¹ Two studies devoted specifically to these crusades areRöhricht, Reinhold, ‘ [Die} KreuzzÜge [des Grafen Theobald von Navarra und Richard von Cornwallis nach dem heiligen Lande] ’, Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte, 24, 1886, 67–102Google Scholar; and Painter, Sidney, ‘The Crusade of Theobald of Champagne and Richard of Cornwall, 1239–1241’, in The later crusades 1189–1311, ed. R. L.Wolff and H. W.Hazard (A history of the crusades, II), 2nd edition (Madison, Wisconsin, 1969), 463–85.Google Scholar For the years 1241–44, see Marie-Luise Bulst(-Thiele), ‘[Zur Geschichte der]Ritterorden [und des Königreichs Jerusalem im 13. Jahrhundert bis zur Schlacht bei La Forbie am 17. Okt. 1244]’, Deutsches Archiv, 22, 1966, 197–226.Google Scholar

² ‘[L’Estoire de] Eracles [Empereut et la Conqueste de la Terre d'Outremer]’, R[ecueil des] H[istoriens des] C[roisades.] Historiens Occidentaux (Paris, 1844–95), 2, 413–22,Google Scholar 427–31 ‘[Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de] Rothelin’, ibid., 526–56, 561–6. The version of the Eracles is reproduced, with some additional details, in ‘[Les] Gestes [des Chiprois]’, RHC Documents Arméniens (Paris, 1869–1906), II, 725–8.

³ Lewis, Bernard, ‘Ifrandi’, E[ncyclopaedia of] I[slam], new ed. (Leiden and London, 1954– ), 3, 1045.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibn Shaddād's; al-A‘lāq al-khatīra fī dhikr umarā’ al-shām wa'l-Jazīra is available in a number of partial editions, notably those of Sāmī Dahhān, L[ iban,] J[ ordanie,] P[alestine: Topographie historique d'Ibn Šaddād] (Damascus, 1963),Google Scholar; and of Yahyā, ‘Abbāra (Damascus, 1978). The latter text, which covers the Jazīra, is still incomplete, and so it will be necessary on occasions to refer to the Bodleian Library MS Marsh 333.Google Scholar

⁵ Sibt Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir'āt al-zamān fī ta'rīkh al-a–yān, facsimile ed. Jewett, J. R. (Chicago, 1907), 481–3;Google Scholar (with different pagination) by Dairatu'l-Ma'aref-il-Osmania Press (Hyderabad, Deccan, 1951–52), Mir'āt al-zamān, viii/2, 727–9 (references will be given in both editions). The erroneous year 636 found in the text is corrected by later authors, beginning with the redaction of the Sibt's work by his pupil al-Yūnīnī (d. 1326): Topkap1 Saray1 MÜzesi, Istanbul, MS III Ahmet 2907 c, XIII, fo. 375r.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibn Wāsil, Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār banī ayyūb, ed. G., Shayyāl. (Cairo, 1953– ), v, 333–4.Google Scholar

⁷ All three of these Egyptian writers include scattered details which are derived neither from the Sibt nor from Ibn Wāṣil but in all probability from some thirteenth-century chronicler similarly based in Egypt. The style and chronological precision of these extracts suggests that the original source may have been Ibn Muyassar (d. 1278), of whose work an earlier portion has survived in a MS copied by al-Maqrīzī himself and who was used by al-Nuwayrī at least for the twelfth century: see Claude Cahen, ‘Ibn Muyassar’, EI, new ed., III, 894. Other later sources include al-Khazrajī (late thirteenth century), whose work is largely derived from the Sibṭ but contains some additional material; Qirṭāy al-'Izzī al-Khazāndārī (fl. c. 1330); Ibn al-Dawādārī (fl. c. 1334); al-Dhahabī (d. 1348); and Ibn al-Furāt (d. 1405), whose Ta'rīkh al-duwal wa'l-mulūk is partially available as A[yyubids.] M[amlukes and] C[rusaders], ed. and tr. U, and M. C. Lyons with historical introduction and notes by and notes by J. S. C. Riley-Smith (Cambridge, 19710. The oft-quoted Abū 'I-Fidā (d. 1332) for this period merely abridges Ibn Wāṣil. We are fortunate, finally, in possessing a selection from the correspondence of al-Nāṣir Dā'ūd, [al-]Fawā' id[al-jaliyya fi'l-farā' id al-Nāṣiriyya], made by one of his sons, and a biography of the prince in al-Yūnīnī's continuation (dhayl) of the Mir'āt. On all these Islamic sources, see Cahen, [La] Syrie du Nord [à l'époque des croisades et la principaute franque d Antioche] (Paris, 1940), ch. ii, passim. I am most grateful to the librarians of the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, and of the Gotha Forschungsbibliothek for supplying me with microfilms of the works of al-Nuwayrī and Qirṭāy respectively, and to Professor Malcolm Lyons for lending me his microfilm of the Vatican MS of Ibn al-Furāt.

⁸ B[ibliothèque] N[ationale], Paris, MS arabe 302, fos. 155 v–223r. See Catalogue des manuscrits arabes, I″ partie: manuscrits chrétiens, ed. Troupeau, G. (Paris, 1972–74), 1, 265–6.Google Scholar The author was formerly believed to be Severus (Sāwīrūs) b. al-Muqaffa', who is now known to have lived in the tenth century and to have composed only the earlier biographies: Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (Vatican City, 1944–53), 2, 301–6.Google Scholar

⁹ H[istory of the] P[atriarchs of the] E[gyptian] C[hurch], iv/2; ed. and tr. A. Khater and O. H. E. Khs-Burmester (Cairo, 1974).Google ScholarRenaudot, E., Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum (Paris, 1713),Google Scholar had simply abridged this work, and the only author to publish extracts prior to this was Amari, Michele, B[iblioteca] A[rabo-]S[icula] (Leipzig, 1857), 322–6;Google Scholar op. cit. Versione Italiana (Turin and Rome, 1880–1889), 1, 518–23.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Blochet, Edgar, ‘Histoire d'Égypte d'al-Makrizi’, R[evue de l]O[rient] L[atin], 10 (1903–4), 248–351Google Scholar, passim.

¹¹ Humphreys, R. Stephen, From Saladin to the Mongols: the Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260 (New York, 1977), 271–2: the Siyar does not appear to have been used at all. See also Sir Hamilton Gibb, ‘The Aiyūbids’, in Wolff and Hazard, II, 707–8, who suggests that Ayyūb's military activities were confined to the Yemen.Google Scholar

¹² HPEC, IV/2, text 114–15, tr. 235–6, 294, for the embassies; text 107, 113, tr. 222, 233–4, for Frankish disunity.

¹³ T. C. Van Cleve, ‘The crusade of Frederick II’, in Wolff and Hazard, II, 461.

¹⁴ Prawer, Joshua, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, tr.Nahon, G. (2nd ed., Paris, 1975), 2, 270;Google Scholar cf. also pp. 225, 265, where the absence of anyone gifted with the emperor's political acumen is noticed. Richard, Jean, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, tr. Shirley, J., Amsterdam, 1979), 323.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Painter, 484–5.

¹⁶ Prawer, II, 287.

¹⁷ Richard, 334. See also Prawer, II, 306.

¹⁸ Painter, 484–5.

¹⁹ H[istoria] D[iplomatica] F[riderici] S[ecundi], ed. Huillard-Bréholles, J. L. A. (Paris, 1852–61), 3, 87, 108, 137; see also p. 106 for the despatch of envoys to al-Nāṣir in 1229, and n. 64infra.Google Scholar

²⁰ This important point is well made—for the first time, so far as I am aware—by Giles, K. R., ‘The Treaty of Jaffa, 18 February 1229: a reassessment’, Keele University B.A. dissertation (1982), 55.Google Scholar

²¹ On these contacts, see Blochet, , ‘Les relations diplomatiques des Hohenstaufen avec les sultans d'Égypte’, Revue Historique, LXXX, 1902, 51–64.Google Scholar Frederick was expecting an embassy from Cairo in October 1239: HDFS, v/1, 433. For commercial relations, see Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-âge, tr. Furcy Raynaud, (Leipzig, 1885–6), 1, 406–9Google Scholar; Labib, Subhi Y., Handels-geschichle Ägyptens im Spätmittelalter (1171–1517) (Wiesbaden, 1965), 31, 33. Of the primary sources reporting subsequent commercial agreements explicitly based on that of 1229, see especially Ibn ‘Abd al-Zāhir (d. 1292), Tashrīf al-ayyām wa'l-'uṣūr fī sīrat al-malik al-Manṣūr, ed. Murād Kāmil (Cairo, 1961), 156; tr. Amari, BAS Vers. Ital., III, 548–51.Google Scholar

²² For this episode, see Grousset, René, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de jérusalem (Paris, 1934–6), 3, 379–83Google Scholar; Prawer, II, 272–4; also Painter, 474–7, who seems, however, to underestimate the losses suffered at Gaza. The counts of Bar and Montfort were accompanied by 400 knights: ‘Annales monasterii de Theokesberia’, A[nnales] M[onastici], ed. Luard, H. R. (London, 1864–69. Roll Series), 1, 114Google Scholar; cf. also ‘Eracles’, 414 (‘Gestes’, 725); ‘Rothelin’, 539, gives 670. Al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, Leiden MS Or. 21, 325, and al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk li-ma'rifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. M. M. Ziada, 1/2 (Cairo, 1936), 292, tr.Broadhurst, R. J. C., A history of the Ayyūbid sultans of Egypt (Boston, Mass., 1980), 251Google Scholar, give the captives as 80 knights and 250 fot and the slain as 1,800; HPEC, IV/2, text 96, tr. 197, 15 knights and 500 foot captured and twice as many (a'ḍāfahum) slain. The total number of Western knights on Theobald's expedition seems to have been about 1,000–1,500: see Reinhold, Röhricht, G[eschichte des] K[önigreichs] J[erusalem 1099–1291] (Innsbruck, 1898), p. 839 and n. 2, for references.Google Scholar

²³ Philip Mouskè, Chronique rimée, ed. Baron F. A. F. T. de Reiffenberg (Brussels, 1836–8), II, 661 (verses 30,401–4). For the in-fighting among the French magnares during the minority of St. Louis, see Berger, Elie, Histoire de Blanche de Castille reine de France (Paris, 1895)Google Scholar, ch. iv. In 1236 Theobald himself had revolted against the Crown and come to an understanding with certain of his former enemies, such as Peter Mauclerc of Brittany; but they had then left him in the lurch: ibid., 245–53.

²⁴ Grousset, III, 377–8; hence Richard, 323. Painter, 473. Riley-Smith, J. S. C., [The] Knights of St. John [in Jerusalem and Cyprus c. 1050–1310] (London, 1967), 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Prawer, II, 270–1, and his ‘Military orders and crusader politics in the second half of the 8th century’, in Die Geistlichen Ritterorden Europas, ed. Fleckenstein, J. and Hellmann, M., (Sigmaringen, 1980), 221.Google ScholarBulst-Thiele, M. L., [Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani] Magistri [Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/19–1314] (Göttingen, 1974), 199.Google Scholar

²⁵ Painter, 463, Only Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, tr. Gillingham, J. (Oxford, 1972), 248, hints otherwise. For a military reverse which has been traditionally placed during Theobald's crusade but which really belongs to 1241, vide infra, p. 49.Google Scholar

²⁶ For his arrival in Cairo, see HPEC, Iv/2, text 91, tr. 188: 19 Bashans 955 Era of Martyrs/8 Shawwāl 636 A.H./14 May 1239. Al-Nuwayrī, 324, gives the date of his departure for Kerak as 5 Safar 637/6 September 1239, whereas al-Maqrīzī, 1ī2, 284 (tr. Broadhurst, 245), has mid-Ṣafar.

²⁷ For a detailed survey of these events, see Humphreys, 239–56; more briefly in Prawer, II, 263–4. For the relationships of the various Ayyubid princes, see the genealogical table at p. 34.,

²⁸ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 215–16, 230.

²⁹ Painter, 473–4.

³⁰ Oliver of Paderborn, Historia Damiatina, ed. Hoogeweg, H., Die Schriften des Kölner Domscholasters⃜Oliverus (TÜbingen, 1894), 163–4.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Annales Mellicenses. Continuatio Lambacensis’, M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica.] Scriptores, ed. Pertz, G. H., etal. (Hanover etc., 1826–1934), 9, 559Google Scholar, wrongly stating that the Tower of David was taken: cf. ‘Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgensis’, ibid., 787 (‘preter turrim Davit, quam milites imperatoris defendunt’), and ‘Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia’, AN, III, 150. ‘Rothelin’, 529–30, clearly confuses this episode with al-Nāṣir's attack, while placing it immediately prior to the Gaza campaign. Painter, 472–3 and n. 13, recognized that there were who distinct assaults on the Holy City; Prawer, II, p. 278, n. 35, reached a similar conclusion, though by dint of misreading ‘pseudo-Yāfi'ī’ (actually the fifteenth-century chronicler al-'Aynī).

³² Ibn Wāṣil, v, 215. Ibn al-‘Amīd’, Kitāb al-majmū al-mubārak, ed. Cl, Cahen, ‘La “Chronique des Ayyoubides” d'al-Makīn b. al-‘Amīd’, B[ulletin d] É[tudes] [rientales de l] I[institut] F[rancais de] D[amas], xv, 1955–7, 147. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/ 283 (tr. Broadhurst, 244). The dates coincide almost exactly, since the news of Ayyūb's arrival at jinīn (Gérin) reached Cairo on 20 Shawwāl 636/ 26 May 1239: al-Nuwayrī, 323.

³³ ‘Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia’, 150.

³⁴ ‘Rothelin’, 531–2. ‘Eracles’, 414 (hence ‘Gestes’, 725), mentions only Ascalon; but cf. the anonymous letter summarized in Paris, Matthew, C[hronica] M[ajora], ed. Luard, H. R. (London, 1872–83. Rolls Series), 4, 25 (‘Damascus non capitur, ut dictum est prius⃛’).Google Scholar

³⁵ Prawer, II, 271–2.

³⁶ Bulst(-Thiele), ‘Ritterorden’, 204–11; and pace Mary N. Hardwicke, ‘The Crusader States, 1192–1243’, in Wolff and Hazard, II, 552. Prawer, ‘Military orders and crusader politics’, 221, demurs, however.

³⁷ for these events, see Humphreys, 257–61. The date of Ayyūb's capture is given by Ibn Khallikān, as quoted in Röhricht, GKJ, 846 and n. 4, and in Stevenson, W. B., The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge, 1907, repr. Beirut, 1969), p. 316, n. 5.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 220. Al-Nuwayrī, 331. Ibn al-‘Adīm (d. 1262), Zubdat al-ḥalab min ta’rīkh Ḥalab, ed. Sāmī Dahhān (Damascus, 1951–1968), III, 246; tr. E. Blochet, ‘L’histoire d'Alep, de Kamal-ad-dîn’, ROL, v, 1897, 107. Humphreys, 255, 257–8. Prawer, II, 264 (though at p. 271 he assumes that al-'Ādil and Ismā'īl were rivals).Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 238.

⁴⁰ HPEC, Iv/2, tr. 195. Ibn Wāṣil, v, 267. For the date of his departure for Gaza, around the time of al-‘Ādil’s return to Cairo on 17 Rabī' I 637/17 October 1239, see al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 289 (tr. Broadhurst, 250).

⁴¹ Pace Richard, 323, who states that the Syrian barons ‘wanted to go and attack Egypt on her own ground’.

⁴² ‘Rothelin’, 541; and see also 540, where quite clearly a mere raid is in question (‘il iroient jusques a Gadrez at lendemain revendroient en l'ost a Escalonne’).

⁴³ Rumours which reached both the West and Egypt accused the local Franks of abandoning their Western confrères: ‘Rothelin’, 549; HPEC, IV/2, text 96, tr. 197 (cf. also Prawer, II, p. 275, n. 29). But we know that the duke of Burgundy was among the deserters: ‘Rothelin’, 543–4; CM, IV, 25. For a list of local barons who avoided battle, see ‘Gestes’, 726.

⁴⁴ For the dates, see Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 225; hence Ibn al-Furāt, AMC, 1 (text), 76, II (tr.), 62 (and n. 3 at p. 203). Richard, 323, incorrectly places al-Nāṣir's campaign in September 1239.

⁴⁵ Al-Nuwayrī, 325. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 291 (tr. Broadhurst, 251). Ibn Wāṣil, v, 259, indicates that al-Nāṣir had the Friday prayers read in al-‘Ādil’s name right down until April 1240. Prawer, II, 278, is therefore surely wrong to suggest that his seizure of the Holy City was an act of defiance towards the sultan.

⁴⁶ ‘Rothelin’, 550. The reconstruction of the ruined Templar fortress at Safed was contemplated, but not actually begun, at this time: De constructione castri Saphet. Construction et fonctions d'un château fort franc en Terre Sainte, ed. Huygens, R. C. B. (Amsterdam, 1981), 34–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ‘Eracles’, 415–16 (hence ‘Gestes’, 726–7).

⁴⁸ Armand of Pierregort to Walter of Avesnes, in Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, ‘Chronica’, MGH Scriptores, XXIII, 945: the tense shows that the crusade had not yet arrived (‘in iocundo cruce signatorum adventu⃛subiciet’). Röhricht, ‘KreuzzÜge, 99, dated this letter in the winter of 1238–39, which is probably too early; Bulst-Thiele, Magistri, 210, in the spring of 1240, which is certainly too late. For the form of the Master's cognomen, see ibid., 189.

⁴⁹ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 222–8, 239; hence al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 285–7 (tr. Broadhurst, 247–18). This episode is briefly and inaccuratelyl summarized by Humphreys, 256–7, and more exactly by Sivan, Emmanuel, l'Islam et la croisade (Paris, 1968), 153.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ‘Rothelin’, 531. ‘Eracles’, 416 (‘Gestes’, 727). The contradiction was noticed by Röhricht, GKJ, p. 845, n. 2.

⁵¹ B.N. MS lat. 5479, p. 136. The printed version of this text unaccountably reads ‘Moiascon’. for ‘Matiscon.’: ‘Obituaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Yved de Braine’, ed. Brouette, Emile, Analecta Premonstratensia, 34, 1958, 319,Google Scholar. The correct reading had been given long ago by Chesne, Andrè Du, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux (Paris,), preuves, 258.Google Scholar

⁵² Alberic, 946. For these obits, see Obituaires de la province de Sens, ed. Molinier, A.et al. (Paris, 1902–1923), I/1, 511 (2 Oct.), and III, 107 (5 Oct.), for Robert; Iv, 424 (1 Oct.), for Anselm.Google Scholar

⁵³ ‘Eracles’, 416; hence ‘Gestes’, 727. For the siege of Hamāh by Aleppan troops in 635–6 A.H./ 1238–9, see Ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubda, III, 238, 244 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, v, 100–101, 104–5); Ibn Wāṣil, v, 182, 198.

⁵⁴ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 257 (ẓāhiran): soon after the death of al-Mujāhid of Ḥimṣ which occurred on 20 Rajab 637 A.H./15 February 1240 (Sibt, 484/732).

⁵⁵ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 252. Humphreys, 262.

⁵⁶ Humphreys, 262–3. The date of Ayyūb's release is supplied, again, by Ibn Khallikān: Röhricht, GKJ, 847 and n. 2; Stevenson, p. 316, n. 5.

⁵⁷ Sibṭ, 482/728; for al-Mujāhid's death, vide supra, n. 54, Ibn Wāṣil, v, 259–60.

⁵⁸ The suggestion in ‘Eracles’, 416, 419 (‘Gestes’, 727), and in ‘Rothelin’, 552.

⁵⁹ HPEC, IV/2, text 104 (tr. 214), speaking of Ayyūb's movements following his release by al-Nāṣir but prior to al-‘Ādil's deposition: wa-min warā' ihi'l-Ifranj wa-ma'ahum ṣāḥib Dimashq (‘and to his rear were the Franks and with them the ruler of Damascus’; my translation).

⁶⁰ Armand of Pierregort to Robert de Sandford, preceptor of the Temple in England, in CM, Iv, 64 (‘cum jacuisset [sc. Christianus exercitus] diu in sabulo’). Theobald appears to have been in Acre in April and May 1240: H. ďArbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (Paris, 1859–69), Iv, 315–16, note b, 321, note b. Al-Khazrajī names Ismā‘īl’s envoy to the Franks as Jamā al-Dī;n al-Rūmī: Ta'rīkh dawlat al-akrād wa'l-Atrāk, SÜleymaniye KÜtÜphanesi, Istanbul, MS Hekimoglu Ali Paṣl 695, fo. 150v.

⁶¹ Early in 638 A.H. (began 23 July 1240): Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 134, 155, 159; Sibṭ 485/732, also implies the outset of the year. CM, IV, 65, says that the messenger bearing the news of the treaty passed Richard of Cornwall on his way out to Syria, thus suggesting a date in July-August for the agreement.

⁶² The only source to list all these operations is HPEC, Iv/2, text 105, tr. 217. For Ascalon, see also ‘Rothelin’, 553, and cf. Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 262, For Jerusalem, see ‘Rothelin’, 554. For Nablus, see al-Nuwayrī, 332 who additionally supplies the date of al-Nāṣir's return from Cairo, Dhu'l-Hijja 637 A.H.: al-Maqrīzī, I/2, 299 (tr. Broadhurst, 258); cf. also Ibn Shaddād, as quoted n. 72 infra.

⁶³ Painter, 479. Prawer, II, 279 and n. 38. Humphreys, n. 49 at p. 457. See also Stevenson, p. 318, n. 1.

⁶⁴ For Toron in the 1229 treaty, see Richard, 234, and Prawer, II, 199; for other fortresses in the north, see Chronique ď Ernoul et de Bernard Le Trésorier, ed. Latrie, Comte L. de Mas (Paris, 1871), 464, and ‘Eracles’, 375, variant readings. Ibn Shaddād's account of Toron makes no mention of 1229 but says expressly that Ismā'īl handed it over to ‘Sīr Filīt’, i.e. Philip of Montforn, in 638 A.H./1240(–): LJP, 153Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The fullest list is to be gleaned from Ibn Shaddad, LJP, 100 (Sidon), 134 (Tiberias), 147 (Safed), 153 (Toron and Chāteauneuf), 155 (Beaufort), 159 (Shaqīf Tirūn/ ‘Cavea de Tyron’); hence Ibn al-Furāt, AMC, i, 55–6, 81,112, 123, 138; n, 46, 66, 88, 97, 109. For a slightly different list, see Ibn al-‘Amīd, 153: Safed, Beaufort, Tiberias, the Jabal ‘āmila (northern Galilee) and half of Sidon. He is followed by al-Nuwayrī, 334; by Ibn Duqmāq, Nuzhal al-anām fi ta 'rīkh al-Islām, B. N. MS arabe 1597, fo. 49r; and by al-Maqrīzī, i/2, 303 (Broadhurst, 262, wrongly applies the ‘half’ to Tiberias as well). Ibn Wāsīl, v, 302 (sub anno 639 A.H.), and Abu Shama (d. 1268), al-Dhayl ‘ala'l- Rawdatayn, ed. M. Z. al-Kawtharī, Tarājim rijdl al-qarnayn al-sāddis wa'l-sdbī (Cairo, 1947), 170, name only Beaufort and Safed, as does the Sibt, 485–732, 493/745 (sub anno 642 A.H.: vide infra, n. 70). ‘Rothelin’, 552, mentions Beaufort alone.

⁶⁶ Eracles', 418; hence ‘Gestes’, 727. Armand of Pierregort, in CM, iv, 65; see alsoParis', , H[istoria] A[nglorum], ed. Sir Madden, Frederick (London, 1866–9. Rolls Series), n, 440–1;Google Scholar Annals of Southwark, Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B 177, fo. 224r. ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, ed. R. Rohricht and G. Raynaud, Archives de I'Orient Latin, ii, 1884, documents, 440, version B (‘et toute la terre de Jerusalem’), although both recensions also specify Safed and Beaufort. See finally 'Medardi, Chronicon S. Suessionensis, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, new ed., Baluze, E.t., etal. (Paris, 1723), n, 491 (‘omnis terra quam Christiani tenebant tempore perditionis’, except Kerak and Montreal; and see next note).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibn Shaddād, UP, 225,234 (Jerusalem), 246 (Nablus), 265 (Gaza, which had been restored to him by al-'Adil after the Egyptian victory in Nov. 1239). Nablus, Gaza and Jericho (in al-Nāṣir's Jordan valley territory) are all specified in ‘Chronicon S. Medardi’, loc. cit.

⁶⁸ ‘ Eracles’, 418; ‘Gestes’, 727. CM, iv, 65; HA, 11, 441; Annals of Southwark, fo. 224r.

⁶⁹ Al-Nuwayrī, 334; cf. al-Subkī, (d. 1370), Tabaqāt al-shāfi iyyat al-kubrā, ed. Ahmad, M. al- Qādirī al-Hasanī (Cairo, 1906), v, 100 (biography of al-Sulamī), here following either al-Nuwayrī or a common source. Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 49r. Al-Maqrīzī, i/2, 304 (tr. Broadhurst, 262–3).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Humphreys, 266–7. Sivan, 150–1. Prawer, II, 280. For Beaufort, see‘Rothelin’, 552–3. Sibt, 493/745, refers to this episode in the context of the laater alliance of642 A. H.­1244, and is followed by Ibn al­Furāt, Vatican Ms ar.726, fo.41v. But cf. Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 155–6; alā Khazrajī, fos. 150v–lr, Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 48v, with the date Rabì I 638 A. H.(began 20 September 1240) for the arrival of the news in Egypt.

⁷¹ ‘Eracles’,419(‘Gestes‘, 727). For the data in the Islamic sources which have been taken to apply to this supposed campaign, vide infra, nn.75, 123.

⁷² Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 246, says that Ismāīl Seized Nablus during al­Nāāṣir's absence in Egypt; cf. n.62 supra.

⁷³ HPEC, IV/2, text 88, tr. 182 (1239); text 96, tr. 198(early 1240).

⁷⁴ On these camjpaigns, seeHumphreys, , 269–71.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ vide infra, p. 49. It was in this campaign that the Franks were let down by their Syrian allies. Secondary authorities placing it in1240 include Röhricht, , ‘Kreuzzüge, ’, 80, and GKJ, 848; Grousset, III, 389; and Prawer, II, 281.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ HPEC, IV/2, text 105, tr. 217.

⁷⁷ Ibn al­‘AdĪm, Zubda, III, 253 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, VI, 1898, 6); hence Ibn Wāṣil, v, 286.

⁷⁸ CM, IV, 79. The ‘Rooch’ with whom he is alleged to have made the truce can only be Rukn al­DĪn al­HayjāwĪ, the Egyptian general and victor of Gaza; but he was then in temporary ecalipse, having been arrested by Ayyŭb early in June 1240 and sent to Cairo: al­Maqrīzī, I/2, 299 (tr. Broadhurst, 259) In any case, Ismā‘ī’l's truce was made ‘cum quodam potentesibi consanguineo’, which hardly fits al­Hayjāwī. Röhricht, GKJ, P. 840, n. 3, was therefore ritht to see al­Nāṣir here.

⁷⁹ ‘Eracles’,419. (‘Gestes’, 727).

⁸⁰ ‘Rotheliln’,552. f

⁸¹ Richard of Cornwall to Baldwin de Redvers, earl of Devon, etal., in CM, IV, 140. There is a further echo of the trouce in Alberic, 949, though he seems to confuse al­Nāṣir with Ismāīl: ‘Treuge⃛dicuntur esse ad soldanum de Damasco seu Nascere⃛secundum conpositionem regis Navarre⃛’. It is noteworthy, however, that he has referred to al­Nāṣir as sultan of Damascus on a previous occasion (p. 948).

⁸² F[lores] H[istoriaurm], ed. Luard, H. R. (London, 1890. Rolls Series), II, 242‗3. Cf. Röhricht, ‘Kreuzzüge’, pp. 81, n. 7, 85, and GKJ, p. 849, n. 6; Bulst(-Thiele), ‘Ritterorden’, 203, and campaign of the summer of 1241 (vide infra,, -. 48).Google Scholar

⁸³ HPEC, IV/2, text 107 (tr. 221): ‘alāibqāí'bilādîllalī a‘tāhumu’l'malik al'Nāṣir bin al'Mu. azzam iyyā;hā bi'aydihim.

⁸⁴ Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 234. Ibn al'Dawādārī, Kanz al–kurar wa–jāmí al–ghurar, ed. S. ‘Ᾱshŭr, Die Chronik des Ibn ad–Dawādārƫ, VII, DerBericht über die Ayyubiden(Cairo, 1972), 344–5: the month Rabì II 638 A. H. (began 20 Oct. 1240) is surely too late, and al–ākhir is probably an error for al–awwal, as frequently happens. Rabì I began 20 September. Ibn Wāṣil, v, 278 and al–Maqrīzī, I/2, 302(tr. Broadhurst, 261), report al–Nāṣir‘ aliance with Ismāī and al–Manṣŭr but omit the Franks.

⁸⁵ Humphreys, 265

⁸⁶ Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 156.

⁸⁷ ‘Rothelin’, 554–. ‘Eracles’, 419(‘Gestes’, 727). On this complex question, see Stevenson, p. 319, n. 2.

⁸⁸ HPEC, IV/2, text 107 (tr. 221): rusul al–Ifranj taraddadat ilā mawlānāl–Sultān. This was prior to the despatch of Kamaāl al–Dīn to the Franks, on which vide infra, p. 46. But it should be noted that the last event mentioned (tr. 220)is the establilshment of the Palace of Justice, which is dated by al–Maqrīzī,1/2, 306­7 (tr. Broadhurst, 265), in Rabí II/October–November 1240.

⁸⁹ CM, IV, 140(‘ut aliquid fecisse viderentur’); cf. also FH, II, 243.

⁹⁰ Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 246

⁹¹ Ibn al-Dawādārī, VII, 345: yakūna’l-Quds baynahum munāsafa. Armand of Pierregort dated the exclusively Christian occupation fo Jerusalem from 1243: CM, IV, 290. Ibn Shaddā, LJP, 234, is therefore apparently in error in dating the expulsion of the Muslim inhabitants in 638 A. H. /1240.

⁹² HDFS, III, 88–9, 108, 148. Richard, 234–5. Prawer, II, 199, 201.

⁹³ CM, IV, 140 (‘licet parum attineret’).

⁹⁴ vide supra, pp. 36, 42 and n. 64.

⁹⁵ ‘Rothelin’, 553, erroneously including the Hospitallers among those who urged an invasion.

⁹⁶ Ibn Wāsil, v. 263–4.

⁹⁷ CM, IV, 78–9; HA, II, 443; II, 242.

⁹⁸ CM, IV, 140–1.

⁹⁹ See Sivan, 140–1.

¹⁰⁰ CM, IV, 141 (‘quidam magnus potens valde ex parte Soldani Babiloniae’); cf. also FH, II, 452.

¹⁰¹ HPEC, IV/2, text 107, tr. 221. On Kamāl al-Dīn and his family, see Hans L. Gottshalk, ‘Awlād al-Shaykh’, EI (new ed. ), 1, 765–6; more fully, ‘Die Aulād Šaih aš-šuyūh (Banū Hamawiya)’, Wiener Zeitschrift fūr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, LIII, 1956, 57–87.

¹⁰² The regent apparently joined the coalition in return for further Damascene aid against the Khwarizmians in Jumādā II 638 A. H. (began 18 Dec. 1240): Ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubda, III, 254 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, VI, 7); Ibn Wāsil, v, 288;cf. also Gibb, ‘The Aiyūbids’, p. 708, n 17. Ibn Wāsil, v, 300, indicates that Aleppo had joined by the begining of 639 A. H. For Ismā‘īl’s earlier attempts, see Ibn al-‘Adīm, III, 247–8 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, VI, 12); hence Ibn Wāsil, v, 268–9.

¹⁰³ CM, IV, 47. ‘Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia’, 152, where we read that the earl lingered in French territory ‘donec imperatori consule

¹⁰⁴ HDFS, VI/1 239: ‘R[icardo] comite Cornubie ⃛ in ultramarinis partibus vices agente nostras⃛’.

¹⁰⁵ ‘Eracles’, 421 (‘Gestes’, 728): ‘il ne vost faire ne I’autre. ‘This may possibly be the significance of the statement by Gervase of Canterbury's continuator that the earl reconciled the Temple and the Hospital: The historical works of Gervasw of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, W. (London, 1879–80. Rolls Series), II, 179.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ CM, IV 141; and for the date of his despatching envoys to Cairo, see p. 143. ‘Rothelin’, 556, is closer to the truth than the Eracles in recognizing Richard's early commitment to peace with Ayyūb, though the question is complicated by the assumption of both chronicles that such a peace had already been effected by Theobald (supra, pp. 44–5)

¹⁰⁷ CM, IV, 141–3.

¹⁰⁸ e. g., ‘Bersamul’ = Nebi samwil, a few miles north of Jerusalem, on which see LeStrange, Guy, Palestine under the Moslems (london, 1890), 433; ‘Kocabi’ = Deir el-kobebe, S. W. of Beth Gibelin, on which see Gustav Beyer, ‘Die Kreuzfahrergebiete von Jerusalem und S. Abraham (Hebron) ’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palāstina-Vereins, LXV, 1942, 184.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ HPEC, IV/2, text 107, tr. 221–2.

¹¹⁰ Richard, 326.

¹¹¹ HPEC, IV/2, text 110, tr. 227. For this campaign, vide infra, p. 48. Stevenson, p. 320, n. 2, suggested that Ayyūb still disposed of the revenues of Gaza at this time; but cf. Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 265.

¹¹² ‘Rothelin’, 556; this is not mentioned. however, in Richard's letter. John of Columna alleges that one of the clauses in the treaty secured safe-conduct to Jerusalem for the crusaders: ‘E Mari Historiarum’, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (new ed. Delisle, L., Paris, 1869–1904), XXIII, 110.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Sibt, 487/736; it was from here that he despatched al-Jawwād against the Egyptian army (vide infra, p. 50). The history of Jerusalem during the previous months is confused. Prawer, II, 278, believes that Jerusalem had been reoccupied by the Egyptians following its capture by al-Nāşir in the winter of 1239–40; cf. also p. 282. But Ibn Wāsil, v, 259, shows that it was still in al-Nāşir's hands in April 1240; see also Humphreys, 263. Stevenson, 320, ignores al-Nāşir, assuming that all the places listed were in Ismaā‘īl’s possession.

¹¹⁴ Richard, 325. Sir Steven RuncimanA history of the Crusades (cambridge, 1951–54), III, 218. Bulst-Thiele, Magistri, 202. Painter, p. 479, n. 20, assumed that the Damascene and Egyptian treaties conveyed identical territories.

¹¹⁵ HPEC, IV/2 text 107, tr. 222.

¹¹⁶ Armand of Pierregort to Robert de Sandford, in CM, IV, 289. For the date of this letter, vide infra, n. 168.

¹¹⁷ The fullest account is in HPEC, IV/2, text 110–111, tr. 227–30, where the battle is located at Ra's al-‘aqaba, on the road from Jerusalem to Bayt Nūba. Only al-Maqrīzī, 1/, 305 (tr. Broadhurst, 264), supplies the precise date of the campaign Dhu’1-Qa‘da 638 A. H. (began 14 May 1241). Sibt, 487/736–7, is briefer, locating the battle at Bayt Furayk, east of Nablus; cf. also p. 489/739. Both he and Ibn Wāşil, v, 300— (followed by Ibn al-Dawādārī, VII, 347, and Ibn al-Furā Vatican MS, fos. 2v—3v), incorrectly date it 639 A. H. (began 12 July). At a later juncture al-Maqrāzā, 1/2, 309 (tr. Broadhurst, 267), gives a second account, derived from Ibn Wāšil and so sub anno 639. On the basis of these confused data Stevenson, p. 321, n. I, was misled into identifying the campaign with that of 1242 (vide infra, p. 51).

¹¹⁸ LJP, 148; hence Ibn al-Furāt, AMC, I, 112—113, II, 88–9. Since al-Nāşir and Ismā‘īl must the first stone was laid at Safed (Richard, 326), and the beginning of the summer, when al-Nāşir made peace with Ayyūb: he did not ally with Ismā ‘īl again until the late spring of 1243 (infra, p. 53).

¹¹⁹ HPEC, IV/2, text 112 (tr. 23t incorrect): fa-lawaffaqat al-harakat illā an mawlānā’ l-Sultān sallaha ma‘a’l-malik al-Nāsir.

¹²⁰ Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 153, II. 9–11; though the latter section of the passage belongs not to 1241 but to the 1243 campaign (vide infra, n. 156). Al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 303 (tr. Broadhurst, 262). For the fullest account of Ayyūb's dealings with his grandees, see Ibn Wāşil, v, 274–6; cf. also Humphreys, 264, 298.

¹²¹ HPEC, IV/2, test 111, tr. 230, omitting the froce from Aleppo and mentioning the Nablus clash. Ibn al-‘mīd, p. 153. II. 11–15, followed by Ibn Duqmāq, and al-Maqrīzī, 1/, 304 (tr. Broadhurst, 263), includes the Aleppan contingent and describes the engagement at Hisbān alone; cf. preceding note.

¹²² Al-Nuwayrī, 341. Al-Subkī, v, 101; briefer version in Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 1449), Raf a;-işr ‘ an qudāh Mirs, ed. Hamīd ‘Abd al-Maj‛d, etal., revised by Ibrā by Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī (Cairo, 1957–61), II, 351.

¹²³ Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 49v. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, (tr. Broadhurst, 264). Stevenson, p. 320, n. 3, expressed doubts as to the reliability of this account, as does Bulst-Thiele, Magistri, p. 204, n. 71, but they assume that these events belong to 1240. Both Ibn Duqmāq and al-Maqrīzī, however, specify that the Frankish prisoners taken in the encounter were employed by Ayyūb on his new colleges ‘between the two palaces’ (madāris baya’ l-qasrayn, on which work began only in 639 A. H.: Ibn al-Dawādārī, VII, 347; Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 53r; al-Maqrīz‛, 1/, 308 (tr. Broadhurst, 266); cf. also HPEC, IV/2, text 119, tr. 246(near the end of 639/late spring1242).

¹²⁴ HPEC, IV/2, text 112 (tr. 231. The later reference is at text 113 (tr. 234 slightly misleading): lammā rā ū khidhlānahum wa-intisār sāhib Misr ‘alayhim’ when they beheld their abandonment and the victory of the ruler of Egypt over them’

¹²⁵ Al-maqrīzī, 1/2, 309 (tr. Broadhurst, 267–8), alone supplies the date, 12 Safar 639 A. H., along with the other details. HPEC, IV/2, text 113, tr. 233, says merely that al-Nāsir defeated the Syrian forces; the news seems to have reached Egypt at the very beginning of 957 E. M. /September 1241.

¹²⁶ HPEC, IV/2, text 113 (tr. 223–4 again confused): wa-hum rusul al-Dīwiyya wa-illā l-mugharrab [?] ashāb ‘ Asqalān wa-ghayrahum min akbar al-Faranji kānū [so MS arabe 302—printed text has kūnūin error] sulthan m00F0;a mawlānāl-Sulthān wa-hāulāī lladhīna kānū ma’ a sāhib Dimashq ‘they were the envoys of the Templars—not of the Westerners who controlled Ascalon and of the others among the Frankish grandees who were at peace with our master the Sulthan—and it was these who were allied with the ruler of Damascus’

¹²⁷ CM. IV, 167; ibid., 144, for Richard's departure. The crusading leaders who left at this time included the duke of Burgundy and the count of Nevers: for a list, see P. Jackson, ‘The end of Hohenstaufen rule in Syria’ Bulletin fo the Institute of Historical Research, LIX, 1986, 32–33.

¹²⁸ ‘Eracles’, 422 The passage may nevertheless contain a blurred reference to Ismā‘īl’'s expedition: ‘Et ous que li oz des Crestiens aloit, li sodans di Domas o tout son ost estoit toz jorz herbergez pres d’eaus. Cf. also ‘Gestes’, 728; and for the probable conflation of the events of 1240–41 in the Frankish tradition, supra, p. 43.

¹²⁹ vide supra, p. 37. The chequered career of this prince is here tentatively reconstructed. Humphreys, 271–2 and n. 58 at p. 458, abandons the attempt to make sense of the conflicting details in the sources.

¹³⁰ HPEC, IV/2, text 106, 110, tr. 219–20, 227. Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 152, II. 10–18. Ibn Wā, V, 281–2, 296–7. Sibt, 487/736. For al-Jawwād's career in the Jazīra, see Ibn Shaddād, ed. ‘Abbāra, 203–6; summary in Cahen, ‘“Djazīira” au milieu du treiziemé, e siéme siécle, d’aprés’ ‘Izz ad-din Ibn Chaddad’, Revue des Etudes Islamiques, VII 1934, 118–9

¹³¹ HPEC, IV/2, text 110–11, tr. 228–30. Sibt, 487/736–7. Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 152, II. 18–21 (hence Ibn Duqmaāq, fo. 45v), omitting all mention of the battle. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 303 (tr. Broadhurst,264).

¹³² Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 152, II. 21— (Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 45v). HPEC, IV/2, text 111, tr. 230, includes him among the princes who accompanied Ismā‘ūl on his Egyptian campaign; see text p. 115, tr. p. 238, for his joining the Franks around October (last datable events mentioned are a solar eclipse on 6 october 1241 and the arrival of Frederick' envoys in Egypt for the winter,

¹³³ Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 152, II. 24–5: wa-kāna yaqūlu inna’l-Faranj ikhwalun lahu li-anna ummahu kānat Faranjiyyatun wa-lihādhā mālū ilayhi maylan kathīran. Al-Dhahabī confirms that his mother was a Frank: Tðrīkh al-Islām, sŪleymaniye KŪtŪphanesi MS Ayasofya 3013, fo. 12r.

¹³⁴ HPEC, IV002F;2, text 115, tr. 238.

¹³⁵ Ibn Duqmaq, fos. 45v-46r. Ibn al-'Amld, p. 152, 1. 24, says only that the Franks and al- Jawwad encamped at Caesarea (Qaysariyya), and it seems that Ibn Duqmaq has preserved a fuller version copied from their common source. Neither mentions the raid on Gaza, for which see HPEC, iv/2, text 115, tr. 238.

¹³⁶ ‘Gestes’, 729–30.

¹³⁷ Ibn al-'Amid, p. 152,11. 25–8. Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 46r, gives a slightly different account and does not mention that a treaty was actually sworn. The proposal to restore Damascus to al-Jawwād may be inferred from HPEC, IV/2, text 117, tr. 242.

¹³⁸ Al-Maqrİzİ, I/2, 310 (tr. Broadhurst, 268), who alone gives the date, Ramadān 639 A. H. (began 5 March 1242). Ibn al-‘Amİd, p. 152, 11. 28–9. HPEC, IV/2, text 117, tr. 241–2.

¹³⁹ Ibn Duqmāq, fos. 46r-v, provides the fullest account: the parallel passage in Ibn al-‘Amİd, 152–3, omits Ayyub's secret instructions to al-Jawwād and consequently presents a non sequitur. HPEC, IV/2, text 118, tr. 242–3, gives no reason for the fears of the two men. Al-Maqrİzİ, I/2, 310 (tr. Broadhurst, 268), furnishes the date of al-Hayjāwİs flight, 15 Dhu'l-Qa'da 639 A. H. /17 May 1242, but erroneously makes him leave from Cairo rather than Gaza.

¹⁴⁰ CM, iv, 197: ‘Templarii…plus miraculose quam humana fortitudine inopinabili victoria gloriose triumpharunt. ’ This comment has been taken to refer to the sack of Nablus and its aftermath (vide infra, p. 52), e. g. by Röhricht, GKJ, p. 854 and n. 4; Grousset, III, p. 397, n. 1, and Runciman, III, p. 220, n. 1. But Paris introduces it in the context of the late spring or early summer of 1242. Stevenson, p. 321, n. 1, rightly connected it with events in May, but on the basis of confused data in al-Maqrİzİ which really apply to the battle of May 1241 (supra, n. 117). The vague reference in Philip Mouskés, Chronique rimée, ed. Baron F. A. F. T. de Reiffenberg (Brussels, 1836–38), II, 683, can probably also be linked with these events.

¹⁴¹ HPEC, IV/2, text 118, tr. 243.

¹⁴² ibid., text 131, tr. 268–9. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/2, 310–11 (tr. Broadhurtst, 269), is briefer but supplies the date, 4 Jumādā I 640 A. H. There is another account in the commentary on al-Nāṣ

¹⁴³ HPEC, iv/2, text 131–2, tr. 269. It seems that a garbled account of this episode is preserved in ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, A, 440, and B, 440–1, though both versions include al-Nāṣir on the Franks' side at a time when he is known to have been bitterly hostile to them: this misled Gibb, ‘The Aiyubids’, 709. But the correct wording has been retained in the Castilian version, ed. A. Sanchez Candeira, ‘Las cruzadas en la historiografia espanola de la época. Traduccon castellana de una redaction desconocida de los “Anales de Tierra Santa”‘, Hispania, xx, 1960, 358 (I am indebted to Dr. Peter Edbury for bringing this article to my attention): ‘fueron los Templeros… e Malech Joet a Escalon, e Le Naser e la hueste de Babillonna asalioron la casa del Temple …’. Bulst(-Thiele), ‘Ritterorden’, 213, and Magistri, p. 204, n. 71, was rightly suspicious of the Old French recensions at this point, but her conclusion that the ‘Annales’ muddle the events of different years is groundless.

¹⁴⁴ Fawāid, fos. 47v–49r; summary in al-Yūnīnī, I, 157–9. See Sivan, 140. For al-Sulamīs arrival in Egypt and appointment first as khaṭīb (10 Rabī 11 639 A. H. /18 October 1241) and then as qādi (Dhu'1-Hijja/June 1242), see al-Nuwayrī, 341–3; al-Maqrī, i/2, 308 (tr. Broadhurst, 266–7).

¹⁴⁵ So according to HPEC, IV/2, text 111, tr. 229; 300 229: 300 under al-Jawwād as against 3,000 Egyptian troops; cf. also text p. 110, tr. pp. 227–8. But al-Khazrajī, fo. 151v, gives 700 and 2,000 respectively.

¹⁴⁶ HPEC, iv/2, text 115, tr. 238: its abandonment is followed immediately by the news of the raid on Gaza (supra, p. 50 and n. 134).

¹⁴⁷ Sibt, 488/738, indicating a date very early in 640 A. H. (began I July 1242). HPEC, iv/2, text 120, tr. 247–8, speaks of preparations at this juncture for an expedition into Syria, but for the purpose of meeting an envoy of the Caliph. Cf., however, al-Dhahabī, as quoted in next note.

¹⁴⁸ Al-Dhahabī, Ta'rlkh al-lslām, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi MS Ayasofya 3012, fos. 215 v, 254v; cf. also his Duwal al-lslām, tr. Arlette Negre (Damascus, 1979), 244. For the date of Kamāl al-Dīn's death, 13 ṣafar 640 A. H., see Abū Shāma, 172; Sibt, 489/739, gives simply the month. Ibn Wasil, v, 301, followed by Ibn al-Fūrat, Vatican MS, fos. 3r-v, states misleadingly that he had died shortly (bi-qalīl) after his release by al-Nāsir (supra, p. 48). He is possibly the source of al-Maqrīzī's incorrect date ṣafar 639 A. H. in al-Mawā'iz wa'l-tlibār bi-dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa'-āthār (Bulaq, 1853–4), 11, 34.

¹⁵⁰ Armand of Pierregort to Robert de Sandfor, in CM, IV, 289 (for the date of this letter,vide infra, n. 168): Ayyū opened negotiations ‘post mala quae a nobis recepit [sc. Soldanus] et Nasserus’, i. e. following the sack of Nablus and the sbortive siege of Jaffa.

¹⁵¹ HPEC, IV/, text 117, tr. 242. Al-Maqrīzī, I/2, 310, 312–13 (tr. Broadhurst, 268, 270–1), and The pearl-strings: a history of the Resủliyy Dynasty of Yemen tr. J. W. Redhouse and ed. E. G. Browne, etal. (Leiden and London, 1906–8), I, 109, both give rama1E0D;ā 639 A. H.

¹⁵² HPEC, IV/, text 141–2, tr. 288.

¹⁵³ ibid., text 142, tr. 289: the date of Ismā'īl's advance may be inferred from the events that immediately follow, dated Ba'ūna 959 EM. /June 1243.

¹⁵⁴ ibid., text 142, 145, tr. 289, 294–5. Ibn Wāṣil, v, 323, lists al-Nāṣir among Ayyūb's enemies at the outset of 641 A. H. (began 21 june 1243), but makes no mention of these campaogns.

¹⁵⁵ ‘Annles de Terre Sainte ’, B, 441: ‘… et li sires de Damas vint as Mouulins de Turs pour affremer la triue o nos gens; mais il les engana et n‘en first point’; Sánchez Candeira, 358–9. Bulst, ‘Ritterorden’, p. 213, n. 51, assumes that this entry has been misplaced from 1240 or 1241. For ‘Les Moulins des Turs’, on the lower ‘Awjá river, see Gustav beyer, ‘Die Kreuzfahrergebiete sÜdwestpalāstinas’, Beiträge zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, LXVIII, 19465–51, 179–80 (and map, p. 188).

¹⁵⁶ Ibn al-‘Amțd, p. 153, II. 15–20; Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 46v. Both authors record these events sub anno 638 A. H. /124(0-)I, although the former adds that some of them occurred after that date. Cf. supra, n. 120, for the probable conflation of two distinct campaigns. The auxiliaries from Aleppo must surely belong to the 1241 expedition, since in June 1243 Aleppo was too absorbed with the Mongols to concern herself with Egypt and had just sent a force to assist the Seljūk Sultan against them: ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubda, III, 268 (tr. Blochet, in ROL VI, 19); Ibn Wāṣ, V, 314. HPEC, IV/2, text 145, tr. 295, reports the news of al-jawwād's arrest and of the retreat of Ismāīl and al-Manṣūr towards Damascus: Ms arabe 302 breaks off at this juncture.

¹⁵⁷ Al-Khazrajī, fo. 152r. Ibn Wāṣil, V, 297. SibṠ, 492/743–4, with the date, Shawwāl 641 A. H. Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 153, II. 20–21; Ibn Duqmāq, fo. 46v. For al-Jawwād's epitaph in the Ṣāliḥiyya at Damascus, see Répertoire chronologique dèpigraphie arabe, XI, ed. J. Sauvaget, etal. (Cairo, 1941–42), 117 (no. 4176).

¹⁵⁸ ROL, x, p. 339, n. 3.

¹⁵⁹ Sibt, 492/743–4.

¹⁶⁰ Bodleian Library MS Pococke 324, fo. 138r: wa-baddala mālan lil-Faranj wa-tasallama'i-Jawwād minhum. This MS has been identified-with an abridgement of the Zubdat al-fikra of Baybars al-Manṣūrī (d. 1325).

¹⁶¹ Sibt, 492/743. Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 153, I. 21.

¹⁶² Ibn al-‘Adīm, Zubda, III, 267–8 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, VI, 19): between Jumādā II and Shawwāl 640 A. H. /December 1242 and April 1243. Cf. also Ibn Wāṣil, v, 314.

¹⁶³ See Cl. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, tr. J. Jones-Williams (London, 1968), 137–8. GIbb, ‘THe Aiyūbids’, 708.

¹⁶⁴ Al-Maqrīzī, I/2, 308 (tr. Broadhurst, 266): II Dhu'I-Qa'da 638 A. H. /24 May 1241.

¹⁶⁵ Abū Shāma, 173: 24 Rabī I 641 A. H. Al-Maqrīzī, 1/, 310 (tr. Broadhurst, 269), erroneously Places this event under Rabī I 640.

¹⁶⁶ Al-Dhahabī alone names al-Manṣūr as commander of the Damascene army at the siege; Ta'rikh al-Isl*ām, MS Ayasofya 3012, fo. 254v, margin; cf. also Duwal al-Islām, tr. Nègre, 246. Ibn Wāsil. V. 328, 331, refers to the siege only briefly.

¹⁶⁷ For all these events, see HUmphreys, 272–4; Prawer, II, 307. The main source is Ibn Wāṣil, v, 327–32.

¹⁶⁸ Armand of Pierregort to Robert de Sandford, in CM, IV, 289–90. Pace Rōhricht, ’Kreuzzūge’ 100, and GKJ, p. 860 and n. I, and Prawer, II, p. 307, n. 41, this letter appears to have reached England in the first months of 1244; it states, moreover, that Jerusalem has not been in exclusively Christian hands for 56 years, and hence clearly belongs to 1243, most probably to the late autumn or early winter. An alternative possibility is that the truce referred to is the one formulated with Ismāīl during the abortive campaign of June 1243. We should in any case expect the territorial clauses in the two truces to be identical. THis letter specifies that Hebron, Nablus and Beisan were to remain in Muslim hands, whereas ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, B, 441, and ‘Gestes’, 740, both referring to the 1244 agreement, have Nablus and Jericho. Nevertheless, it seems that in both cases al-Nāṣir's rights in the Jordan valley were being safeguarded. That Jerusalem had been surrendered outright in the 1243 truce is clear from MGH Epistolae saeculi XIII e regestis pontificum Romanorum selectae, ed. C. Rodenberg (Berlin, 1883–94), II, 6 (no. 6); CM, IV, 307–8 (‘circa principium aestatis proximo praeteritae’).

¹⁶⁹ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 332–3; cf. also Ibn al-‘Amīd, p. 155, II. 5–6. regarding the plan to conquer Egypt. Prawer, II, 310, is incorrect in stating that Ismāīl in person advanced to Gaza.

¹⁷⁰ HPEC, IV/2, text 88, tr. 181.

¹⁷¹ Ibn Wāṣil, v, 249. Humphreys, 262.

¹⁷² For a survey of Khwarizmian activity from 1240 to 1243, see Cahen, Syrie du Nord, 646–9; ‘La “Djazīra” au milieu du treiziéme siécle’, 119.

¹⁷³ Ibn Wāsil, v, 323–4, 325 (hence Ibn al-Furāt, Vatican MS, fo. 31r): between Muharram and Jumādā I 64i A. H. /late June and early November 1243.

¹⁷⁴ Al-Khazrajİ, fos 152r-v. For the Qaymariyya, see also Qirtāy, Ta'rİkh majmū al-nawādir, Forschungsbibliothek Gotha MS Or. 1655, fo 28r; Ibn Wāsil, v, 336.

¹⁷⁵ Al-Khazrajl, fo. 152v: fa–wāfaqa dhālika tahrīk al–Tatar wa–qasduhum al–Khwārizmiyya. Ibn Shaddad, ed. ‘Abbāra, 137. Qirtāy, fo. 21r. Ibn Wāṣil, v, 336, gives the date of their crossing of the Euphrates as the beginning of 642 A. H. For the Mongol campaign against Aleppo, vide infra.

¹⁷⁶ The fullest account is in al–Khazrajī, fo. 152v. For ‘Ayn al–Jarr, see Dussaud, R., Topographie historique de la Syrie antique el médiévale (Paris, 1927), 400–2. The attack on the Tripoli region is mentioned only in ‘Eracles’, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Ibn Wāsil, v, 337. Qirṭāy, fo. 27v.

¹⁷⁸ Gibb, , ‘the Aiyubids’, 709; also supra, p. 54.Google Scholar It should be noted, however, that al-Mansūr, who had promised to aid the Seljük sultan against the Mongols in June 1243, failed to do so: Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), tr. Budge, E. A. Wallis, The chronography of Gregory Abu'l Faraj (Oxford and London, 1932), i, 406–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ HPEC, iv/2, text 111, tr. 230 (for 1241). Ibn Wāṣil, v, 332, 338, and Ibn al-'Amld, 155 (for 1244).

¹⁸⁰ John of Joinville, , Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. Wailly, N. de (Paris, 1868), 189.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Al-Nuwayrī, 341, tells how, when the allies occupied Jerusalem in the summer of 1241, the jurist al-Sulami was imprisoned not far from Ismā'il’s quarters. During a visit to the prince, the Frankish leaders heard al-Sulamī reciting the Qur'ān in a loud voice, and asked who he was. Ismā'īl explained that this was a member of the clergy who was undergoing a second spell of incarceration for his opposition to the surrender of Muslim-held fortresses to the infidel. ‘Were he a priest of ours,’ the Franks replied, ‘we should have washed his feet and drunk his broth [with him]. ’ There is a similar version in al-Subkī, v, 101.

¹⁸² Wāṣil, Ibn, v, 338–9. See also Qirṭāy, fo. 28v.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ ‘ Memoriale potestatum Regiensium ’, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. Muratori, L. A. (Milan, 1723–51), VIII, col. 1113, contains what purports to be a summary of a letter from the patriarch of Jerusalem, condemning the treachery of the Muslim forces at La Forbie. But such sentiments are lacking in the full texts of his letters given in ‘Annales monasterii de Burton’, A M, i, 257–63, and C M, iv, 337–44.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Robert, , patriarch of Jerusalem, elal. to Innocent iv, in Chronica de Mailros, ed. Stevenson, J. (Edinburgh, 1835), 158(‘ quorum… adventus fuit ultra omnium opinionem protelatus’). ‘Annales monasterii de Burton’, 258. CM, iv, 339.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Ibn Shaddād, Bodleian Library MS Marsh 333, fo. 110v (brief summary in Cahen, ‘La “Djazira” au milieu du treiziéme siecle’, 119, without the month): latter part of ṣafar 642 A. H. For the raid, see also Hebraeus, Bar, tr. Budge, , i, 409; in the Arabic version of this chronicle, Ta'rīkh mukhlasar al-duwal, ed. Saliljam, A. (Beirut, 1890), 446,Google Scholar it is dated 641 A. H., i. e. before mid-June 1244; cf. also Ibn Abi', l-Hadtd (d. 1258), Sharḥ Nahj al-balāgha, ed. Ibrahim, M. A. (Cairo, 1959–67), vm, 238Google Scholar (erroneously placed prior to Kosedagh). These authors mention only the money paid to the Mongols by Aleppo. For that sent by Damascus, and Ḥimṣ, ;, see Chronica de Mailros, 158 (‘non sine multa effusione pecunie’). CM, iv, 390Google Scholar, speaks merely of Mongol ultimatums issued ‘quibusdam potentibus Sarracenorum soldanis’. On Yasa'ur, see Boyle, J. A., ‘Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols’, Central Asiatic Journal, VIII, 1963, p. 211, n. 95.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Chronica de Mailros, 158. For the ultimatum to Bohemond, see also CM, IV, 389–90: ‘aestate declinante’, however, seems a trifle late.

¹⁸⁷ They appear to have arrived shortly before 4 October, when the allies moved out of Acre towards Jaffa: ȘAnnales monasterii de Burton’, 260; CM, IV, 341.

¹⁸⁸ HDFS, VI/1, 237, 239, 256 (= CM, IV, 302): ‘Soldanum…ad ecocandum auxilium Choreminorum… coegreunt. ’.

¹⁸⁹ Bulst–Thiele, ‘Ritlerorden’, 219, and Magistri, 207 and n. 78.

¹⁹⁰ Die Beziehungen der Pāpste zu islamischen und mongolischen Herrschern im 13. Jahrhundertanhand ihres Briefwechsels Lupprian, K. Ernst(Vatican City, 1981) 27 (p. 174).Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Ibnal-'Amīd p. 155, 1. 3. ‘Rothelin’, 562. ‘Eracles’, 430 (though suggesting at p. 427 that Ayyāb had lured them south with the promise of land in Egypt). ‘Annales monsaterii de Burton’, 258; CM, IV, 338. Chronica de Mailros, 157.

¹⁹² CM, Iv, 289– 90

¹⁹³ On their relations with the emperor, seeRiley-Smith, , Kinghts of St. John, 173–4.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ ibid., 137–9.

¹⁹⁵ ‘Gestes’, 729. This expedition coincided with Filangieri's attempt on Acre, on which videsupra, p. 50–1; for the date, see further Jackson, ‘ The end of Hohenstaufen rule in Syria’, 34.

¹⁹⁶ Cahen, , Syrie du Nord, 650–1.Google ScholarRiley-Smith, , ‘The Templars and the Teutonic Knights in Cilician Armenia’, inThe Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, Boase, T. S. R., (Edinburgh), 110.Google Scholar. Ibnal-'Adām, , Zubda, III, 232 (tr. Blochet, in ROL, v, 96), suggests that the order never recovered from this reverse. For a brief disucssion of the local interests of the military orders, see Prawer, 11 280–1, and ‘Military orders and crusader pollitics’, 222.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Ibn Wāsil, v, 332; he alleges that the Hospitallers now began to refortify Kawkab. But Ibn Shaddād, LJP, 161, says nothing of Kawkab's fate after its destruction by al-Nāsir's father al- Mu'azzam in 1220, merely that it was never restored. Had been included in Theobald's truce of 1240 with al-Nāsir? The preceptor of the Hospital was killed in the Khwarizmian attack on Jerusalem in August 1244: Chronica de Mailros, 159.

¹⁹⁸ CM, IV, 289: ‘quern non cessavimus pro liberatione Terrae Sanctae pro viribus expugnare. ’

¹⁹⁹ Al-Nuwayrī, , 363: see the printed text in ‘Le testament d'al-Malik aṣp-ṣaliḥ Ayyūb’, ed. Cahen, Cl. and Chabbouh, I., Beoifd, xxix, 1977, text 101, tr. 108.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Frederick II's claim that al-Nāṣir (who was not present in person, however, at La Forbie) went over to the Egyptians during the engagement (CM, iv, 303 = HDFS, vi/1, 256–7) is without foundation. Al-Nāṣir's general Zahīr al-Dīn Sunqur was among the prisoners taken to Cairo: Sibṭ, 494/746.