great helm as well as possible plate armour on the shoulders and chest area. There does not appear to be any “clean line of development” of armour (France 1999, 16) in the high Medieval period, rather there was a steady trend toward heavier armour. It also appears that a warrior’s armour was very much a personal choice and highly dependent on his social and economic situation. By the early 12th century, evidence of mailed hand coverings, usually mail mittens with leather palms, was common as were 38 fully mailed legs, chausses, and feet as well as more fitted mail sleeves (Edge and Paddock 1988, 56). Belts were also very common from the 12 th century on and were used to distribute the weight of mail hauberks. Ventails, a flap of mail that could be placed over the lower half of the face, was possibly used as early as the first half of the 12th century. At the same time conical helmets had fallen from style and were replaced by a variety of helmets. The most popular of which was first a round topped close fitting hemispherical helmet with was sometimes worn underneath the mail coif (Fig. 5). Despite the variety of helmets, nose guards seem to be universally dropped completely by the second half of the 12th century and various other forms of faceguards were utilized. After 1220 the great helm became popular for elites and would remain popular in the ensuing centuries (Blair 1958, 30). A type of bascinet with a forward tilting point which appeared in the mid-13th century is most certainly of Middle Eastern origin (Nicolle 2002, 583), although the advantage to the placement of the point is not clear, it is most likely distribution of weight. Examples of various new types of face defenses were common by the first half of the 13th century. These were sometimes flat sheets with a slit for the eyes and holes for breaching attached to a flat topped helm as seen in the Morgan Bible (c.1250) (Fig. 6) and the Silver Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen (c. 1215), which also sport facial defenses and are a type of precursor to the great helm (Fig 7). Examples of the great helm can be seen as early as the 1230s an example of which is a depiction on the west face of Wells Cathedral (Fig. 3) and in the 39 Rochester Bestiary (c 1230) (Fig. 8). The great helm seems to be the preferred head and face protection for the most elite who sometimes placed a gold or silver crown atop it. Gold or silver edging and filigree can be seen around the eye slit and they appear to have come in different colors as well (Edge and Paddock 1988, 56). There is some evidence that knights also sported a brocade fillet or brow band under their coifs and that they were decorated with jewels as a sign of rank (Edge and Paddock 1999, 56) It is worth mentioning that these may be reminiscent of Islamic tariz, a type of brow band used in medieval Islamic courts to denote rank. The flat top design of the helm and rounded bascinet are interesting as they actually provide more surface area for strikes and less glancing surface area. It must be assumed that more metal was used in comparison to a conical helmet in order to increase their strength, which would also have increased ther weight (France 1999, 17). Pointed bascinets and great helms with narrowing at the crown may have helped with this issue. Another style of helmet is the kettle helmet which fit like a hat. It protected the head while a broad rim protected the neck and face from downward and side blows while providing the wearer with superior visibility. These helmets are commonly depicted on troops alongside knights and were probably a very effective, cheap, and easily constructed helmet for infantry (Edge and Paddock 1988, 55) (Fig 9). 40 Figure 5. The Martyrdom of St. Thomas Beckett from the Luttrell Psalter. Early to mid-12th century helmets had moved away from the conical style and various face protections and shapes were used. 41 Figure 6. The Morgan (Crusader) Bible illustrates the illustriousness of certain knights’ attire, including their armour, the most prestigious of which was the great helm, sometimes topped with a crown and other décor, despite its weight and restriction on field of sight. Figure 7. Silver Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral. Various forms of face guards were experimented with, some which appear to give more maneuverability to the wearer such as these prototypes to the great helm. Maneuverability, however, would be sacrificed for more coverage by elites. Figure 8. Rochester Bestiary. Contemporary literature, such as the Arthurian Romances discussed in chapter 4.2, illustrate the importance of colour. Armour, especially helmets, appears to have been decorated, at least by those who could afford it. 42 Figure 9. Kettle helmets are illustrated here in the Morgan Bible. Although types of armour was a personal choice for an elite knight and those who could afford to choose, kettle helmets are usually depicted on foot soldiers or archers who often go without mail as well. The earliest known record of plate armour is Guillaume le Breton’s account of the fight between the young Richard I and William of Barres in which both are described as wearing a worked metal plate between their hauberk and aketon (Blair 1958, 37-38; France 1999, 18). Actual depictions of plate armour on the trunk such as this are rare as they would naturally have been covered by the surcoat which was worn almost universally by the mid -13th century. There is evidence however of other plate armour, first 43 probably made of cuir bouilli, a boiled and hardened leather, and later metal. Poleyns, a plate knee armour, can be seen as early as the c.1200 example from a map of Jerusalem (Fig 10) and later on the effigy of Gilbert Marshall (c.1241) in Temple Church, London (Fig. 11). One of the earliest clear depictions of a cuirasse or chest plate is on the effigy of a knight from Pershore Abbey (c1280) (Fig 12), which clearly shows the straps and part of the plate worn between the hauberk and the surcoat. Earlier examples of possible trunk armour may appear in other places as well, such as the knights on the west wall of Wells Cathedral (c.1230C) (Fig 3). These knights have an interesting uplift to their wide strapped surcoats. This could very well be artistic license, especially considering that the statues were designed to be viewed from a distance the artist may have found that exaggeration helped distinguish the surcoat from the hauberk. However, the artists’ overall attention to detail and realistic depiction is evident in the arming cap, scalloped edge of surcoat, direction in the bands of mail, the detailed bevor, and overall proportions. It is worth considering that the flared and upraised shoulder pieces are actually a piece or part of armour called espaulers which were mentioned in the second half of the 13th century (Edge and Paddock 1988, 59) worn underneath or within the fabric of the surcoat. Something similar can be seen on the shoulder ailettes of the kneeling knight in the Westminster Psalter (c. 1250) (Fig 13). And both are reminiscent of the statue of St. Maurice at Magdeburg Cathedral (Fig. 14) which also has slightly raised shoulder straps but does not have ailettes. 44 Figure 10. 12th century map of Jerusalem clearly combines Christian symbolism and martial ideology. Here a knight in white chases retreating Muslims. Figure 11. Possible effigy of Gilbert Marshall (d. 1241) Poleyns can clearly be seen over his chausses. 45 Figure 12. The unknown Pershore Abbey knight sports a breastplate the straps of which are defined on his side. It is impossible to conjecture whether this is cuir bouilli or metal. A desire to wear, and show, plate armour was developing by the mid-13th century. Figure 13. Supplicating Westminster Psalter Knight. This knights sports a form of ailettes decorated with heraldic crosses. The detail of this depiction 46 illustrates differences in the mail from the hauberk to the chausses and calves. Figure 14. St Maurice, Magdeburg Cathedral. The torso and shoulder regions suggest plate armour. Aketons, a quilted padded cloth worn under mail, were in use as early as the mid-12th century and may have developed into the gambeson. In fact, in many sources the exact difference between the two are sometimes hard to distinguish, but it has been determined that gambesons were a more fully developed and armored version which included metal plates worked into the 47 fabric itself (Blair 1958, 33). An example of this can be seen in the Morgan Bible (Fig 8) in which infantry are shown in gambesons, bevors, and kettle helmets, but do not appear to be in mail (Edge and Paddock 1988, 61). Similarly the hazagard was a one piece mail jerkin covered on the outside with cloth and padded within, mentioned in the Chanson d’Antioche, and appears to be exclusively a crusader development used in the Latin East (France 1999, 19). Poleyns, jambers, and various arm defenses developed steadily in the 13th century and eventually mail mittons were replaced with gauntlets. At the same time the great kite shields of the late 11th and early 12th centuries had been replaced by much smaller heaters most likely due to the superior coverage of body armour. Weapons during this time included the spear, sword, mace/club, axe, and bow (France 1999, 22). Spears came in various sizes and it appears that heavier version came into use by the early 13th century and were most likely used in the couched position during cavalry charges (France 1999, 22). There are fourteen types of sword from this period. Swords of the 12th century tend to be one handed instruments with rather rounded tips used for slashing. By the early 13th century these had generally become more fine tipped for precision, and as John France points out, most likely in order to be thrust through small openings in the ever increasing armour (1999, 22). In the 13th century two other swords developed, one was a much larger, possibly a two handed instrument with a more blunt tip, most likely used to strike through heavy armour, as seen in the Morgan Bible (Fig. 15). The other type were falchions. These are single edged and fit into the cleaver category or the 48 cusped category. Cleaver falchions would have used their curved blade to strike through heavy armour as illustrated in the Morgan Bible. The cusped falchion has an obviously flared tip and would have had massive sideways cutting power and downward striking power (France 1999, 22-23). Despite the seeming advantage of these weapons, they were most likely more awkward to use and their wielder would have gained cutting power while possibly forfeiting balance. It appears that elite knights preferred straight one handed swords while infantry preferred, whether from use or economy, other powerful striking instruments (Fig. 16). There must be emphasis placed on the design of the falchion and the imagery of Muslim swords at this time with an obvious curved blade and often very reminiscent of falchions, perhaps a form of scimitar. Axes appear to be used by both, with infantry utilizing long handled shafts and mounted warrior utilizing shorter handled ones (Edge and Paddock 1988, 59-61). 49 Figure 15. Various sword types are depicted in this illustration from the Morgan Bible, but the most prestigious appears to be the sword, which by the 13th century had become a precision instrument, although larger, blunt tipped swords were still in use. 50 Figure 16 a Miniature from a book of Arthurian Romances shows a knight with a falchion similar to that in the Morgan Bible (Fig. 15). Archers and crossbowmen were relegated to the ranks of the infantry and are rarely depicted mounted, much less as elite knights. There is a significant lack of technological reason for this, as Western Europeans were as capable of making bows to rival the Eastern composite bow (France 2000, 51; Newark 1987 13). There is, however, ample cultural evidence to illustrate the Western Medieval disdain for the bow. In the few instances that a mounted archer is depicted it is often in consideration of depicting the cowardly nature of the individual or himself and his co-combatants, such as the 13th century illustration of a mounted archer readying a strike to the back 51 of a retreating knight (Newark 1987, 13-14) (Fig 17). So despised was the bow that at the Lateral Council of 1139 put a ban on bows used against Christians (though the practical implementation of this is questionable and probably was not feasible), and at the Lateral Council of 1215 crossbowmen were “condemned as the worst type of man of blood” (Newark 1987, 16). The association of martial timidity and cowardliness with the bow is most likely a product of Germanic fighting style as far back as the Roman Empire, much of which was passed down to their Frankish descendants and readily adapted by the Normans. The 13th century poet Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube sums up the mindset toward archers nicely when he states, “Cursed be the first man who became an archer. He was afraid and did not dare approach” (Newark 1987, 14). As long as a European warrior was against a European Warrior of Franko-Norman cultural inheritance, a mutual disdain for mounted archers would have leveled the field for both sides. It was in instances when Western European troops met with peoples from the greater Eurasian and North African region in which the lack of light cavalry, especially those utilizing mounted archers as a major arm of their military, bows are most obviously lacking. As Peter Newark observes, it appears that due to honorific codes, chivalry if you will, the preference of the Norman and Frankish knight was “defeat with dignity rather than victory through ignoble means” (1987, 15). 52 Figure 17. Archers were held in little esteem and were usually depicted as shooting in the back such as this illustrates. This picture is rare in that the archer also appears to be mounted The armour of the Western knight was individualistic in nature, but also formulaic and corporate. Certain ranks of men wore certain armour such as great helms. The higher rank a warrior fancied himself the more armour he was able to afford and décor himself in. As discussed previously, armour was also symbolic of devotion to Christ through its ascetic qualities and its metaphor for Christian virtues. A man’s place in the social order could be instantly ascertained by the quality and quantity of his armour which was part of a larger cultural continuum of the milites Christi culture. 3.3 Muslim Military Structure On the eve of the first crusade, numerous Caliphates, city-states, and tribal peoples of varying ethnic traditions inhabited the Eastern Mediterranean, Levant, and al-Jazīrah regions. Although the initial Byzantine request for help was to defend against incursions by Seljuk Turks and their allies, often tribal peoples such as Turcomen horsemen, the border between the Seljuk Sultanate and the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia was a hotly contested region experiencing almost constant incursions in the centuries prior to the crusades. The Seljuk victory at Manzikert in 1071 put the Byzantines on the counter-offensive. At its height c. 1092, the Suljuk Empire 53 stretched from Khorasan through Persia, and Al-Jazīrah to the Levant and Eastern Anatolia; it also incorporated southern regions of the Arabian Peninsula. Despite the quick incursion of the Seljuk Turks in the Middle East in the 11th century, the Empire itself did not remain strong. Resistance from endemic peoples and internal power struggles among the Seljuk governors splintered the Empire which remained strongest and most cohesive in the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. It was this divided region, with numerous intricate quarrels, which the first Crusaders encountered as they reached Antioch in 1097. In time the Fatimid Caliphate based in Cairo moved from North Africa and the Sanai peninsula to overtake Hijaz and much of the Levant to the north. However, a somewhat cohesive Muslim political and military unit to fight the Crusaders would not be established until Nur al-Dīn with the Shi’ite Fatimid Caliphate (d.1174). By 1174 the Kurdish Sunnī Salah al-Dīn weakened and aligned the Fatimid Caliphate with the Abbasid Caliphate based in Baghdad. He was the Sunnī leader of the Ayyubid dynasty which claimed Egypt, Syria, Baghdad and surrounding regions and many scholars believe his 1187 victory over the Crusader Army of Jerusalem under King Guy at Hattin to be a major turning point in the Crusades. The unification of major regions and polities of the Muslim sphere under Salah al-Dīn established the way for the Ayyubid Dynasty and in many ways for the Mamluk Empire which followed. The intricacies of the politics as well as ethnic divisions and cohesions in the Middle East and neighboring regions is far too complex for a dissertation of this length. Instead it will be stressed that any 54 oversimplification of this is due to length and focus of the thesis rather than devaluation. In the broadest terms, Middle Eastern armies were incredibly diverse and usually represented people from within the entire sphere of influence of a polity. These peoples included tribal warriors, among them Berbers, Arab Bedouin, Kurds and Turcomen (Nicolle 1980, 16). A Sultan or commander from the 9th century onward usually enjoyed a standing army of varying size but relied mostly on his ability to call up auxiliary warriors from these tribal groups as well as urban militias and paid mercenaries (Hillenbrand 1999, 440). From the 10th century on mamlūk troops became increasingly important to Sultans and commanders as they were completely loyal to the state they served. The boys and young men who made up the mamlūk slave armies were often purchased at a young age from Central Asia and dar al-harb (those regions bordering on Islamic regions) and were housed in barracks and given Islamic faith and military instruction (Hillenbrand 1999, 440). These men must have been formidable. Their sole purpose was martial excellence and they must have experienced unit cohesion on a level which ad hoc armies did not. Nor would they have had the added pressure of familial obligation. Their prowess is obvious in their increased use under the Fatimid Caliphate and Ayyubid Dynasty which they would eventually replace, instating a military caste system which lasted from c.1250 to the Ottoman Empire. 3.4 Muslim Armour Muslim arms and armour for the most part followed a similar trend as Europe in which commanders and elites were mounted and wore heavier armour than infantrymen. The elite warrior from the Seljuks to the Fatimids would most likely have sported a mail jerkin or shirt and helmet. While some 55 warriors may have worn mail leggings, most depictions of elite Muslim warriors from this time show the Muslim warrior in loose fitting pants and boots (Fig 18). David Nicolle (1976, 8) however cautions scholars on the Muslim tendency to disguise armour underneath clothes and he states that “Unlike their European rivals Muslims warriors seem more often than not to have judged their own appearance in the light of current civilian fashion, and not to have gloried in the shining metal as Europe’s Chivalry tended to do” (1976,8). It is worth considering however that while Muslim warriors may have covered armour for a variety of reasons, it is highly implausible they would have covered a full length mail hauberk and chausses, already worn over an aketon or liner. Any purpose this had would most likely be made impractical when faced with heat, and the need to access armour. Lamellar armour, woven strips of leather, sometimes reinforced with metal, appears to be very popular at this time among warriors in the Middle East and Asian regions, especially for heavy cavalry (Nicolle 1976, 71). The Muslim warriors’ arms often appear lightly defended if at all except for a circular or teardrop shaped shield held in the hand or worn on the back. Even the heaviest armoured mounted warriors, such as Salah al-Dīn’s Ghulam cavalry, were not as heavily armoured as the most equipped Western knights, although they were not far behind them (France 2000, 55; Hillenbrand 1999, 459; Nicolle 20002, 17-18). The heavily armoured cavalry was utilized by the Fatimids for charges, but their speediness, agility and in many respects, horsemanship in general was superior to that of the Franks and Normans. While the Franks 56 and Normans relied on weight and impact for a successful charge, Muslim cavalry relied more on evasiveness and speed. Their lances, while over 12’ long and weaker than those of their opponents, were also lighter and easier to maneuver (Sidnell 2006, 309). Muslim armies also utilized light mounted warriors usually using composite bows. The infantry acted as a buffer between the heavy cavalry who used it as cover for rallying after a charge before charging again (Sidnell 2006, 309). Meanwhile, swift mounted archers could be used to route and exhaust heavier armoured men and slower infantry and bowmen (Fig 19, 20). Figure 18. Seljuk illustration from the Romance of Varqa and Gulshah (c. 1250). Most endemic illustrations from the Medieval Middle East depict Muslim combatants in loose fitting pants and boots. 57 Figure 19. Mamlūk Manuscript on furusiyya (1371). Agility and speed were preferred tactics by Muslim warriors. Figure 20. Mounted archer on the Baptistery of St. Louis, possibly a gift (c. 1320). Mounted archers were a major component of Muslim armies. The first Crusade saw the disorganized Muslim polities and their defenses easily taken by the heavy cavalry tactics of the Franks and Normans. As Usāmah ibn Munqidh states, the Frankish charge was powerful and feared, probably as much for its psychological impact as for its 58 effectiveness in breaking lines. However, Muslim armies were often able to evade charges, and while they supported a heavy cavalry, they were not as reliant on them (France 1999, 19). Muslim infantry and mounted archers most likely wore very little, if any armour, but they were maneuverable. In a mid-13th century copy of William of Tyre’s History of Outremer, Nureddin, the Sultan of Damascus, is depicted fleeing fully mailed knights who also sport great helms, mittens, and poleyns. Nureddin rides with bare hands, legs and feet, his face and forearms are also exposed (Fig. 21). While artistic license must be taken into account there seems to be some truth to barefoot riding, but more importantly it illustrates the difference in reliance on armour between the two cultures and possibly the ascetic properties given to western knightly armour. That the ‘other’ did not possess armour could be interpreted as symbolic of his lesser status. It must be cautioned that John France has determined that the heavy cavalry charge was in fact a response of Frank and Norman knights to engagement in the Middle East which was developed there (2000, 61). However, even if the initial development of the cavalry charge was a response to Muslim tactics in the early Crusades, it did not always remain a superior tactic as will be discussed later. 59 Figure 21. Nureddin, Sultan of Damascus flees crusaders. Although he wears a helmet and mail, his legs and feet are bare and his hauberk has short sleeves while the knights sport full mail, including mittens, great helms, chausses and poleyns. The diversity in troop origination up until the Ayyubid dynasty (c. 1194) under Salah al-Dīn and in some respects, Nur al-Dīn before him, was in many ways an asset to Muslim leaders in the early crusades, allowing for diversity in tactic. As regions were consolidated under Salah al-Dīn and more dependable mamlūk units became the backbone of the Ayyubid military, the tactics and strategy of many of the tribal warriors from Central Asia to North Africa were employed as part of their military training. Since mamlūk warriors were state owned and provided for it might be expected that their armour and arms were more uniform. Armour and other visual markers were most 60 likely worn to denote rank within units, but there seems to be less interest on status in the Muslim armies. For one, auxiliary troops from Turcoman or Bedouin peoples had a set of customs apart from those of the state they served. And secondly, the mamlūk warriors had little vested interest in a system of rank which relied heavily of genealogy and inherited wealth as a means of self-promotion as they could claim none and rose through ranks merely by the fortitude of their characters. 3.5 Warhorses: evidence for size and use There is one tool utilized by both Muslim and Christian militaries which was as important in practice as it was in symbolism and culture and that was the warhorse and its trappings. Much speculation has surrounded the size of the Medieval horse. Researchers utilize both text and archaeological resources, such as horse shoes to make comparative studies to help answer this debate. Previous assumption is that early and high Medieval horses in the West were not bred for size and that destriers did not develop until the late Medieval period. Likewise, there has been speculation that Western warhorses of the Crusading era were rarely larger than modern Shetland ponies. However, more recent studies, such as Ann Hyland’s work with horseshoes, have shown that Medieval warhorses were closer to the average height of a modern riding horse, or about 15 hh, while Phillip Sidnell places the average height between 14.2-15 hh (Hyland 1994, 140; Sidnell 2006, 320-321). The weight of the horses is of significance as well. It seems that throughout the high medieval era European horses, especially those used in 61 war, were bred for massiveness rather than merely height. In comparison a Medieval European warhorse from the 12th-13th centuries was possibly about 15-15.2 hh but actually weighed in at 1,200 -1,300 lbs. Horses bred and used by Turcoman tribal warriors were probably around the same height but weighed in at 800-900 lbs, and Arabians were probably well under 15hh and weighed 700-800 lbs (Hyland 1999, 140). It makes sense that as armour and lances increased in weight, larger horses were needed in order to carry the knight. Horses utilized by Frankish and Norman knights were either brought over with the Crusaders overland or by ship or imported later to replenish stock (Gladitz 1997, 158-160). Even the Holy Orders were dependent on horses brought in from Europe (Hyland 1994, 148). This is significant in that it provides some evidence that European horses were required and that the smaller endemic horses would not suit, although they must certainly have been easier to acquire. Compared to the West, the vast stretches of open land in Central Asia, Anatolia, the Levant, North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula were conducive to centuries of war horsemanship. The horse in the Arabian and Turkish culture was ingrained as a part of ancient culture, whereas in the West the appeal of the mounted warrior was something rather newer and most likely started with the Normans (Hyland 1994, 95). Rather than a European progression toward more horses, Charles Gladitz states that there was an actual shortage of horses by the 13th century “…and consequent increasing cost of them which made it necessary to limit the class of whom mounted serviced was required to landholders [of a higher 62 income]” (1997, 158). The horse in Norman and Frankish culture gained notoriety as a luxury of the elite and a warrior who could afford a horse and its trappings, especially one suitable for war, would have been viewed as one of the most elite of society. Whereas in Middle Eastern societies, the use of horses by tribal and mamlūk warriors distanced the horse from symbol associated strictly with the elite. The importance placed on horses by Muslim contemporaries is obvious in their accounts of the Crusades. However, it must be cautioned that many Muslim scholars were themselves both learned men as well as warriors, while most European chroniclers appear to be clerics and other learned men who were not warriors. For this reason it is possible that Frankish and Norman knights did place more emphasis on their horses than the men who recorded them did or were aware of. Nevertheless, men like Usāmah ibn Munqidh and Abu-Bakr (Salah al-Dīn’s Chamberlain) placed great detailed emphasis on the difference between horse breeds, their abilities, and their shortcomings. Usāmah states that the afrendji was the ‘softest’ or the least fit of all the horses listed by Abu- Bakr. It was, according to Usāmah, unsuitable to the climate, had less dense bones than the Muslim’s horses, while at the same time having a larger build and more musculature which lent them to exhaustion. He also notes the Western penchant for overfeeding their horses and how many which were not exercised ran to fat (Hyland 1994, 140). Usāmah’s account of Frankish and Norman horses is supported by certain recorded events, such as when Salah al-Dīn’s emissary returned from visiting Richard I with 300 knights at Jaffa only to have found them mounted on mules. A Frankish or Norman mounted warrior did not often dismount his horse. He stayed 63 mounted through marches and even when meeting to plan and strategize whereas Muslim warriors tended to walk their horses on marches to save their strength (Hyland 1994, 148). A larger animal requires more sustenance and their size must have been critical in order for the expense to be taken to feed them. It is obvious from Usāmah’s accounts that the afrendji were more susceptible to exhaustion. The larger size must have been required in order to carry the knight in heavy armour as well as increase the impact of the Frankish charge. That Frank and Norman reliance on the importation of European horses, with all the disadvantages which came with that such as muscle atrophy, sickness, and accident as well as cost, emphasizes the European lack of adaption to the East (Hyland 1994, 148). As Sidnell states, the armour and tactics of the Western knight coupled with the size and endurance of the afrendji made the Western knight less agile against the Muslim armies who utilized both heavy and light cavalry who often wielded bows and lassos (Sidnell 2006, 321; Hyland 1994, 160). 3.6 Medieval Holy War in Action: The Battle of Hattin Cal-bagāt wa-l-kamīn (ambush) played a crucial role in medieval Muslim military tactic. The Nihāyat al-Su’l wa l-Umniyya fī Talīm Amāl al- Furūsiyya (The Complete Instructions on the Practice of the Military Art) is an early Mamluk manual possibly by Muhammed ibn Isā I-Hanafī al-Aqs ṣararī who died in Damascus in 1348, and has a “chain of authority” back to a “master of the lance” who died in 1294 (Nicolle 1994, 81). Besides giving details on the appropriate use of weapons, including the lasso and how to put on and take off armour in the midst of battle or riding, the manual also emphasizes the importance of ambush. It was, states the manual, “necessary for the army and the safeguarding of it” (Nicolle 1994, 81). Prior to this Mamluk manual, Salah al-Dīn had also ordered three books covering war and administration, the most technical of which is by 64 Abū al-Hasan Alī b. Abī Bakr al-Harawī from Aleppo (d. 1215) who may have been a secret agent for Salah al-Dīn (Hamblin 1992, 229). Al-Harawī’s book includes sections on spies and scouts, the importance of secrecy, collecting money and supplies, ambassadors, marching and encamping, the use of raiders, security, formulation of military plans, defense against sieges, marshalling troops, besieging fortresses, firmness and clemency (qualities for a ruler), defense against sieges, persistence in defeat and, arguably of equal if not upmost importance, a section on troop morale. Morale was also emphasized by Al-Aqsararī, cautioning that men should not be left behind on the battlefield due to the harm is does against morale (Tantum 1979, 199). It could be concluded from the author’s focus on the justification of ambush that it was seen as something less than noble, yet required. The Muslim use of ambush and what some may classify as guerilla tactics, especially when used jointly with more western tactics such as charges and eastern tactics like mounted archers, created a well-oiled war machine. It is clear that Salah al-Dīn and his commanders were also well aware of the importance of maintaining supply lines, organization, and separating the army into units, each with a specific mission or goal. The books also illustrate Salah al-Dīn’s commitment to uniformity and record. There were several reasons ambush had an advantage and two major parts for it to succeed according to the Nihāyat al-Su’l wa I-Umniyya fī Talīm Amāl al-Furūsiyya: to lure an enemy into prepared position for attack and to prevent the enemy from receiving reinforcements (Tantum 1979, 198). The Medieval Muslim army, from most eyewitness accounts and military studies, appears to have been more versatile than their European 65 counterparts. Ambush was critical in advantage over the feared Frankish cavalry charge, which if positioned and able to be executed correctly, could cripple an enemy in a few charges. Geoffrey Tantum states on the nature of terrain that “Crusading armies’ choice of battle site was dictated by their need for ground suitable for heavy cavalry, so it was in the interests of the Muslims to deny them this or to draw them from this” (1979, 199). In other words, in order to avoid cavalry charges, entrapment and or ambush were strategically necessary. The Battle of Hattin in many ways illustrates the implementation of al- Harawī’s suggested tactics in classic textbook example. The Franks, reluctant to engage with the Muslims since the inconclusive battle of Forbelet in 1182 (a strategy in itself), were finally and reluctantly drawn into engagement by a strategic attack on Tiberius, capital of Galilee by the Ayyubid forces, which requested assistance from King Guy of Jerusalem. The army of Salah al-Dīn then, in three units, cut off the Franks’ route, took control of routes to the surrounding springs and Lake Tiberius, blocking the Franks in a valley and forcing them to either fight their way to the lake or camp the night in thirst. The actual events of the battle are hard to distinguish in sequence with numerous eyewitness accounts from Muslim sources as well as the anonymous author of Libellus de expugnatione Terrae Sanctae and the Old French continuation of William of Tyre all eluding to similar events but with some differences (Kedar 1992, 193). What is known is that somehow after a night and day of experiencing harassment and skirmishes the Frankish infantry made their way up to the Horns of Hattin followed by their cavalry 66 from whence they conducted two unsuccessful heavy charges against the Muslim forces before being overwhelmed and taken (Kedar 1992, 192-194). By the end of battle on July 4, 1187 Salah al-Dīn had managed to lure his enemy to battle in a location of his choosing and used his advantage of terrain, water resources, and swift warriors to exhaust the Franks. The battle of Hattin is considered a turning point in the Crusades for the casualties it inflicted on the main Crusader army and the destruction of morale. Salah al- Dīn used his ensuing psychological advantage to immediately subdue numerous regions coupled with military force to take others. The taking of the True Cross before the end of battle damaged the Christians’ morale as did the execution of Guy. Salah al-Dīn and his commanders were very much aware of the psychological impact of their actions (Hamblin 1992, 238). Fear and clemency could be used to great advantage as long as one knows the enemy. This is illustrated in al-Harawī’s account of the differences in European knights. The Franks in general he describes as being concerned with rank and status among kings and nobles, while being thoughtless, petty and desirous of things of this world. In fact, in many cases Salah al-Dīn’s greatest advantage came to his ability to give people of a city what they wanted, essentially buying his place into their hearts, and he found Franks to be open to what he had to offer (Hamblin 1992, 234). However, al-Harawī’s account of the Orders is very different, “The [Sultan] should beware of the monks…” for they had great “fervor in religion” and in other words, could not be bought, bribed, or otherwise influenced. As William Hamblin states, this 67 would account for his harsh treatment of Templars and Hospitallers in keeping with al-Harawī’s instructions on clemency or otherwise (1992, 238). It is impossible to conjecture the possible outcomes of the Battle of Hattin and in many ways it may have been won before it began. Salah al-Dīn had formulated an ingenious trap for the crusaders and used his tribal and mamlūk warriors to harass them into exhaustion, denying them both the physical energy and terrain needed for a heavy charge. Ibn al Athīr describes the Franks as “…completely exhausted and unable to continue the battle. They were too weak to wear their armour because of the extreme heat and [their exhaustion from] fighting” (Hamblin 1992, 233). There is also ample eyewitness accounts of disharmony between the different Frankish units (Kedar 1992, 193). What is known is that two rallies and heavy cavalry charges by the Franks toward the end of the battle did not succeed and they were virtually wiped out in the rout that followed. It was in the heavy charge which Franks depended to shock their opponents and break through enemy lines and a full charge was only possible in pitched battle, usually at the beginning. It can be reasoned then that the Muslim army used its preplanned geographical advantaged to continuously rout the Franks with swift cavalrymen while never offering full battle. Exhausted and dehydrated, the Franks attempted to use a charge to break the main body of Salah al-Dīn’s army where he himself was protected, most likely by his own heavy mounted mamālīk. Truly a testament to their bravery if nothing else. And the ideal Medieval man, a milites Christi, was nothing if not brave in battle. Hattin is no doubt an extreme case of one military’s victory and another’s loss, and few battles or sieges were as decisive. However, it does illustrate, especially through primary accounts that the Europeans were not prepared for Salah al-Dīn’s maneuvers despite years of similar tactics. 68  The military successes of the first Crusade were in many respects luck, numbers and most importantly, the disunity of the region’s Muslim polities. And the successes of Richard I were very much owed to the strategies of one gifted man and those he was able to draw together under his tutorage. Richard was able to deflect the harassment of swift cavalry while on marches for example by reforming his lines. However, a complete adaption of tactics necessary for the region never occurred. One of these strategies was the employment of mounted archers and or light cavalry. The armour employed by Frankish and Norman knights was advantageous for their charges, granted that the terrain was adequate and they were not exhausted. Once exhaustion set in, the Frankish and Norman cavalry was at a great disadvantage, a disadvantage a Muslim commander could easily create with his mounted archers even before battle. Usāmah ibn Munqidh records the difficulties the Franks faced when attempting to remount after a charge and also of me removing their armour in the midst of battle, apparently for more maneuverability and possible exhaustion (Nicolle 2002, 16). In the early crusades the European heavy charge and armour was indeed a successful strategy, and later they used it as something like a mobile siege, it was also an especially capable defense while on marches against the mobile and swift Muslims (France 2000, 60). But stubbornly they relied on their European tactics, including European horses and armour for over 200 years, even as armour in the west progressively became heavier. While John France argues that European defeats such as Hattin were due to numbers and European 69 victories were due to strategy, it is impossible to determine if this is the case and in fact, Hattin is an example: had Salah al-Dīn’s army been so superior in size, they would not necessarily have had to create such a complicated ambush and it must owe at least a majority of the success to tactical advantage rather than numbers. It cannot be said in definitive terms the outcome of the Crusades had the Franks and Normans adopted different strategies, nor is it the aim of this dissertation to prove or disprove the capability of Christian or Muslim armies. Rather, this evidence indicates an unwillingness on the part of European warriors to adapt tactics which would have given them more advantage in the Latin East and so because there is no practical reason they could not have adopted other tactics, such as spending more money on light cavalry reinforcements whether endemic or European rather than armour and the importing of horses, we must look to cultural ideals and expectations. 70 Chapter 4: The Masculine Aesthetics of the Medieval Knight in Contemporary culture: literature and visual arts 4.1: Chivalry Chivalry, states the historian Richard Kaeuper, can “safely be considered the lay esprit de corps, the body of ideas by which laymen evaluated conduct, shaped thought, and launched aspiration… [and] nearly all scholars would insist that somewhere in the borderlands between “late medieval” and “early modern”, vigorous Medieval chivalry died…” (2009, 194). But what exactly was chivalry, how did it embody the milites Christi from which it derived and how did it shape the masculinity of men, and how was it presented off of the battlefield? It is obvious from contemporary literature including the vernacular manuals on chivalry such as the Chansons de geste, the Arthurian prose romances, and the biography of William Marshall commissioned by his son, that by the mid-13th century there was a common recognition of Chivalry, if not a specific definition (Kaeuper and Kennedy 1996, 23; Barber 1970, 3; Kaeuper 2009, 41). Medieval minds were aware that a new code of ethics and morals had taken root which was based on both the martial qualities of the mounted warrior and the self-sacrificing piety of the monk, in other words the milites Christi. Richard Barber states, “What distinguishes the mounted warrior from the knight, an in turn 71 knighthood from chivalry, is an ethical and spiritual content” (1970, 3). This content can be seen in literature as well as art of the Medieval period and is integrated with the Crusades in art, literature and in the martial and ascetic actions of such men. 4.2 The milites Christi in contemporary words The Ordene de chavalerie (c.1220 CE, Northern France) and the Histoire de Guillaume de Marachel (c. 1220) are some of the earliest textual examples of instructions on the codes of chivalry and the persona of the milites Christi. Although neither is specifically a manual in the manner that the later Libre que es de l’ordre de cavalleria by Ramon Llull or the Livre de chevalerie by Geoffroi de Charny, both from the second half of the 14th century, are, they are nevertheless important in understanding the expectations of knightly conduct during the early and mid-Crusades era. The Ordere de chevalerie is especially interesting because it not only is humorous in nature but its antagonist is Salah al-Dīn. In it, a knight, Hugh, has been captured by Salah al-Dīn while on crusade and must show his captor how a Western knight is created. The list of actions and ethics Hugh must undertake reflects those expected of milites Christi and are some of the earliest codes of chivalry. Components include freedom from wickedness, willingness to shed blood for God, ability to hasten into action with love in his heart for God, and to keep his body pure and free from sexual sin. The four 72 main virtues instructed in the Ordene are: to not bear false judgement or partake in treason, protection of ladies, fasting on Fridays, and to attend mass every day (Kaeuper and Kennedy 1996, 24). Richard Kaeuper points out that the anonymous author of the Ordene was most likely a cleric and it should come as no surprise that focus on piety and religious participation are exemplified (1996, 24-25). It is also worth considering the role of Salah al-Dīn as Hugh’s antagonist. Hugh’s chivalry becomes all the more glorious when faced with the ‘other’. Salah al-Dīn, a sort of anti-hero in medieval culture of the era in his own right, is not depicted as cruel or barbaric, rather he is portrayed as a witty and worthy opponent, still it also works to extoll the “immutable differences” between milites Christi and Muslim warriors, no matter how agreeable the Muslim may be (Warren 2003, 265). In fact the poem is “potentially dangerous” as it portrays not only chivalric identity in a precarious and humorous light, but also fails to demonize the ‘other’, instead it extolls in him many traits admired in medieval culture such as wit, humour, honesty, and fairness. Like the poem’s character the “historical [Salah al-Dīn] also troubled European efforts to maintain ideological oppositions [to Muslims] for he was widely reported to be generous and honorable” (Warren 2003, 284). While a worthy opponent was important in the identity of the knight, popular support for the crusades could only come if the enemy was perceived an exceptional threat and culturally the knight could only be seen as worthy if his opponent was. 73  Prior to the Crusades it was the not the role of the warrior class to extoll Christian virtues, the church was guarded when it came to exemplifying men who had died in battle, even against ‘others’. An example of this is St. Edmund, who although he died in battle, most likely against the pagan Danes, as a warrior in the 9th century was portrayed as passive (Barber 1970, 255). And while a certain cult had begun to grow from the warrior-saints of the Roman period in the 10th century as mentioned previously, his autonomy to instruct or claim ownership of Christian ritual is questionable. Whereas, the high medieval milites Christi embodies Christian sanctity within himself through his chivalrous conduct which, as we see from the Ordene, includes as much religious observance and devotion than anything else, and his knightly initiation ritual. As Maurice Keen points out, in the Ordene the prowess and physicality of the knight was assumed as a component within his martial qualities, whereas his virtues, such as loyalty and courtesy, ideologies newly introduced as a part of the warrior class, are stressed (Keen 1984, 7). Hugh, as a Crusader, is the most virtuous of knights, a milites Christi, and his virtuous deeds continue even after he is released by Salah al-Dīn; when he returns home he gives away the money gifted to him (Warren 2003, 280). However, Hugh’s inability to convert Salah al-Dīn is testament to the realities faced by Crusaders in the Latin East, a formidable and worthy opponent. And the emphasis on maintaining Hugh’s distinct Christian virtues illustrates the two-fold position Medieval knights found themselves. On one hand they were necessary for their military capabilities, 74 and on the other their warrior qualities had to be controlled by codes of ethics In poems and chronicles it is easy to discern what traits a knight has as compared to merely a mounted warrior, first he is a milites Christi, pious and serving God, second he extolls the virtues associated with the esprit de corps of chivalry to everyone. This is obvious in the actions and words of knights such as Hugh in the Ordene, however it was important to match knightliness in action with knightliness in presentation. A mere mounted warrior would wear whatever was practical, possibly verging on the barbaric, whereas a knight, whose body was in the service of Christ, was expected, at least in rhetoric, to dress himself in the proper attire which of course was his armour (Lachaud 2002, 111), although flashy materials and other attire could help him complete his look. Armour and dress was somewhere between symbolizing the martial qualities of the knight, the sacrificial duty of the milites Christi, and promoting the glory of the man himself as well as his kin, in other words, the armour and attire a knight wore displayed who he was as a man, martial, pious, virile, and often times rich. As Peter Coss and Maurice Keen state, it is most likely knights did not go around in their armour or knightly regalia all of the time, but they are nevertheless depicted as such in imagery in order to identify themselves to their class and rank. It is obvious from contemporary written and material culture that emphasis was placed on the symbolic nature of the social trappings of an individual’s social class. But, consistently paired with the imagery of knighthood is a glorification of his armour. In the French Romance Perceval attributed to Chretien de Troyes (c. 75 1185), Perceval is stunned and shocked when confronted with beings who crashed through the forest and asks them if they are God. It is the physical splendor of the knights, in their gold and blue, white and red, and silver armour and apparel that both stuns and impresses Perceval (Barber 1970, 3). This parallels Sarah-Grace Heller’s (2002) findings on fashion and textiles during the Crusades and the apparent “bedazzlement” of Europeans when confronted with the luxurious personal adornment of the Muslim courts, While it is unlikely that many warriors or pilgrims were able to take booty for themselves, much less return to Europe with it, the memory of the “bedazzlement” of Muslim finery, silks, brocades, jewels and the like, became a part of the returning crusaders rhetoric. The presentation of the enemy’s power, the Muslim leaders’ ability to convey prestige through his fine clothes and jeweled tariz bands, must have had a significant impact on the way in which Western elites chose to present themselves (Heller 2002, 112). In other words, the Crusades raised the standards by which men presented their power and prestige. It is worth considering that the impression of power and glory displayed via textiles in the East, such as those displayed in the Chansons de Jerusalem, could translate to a desire to display the same through armour and its trappings in the West. In the Chanson de Jerusalem the trappings of an Arab horse, including its gold and jeweled saddle, are stated to be out of the economic reach of Franks and Normans (Heller 2002 108). In fact, it is during the crusades that luxury items associated with knighthood become standard for elites. These include 76 the surcoat, mantle, gilded bridle, and gilded spurs as well as “coloured clothes” (Coss and Keen 2002, 115). While luxury items such as jewels, brocades, and gold saddles might be out of the economic reach of most knights in the West, armour and arms were not. Armour, even mail, but especially pieces such as great helms and bevors when coloured and gilded would have made a striking display. 4.3 The Milites Christi in Images Like textual representations of knighthood, Medieval manuscripts offer iconographic depictions that also help facilitate the study of armour, both in its most utilitarian form as well as symbolic. As previously discussed, armour in manuscripts must be treated with caution, as artistic license and symbolism seems to take precedence over factual representations. Despite this, medieval illuminators offer a surprisingly detailed working knowledge of armour and arms. One of the most striking set of depictions can be found in the Morgan Bible, otherwise known as the Crusader Bible, commissioned under Louis IX (c. 1240). In fact the Morgan Library and Museum states that the masters of the Morgan Bible were so knowledgeable and detailed in their depictions of arms that they could be replicated (Themorgan.org). All the knights in the Morgan bible sport full mail, including mittens, chausses, mailed feet and coifs. Elite knights sport great helms on which are sometimes metals gilded around the vision slits and sometimes topped with crowns. Various other head and neck armour is depicted, such as kettle 77 helms and bevors. None of the infantry soldiers, depicted in aketons and kettle helms, wears mail or wields a sword, rather they are depicted with axes and spears. The elite knights’ horses are also sometimes covered in caparisons, specifically those knights who also sport great helms. In the Morgan Bible we can see a clear visual representation that not only were the most elite the most armoured, but also the most decorated (Fig. 9). It is also worth considering the horses. The horses which carry the knights are muscular but with somewhat small legs. While this could be artistic representation, depicting the musculature of the horse whilst saving space on the paper, it also concurs with Ann Hyland’s studies on horse shoes and weight of medieval warhorses and the contemporary chronicles of Usāmah ibn Munqidh, in which he states that the afrendji were muscular and fat, but with less dense bones than the Middle Eastern horses (Hyland 1994, 166). Overall the knights of the Morgan Bible, especially those in great helms, dominate the visual landscape of the illustrations. It is apparent from the detailed knowledge of armour, weapons, and even war engines, that the masters of the Morgan Bible had more than a passing interest in martial affairs. We must assume that what an artist deemed appropriate to focus on in his work was also in the interests of the patron and society in general. Glory in battle is the martial realm of the milites Christi, his masculinity is directly depicted through his physical prowess. Those men elite enough to own decorated armour and horse were of course the most visual, dominating the field of vision in art and most likely, in reality as well. His physicality was 78 made all the more apparent and aggressive in the impenetrability of his armour. But, the milites Christi was placed apart from mere warriors via his Christianity. Examples of the knight’s service to Christ are common throughout crusader era manuscripts. One example is the Westminster Psalter Knight (c. 1250) who, while dressed in full armour and armed, kneels in supplication (fig. 12). His martial qualities are clearly illustrated in his readiness for battle, but he is also partaking in one of the most important elements of Chivalry according to the author of the Ordene and that is religious observance. As discussed before, the direct sanctioning of warrior culture by the Church (and subsequently society) was relatively new in the high Medieval period, religious piety and morality, the codes of Chivalry, played an important role in maintaining his status as knight rather than merely warrior. Warriorhood stood against the teachings of the New Testament, but milites Christi, sanctioned by the church and acting within its sphere of influence if not control, were the highest level of the pious. The Westminster Knight symbolizes the pious and chivalric ideology of the milites Christi, he is both masculine and pious, aggressive but supplicant. His masculinity is clearly illustrated by his readiness for combat and in armour. There was no higher calling for milites Christi than the Latin East and the defense of Jerusalem. Crusader activity in the Latin East and surrounding regions was the faith-based component to the warrior class. Even if I knight did not go on Crusade, his potential to and the qualities he shared with those who did, his masculine physicality and Christianity, allowed him to enjoy at 79 least some of the prestige of those who did join campaigns to the Latin East. Depictions of Crusader activity disseminated throughout the Frankish and Norman controlled and influenced regions of Europe as an ideological marker for knights in Europe emphasized this association (Riley-Smith 1995, 50). One of these depictions is the Luttrell Psalter illustration of combat between a Western knight, usually taken to be Richard I via the arms, and Salah al-Din (Riley-Smith 1995, 51). Both sport elite armour, although Salah al-Dīn’s appears to be scale or lamellar rather than mail, both possess saddles and lances, and both horses are dressed in caparisons. Richard has a great helm as well as ailettes, which suggests not only an understanding of differences in armour between European and Muslim warriors on the part of the artist, but a noted desire to depict that. In this illustration the knight’s sanctity and Christianity is expressed through his battle with a Muslim (fig. 22). Similarly, the c.1170 Hague map of Jerusalem shows Muslims being driven from the battlefield by knights. The emblem of the Crusader cross on the shield and standard is the focal point of the scene (Riley-Smith 1995, 35) (fig. 10). In the Harley illustration the shield is also the focal point of the image and portrays the Holy Trinity while the knight himself is covered in armour clearly labeled and associated with Christian virtue (Fig.1). Illustrations such as these go beyond the mere depiction or warriors or even knights as laymen, they clearly facilitate the ideology of the knight as a warrior of God and his martial prowess is clearly expressed by his arms and armour. 80 Figure 22. Luttrell Psalter image of Western and Eastern combatants on page of Psalm 41. Salah al-Dīn and Richard I never met in person, but maintained a rich communication and admiration for one another which captured the Medieval imagination. 4.4 Effigies and memorials of milites Christi Effigies and other funerary memorials, as mentioned previously, can help support the study of armour in during the Crusades, but they also help illustrate the importance of armour as a display of social status. As Rachel Ann Dressler discusses, the “medieval conception of identity…was corporate in nature, with codes of representation being defined by the place of a sitter in the social hierarchy rather than individual biography” (Dressler 2004, 3). The three social classes are presented as those who work, those who pray, and those who fight, and high medieval funerary monuments in Norman and Frankish controlled and influenced regions, especially England and France, reflect this system of hierarchy. Bishops are portrayed in the vestments and pastoral staff of their office, while kings are depicted in robes, crowns, and holding scepters. On the European continent knights are primarily liturgical, 81 laying on pillows whilst in prayer, while in England during the time of the crusades crossed legs and movement of body was common. This includes heads turned to side and often the arms crossed over the body while removing sword from scabbard as seen in the effigy of Robert de Vere (c.1317) and the effigy of Robert, Duke of Normandy (c 1260) (Dressler 2004, 14-16) (fig. 23; fig.24). There is some conjecture that crossed legs on effigies indicated that the prototype had been on Crusade. And indeed this stylistic rendition of funerary monuments declines after the early 14th century. Yet, while there is no solid evidential link between Crusader activity and crossed legged effigies in England (Harris 2010, 431), Dressler points out that there still may be a link between crossed legs and Crusader identity; individuals who chose to identify with crusader activity, whether though financial means or otherwise, but not necessarily participate actively in the military campaigns. This identity was important in establishing familial importance as association with crusader activity increased the prestige of families for generations (Dressler 2004, 82). 82 Figure 23 Robert de Vere (d.1221) effigy in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Essex. Figure 24. Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, (d. 1134). This effigy in Gloucester would be erected about 100 years after Robert’s death. Later crusaders looked back with nostalgia on the first crusade as a time of glory and familial association with the first milites Christi added prestige to one’s genealogy. 83  As discussed previously, the milites Christi ideology was essential in propagating the Crusades, but was also reflexive to them. Association with and nostalgia for Crusading activity influenced the way elite men desired to be memorialized for themselves and their kin. Crusading, fighting for God, was the most pious form of warrior activity and an honor (Kaeuper 2009, 97). As Dressler points out, the Crusades formed a “Christologically oriented warrior class” whether or not an individual had a direct role in the campaigns or not, a knight had agency to associate himself and his kin with crusader activity. The knight effigies are “particularly strong in [their] institutional allegiances, with carefully delineated armour” (Dressler 2004, 79). In fact, in many effigies great effort is put in to the detail of the armour and arms. Armour was more than simply a means of establishing an identity for the prototypes within the tombs, it was also a way of establishing glorification for the men represented. The elite men portrayed as knights by effigy chose individually within the confines of society to be depicted as such, even though many, if not all of the men, had various other roles and offices. An example of this is the effigy (c. 1260) Robert, Duke of Normandy (d. 1134) in Gloucester Cathedral. Although Robert was a Crusader, he was also a duke of one of the greatest duchies in Northern Europe and an active claimant to the succession of William the Conqueror. Although Robert died at the age of 83, he is depicted as a much younger man, fully dressed for military engagement and he also wears a crown. Robert’s effigy in many ways embodies the aesthetics for a medieval knight in the Crusader era. He is 84 martial, virile, strong, while nobility in both lineage and character is ensued by his crown. Robert is not depicted in the fine robes he most likely possessed, nor are the thousands of other knightly effigies surviving in England and France, but as warriors. Their placement within churches and cathedrals in such dress denotes their accepted role as both men of blood and Christians, as milites Christi. As Dressler states, the concept of medieval memorial and sanctity was complicated and often depended on the prayers of the living for the souls of the departed. A Crusader, or warrior identified with the Crusades, was, through the granting of absolution by the Church, able to “bypass monastic intervention in the soteriological process” (Dressler 2004, 84). So while the knight may have absolution, his memorial could act as a visual draw in order to gain prayers for kin, highlighting the prestige and Christian devotion of his family through his physical martial sacrifice symbolized by his armoured effigy. The physicality of the knights themselves are rather impressive. In the cases of well-preserved effigies such as the effigy of an unknown knight in Dorchester Abbey, sometimes considered to be William de Valence, (c.1260) (fig. 24) the armour works to increase the physical presence of the knight. The arms are defined underneath the mail and the breadth of the shoulders is emphasized by the tautness of the surcoat, while the legs, sometimes exposed by the slit of the surcoat up to the thigh are muscular (Dressler 2004, 79). There are also symbols suggestive of sexuality if not outright phalluses such as the placement of the short sword on the Dorchester knight. 85 This is not to emphasize a lack of sexuality figured on other effigies or statuary, rather it illustrates how the armour and arms of the knight was possibly had more potentiality for sexual suggestiveness than other forms of dress which worked to cover the body, whereas armour works to emphasize the masculine components of a physical body. Such sexuality was important in denoting virility, a major component of the highest degree of masculinity which also set the knight apart from other elite stations such as bishops. He was also set apart from men in lower social status by his ability to procreate as well as provide economic and genealogical support to his descendants and kin. Figure 25. Dorchester knight, possibly William de Valence the Younger (d. 1282). Masculine aesthetics are clearly depicted in this effigy. The armour itself represents the knight’s pious devotion. 86  Conclusions The influence of the Crusades on Norman and Frankish culture was far reaching. The advent of prestigious Medieval knighthood and the ideology of Chivalry may not have occurred had the Crusades not required warriors who were milites Christi. And it is most certain that it would not have spread so quickly through the Norman and Frankish courts. It is clear from both material culture and documentary sources that armour and arms, including horses, were vital in the culture of knighthood in the Latin East and in the West, and that knighthood, including its visual identifiers was the highest form of masculinity in Medieval culture. It could possibly be surmised that the most obvious practical effect of this focus on individual martial qualities, especially the significance of armour, was the inability for Franks and Normans to adapt to the military tactics of Muslim armies they encountered in the Latin East. Cultural expectations, including the interest in placing funds on individual armour and warhorses from Europe to maintain European fighting techniques, reliant on the heavy cavalry charge, took precedence over adaption to Middle Eastern military tactics which may have been beneficial in maintaining the Latin States. The study of masculinity in Medieval Europe can especially benefit from archaeological research, as the majority of men, even elites, did not 87 leave textual testimony of their lives or experiences, but much material culture. However, the period of the Crusades has a considerable lack of known surviving arms and armour, both in the West and Middle East. It is worth considering that numerous items may in fact lie dormant and uncatalogued from this time period as their condition may not have warranted their display and study by antiquarians. Likewise, access to site locations in some parts of the Middle East has been dubious at best in the past century and locations such as Hattin might benefit greatly from modern survey techniques and technology. In order to fully understand the experience of the Crusader and his identity, we must address his armour. Currently, the best resource for this is the visual arts such as manuscripts and effigies coupled with experimental archaeology, including reenactors. Studies in the vestment of armour in battle and the conditions experienced could help further establish the feasibility of Western armour in the Middle East. However, because of the lack of examples, the weight would have to be conjectured as would the endurance of the horses. Despite an obvious lack of arms and armour, further studies of the Crusader and his Middle Eastern counterpart in the context of battle can be carried out. Likewise, existing material can be studied with masculine identities in mind, disjoining men as a single group, and instead give autonomy to men’s experiences in the time of the Crusades. A knight was defined by his martial prowess and piety, his ascetics and his aesthetics, visually denoted in the society he lived in by his armour. His 88 armour represented his Chivalry and his actions on the battlefield could make or break the reputation of a man. That a man was willing to maintain heavy armour in a region which may have been more suitable to other methods of warfare illustrates the importance of Chivalry and its visual markers in establishing the masculine identity. Bibliography Barber, R. (1970) The Knight and Chivalry. Boydell Press: Woodbridge. Bennett, M. (1999) ‘Military masculinity in England and Northern France c. 1050-1225’, in D.M. Hadley (ed.) Masculinity in Medieval Europe. Addison Wesley Longman: New York, 71-88. Bennett, M. (2001) ‘Virile Latins, effeminate Greeks, and strong women’, in S. Edgington (ed.) Gendering the Crusades. University of Wales Press: Cardiff, 16-30. Braudy, L. (2004) From Chivalry to Terrorism: war and the changing nature of masculinity. Random House: New York. Christie, N. and Gerish, D. (2003) ‘Parallel preachings: Urban II and al- Sulamī’, Al-Masaq 15: 139-148. Constable, G. (1998) ‘The place of the Crusader in Medieval society’, Viator 29: 377-403. 89 Dressler, R.A. (2004) Of Armour and Men in Medieval England: the chivalric rhetoric of three English knights’ effigies. Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot. Edge, D. and Paddock, J.M. (1988) Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight. Defoe Publishing: London. Folda, J. (2008) The Art of the Crusader in the Holy Land. Lund Humphries: Aldershot. France, J. (1999) Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades 1000-1300. Routeledge: London. France, J. (2000) ‘Crusading warfare and its adaptation to eastern conditions in the twelfth century’, Mediterranean Historical Review 15: 49-66. Gladitz, C. (1997) Horse Breeding in the Medieval World. Four Courts Press: Dublin. Hadley, D.M. (1999) ‘Introduction: Medieval masculinities’, in D.M. Hadley (ed.) Masculinity in Medieval Europe. Addison Wesley Longman: New York, 1- 18. Hamblin, W.J. (1992) ‘Saladin and Muslim military theory’, in B.Z. Kedar (ed.), The Horns of Hattin. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, 228-238. Heller, S. (2002) ‘Fashion in French Crusade literature: desiring infidel textiles’, in D. Koslin and J. Snyder (eds.) Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress: objects, texts, images. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills, 103-113. Hillenbrand, C. (1999) The Crusades: Islamic perspectives. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. Holt, P.M. (2004) The Crusader States and Their Neighbors. Pearson Education Inc: Harlow. Hyland, A. (1994) The Medieval Warhorse: from Byzantium to the Crusades. Sutter Publishing: Stroud. Kaeuper, R. and Kennedy, E. (1996) The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi de Charny: text, context, translation. University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia. Kaeuper, R. (2009) Holy Warriors: the religious ideology of chivalry. University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia. Kedar, B.Z. (1992) ‘The battle of Hattin revisited’, in B.Z. Kedar (ed.), The Horns of Hattin. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, 189- 207. Keen, M. (1984) Chivalry. Yale University Press: New Haven. 90 Kӧhler, M. (2013) Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: cross cultural diplomacy in the period of the Crusades. Translated from German by P. Holt. Brill: Boston. Lachaud, F. (2002) ‘Dress and social status and England before the Sumptuary Laws’, in P. Coss and M. Keen (eds.) Heraldry, Pageantry, and Social Display in Medieval England. Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 105-123. Marshall, C. (1992) Warfare in the Latin East, 1192-1291. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Nicolle, D. (1976) Early Medieval Islamic Arms and Armour. Madrid Instituto de Estudios Sobra Armos Antiguas: Madrid. Nicolle, D (1980) ‘The impact of the European couched lance on Muslim military tradition’, The Journal of Arms and Armour Society: 60-40. Nicolle, D. (1992) ‘Arms and armour illustrated in the art of the Latin East’, in B. Kedar (ed.) The Horns of Hattin. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, 327-340. Nicolle, D. (1994) ‘The realities of Mamluk warfare, weapons, and tactics’, Al- Masaq 7: 77-110. Nicolle, D. (1999) ‘Medieval warfare: the unfriendly interface’, The Jouornal of Military History 63: 579-599. Nicolle, D. (2002) Warriors and Their Weapons around the Time of the Crusades. Ashgate Publishing: Surrey. Riley-Smith, J. (1995) The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Rodinson, M. (1988) Europe and the Mystique of Islam. Tauris: London. Smith, K.A. (2008) ‘Saints in shining armour: martial asceticism and masculine models of sanctity, c. 1050-1250’, Speculum: a journal of Medieval studies 83: 572-603. Strickland, D. (2003) Saracens, Demons, and Jews: making monsters in Medieval art. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Tantum, G. (1979) ‘Muslim Warfare: a study of a medieval Muslim treatise on the art of war’ in R. Elgood (ed.), Islamic Arms and Amrour. Scolar Press: London, 187-201. Warren, M. (2003) ‘Joking with the enemy: beyond ritual in the Oredene de chevalerie’, Exemplaria: a joural of theory in Medieval and Renaissance studies 15: 263-296. 91 Zakeri, M. (1996) ‘Mulsim “Chivalry” at the time of the Crusades: the case of Usamāh b. Munqidh’, Hallesche Berträge 22: 29-50. 92