A Battle, Two Buildings, and One City During the Crusades

By Lauren Wilbur

The University of of Texas at Austin

Historical archaeology attempts to understand cultures of antiquity by studying written primary sources in conjunction with archaeological analysis. The Crusades present a challenge in using this method because many physical spaces have not been excavated due to political strife, or they had only been excavated in a biblical context with little regard to any other period. However, the discipline has recently started to see some success in the areas that the Latin Christians occupied and material evidence is more readily available to fill in the holes of Crusader history. The Crusades began when Emperor Alexius, afraid of the Seljuk Turks encroaching on the Byzantine capital Constantinople, requested aid from the Roman Catholic church. In response, Pope Urban II held the Council of Clermont to call on the Princes and Lords of Western Europe and to offer remission of sins to those who would help defend the Eastern Christians. Despite this original purpose of assisting Emperor Alexius with the defense of Constantinople from the Seljuk Turks, the First Crusade quickly became imperial in nature. The next few hundred years were spent trying to capture Jerusalem from Muslim control, launching several Crusades and bringing significant changes to the holy city. The conflict of the Crusades was religious and political at its core, but religious institutions and the states were not the only ones involved. People were influenced by propaganda, personal opinions, and societal biases, thus making primary sources questionable at best. Therefore, the following essay argues that the inclusion of archaeology allows researchers to better understand the history of the Crusades with far fewer constraints of influence, gaps in information, or a lack of written sources common with Crusader chronicles. To make this case, I consider archaeological evidence as it pertains to the Battle of Hattin (July 4, 1187), the Temple Mount Mosque or Dome of the Rock, and the intricacies of daily life as seen in evidence of Jerusalem’s market.

Archaeological evidence, supplemented with the two written sources, helps decipher the contradictory accounts given by William of Tyre (1130-1186) and Imad Ad-Din (1125-1201). In researching the Crusades, it is quickly understood that chronicles often conflict and only supplement part of the history. Many accounts of battles in Crusader Chronicles are contradictory, or stem from one biased source. This creates problems when historians attempt to compare sources in order to recount the most accurate order of events that took place, as well as to understand the motivations and the social climate at the time of the event. The Battle of Hattin exemplifies this problem well as the sources come from both Christian and Islamic Chronicles, each with their own biases, predispositions, and elements of political propaganda.

In 1187 the Latin Christians were struggling to control Jerusalem, the city the Crusading armies captured almost one hundred years prior in the First Crusade. Saladin rose to power as Sultan by uniting the Muslim world by promoting jihad against the Crusaders, leading his armies to the occupied Crusader states under the guise of holy war.[i] As Saladin moved toward the holy city, the King of Jerusalem Guy de Lusignan (1150-1194) called on all his forces to defend the previous Crusader army’s conquests, including both the Knight’s Templar and Hospitallers.[ii] On July 3rd, King Guy received news of Saladin’s army attacking Tiberias, a nearby Latin Christian occupied city located on the coast of the Sea of Galilee.[iii] The march lead to defend the city was plagued with harassment from Saladin’s army and a route without water.[iv] King Guy’s army suffered from exhaustion into the next day, but were pushed to meet their slaughter and the waiting Muslim forces. Saladin defeated King Guy on July 4, 1187, at the Battle of Hattin, acting as the most important catalyst for the launch of the Third Crusade.

Since the Battle of Hattin was such an embarrassing loss for the Latin Christians and ignited another Crusade, there was a burning desire to know what happened. However, the unknown author of the French “Continuation of William of Tyre” was not at the battle and only wrote the chronicle from the perspective of a historian, whose work was based on the historian William of Tyre.[i] While William of Tyre died almost a year prior to the Battle of Hattin, he had written exhaustive chronicles about the Latin controlled Kingdom of Jerusalem and the kings who ruled over it up to 1184.[ii] Thus, the Christian source continues William of Tyre’s historical account and will be referred to as “William of Tyre” throughout the remainder of this article since the author is not known. It is important to note that this chronicle is only considered a primary source because of how soon it was written after the Battle of Hattin, information might have been gathered from people at the battle, or from those only loosely associated with people who had been at the battle.

In the leading Christian “primary” source, it seems William of Tyre negates any good strategies employed by the Crusaders, as the criticisms he makes work to show what a “bad” Christian is and how to avoid loss by acting as a “good” Christian. By doing so, the chronicle was written in a way to support this argument, while also making many details inaccurate. William of Tyre is critical of the king’s decisions leading up to the battle. With great condemnation, William of Tyre claimed that “the king and all his men were too spread out and did not know what to do,” while following Saladin.[i] The implication that the Crusaders should have been relentless in their pursuit, though he was not present at the Battle of Hattin himself, only exemplifies William of Tyre’s predispositions against the king and bias in favor of the church. However, William of Tyre acknowledged that the Crusader army was far from any source of water and were being taunted by Saladin’s forces, as they lit fires to create disruptive plumes of smoke, which “caused the Christians considerable discomfort.”[ii] It is impossible to know what would happen if the tired Crusading armies were pushed forward by the king rather than resting for the night, but on their current course of action, defeat was imminent. Despite William of Tyre’s disapproval of the fate of the Crusaders, it was not the King that he directly blamed for the loss. Instead the entire Crusading army and their sins were held responsible. Rather than the superior military strategy of the opposing army, William of Tyre declared that Saladin only defeated the “Christian host” because “the anger of God” assisted the Muslims.[iii] In William of Tyre’s opinion, a more pious Crusading army would have easily been able to triumph over the Islamic forces and he even connected Pope Urban’s untimely death to the defeat of the Christian Franks. Tyre asserts that after the battle of Hattin “Pope Urban... died of grief” upon hearing of the loss to the Christian world.[iv] This account depicts a harsh retelling of the Christian embarrassment at the Battle of Hattin, riddled with religious propaganda as it attempts to save face for the Catholic church. The chronicle is less about what actually occurred, but rather why the church believes the Crusaders were defeated.

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim chronicler had a much different perspective of the Christians during the Battle of Hattin. Acting as Saladin’s secretary for many years, Imad Ad-Din (1125-1201) was present for the full battle and everything leading up to and following the fateful clash. Since Imad Ad-Din saw the Battle of Hattin firsthand and wrote the chronicle himself, this perspective comes from a true primary source, though Imad Ad-Din still had strong biases toward the Muslim army. One could argue that Imad Ad-Din’s positive representation of the Latin Christian opposition army works to emphasize Saladin’s superiority as a military leader and makes the chronicle unreliable on its own. While Imad Ad-Din embellishes his writing with poetic elements throughout the chronicle, his descriptions also depict important Islamic attitudes towards the Crusader army, along with including details absent from Christian sources. If the Latin Christians were “hardened warriors and heroes of battle,” then Imad Ad-Din implies that by eventually defeating them, the Muslim force was still superior to the “mutilated barbarian warriors.”[i] As the Crusaders are compared to mountains and crashing waves, both immovable and unstoppable forces, Imad Ad-Din asserts the explicit message that Saladin is more powerful than nature’s strongest creations. Saladin “cut off their access to water” as part of his military strategy before meeting in battle “when the bows stirred and the fire glowed.”[ii] Descriptions of fire use are more discrete than in the account by William of Tyre, but Imad Ad-Din does hint at it by discussing how the enemies “burned... in a frenzied ferment.”[iii] More emphasis is placed on the Muslim army’s use of archery as “the arrows beat them down and opened great gaps in their ranks” so that the Christian army fell, “scattered... on the hillsides.”[iv] While Imad Ad-Din purposefully wrote this chronicle to exhibit Saladin’s superiority over the Crusaders, the descriptions show great respect for their enemies. Still, the actual description of the Battle of Hattin and what transpired differ between the Christian and Muslim sources.

Historical primary sources provide a great wealth of content for the Crusades and contribute to the conversation of their battles, but questions and irregularities arise when attempting to understand exactly what happened. William of Tyre likens the King’s army to a disorganized unit that was ill-prepared for conflict, whereas Imad Ad-Din credits the Latin Christians for their cohesion and great might. William of Tyre claims that Saladin’s army purposefully lit fires and caused great destruction to the land, while the chronicle written by Imad Ad-Din seems to indicate that the use of fire was limited to archer’s burning arrows. Portraying the Crusading army and the king as incompetent worked in favor of the Catholic church and the Pope, as William of Tyre blamed the loss on an individual unit of Crusaders and not the Crusader ideology itself. By including the embarrassment and grief of the Pope, William of Tyre pushes the religious discourse supported by the Catholic church, in which piety rules. While the chronicles of William of Tyre and Imad Ad-Din discuss the same battle, their accounts contradict one another since they had different objectives for writing. As Saladin’s personal assistant, Imad Ad-Din wrote as all historians do when they have won. It is so much more glorious to win a battle against a seemingly unbeatable force than an army of a lesser size and competency. So, as with Roman literature on wars and battles, Imad Ad-Din exaggerated the size and power of the Christian army in order to emphasize Saladin’s victory. The irregularities in the two accounts allude to the Chroniclers predisposed notions of their enemy and to the widespread use of propaganda.

As a newer sub-field, environmental archaeology aims to recreate the environments that past societies lived in. In understanding the Battle of Hattin from a scientific standpoint, Archaeologists look at environmental evidence and factors in order to understand the terrain, weather, and overall climate at the time. Elements not often mentioned in literature, such as “sunlight and moonlight,” still “have a great effect on organisms.”[i] As William of Tyre placed emphasis on the exhaustion of the Crusading army prior to their clash with Saladin, “time calendars of sunlight and moonlight” from the period suggest a new perspective.[ii] Other than traveling without enough supplies, why were the Crusaders tired and uncomfortable as they advanced toward the Muslim forces? Explained in part by the “cosmological data” from the days leading up to the Battle of Hattin, the Christian’s had to cross thirty kilometers in about “fourteen hours of daylight” while “facing the sun.”[iii] This was, and still is, an incredibly challenging feat for an army at war, as the summer heat and general climate of the area took a toll on the foreign Crusader army. Ultimately the disadvantage for the Christians doubled as an advantage for Saladin’s army. After the sun had set around seven in the evening, “five hours of complete darkness” concealed the approaching Muslim army before the moon illuminated the landscape.[iv] It would have been difficult terrain to navigate on cavalry, but nightfall provided the perfect cover for Saladin to march forward and continue to harass the Crusading army. Thus, Saladin’s forces advanced undetected by the Christians before they would meet in battle the next day.

Along with the data collected from astronomy to account for the Crusading army’s depleted energy, both William of Tyre and Imad Ad-Din discussed Saladin’s total control of the water sources on the landscape of modern-day Northern Palestine. Not only did the July heat and scorching sun add to the Crusader’s exhaustion, but the Christian army would have to travel the thirty kilometers in armor while carrying their supplies.[i] There was no hope for the Crusaders as they trekked “in the valley of Turan... with no water cisterns on their way, while the Muslims were controlling the hills” and harassing them.[ii] Unable to carry enough water to supply an entire army, the Crusaders suffered due to Saladin’s dehydration strategy. The landscape only allowed for water cisterns to develop in the limestone hills, while the alluvial soil in the valley prevented their formation.[iii] Although “the artifacts distribution” of the Christians show that the route they would have taken would have been close to two water cisterns, it is unlikely they would have been accessible.[iv] In the lead up to the Battle of Hattin, the Crusader army was already at a disadvantageous position geographically, worn out, and without necessary hydration.

While propaganda and biases heavily influence the Crusading chronicles written by William of Tyre and Imad Ad-Din, research in environmental archaeology works to explain this discrepancy. When the two armies finally met, William of Tyre and Imad Ad-Din both accounted for the use of fire during the battle to different degrees. This discrepancy can be accounted for in the study of “wind direction and velocity.”[i] Because “the wind on the Hattin plain... tends to blow from west or south-west,” any army shooting arrows from the west would have a significant advantage over the East facing army.[ii] The wind direction would also have impacted the use of fire. Considering Imad Ad-Din’s chronicle, and the discussion of fire in the context of archery, “the Muslims could only light a fire after the Franks” advanced past a certain point due to wind direction and velocity.[iii]  Saladin’s army had to wait until the Crusaders were positioned to the East, lest they fire their arrows to the West, create a smoke screen, and jeopardize the safety of their own forces.[iv] This aspect of the environment tied with the Muslim army's strategy could explain why the two sources had such different accounts in regard to the use of fire. Saladin’s forces only saw the use of fire as a slight strategic advantage, because it could only be used at a certain point in the battle, therefore they may not have seen it as a significant impact on their victory. Imad Ad-Din also only mentions the use of fire against the Latin Christians in the context of archery, where the wind speed and velocity were an advantage for ballistic weapons. Therefore, the Crusading army could not have possibly used fire in any successful fashion due to the wind direction and saw it as an unfair advantage in an already impossible battle. The emphasis on the use of fire made by William of Tyre also fits into the context of how the attack would play out as the wind blew the fire directly into the lines of the Crusading army. In this respect, the more accurate account would be William of Tyre, backed up by significant physical evidence. Imad Ad-Din wrote a detailed chronicle to record the victory and glory of Saladin, rather than diminish Saladin’s greatness with accuracies.

Throughout the years of the Crusades, both the Latin Christians and Muslims fought for control of Jerusalem, where significant physical artifacts contribute additional valuable evidence on how we judge the accuracy of chronicles and strive to write the most objective historical accounts possible. During the period of the Latin Kingdom (1099-1187), the same Templars and Hospitallers who fought in the Battle of Hattin called Jerusalem home. Historical accounts of this city can be told in a multitude of perspectives, the most well-known being those from the three Abrahamic religions as the city developed through time as the holy land of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Jerusalem’s prominence extends long after its biblical history, but the connection to religion has intertwined with every facet of politics and history. Going through many periods of peace and hostility, Jerusalem often saw construction and deconstruction of religious landmarks within the city.

From its defensive refortification to the development of new art and architecture during the Crusading period, Jerusalem experienced one of its most significant changes during this time of continuous conflict with the reconstruction of the Temple Mount Mosques. These structures were built on a significant site recognized as holy to both the Jewish and Islamic faiths, and the buildings themselves are Islamic in construction. For Islam, the Mosques represent an important site because Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad ascended into heaven at the Temple Mount, where the remains of the Temple of Solomon had been. It was “in the heavenly Jerusalem, [where] he led all the prophets in prayer” that Muhammad solidified his position as the final prophet of the Abrahamic religions.[i] After the prophet Muhammad’s death, many followers of Islam began to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem to visit this holy site. In the seventh century, the Umayyad caliphate built a mosque to enshrine the night journey of the prophet. This project was completed around “fifty-five years after Muslim armies captured Jerusalem” and remains on the Temple Mount to this day.[ii] While the city would change hands many times over the course of the centuries leading up to Latin Christian occupation, the Dome of the Rock would continuously be part of traditional Muslim pilgrimages. However, this pilgrimage would be disrupted shortly after Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in 1096.

Once the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they could either destroy and rebuild existing structures, or repurpose them. Some of the Latin Christians knew that the Dome of the Rock was a mosque, but many mistook the structure for the Temple of Solomon, a holy site from the First Testament. While those in power would have been aware of its status as a Muslim shrine in the very least, ultimately the Franks decided to claim the Dome of the Rock as a Christian church and repurposed the building. Before construction began on the Dome of the Rock, Saewulf, an English pilgrim visiting Jerusalem, would describe “the Holy of Holies” as a place existing in the canon of Christendom.[i] The site was where “Solomon placed the Ark of the Covenant” as recounted in the Old Testament, and where “Jesus was offered by his parents” as recounted in the Christian gospel.[ii] It was clear what narrative the Catholic church wanted to push, claiming all of Jerusalem and the structures inside of the city for the Christian religion. To defend this ideology, work on the Dome of the Rock began sometime between 1114 and 1115, adding Christian motifs and implementing practical changes to transform the mosque.[iii] The rock itself was covered with an “iron grille” and “marble slabs” to prevent pilgrims from removing any of the materials as relics, as well as “for aesthetic purposes.”[iv] The Latin Christians also placed an altar and two candelabra inside of the Dome of the Rock and painted the interior walls with frescoes that depicted biblical scenes, such as “Jacob’s vision at Bethel”.[v] The German priest John of Wurzburg made pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 1160’s and described the Dome of the Rock after the conversion had been completed for some time. The chronicle detailed his interpretation of the church, in which John of Wurzburg acknowledges that it was “very offensive for the Saracens,” a term used in Christian antiquity to refer to Muslims.[vi] However, John of Wurzburg still described the Temple Mount in the context of the Christian Gospel and mentions, for the first time, “the figure of the holy cross” having been put up inside of the dome.[vii] The cross replacing the crescent on top of the Dome of the Rock would have been powerful symbolism in literature at the time, and even today. However, written sources from pilgrims and Crusader chronicles rarely tell the full story.

Rather than correcting conflicting sources, in the case of the Dome of the Rock archaeology serves to supplement a lack of written evidence. After Saladin retook Jerusalem and converted the Dome of the Rock into a mosque, many of the Christian additions were taken down and destroyed. This forces scholars to rely on written sources and archaeology to help piece together what the Dome of the Rock would have looked like as a Christian church. Archaeological excavations show that “the iron grille and the candelabra survived,” as the artifacts are now being displayed in the Islamic Museum. Believed to have been donated by Queen Melisende, the grille was in use at the Dome of the Rock from 1140 until the 1960’s, the iron work French Romanesque in style.[i] The repairs of 1873 uncovered the remains of partial frescoes described by multiple pilgrims, however there is no evidence that they still exist today.[ii] While the Dome of the Rock is still an important site with religious and historical significance for three different faiths, the converted mosque did not exist alone on the Temple Mount, nor did it face repurposing alone.

On the Temple Mount, both the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque have gone through numerous changes through the centuries and primary sources must be supported by archaeology to help describe what no longer exists. Also known as Solomon’s Temple, the Al Aqsa Mosque’s Latin Christian repurposing was inevitable. The Mosque was initially used as a palace and construction on the building continued throughout the Latin occupation of Jerusalem. Approximately five years after construction on the Temple Mount had already begun, the Order of Solomon, or the Knights Templar, was founded in 1119.[i] The Catholic military order would then begin to convert the al-Aqsa Mosque into their headquarters. The Knights Templar would make “fundamental structural changes” to the Mosque in order to transform it into their living quarters, including the addition of a dividing wall and an apse.[ii] While occupying the Mosque, the Templars also began constructing a new building to function as a storehouse, amongst other things, which still exists as the Islamic Museum today.[iii] At the time, it made sense to have the Knights Templar headquarters on the Temple Mount because Christian canon law would have the structures exist as shrines to Solomon and the house of God.[iv] There is also evidence that a monastery had been built in conjunction with the reconstruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque; however, this structure would have been destroyed in 1187 by Saladin.[v] Two arched entrances have “Crusader capitals” and exist as the only remaining archaeological evidence of the monastery.[vi] Latin Christian occupation of the Temple Mount only ended when Saladin took back the city of Jerusalem, whence most Crusading evidence was destroyed, or removed from the holy sight. Thus, archaeology on the Temple Mount is imperative in understanding Crusader occupation of the city. However, the political conflict surrounding Israel and Palestine prevents any archaeological excavations from being performed today and researchers must use older evidence to supplement for the lack of materials available. Still, archaeological data confirms the descriptions found in the few primary source’s known today, and reinforces historian’s understanding that the city of Jerusalem was fundamentally changed during the Latin Christian occupation.

One topic chroniclers and other written accounts rarely discussed were the intricacies of daily life. It is likely that this important topic was avoided because it seemed so mundane compared to the great battles and explosive politics at the time. However, studying the daily life of the people in the Latin Kingdom can help to explain why Crusaders fought to control this territory for so long and the lasting impacts it had. Archaeological evidence from markets and trade help to tell this story. Jerusalem fell to the Christians in 1099 when the entire population of the city was slaughtered by the Crusading army, killing off all Jews, Muslims, and Eastern Christians within the defensive walls. After this massacre, the Latin Christians established Jerusalem as a Latin kingdom and began to reoccupy the city. In order to understand the impact this had in the Latin world, it is important to study the nuances of daily life in Jerusalem. Immediately after the slaughter, the Crusading army was let loose inside of the city of Jerusalem and they were allowed to enter “the houses of the citizens, seizing whatever they found there.”[i] While the acquisition of wealth only existed as a minor motivator for those participating in the First Crusade, once the army was in Jerusalem it quickly descended into a chaos-induced sack of the entire city. However, it is unlikely any destruction of pre-Latin Kingdom houses took place, as the Crusading army would have looted them and then likely occupied the buildings, thus leaving almost no evidence of any Latin Christian “domestic architecture,” such as homes.[ii] After the initial sack of Jerusalem, the Latin Christians had to settle down in their new city and develop new lifeways.

The Crusaders and other immigrant Latin Christians had traveled long distances to start a new life in a foreign place, all for many different reasons, not just their religious beliefs. Thus, many Latin immigrants would find themselves settled into cities, and in this period urban life was only separated from rural life by the existence of lasting and stable markets.[i] Luckily, many markets appearing in pilgrimage accounts still exist in contemporary Jerusalem. Since some areas even keep the street name well after the twelfth century, many markets have been easy to locate and study contemporarily. During the period of the Latin Kingdom, most markets were owned by the King and specialized in one type of good, with exceptions made for religious groups such as the Covenant of Saint Anne, the Hospitaller's, and the Knights Templar.[ii] These exceptions were significant because it gave Christian organizations funds to continue operating in their new contexts. The central market street was known as Malquissinat, or “the street of evil cooking,” which sold prepared foods.[iii] In the nineteenth century, physical evidence of Latin Kingdom’s market specialization was discovered with the appearance of a large stone with the inscription “COQUUS” on it, meaning “cook.”[iv] Before the twelfth century, the Malquissint market street was covered by stone louvres that allowed for natural light, prevented “rain from coming in,” and allowed for the “smoke from cooking to escape.”[v] Evidence of these arches appear in surviving photographs from 1918 through 1921 and from medieval carvings found on the roof.[vi] The twelfth century street “Vicus ad Montis Syon,” meaning “the mountain village of Sion,” has been fully excavated and restored and is the “best-preserved Frankish market” today.[vii] This archaeological site allows for an understanding of how shops were constructed and operated, along with how people would have simply moved through the streets. The movement of people within a city street brings understanding to how people would have interacted with each other along class and cultural lines through the economics of trade.

Markets were important in the daily lives of those living in the Latin East because they would have been visited every day. Trade was also important to daily life because it dictated what goods were available to those living in Latin controlled Jerusalem. Fulcher of Chartres (1124) claimed that those Latin Christians “who were occidentals have now become Orientals” by asserting citizenship in the Latin Kingdom and settling down into new lifeways.[i] This important institution led to an increase in interactions between the Latin Christians and all other cultures in the Latin East. In quick fashion, the Kingdom would begin to tax imports to bring in revenue for the city, providing researchers with solid written evidence to supplement archaeological material evidence. Items such as silk, cotton, spices, sugar, salt fish, incense, fruits, and certain wines were all taxed upon entering the ports and depict how extensive the trade routes were.[ii] Many items found in the markets of Jerusalem had never been seen before in Western Europe and exposure to the new items would create a demand for Eastern goods inaccessible before the Crusades. 

As the field of historical archaeology develops and more Crusading sites are studied, it will become easier to understand the written accounts that have existed for centuries alongside the corresponding material evidence. While knowledge is still limited due to restraints on excavations in Jerusalem, as well as in other areas the Crusaders existed, comparing written sources and material culture benefit the study of the Crusades as a whole. Conflicting sources of warfare, as exemplified by the Battle of Hattin, are resolved with the study of environmental archaeology. Not only does this comparison of historical materials and archaeological evidence prove which primary source is most accurate, it adds additional information for how the Battle of Hattin was won by Saladin. Written sources and material remains work together to reconstruct ancient architecture, an important study in both history and archaeology. The structures on the Temple Mount have been rebuilt and reimagined by diverse cultures, and it is important to accurately reconstruct the Christian interpretation of the two Mosques since there exists so much conflict between the religions. Archaeology also provides a way to study and understand topics ignored by chroniclers, such as what mundane things happened every day. Latin Christians experienced Jerusalem in their daily lives, and ultimately changed and were changed by a city fought for over the course of hundreds of years and in multiple crusades. It is only when history and archaeology are studied together along the lines of battles, architecture, and everyday life that the whole of the Crusades can become better understood in the context of the Medieval period.  

References

[i] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “Fulcher of Chartres’s History” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 88.

[ii] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “Laws of the Kingdom of Jerusalem” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 93-97.

[i] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 25.

[ii] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 25.

[iii] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 25.

[iv] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 25.

[v] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 26.

[vi] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 26.

[vii] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 27.

[i] Fulcher of Chartres, The Sojourn of the Christians in the City, trans. Martha Mcginty (University of Pennsylvania, 1941), 70.

[ii] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology, 30.

[i] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 27.

[ii] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 91.

[iii] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 91.

[iv] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “The Rule of the Templars” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 133.

[v] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 91.

[vi] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 91.

[i] Adrian Boas, Crusader Archaeology (London: Routledge, 1999), 156.

[ii] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 231.

[i] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “The Travels of Saewulf.” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 99.

[ii] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “The Travels of Saewulf,” 99.

[iii] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades (London: Routledge, 2001), 110.

[iv] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 110.

[v] Adrian Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades, 110.

[vi] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “John of Wurzburg‘s Pilgrim Guide” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 101.

[vii] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “John of Wurzburg‘s Pilgrim Guide,” 101.

[i] Jonathan Brown, Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 23.

[ii] Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “The Dome of the Rock,” May 24, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dome-of-the-Rock.[i] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 557.

[ii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 557.

[iii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 557.

[iv] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 557.

[i] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 552.

[ii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 556.

[iii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 555.

[iv] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 555.

[i] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World (London: Routledge, 2016), 551.

[ii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 551.

[iii] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 552.

[iv] Adrian Boas, The Crusader World, 552.[i] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “Imad Ad-Din on the Battle of Hattin.” In The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 152.

[ii] S Allen and Emilie Amt, “Imad Ad-Din on the Battle of Hattin,” 152.

[iii] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “Imad Ad-Din on the Battle of Hattin,” 153.

[iv] S. Allen and Emilie Amt, “Imad Ad-Din on the Battle of Hattin,” 153.

[i] Peter Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade.

[ii] Peter Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade.

[iii] Peter Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade.

[iv] Peter Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade.

[i]Peter Edbury, Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation. (Routledge, 2017).

[ii] Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “William of Tyre,” September 25, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-of-Tyre.

[i]Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “Saladin,” February 29, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saladin.

[ii] Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “Battle of Hattin,” June 27, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Hattin.

[iii] Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “Battle of Hattin.”

[iv] Encyclopædia Britannica s.v. “Battle of Hattin.”