An Introductory Summary of the First Crusades – Part 1 (1095-1146)

by Dr Salah Zaimeche, BMHC

The crusades were the direct result of the state of chaos that afflicted the Muslim world throughout much of the 11th century. Muslim divisions and collapsing strength encouraged the Church to launch a three-frontal assault against Muslims in Spain and Sicily, first, and then in the East. The Damascus imam-scholar, Al-Sulami, rightly understood that the Crusades were the outcome of the Frankish success in the West (Spain and Sicily), and a decision to pursue the fight in the Orient. 1 The capture of Sicily (1062 onward), most particularly, was a very encouraging sign that Muslim power was ebbing, and that Muslims could now realistically be defeated.

Christendom, however, needed both a justification for the Crusades and also an element to stir popular zeal. Therefore, as he launched the Crusades, Pope Urban II emphasised most particularly ‘Muslim crimes against the Christians.’

This message was relayed and spread far and wide throughout Europe by priests and prelates. Balderic (Baldricus), Archbishop of Dol, thus said to his audience:

‘We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow, how with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East… Base and bastard Turks hold sway over our brothers.’ 2

‘This challenge to Christendom to forget its private feuds in one great effort for God and Christ,’ says Archer, ‘this skillful allusion to the glories of the old Frankish race produced an instantaneous result. As the voice of the Pope died away there went up one cry from the assembled host: “Deus Vult! Deus Vult!” (“It is the will of God! It is the will of God!”). 3

In truth, there were no Turkish atrocities and defilements of the Holy sites; and far from being in danger of extermination, the Christians enjoyed a uniquely favourable status under Muslim rule. In 1047, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was described as ‘a most spacious building, capable of holding 8000 persons, and built with the utmost skill.’ Inside, the church is everywhere adorned with Byzantine brocade, worked in gold. 4 This was but one of many Christian churches in Jerusalem, and Christian pilgrims had free access to the holy places. 5

The primary reason for the call to the Crusades was the Christian awareness of Muslim divisions and civil wars, and the resulting military weakness of Muslim local rulers in facing united Christian armies. As Ibn Al-Athir observes:

‘When the Franks, may God frustrate them, extended their control over what they had conquered of the lands of Islam and it turned out well for them that the troops and the kings of Islam were preoccupied with fighting each other, at that time opinions were divided among the Muslims, desires differed, and wealth was squandered.’ 6

As Hillenbrand remarks, the timing of the Crusades could not have been more auspicious for the Europeans. 7 The Muslims were in deep disarray due to the death of the two leading figures of Islam: Nizam al-Mulk and Malik Shah in the year 1092. The death of Malik Shah, ‘the noblest of the Seljuk Sultans,’ says Archer, whose empire extended from the borders of China to the southern frontiers of Palestine, led to the wars of his children and chaos, and by weakening the power of the Seljuks, made the progress of the first Crusaders from Nicaea to Jerusalem a comparatively easy task. 8 Egypt was in Fatimid hands; two rulers of Armenian origin, Badr and Afdal, father and son, ruled the Fatimid realm successively from 1073 to 1121 as virtual dictators. 9 On the Turkish, Seljuk side, Tutush, brother of Malik Shah, had established himself at Damascus, and about 1092 granted Jerusalem to Ortok the Turk, from whose son, Sokman, the Fatimid Egyptian vizier El-Afdal captured it in 1096. 10

Following Urban’s Speech in 1095, a vivid picture of the intense excitement of the next few months has been preserved. In the highways and the cross-roads men would talk of nothing else other than the journey; layman and priest alike took up the cry and urged their fellows to start for Jerusalem.

‘The intending pilgrim gloried in his resolution, while his laggard friend took shame to himself for his sloth and slackness in the cause of God.’ 11

In an effort to encourage the Crusades, the pope offered a remission of all sins:

‘To all those who will depart and die en route, whether by land or sea, or lose their life in fighting the pagans, the forgiveness of their sins will be granted. And this I grant to those who participate to this voyage in accordance with the authority that I hold from God.’ 12

The popular excitement, however, sank to low depths. Madness, ‘the near kinsman of enthusiasm and credulity, is often the slave of persecution. Whilst, on the one hand, crowds were starting for Jerusalem under the guidance of a mad woman, a goose, or a goat whom their frenzied imagination took to be the receptacles of the spirit of God, others made the movement an excuse for wanton rapine and murder,’ Archer remarks. 13

The van of the Crusade consisted of two hundred and seventy five thousand men, accompanied by eight horses, and preceded by a goat and a goose, ‘into which some one had told them that the Holy Ghost had entered,’ says Draper. 14 In 1096, the ‘plebeian multitude,” followed in the Hermit and other leaders’ train, animated by a fierce fanaticism, and, as their conduct shortly showed, ‘slaves to rapine as well as to lower passions.’ 15 They marched in several bands through Hungary, where their vile conduct brought the greater part to an untimely end. The first under Walter, and the second under Peter, gave themselves up to plunder and riot; many we lost on the way, and a portion only reached Constantinople. Thence, passing into Bithynia, they fell before the Turkish arms. 16 In October (1096), they were met at Nicea (in Asia Minor) by the Turks under Kilij Arslan, who drew this army (of over two hundred and fifty thousand) into an ambush, and then killed them on the seashore, so that of all the host, ‘barely three thousand-one man for every hundred who set out-escaped to tell the tale.’ 17 All that remained was a pyramid of bones, the only relic of their ‘misguided zeal.’ 18 Again, a body of 15,000, and another of 20,000, taking the way through Germany where they committed unheard-of atrocities against the Jews, were pursued and slaughtered in Hungary; but a remnant escaped to Constantinople, and the remainder returned, a laughing-stock, to their homes. Thus, “of the first Crusaders, 300,000 had already perished, ‘before a single city was rescued from the infidels, before their graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations of their enterprise.” 19

Despite this success, the Turks were still disunited. Furthermore, They could not prevail in fixed encounters against superior numerical forces, especially as the Franks kept pouring in across Asia Minor. 20 Many local Christians, the Armenians, most particularly, also offered assistance to the Crusaders. The local Maronites of Mount Lebanon, Salibi notes, gave the Franks a good welcome, and great loyal support to their co-religionists from the West. 21

Thus strengthened, the crusaders registered a major great victory of the city of Antioch. The city was besieged in October 1097. As Christmas drew near, the Crusaders felt the first touches of want: “We did not venture abroad, nor could we find aught to eat in the land of the Christians; for none dared enter Saracen land without a great host.” The crusade leaders, Bohemond and Robert of Flanders, led out a large force to forage, but they gained little booty, and the Turks inside the city seized the opportunity to make a sudden sally, wherein they slew many knights and footmen. As despair reached the Christian ranks there came their salvation. 22 Phirouz, an Armenian, had acquired the favour of the emir and the command of three towers, disguising, in the words of Gibbon, his ‘foul design of perfidy and treason.’ 23 A secret correspondence was kept by Phirouz and the crusader prince of Tarento to let the Crusaders inside Antioch. 24 Once sure of his reward Bohemond revealed his plan. A night was fixed for the surrender, and on the preceding day a part of the Christian army went foraging so as to throw the Muslims off their guard. 25 At midnight a little band gathered below the Gate of St. George, and there waited for the signal. Dawn was breaking before the wished-for sign was given, and Bohemond ordered his men to advance. They found a ladder ready, and sixty men ascended and seized the three towers of which Phirouz had charge. 26 Soon the Crusaders were inside, breaking the gate down they let in in their comrades. As the morning sun rose, the Christians from their tents against the eastern walls saw Bohemond’s banner floating on the hill. There was a general rush forward, the other gates were burst open and the mass of crusaders entered the city. There was riot everywhere, and ‘forgetful of their God men gave themselves over to banquets, and the blandishments of pagan dancers.’ 27In the wake of the Christian victory, it is accepted that a total of ten thousand Muslims were massacred. 28

In 1098, the crusaders took the large city of Ma’arrat an’Numan. The siege was valiantly sustained, until, as in Antioch, one night, some defenders began to desert their place, followed by others who saw them. 29 The Crusaders seized their chance, and scaled the undefended walls; then entered the city. The terrified population hid in their homes, but to no avail. For three days the slaughter never stopped; the Crusaders killed more than 100,000 people. 30

It was June 6, 1099, when the Crusaders arrived before Jerusalem. During the course of the few preceding years, Jerusalem had once more passed into the hands of the Fatimid Egyptian Caliph, who had been in negotiation with the Crusaders for more than two years before. 31 The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, had pointed out the advantages to be gained from an alliance with the Egyptian Caliph, who ‘as head of the Shiites would willingly co-operate against the orthodox Turks.’ 32 During the siege of Nicea, the Crusading chiefs had sent an embassy to the Caliph, and during that of Antioch had received one in return. 33

After some days of preparation the Crusaders on June 14th delivered an assault, which almost succeeded, but they could not secure any permanent advantage. However, on July 15, 1099, the crusaders, led by Godfrey de Bouillon, entered the city of Jerusalem held for the Fatimids by Iftikhar Ad-Daula (The pride of the Nation.) Iftikhar, his entourage, and his army were allowed to leave the city under safe Crusader conduct. 34 The population on the other hand was put to the sword. The Crusaders slaughtered more than 70,000 Muslims. 35 The words of an eyewitness paint the horrors of the day in general terms without any attempt at detail:

“When our men had taken the city with its walls and towers, there were things wondrous to be seen. For some of the enemy, and this is a small matter, were reft of their heads, while others riddled through with arrows were forced to leap down from the towers; others, after long torture, were burnt in the flames. In all the streets and squares there were to be seen piles of heads, and hands, and feet; and along the public ways foot and horse alike made passage over the bodies of the dead.” 36

Every one was eager for blood: ‘some stationed at a distance shot the hapless Saracens with their arrows; others scaled the roof of the Temple itself and massacred both men and women with the sword.’ 37

This terrible slaughter filled all the city with dead bodies, and the first work of the conquerors was to cleanse the streets of the impurity which might breed a plague. The surviving Muslims were compelled to carry the dead outside the walls, where they were “heaped up in mountains,” to be presently destroyed by fire. “Such a slaughter of pagan folk had never been seen or heard of; none knows their number save God alone.” 38

Following their capture of Jerusalem, the Crusaders pursued their advance with the same results. In October 1101, they advanced on Saruj, captured it, and killed and enslaved all the inhabitants they found. 39 At the end of May 1102, the crusaders assisted by the Genoese, captured Qaisariya by assault, killed its population, and plundered everything in it. 40

Muslim contemporary scholars saw in the Crusade invasion and the mass slaughter of Muslims a terrible calamity upon Islam and the Muslims. 41 As for the Muslim rulers, their reaction was piece meal There was a general unwillingness of many Muslim local leaders to fight the invading armies. According to the contemporary historian-imam, Al-Sulami, the Muslim rulers had only themselves to blame for their crushing defeats as each of them sought to leave the task to the others. 42 The Abbasid Caliph, supposedly the leader of all Muslims, remained passive and failed altogether to render any service to the Muslim fighters. 43 The angry and desperate calls by the Muslim population reached the ears of the Caliph at Bagdad. 44 Fugitives from Aleppo burst into the Great Mosque at Bagdad, and tore down the ironwork from the screen of the Caliph himself. About the same time, according to a contemporary Muslim historian, there came a Byzantine envoy from Constantinople to Baghdad urging the Caliph to make war against the Franks. 45 The populace in their fury crowded round the Sultan, reproaching him for his slackness in the service of God. “The very infidels,” they said, “showed more zeal for the Holy War than did he.” 46

The Egyptian Fatimid reaction was likewise tame and ineffective. Their only action came at Ascalon and resulted in a terrible slaughter of the Egyptian army in August 1099. The Egyptians rested idly in their tents, since the soothsayers forbade them to give battle till Saturday, the 13th of August. 47 As they did, the Christians advanced in nine battalions. From the moment when the Crusaders caught sight of their adversaries, each standing with his skin of water hung round his neck, there seems to have been no doubt as to the result of the battle. It was rather a massacre than a conflict; some Egyptians threw themselves into the sea, others buried themselves in the earth, “not daring to rise up against us, and our men cut them down as a man fells animals at the shambles” (said a participant at the event: Friday, Aug. 12, 1099). 48

In the winter of 1100-1101, four large armies set off from Europe. The arrival of these four fresh Crusader armies (counting hundreds of thousands of men) in Asia Minor united the hitherto disunited Turks, and, together, Malik Ghazi, Qilij Arslan and other Turkish leaders fought them back. 49 All four armies were wiped out by the Turks. 50 Fifteen thousand Latin, under the Counts of Nevers and Bourges perished near Erekli on the way to Tarsus; 51 and near the same town, the third division of William of Poitou, was also defeated. 52 The Franks, attacked by Qilij Arslan and Malik Ghazi met with a crushing defeat at Heraclea; whilst William IX of Acquitaine and Welf, Duke of Bavaria, were defeated by Qilij Arslan and Qaraja, the Emir of Harran, as they sought to reach Cilicia. 53 In these violent encounters, all turning to Turkish advantage, nearly half a million Crusaders were killed or taken captives. When he was defeated by the Turks Raymond St Gilles fled with his followers, leaving his fellow Crusaders to fend by themselves. The other leaders followed his example, and fled in panic, leaving their goods and their very wives as a booty to the Turks. 54

“Ah! what grief,’ said someone who lived through those events ‘was it to see delicate and noble matrons carried off by impious and horrid men-men whose heads were shorn behind and before, whose beards were long and unkempt, and who were like to foul and unclean spirits in conduct.” 55

These decisive Turkish victories had a considerable impact on the whole Crusade history as they not only deprived the crusader states of much needed reinforcements, they also made the Asia Minor route extremely hazardous for Crusader progress. More importantly they showed that should the Muslims maintain their unity, they could defeat their hitherto redoubtable foe. 56

Muslim unity soon faded away all over the ground, though. According to Al-Sulami:

‘Examining the country of Syria, they (the crusaders) confirmed that the states there were involved one with another, their opinions diverged, their relationships rested on secret desires for vengeance. Their (the crusaders) greed was thereby reinforced, encouraging them to apply themselves (to the attack).’ 57

Throughout much of the early period most of the Muslim resistance was based in the northern city of Mosul (modern Iraq). The city’s Atabegs played the leading role in such resistance. In April 1110, the Atabeg Mawdud, the Seljuk commander of Mosul, began moving against Edessa with the support of the Ortoqid Il-Ghazi and the Emir of Mayyafaraqin, Soqman al-Qutbi. 58 Informed by their spies, the Franks hastened to meet Mawdud at the Euphrates with a superior army. The Franks were systematically crushed. 59 Mawdud led further campaigns before he fell to the daggers of the Ismaili Assassins, murdered at the Friday prayers in October 1113. 60 Mawdud had retired to Damascus (September 19th), intending to remain there till the spring. Soon afterwards, as he entered the mosque, an assassin sprang out and dealt him several blows. The wounded prince was carried to the atabek’s palace; recognizing that his end was near, he refused all food, declaring that he desired to appear before God fasting. “Mawdud,” says a contemporary Christian historian, “was a man of great wealth and power. He was most famous among the Turks and subtle in his actions. But he could not resist the will of God, who, though He suffered him to scourge us for our sins, decreed that he should die a mean death, and perish by a feeble hand.” Mawdud’s death freed the Franks of a formidable adversary. 61

In the year 1127, Imad Eddin Zangi, the Atabeg of Mosul, was appointed commander of the east. Imad Eddin Zangi was the son of a favourite counsellor of Malik Shah, who became lord of Aleppo, and fell fighting for his master’s son. Zangi was but ten years old at his father’s death, and fought his first campaigns against the Franks in the service of Mawdud, with whom he was present at the great battle near Tiberias, when he rode up to the very gate of the city and struck it with his lance. Afterwards he entered the service of Sultan Mahmud, who made him his agent at Baghdad and Iraq, and on the death of Al-Borsoki promoted him to be governor of Mosul (1127). At this time the Muslims were in the very depths of despair. 62 Zangi began to make his imprint at Al-Atharib in 1130, when he destroyed the citadel, and razed it to the ground. 63 Zangi was dedicated to the war against the crusaders, and around his command the concept of jihad began to grow, and more dedicated forces coalesced around him. 64 In 1137, he besieged Castle Mont Ferrand; Pons of Tripoli was slain there, whilst King Fulk, shut up in the castle, was forced to cede it to Zangi. 65 The same year, Zangi recovered from the Crusaders Kafartab, Ma’rat Al-Nu’man, Bizaa, and Athareb. 66

The call for Jihad eventually rallied around Zangi a united Muslim army for the first time since the Crusaders’ arrival in 1096. 67 In 1144, Zangi was strong enough to mount a major offensive on one of the main crusader strongholds: Edessa. Edessa spread to the Euphrates and beyond, and in the south, where it comprised the highlands to the east of the Dead Sea and reached to the Gulf of Elim. The defence of the city was entrusted to the Latin archbishop Hugh II with support of the Armenian Bishop John and the Jacobite Bishop: Basil. 68 The siege lasted for weeks before, on Christmas Eve of the year 1144, a wall collapsed and the Muslims entered the city. The panicked population sought to escape, but the gates of the citadel had been shut by orders of the Archbishop. 69 A terrible stampede resulted and many thousand Christians died. 70 Zangi had all the Franks rounded and executed but spared the lives of the local Christians, even allowing the local Armenians, Jacobites and Greeks a certain autonomy. 71 An anonymous Christian source said:

‘Zangi visited our Syrian churches, examined their beauty, ordered two great bells to be given them and hung on them as was the custom in the time of the Franks.’ 72

The fall of Edessa marked a significant turning point in Muslim fortunes, and soon the whole state of Edessa was regained for Islam. However, just as the fall of Edessa was deemed a major breakthrough for Islam, it was cause of distress in Christendom. The Second Crusade was launched shortly afterwards as a direct consequence.

Before the Second Crusade arrived, Zangi’s career, just like that of his leading predecessors, was once more interrupted by assassination. He was murdered on 14th September 1146 as he lay asleep during his army’s siege to an enemy stronghold. His two murderers fled to the castle. 73

Zangi’s conquests paved the way for the future successes of Nur-Eddin and Salah Eddin. ‘He was,’ says Archer, ‘the first Muslim chief to win any permanent success against the Franks; and under his rule the Orontes valley became united against the invader. The contrast between the country as he found it, and as he left it, cannot be better stated than in the words of one who himself remembered the misery of the days before his coming. Ibn Al-Athir’s father had seen Mosul in ruins so that a traveller might stand in the centre of the town without seeing a single occupied house; under Zangi it became one of the most prosperous of Muslim towns. Zangi had reduced the Ortokid princes to his rule, established order at Aleppo, and made his authority paramount at Hamah, Emesa, and even at Damascus. He had taken many Frankish strongholds; last of all he had made the conquest of conquests when he wrested Edessa, “the eye of Upper Mesopotamia,” from the invader. The Franks, who, at his accession, took tribute from Aleppo, and ravaged as far as Mardin and Nisibis, were driven back, and forced to act on the defensive, while prosperity once more began to smile upon the Muslims.’ 74

Zangi’s murder was a major reprieve for the Crusaders, but succeeding him was his son Nur-Eddin.75 Nur Eddin was to devote his life to the furtherance of his father’s policy, and in a reign of nearly thirty years (1146-1174) was to shake the whole foundation of Frankish power in the East, says Saunders.76

Selected Reading List

  • T.A. Archer: The Crusades; T. Fisher Unwin; London; 1894.
  • C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem; The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund; London; 1897.
  • F. Gabrieli: Arab Historians of the Crusades; London; Routledge; 1957.
  • C. Hillenbrand: The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives, Edinburgh University Press; 1999.
  • Ibn al-Athir: Kamil; X; ed K.J. Tornberg; 12 vols; Leiden; 1851-72.
  • Ibn al-Athir: Ta’rikh al-Dawlah al-Atabakiya; ed. Ab Al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat; Cairo; 1963.
  • Ibn al-Furat: Tarikh al-Duwal wal Muluk; ed. M. F. El-Shayyal; unpublished Ph.d.; University of Edinburgh; 1986.
  • Ibn al-Qalanisi: The Damascus Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, extracted and tr. by H.A. R. Gibb; London, Luzac and Co, Ltd, 1932.
  • A. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, Princeton University Press; 1921.
  • H.M.J. Loewe: The Seljuqs; in The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol IV; Edited by J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previte; Z.N. Brooke, 1923; pp. 299-317.
  • W. Muir: The Mamluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; 1260-1517; London; Smith, Elder & Co; London; 1896; Introduction.
  • Z. Oldenbourg: The Crusades; tr from the French by A. Carter; Weinfeld and Nicolson; London; 1965.
  • S. Runciman: A History of the Crusades; Cambridge University Press, 1962; vol ii.
  • J. J. Saunders: A History of Medieval Islam; Routledge; London; 1965.
  • J.J. Saunders: Aspects of the Crusades, University of Canterbury, 1962.
  • Al-Sulami: Un traite Damasquin du debut du XIIem siecle, ed E. Sivan, Journal Asiatique, 1966.


  1. Al-Sulami: Un traite Damasquin du debut du XIIem siecle, ed E. Sivan, Journal Asiatique, 1966, p. 207.
  2. In A. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, Princeton University Press; 1921; pp 33-36.
  3. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; T. Fisher Unwin; London; 1894; p. 31.
  4. G. Le Strange: Palestine under the Moslems; Alexander P. Watt; London; 1890; p. 202.
  5. W. Durant; The Age of Faith; Simon and Shuster, New York; 6th printing; 1950; p. 585.
  6. Ibn al-Athir: Kamil; X; ed K.J. Tornberg; 12 vols; Leiden; 1851-72; p. 256.
  7. C. Hillenbrand: The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives, Edinburgh University Press; 1999; p.31.
  8. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; T. Fisher Unwin; London; 1894; p. 22.
  9. J.J. Saunders: Aspects of the Crusades, University of Canterbury, 1962; p.31.
  10. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; p. 21.
  11. Ibid.
  12. A. Bouamama: L’Idee de croisade dans le monde Arabe hier et aujourd’hui, in De Toulouse a Tripoli, AMAM, Colloque held between 6 and 8 December, 1995, University of Toulouse; 1997; pp 211-9; at p.212.
  13. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; p. 36.
  14. J.W. Draper: A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe; George Bell and Sons, London, 1875; vol ii; pp. 22-3.
  15. W. Muir: The Mamluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; 1260-1517; London; Smith, Elder & Co; London; 1896; Introduction; p. xv.
  16. W. Muir: The Mamluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; 1260-1517; London; Smith, Elder & Co; London; 1896; Introduction; p. xvi.
  17. C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem; The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund; London; 1897; p. 26.
  18. W. Muir: The Mamluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; op cit; Introduction; p. xvi.
  19. W. Muir: The Mamluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt; op cit; Introduction; p. xvi.
  20. C. Hillenbrand: Crusades; op cit; p. 42.
  21. K.S. Salibi: The Maronites of Lebanon under Frankish and Mamluk rule; 1099-1516; Arabica IV; 1957; C. Cahen: Orient et Occident au temps des Croisades, Aubier Montaigne, 1983; p.73.
  22. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; p. 67.
  23. E. Gibbon: The Decline and Fall; of the Roman Empire; op cit; Vol 6; p. 301.
  24. Ibid.
  25. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; T. Fisher Unwin; London; 1894; p. 70.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Ibid; p. 71.
  28. C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom; op cit; p. 47.
  29. Ibn al-Athir: Kamil; x; op cit; p. 190.
  30. Ibn al-Athir: Kamil; op cit; p. 190.
  31. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; p. 84.
  32. Ibid.
  33. Ibid; p. 85.
    • B. Z. Kedar: The Subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant, in Muslims under Latin Rule, 1100-1300, ed J.M. Powell, Princeton University Press, 1990; pp 135-74; at p.143.
    • On the dumping of corpses, see e.g., Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. K. Mynors, trans. R.Hill; London, 1962; p.92.
  34. Ibn al-Athir: Kamil; X, pp.193-95 in F. Gabrieli: Arab Historians of the Crusades; London; Routledge; 1957; p.11.
  35. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; T. Fisher Unwin; London; 1894; p. 91.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Ibid; p. 92.
  38. Ibn al-Qalanisi: The Damascus Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, extracted and tr. by H.A. R. Gibb; London, Luzac and Co, Ltd, 1932, p. 49.
  39. Ibid.
  40. Ibn Al-Qalanisi: Dayl tarikh Dimashq, Damascus, 1983, p. 218.
  41. Al-Sulami Fol. 174a-b; French tr. P. 215 in C. Hillenbrand: The Crusades, op cit; p.73.
  42. C. Hillenbrand: The Crusades, op cit; p. 42.
  43. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; 148.
  44. Ibid.
  45. Ibid; 149.
  46. Ibid; 96.
  47. Ibid; 96-7.
  48. Ferdinand Chalandon: The Earlier Comneni: in The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol IV; op cit; pp 318-50 at pp.340-1.
  49. C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom; op cit; p. 71.
  50. Ibid.
  51. Ibid.
  52. Ferdinand Chalandon: The Earlier Comneni; op cit; p.340.
  53. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; 105.
  54. Ibid 105-6.
  55. Z. Oldenbourg: The Crusades; tr from the French by A. Carter; Weinfeld and Nicolson; London; 1965; pp. 174-5; C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom; op cit; p. 71.
  56. Al-Sulami: Fol.174a-b (French trans); p. 215; in C. Hillenbrand: The Crusades, op cit; p.72.
  57. S. Runciman: A History of the Crusades; Cambridge University Press, 1962; vol ii; p. 115.
  58. The First and second Crusades; op cit; p.83.
  59. Ibid; p. 85.
  60. S. Runciman: A History; vol ii; op cit; p. 127. T. Archer; p. 150.
  61. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; 197.
  62. Ibn al-Furat: Tarikh al-Duwal wal Muluk; ed. M. F. El-Shayyal; unpublished Ph.d.; University of Edinburgh; 1986. IV; p. 30.
  63. See: Ibn al-Athir: Ta’rikh al-Dawlah al-Atabakiya; ed. Ab Al-Qadir Ahmad Tulaymat; Cairo; 1963.
  64. C.R. Conder: The Latin Kingdom; op cit; p. 99.
  65. S. Runciman: A History; op cit; vol ii; pp. 219-20.
  66. The First and second crusades: Part two; op cit; p.280.
  67. S. Runciman: A History; op cit; p.235.
  68. Ibid; p. 236.
  69. G.W. Cox: The Crusades; Longman; London; 1874; p.83.
  70. S. Runciman: A History; op cit; Vol ii; p. 236-7.
  71. The First and second crusades Part two; op cit; p. 291.
  72. Ibid. First and second crusade; 291.
  73. T.A. Archer: The Crusades; op cit; 203-4.