Crusades

Volume 9, 2010

Published by AS HGAT Efor theSociety for the Study of the Crusades

and the Latin East

The Byzantines and Saladin:Opponents of the Third Crusade?

Savvas Neocleous

Trinity College, Dublinneocles@tcd.ie

The question of the alliance between the Byzantine Empire and Saladin (1174-93),sultan of Egypt and Syria, has been the subject of a heated and ongoing debateamong modem scholars. In his 1962 article "The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185-1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade,"! Brand was the first to deal extensivelywith this question, arguing in favour of the existence of complicity between theByzantines and Saladin against the crusader states and particularly, as indicated bythe title, against the Third Crusade. Brand's paper has exerted a strong influence onseveral commentators and is still cited as authoritative by scholars who support theview that the Byzantine Emperor Isaak and Saladin operated in collusion againstthe Third Crusade. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the question of theso-called Byzantine-Muslim alliance through a fresh examination of the primarymaterial available.

The Alleged Alliance between the Byzantines and Saladin against theCrusader States

At Manuel's death in 1180, his son and heir Alexios 11(1180-83) was only twelveyears old and thus the regency was assumed by his mother, Maria of Antioch. Theprotosebastos Alexios Komnenos, a nephew of Manu el, became Maria's lover andthe effective ruler of the Byzantine Empire. In the autumn of 1181 an embassy sentby the protosebastos to Saladin arrived in Egypt. After prolonged negotiations atruce was concluded with the sultan, designed to create a balance of power againstthe Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor. In 1185, Saladin and the Byzantine EmperorAndronikos I (1182-85), who had meanwhile seized the throne in 1182, signeda formal treaty with the same aim, and, probably by 1186, the Emperor Isaak 11(1185-95, 1203-4), who had overthrown Andronikos I in 1185, dispatched yetanother embassy to the sultan to renew the alliance.?

I would like to thank Dr Barbara Crostini for her valuable comments while this article was still inprogress. This article is dedicated to the memory of my godfather Dr Andreas Photiou.

1 Charles M. Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in, 1185-1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade,"

Speculum 37 (1962), pp. 167-81.2 Jonathan Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations between the Latin East and the

West, 1119--1187 (Oxford, 1996), p. 251; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States,

87

88 SAVVAS NEOClEOUS

In his Chronicon, the German monk Magnus ofReichersberg (d. 1195) preservesa letter that had been composed by an anonymous correspondent in the ultramartntpartes (that is, Palestine) and sent to the West.' The letter has no addressee andbreaks off abruptly. Brand argues that it was written in the late summer or fall of1188.4 According to this missive, the 1185 treaty between the Byzantine EmperorAndronikos I and Saladin stipulated the conquest not only of the sultanate ofIconium, but also of the crusader states, as well as the subsequent division of theconquered areas between the emperor and the sultan. Jerusalem and the Syro-Palestinian coast were to be held by Saladin as a fief of the Byzantine ruler, sincethe sultan would pay homage to the emperor,' As Andronikos was overthrown, thispact could no longer be acted out.

The anonymous author of the letter claims that, upon ascending the imperialthrone, Isaak maintained the alliance between his predecessor and Saladin "becausehe feIt hatred for the Latins and feared thern.t" When, on his way to Constantinople,Isaak's brother Alexios was captured in Acre by the Latin settlers of Outremer,the emperor ordered the sultan ''to rise powerfully against the Christians fromoverseas who are the greatest enemies of both" and release his brother.' TheByzantine sovereign himself would also attack the Latin settlers, so that their landcould be divided according to the terms outlined in the Byzantine-Muslim treaty.Moreover, always according to the anonymous correspondent, Isaak dispatchedeighty galleys to the assistance of Saladin, but the fleet was destroyed off Cyprusby the Norman admiral Margaritone. The sultan went to war with the kingdom ofJerusalem, annihilated the Franks at Hattin (4 July 1187), and usurped almost alltheir land. As reported by the anonymous author, after his triumph, Saladin sentIsaak munificent gifts "in order to rejoice at his victory,"! The sultan's envoys werehonourably received by the emperor in Constantinople and were lodged at a verysplendid palace such as Latin ambassadors had never, or rarely, been offered. Thetreaty between the two parties was renewed and, in return, Isaak sent the sultangenerous gifts and a crown, and expressed his gratitude for his brother's releasefrom the Latins."

The weight given to the evidence contained in this letter is fundamental to thequestion of the alliance between Byzantium and Saladin against the Latin settlers ofOutremer as discussed in much detail by Brand, Lilie and Harris. For his part, Brand

1096-1204, trans. J. C. Morris and Jean E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), pp. 224-32 and 240; Brand, "TheByzantines and Saladin," pp. 168-70.

3 Magnus of Reichersberg, Chronicon, ed. WilheIm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17 (Hanover, 1861), pp.439-534, at pp. 511-12.

4 Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in," p. 181., Magnus of Reichersberg, p. 511; Lilie, Byzantium, p. 231; Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the

Crusades(London,2003),pp.122-23.6 Magnus of Reichersberg, p. 511.7 Ibid.• Ibid.9Ibid.,pp.SII-12.

THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 89

relied heavily on the anonymous letter incorporated in Magnus's Chronicon, andthereby was led to assert that both Andronikos and Isaak in turn "allied themselveswith the crusaders' mightiest opponent [Saladin], and even strove to eliminate Latinpower from the Orient."IO Lilie, too, concedes that Andronikos had concluded analliance with Saladin, directed both against the Seljuks of Iconium and against theFranks of Syria and Palestine: the Byzantine emperor wanted "to punish [the latter]for their recalcitrance" and "preserve Byzantine claims in Syria and Palestine."!'Lilie offers a convincing interpretation of the text of the treaty preserved in theletter in Magnus's Chronicon stating that, under it, "the emperor could not onlyachieve direct rule over Antioch, Cilicia, and parts of Asia Minor once more, but, inthe case of Jerusalem, would improve on the legal position of 1171-80, except thatnow Saladin would take the place of the Franks.t''? While the logic of the agreementmay thus be clarified, its evidence still begs closer questioning. Had such a treatybetween Andronikos and Saladin ever been concluded? And if so, had the two rulersreally succeeded in forming an alliance against the Franks of Outremer?

The likelihood of the existence of such a military alliance against the Latinsettlers has recently been examined by Hams. He suggests that there may well havebeen an agreement between the two rulers to the effect that, had Saladin conqueredJerusalem, he would recognize Andronikos as protector of the Holy Land andof its Christian inhabitants. This agreement was then interpreted by the Latinsas a sinister conspiracy against the Franks of OutremerP Harris's suggestion,however intriguing, does not find support in the evidence. After Saladin's conquestof Jerusalem in 1187, the sultan in fact never renewed the ancient Byzantineprotectorship over the Holy Land." The exclusive source of the existence of thetreaty, which is not substantiated by any other contemporary account," leads Harristo doubt its authenticity and to argue against the fact of a military alliance betweenAndronikos and Saladin against the Latin settlers. This is an important step forwardin scholarly opinion on this matter. Further, as Harris rightly argues, the allegationthat Saladin, the leader of the Jihad against the Christians, had agreed under oath(juramenta) to hold Jerusalem and the Syro-Palestinian littoral as the vassal of aChristian emperor stands contrary to reason.!?

As regards the accusations of the anonymous writer of the letter against Isaak,these are also baseless. In 1186, the Byzantine sovereign had indeed sent a fleet ofseventy ships to the eastern Mediterranean and was truly defeated by Margaritone.Its target, however, was not the kingdom of Jerusalem but the secessionist island

10 Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in," p. 167.11 Lilie, Byzantium. p. 230.12 Ibid., p. 232.13 Harris, Byzantium, pp. 123-24.14 David Jacoby, "Diplomacy, Trade, Shipping and Espionage between Byzantium and Egypt in the

Twelfth Century," in flOAV1Ckvpor; vovr;: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed.Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris (Munich, 2000), pp. 83-102, at p. 100.

IS Harris, Byzantium, pp. 120-21; Lilie, Byzantium, pp. 232-33.16 Harris, Byzantium, p. 121.

90 SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

of Cyprus, which, since 1184, had been ruled independently by Isaak Komnenos,a member of the former imperial dynasty, who had proclaimed himself emperor. I?

The allegation that Saladin attacked the Latin settlers because he had been orderedby Isaak to do so with the aim of releasing his brother is not only untrue, but even,on reflection, utterly foolish. The sultan, in reality, went to war with the kingdomof Jerusalem in response to Latin provocations." His intentions, as well as thereal objective of the Byzantine fleet in the eastern Mediterranean, were doubtlesslyknown among the Latin settlers of Outremer.

The jumble of facts and fiction in the letter preserved in Magnus's Chronicontestifies to its author's ignorance of Eastern affairs. I would suggest that Magnus'scorrespondent was a Westerner who had newly arrived in the East, rather thana Latin inhabitant of Outremer, as Harris supposes,'? or "an author who knowsByzantium,"2o as claimed by Magdalino. His report was based on oral testimony,distorted information, ignorance and prejudice. His rendering and interpretation ofpast events in the most anti-Byzantine light and the barrage of unfounded accusationsagainst the Byzantine emperors attest to an intense and irrational suspicion anddistrust of the Byzantines. The question that naturally arises is what the cause ofsuch paranoid suspicion and distrust might have been.

The Supposed Alliance between Isaak 11and Saladin against the ThirdCrusade

We should now consider what modem scholars have argued about the supposedalliance between Isaak and Saladin against the German expedition of the ThirdCrusade that took the overland route to Jerusalem and marched through the territoryof the Byzantine Empire from July 1189 to April 1190. Brand asserted that, at thenews of the gathering of the Third Crusade, the sultan and the emperor strengthenedtheir tics. The Byzantine ruler agreed to delay and destroy the German crusadingexpedition.f The same thesis is adopted by Ostrogorsky, Riley-Smith, Lilie,22 andmore recently Angold, Magdalino, Jotischky, Madden, and Angelov.P

17 Lilie, Byzantium, p. 235; Harris, Byzantium, p. 128.11 lIarris, Byzantium, p. 128; Brand. "The Byzantines and Saladin," p. 170.19 lIarris, Byzantium, p. 123.20 Paul Magdalino, "Isaak 11, Saladin and Venice," in The Expansion of Orthodox Europe:

Byzumium. the Balkans and Russia, ed, Jonathan Shepard (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 93-106, at p, 95.21 Charles M. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West. 1180-1204 (Cambridge, MA, 1968), p. 177.22 Georg Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans, Joan Hussey, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1968),

pp. 406-7; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London, 1987), p. 111; Lilie,Byzantium, p, 241.

2) Michael Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow, 2003), pp. 36,64-65; PaulMagdalino, "The Byzantine Empire 1118-1204," in The New Cambridge Medieval History, 4.2, ed.I>avid Luscombe and Jonathan Riley-Srnith (Cambridge, 2(04), pp. 611-43, at pp. 631-32; Magdalino,"buk 11,"rp. 94-98, 103-5; Andrew Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States (Harlow, 2004), p.15'); Thomas F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (Oxford, 2005), pp. 80-82; Dimiter

THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 91

The issue of the Byzantine-Muslim alliance is treated at greater length byBrand, Lilie, Harris, and Magdalino, while the supposedly "domestic oppositionto Byzantium's alliance with Saladin" is discussed extensively by Angelov. Brandadvocated the idea that Isaak's aggression on the Germans marching through hisempire was due to his alliance with Saladin." Lilie argued that there was a treatybetween the two rulers and, under its provisions, the Byzantine emperor wouldprevent the Germans' march, but this was not the reason for German-Byzantineclashes. Given the rivalry between the German and Byzantine Empires in theprevious decades, there was no need of any particular alliance that would turn thedistrust into armed conflict. Lilie favoured the view that Isaak, in his dealings withSalad in, claimed that their alliance was the reason for Byzantine hostility to theGermans in order to make the maximum capital out of the situation."

In 2003, Harris emphatically argued that there was not a formal military alliancebetween Isaak and Saladin to molest the German crusaders." In actual fact, theByzantine ruler, mistrustful of the German Emperor Frederick I (1152-90), wasdetermined to weaken, and if possible destroy, the German army to ensure that itdid not pose a danger to Constarninople.F However, in his dealings with Saladin,Isaak pretended to act in the sultan's interests," although this policy eventuallybackfired. Isaak's motives became clear even to Saladin and his advisers. As al-Fadil, Saladin's foreign minister, asserted, "the Greek king fears greatly the Franksbecause of his empire and he wants to repel them; ifhe succeeds in this completely,he will claim that it is in our interest.,,29

Most historians have tended not to agree with Harris.l" In 2006, having fullyembraced Brand's argument and views that Isaak and Saladin were operating incollusion against the German expedition of the Third Crusade, Angelov went asfar as to interpret an oration in praise of Isaak delivered by the Byzantine historianNiketas Choniates on 6 January 1190 as an exhortation to the emperor to abandonhis alliance with Saladin." In actual fact, in paragraph XVII of his oration, in whichstandard characteristics of imperial panegyric featured prominently, Choniatcs

G. Angelov, "Domestic Opposition to Byzantium's Alliance with Saladin: Niketas Choniates and hisEpiphany Oration of 1190," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 30 (200('l, pp. 49--68. at pp. 49-5 I,54-SS and 59-65.

24 Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin," pp. 178-81.2' Lilie, Byzantium. pp. 236, 241-42.26 Harris, Byzantium, pp. 128, 134, 136.27 lbid., pp. 132-33.28 Baha'al-Din Ibn Shaddad, The Rare and Excellent lIistory of Saladin, Irans. D. S. Richards

(AIdershol, 2001), pp. 121-22; Abu Sharna, Le Livre des deux jardins: llistolre des deux rcgncs, celulde Nour ed-Dln et celui de Sa/ah ed-Dtn, ed. and trans, A.-C. Barbier de Mcynard, RIIC Or 4 (Paris,1898),pp.3-522,alpp.437-38,470-71,508-9.

29 Abu Shama, Le Livre des deux jardins, p, 509.30 Angold, The Fourth Crusade, pp. 36, 64-65; Magdalino, "The Byzantine Empire," rp. 631-32;

Magdalino, "Isaak 11,"pp. 94-8, 103-5; Jotischky, Crusading, p. 159;Madden, New Concise History,pp. 80-82; Angelov, "Domestic Opposition," pp. 49-5 1,54-55,59-65.

31 Angclov, "Domestic Opposition," pr. 59-{iS.

92 SAVVASNEOCLEOUS

urges Isaak to crush the Muslims and expand the Asiatic frontiers of the ByzantineEmpire to their seventh-century extent. Extended quotation from paragraph XVuof the speech is necessary:

A Nisaean or an Arabian horse wiIJ carry the Roman [i.e. the Byzantine] soldier, and theeternal phalanxes of the Romans wiIJ draw water from the Euphrates and drink from theTigris and will feast between the two rivers. Washing your [Isaak's] hair jubilantly inthe River Jordan and being tempered in bravery, like a sword by sharpening, you [Isaak]will not only observe Palestine, but having expelled the pagans you will give Palestineto them [the Byzantines] as their hereditary allotment, just as Joshua had once done withthe Israelites. For it is necessary that you, the high-flying eagle that makes every eye turntoward him, fly also thither where Christ redeemed the fall of nature by his own fall, andthat assailing the Persians, those many-tongued ravens, you frighten them by the solemotion of your wings.32

Angelov understands this as an expression of dissatisfaction with "Isaak 'sfruitless alliance with Salad in" and as an exhortation to the Byzantine ruler "toadopt an aggressive policy toward Saladin."33 Such an interpretation, however, isinadequately supported by the evidence and thus far-fetched.

As recently as 2007, Magdalino repeated the thesis that Isaak's hostility to theGerman crusaders was due to his alliance with Salad in, through which the Byzantineemperor hoped to obtain territorial gains in Syro-Palestine, and more particularlythe coastal region, as stipulated in the Byzantine-Muslim treaty preserved inthe letter incorporated in the chronicle of Magnus of Reichersberg." DefendingBrand's views, Magdalino eventually concludes that "the interpretation of CharlesBrand turns out to be substantially correct. ,,35

32 Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae, ed. J.-L. van Dieten (Berlin and New York, 1973),pp. 85-lot, at p. 94. English translation of paragraph XVII of the oration in Angelov, "DomesticOpposition," pp. 5~0.

33 Angelov,"Domestic Opposition," pp. 61, 65.34 Magdalino, "Isaak 11," pp. 94-98, 103. To support his thesis Magdalino uses three Byzantine

texts: 1. The already examined oration delivered by Choniates before Isaak 11 on 6 January 1190;2. Choniates's His/aria in which the Byzantine historian reports that Isaak dreamed of liberatingPalestine, "plundering the Ismaelites beyond the Euphrates," and eventually becoming universal ruler(see Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J.-L. van Dieten (Berlin and New York, 1975), p. 432; NiketasChoniates, 0 City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates. trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984),pp. 237-38); and 3. An epigram in which a bishop of Sidon prays that, through Isaak and the patriarchof Constantinople, God would destroy "the barbarians" and liberate Palestine, including Sidon (seeMagdalino, "Isaak 11." pp. 95-96). lsaak n may well have dreamed of annihilating "the barbarians"and conquering the former eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire, including Palestine and the HolyLand. But this is one thing and it is quite another to claim that Palestine was to be readily handed overto Isaak by Saladin, the leader of the Jihad against the Christians, in return for destroying the Germancrusaders.

35 Magdalino, "Isaak n," p. 104.

THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 93

Sources

In their discussions of the alleged alliance between emperor and sultan againstthe Third Crusade, Brand, Lilie, and Hams have employed three Latin sources.The sources are, in order of importance attributed to them by these scholars: theanonymous letter in Magnus of Reichersberg's Chronicon; the letter of Conrad ofMontferrat from Tyre, preserved in Roger of Wend over's Flores Historiarumi" anddated, according to Brand, 20 September 1188; and the report of a French embassyto Constantinople, written, as Brand claims, between September and November1188, and cited in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi of Roger of Hoveden.l" andalso in the Ymagines Historiarum of Ralph of Diceto." Hams has also used afourth source: a letter written in 1189 by Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem (1186-90) andaddressed to the Emperor Frederick." As regards Magdalino, he relies mainly onthe testimony of Magnus of'Reichersberg.t"

A re-evaluation of the question of the alleged alliance between Saladin and Isaak11 against the Third Crusade involves a new analysis of the four relevant Latinsources. The sources are examined here in the order that best suits the argument ofthis essay, as will become clear.

1. TheAnonymous Letter in Magnus of Reichersberg s Chronicon

The anonymous author of the letter preserved in Magnus of Reichersberg'sChronicon portrays the Byzantine emperors as enemies not only of the crusaderstates but also of the Third Crusade. As he reports, upon hearing about the approachof the Western princes of the Third Crusade, Saladin dispatched envoys to Isaakwith munificent gifts, as well as poisoned flour and grain, and a cask of poisonedwine, which were to be used by the Byzantine ruler for the extermination of thecrusaders. When Isaak wanted to test the wine, he summoned a Latin Christianin the presence of the Muslim envoys and ordered him to open the cask. Having

36 Roger of Wendover, Flares Historiarum, ed. Henry Gay Hewlett, RS 84, I (London, 1886), pp.153-54; Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History: Comprising the History of England from the Descentof the Saxons toA.D. 1235, trans. J. A. Giles, 2 (London, 1849), pp. 71-72.

37 Roger of Hoveden, GestaRegis Henrici Secundi, ed.William Stubbs, RS 49, 2 (London, 1867),pp.51-53. As demonstrated by modem commentators, the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, once attributed toBenedict of Peterborough, is the first draft of Roger of Hoveden's later revised and completed Chroniea:see Doris M. Stenton, "Roger of Howden and Benedict," English Historical Review 68 (1953), pp. 574-82; John Gillingharn, "Roger of Howden on Crusade," in Richard Cceurde Lion: Kingship, Chivalry.and Warin the Twelfth Century (London, 1994), pp. 141-53, at pp. 142-45 and 148-49.

38 Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, RS 68, 2 (London, 1876), pp. 58-60.39 "Tagenonis decani Pataviensis descriptio expeditionis Asiaticae contra Turcas Friderici

imperatoris," in Germanicarum rerum scriptores aliquot insignes, ed. Burkhard Gotthelf Struve(Argentorati. 1717), pp. 407-16, at p. 410; Dana C. Munro, "Letters of the Crusaders Written fromthe Holy Land," in Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, I(philadelphia, 1900), pp. 20-21.

40 Magdalino, "Isaak Il," pp. 94-96.

94 SAVVASNEOCLEOUS

opened it, the Latin died at once." Although doubtlessly appealing to medievalWesterners, this exotic story of poison smacks of absurdity.

Magnus's correspondent further reported that Saladin sent a maumeria toConstantinople which the emperor would "set up and order to be venerated for thehonour of the Saracens.'042The maumeria has been identified by modem scholars asa "mimbar" or pulpit which was to be installed in the mosque in Constantinople.P

2. Queen Sibyl/a sLetter to Frederiek I

The basic accusations against Isaak in the missive preserved in Magnus ofReichersberg's chronicle are almost identical with those hurled against theByzantine sovereign in a letter allegedly written by Queen Sibylla. This letterhas been preserved in the dubious "Tagebuch" of Tageno, dean of Passau, a diaryof the crusade which is reputed to be a sixteenth-century adaptation of earliermaterials." The supposed letter of Sibylla, which is placed under another letter sentby Emperor Frederick to Duke Leopold V of Austria (1177-94) from Adrianople atthe end of November 1189, is prefaced Sibylla regina Hierusalem hane epistolamFriderieo imperatori mittit. This naturally led scholars to argue that the letterreached Emperor Frederick while in the Byzantine Empire in late 1189.45 In theletter, Isaak is denounced as "persecutor of the church of God ... [and] of the holyName" and is charged with having "entered into a conspiracy (coniuratio) withSaladin, the seducer and destroyer of the holy Name.'046Both emperor a~d sultanare represented as equally relentless enemies of Christianity. According to the letter,Saladin dispatched to Isaak "many presents very pleasing to mortals, in order tomake a compact and agreement (prauam concordiam et reeoneiliationem). And for

41 Magnus of Reichersberg, p. 512.42 Ibid.43 Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin," p. 172, n. 13. Since the eighth century there existed a

mosque in the cosmopolitan Byzantine capital. Saladin, greatly concerned about the maintenance ofMuslim worship in Constantinople, requested the construction of a new one, which was built in 1188.See Lilie, Byzantium, p. 237; Jacoby, "Diplomacy," p. 96. According to the Itinerarium peregrinorum,composed between I August 1191 and 2 September 1192 by an English Templar chaplain in Tyre,the very existence of a place of Muslim worship in a Christian city constituted in itself an outrageousbetrayal of Christianity. The English Templar chaplain asserts that "it is appropriate that this city[Constantinople] should have been razed to the ground. If rumour is to be believed, it had recentlybeen polluted by mosques (mahumeriis), which the perfidious emperor [Isaak] had permitted to bebuilt. A treaty he had made under oath with the Turks bindingly provided for this." Das Itinerariumperegrinorum. Eine zeitgenössische englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt,ed. Hans Eberhard Mayer, MGH Schriften 18 (Stuttgart, 1962), p. 293. For a detailed treatment ofIsaak's agreement to the installation of a "mimbar," in the Constantinopolitan mosque, the journey ofthe pulpit to Constantinople, its capture by Genoese pirates, and the dispatch of a second "mimbar,' seeJacoby, "Diplomacy," pp. 94-98.

44 Robert Lee Wolff, "Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople," Speculum 23 (1948), pp.1-34, at p. 26.

4S Harris, Byzantium, p. 134.46 ''Tagenonis decani Pataviensis descriptio," p. 410; trans., p. 20.

THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 95

the slaughter and destruction of the Christians ... he sent 600 measures of poisonedgrain and added a very large vase of wine, filled with such a malignant poison thatwhen he wanted to try its efficacy he called a man who was killed by the odor alonewhen the vase was opened.?"

The imaginative stories according to which Isaak had attempted to eliminatethe crusaders with poison provided by Saladin appear to have had wide circulationand to have gained credibility and currency among the Latins. It is very importantto underline that, in late autumn 1189,while the German crusaders were marchingthrough the territories of the Byzantine Empire, suffering Byzantine attacks,rumours that Isaak 11had been prepared to exterminate them by means of deadlypoison began to circulate. The rumours gave rise to fanciful stories, some of whichare recorded by the anonymous author of the Historia de expeditione Fridericiimperatoris, the best known eye-witness source concentrating on the Germanexpedition of the Third Crusade. According to one of the stories, at Demotica,captured by the Germans on 24 December 1189, "a huge jar was found ... filledwith wine ... and mixed with the most deadly poison.t'" The fact that the crusaderswho drank of the wine remained unharmed did not disprove the author's belief thatthe brew had been poisoned, but rather confirmed his belief in "divine mercy.'t49

The supposed letter of Queen Sibylla concludes by cautioning Frederick thathe "should never believe the Greek emperor,'?" If we accept that this letter wascomposed by Queen Sibylla, we could suggest a number of reasons to explain thequeen's hostility towards Isaak. First, Sibylla's consort Guy de Lusignan, whobecame dejure uxoris king of Jerusalem in 1186, had always opposed associationwith the Byzantine Empire.l! Further, in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem andthe capture of almost all her kingdom by Saladin in 1187,Queen Sibylla may haveneeded a scapegoat for the disaster. The development of mutual cooperation andfriendly relations between the Byzantine emperors and Saladin in the 1180s fittedByzantium perfectly for the task. Finally, and most importantly, Isaak's manifesthostility to the German crusading expedition marching through his empire mayhave been naturally viewed by Sibylla as evidence of an elaborate conspiracybetween Saladin and the Byzantine ruler against the Third Crusade and the Latinsin general.

Notwithstanding, there are a number of reasons which strongly undermine theauthenticity of the supposed letter from Sibylla to Frederick. First, the dubiousnature of Tageno's "Tagebuch." Secondly, had Frederick received an embassyfrom the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, one would wonder why the well-informed

41 "Tagenonis decani Pataviensis descriptio," p. 410; trans., p. 20.48 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, in Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser

Friedrichs I, ed. Anton Chroust, MGH SS rerum Gennanicarurn, n.s., 5 (Berlin, 1928), pp. 1-115, atp. 54; Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, trans. Chester Edward Wilcox (MA dissertation,University of Nebraska, 1951), pp. 81-82.

49 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, p. 54; trans., p. 82.so ''Tagenonis decani Pataviensis descriptio," p. 410; trans., p. 21.SI Lilie, Byzantium. pp. 217,225; Harris, Byzantium, pp. 123-24.

96 SAVVAS NEOClEOUS

author of the Historia de expeditione Friderici imperaloris does not report anythingof this kind in his work. Thirdly, had the queen of Jerusalem believed that therewas collusion between Isaak and Saladin, then surely this belief must have beenwidespread in the Latin East and shared by a number of Latins of Outremer. This,however, does not seem to have been the case: none of the various versions of theOld French Continuation ofWilliam of Tyre, composed in the Latin East, mentionsany alliance between Isaak and Saladin against the Third Crusade. Although theColbert-Fontainebleau Continuation and the Lyon Eracles do report that "theemperor of Constantinople did his best to prevent the emperor [Frederick] frompassing through his land,,,s2 they do not attribute this to any alliance between Isaakand Saladin, but rather - obviously influenced by William of Tyre's work whichthey continue - to the fact that "the Greeks have always hated the Church of Romeand Latin Christians.?" Fourthly, the fact that Sibylla is styled as regina quondamHierosolymitana ("formerly Queen of Jerusalem'tj" should also raise our suspicions:even after the loss of Jerusalem in 1187, the kings and queens of the kingdom ofJerusalem did not renounce their royal title. Finally, the almost identical accusationfound in both the missive preserved in Magnus of Reichersberg's chronicle andthe supposed letter of Sibylla - that the person who allegedly opened the caskcontaining the poison sent by Saladin to Isaak died immediately - suggests that theauthor of the supposed letter of Sibylla, as in the case of the author of the missivepreserved in Magnus ofReichersberg's chronicle, must have been a Latin from theWest. It is unlikely that a queen of Jerusalem would have been so naive as to believea tale of this kind, a tale which could only be appealing to a Westerner, to whom themythical representation of the East involved visions of it as a place where deadlypoisons were widely used. I would argue, in fact, that the supposed letter ofSibyllamay well be a forgery. It may have been either composed in its entirety by a singleWesterner who had travelled to the East at the time of the Third Crusade, or, mostlikely, could have some distant acquaintance with a real anonymous report writtenby a Westerner in the East, the report eventually ending up in the West, where itwas later reworked by a second Westerner and presented as Queen Sibylla's letterto Frederick.

S2 L 'estoire de Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la terre d'Outremer, RHC Oe 2:131-32; LaContinuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184-1197), ed. Margaret Ruth Morgan, Documents relatifs aI'historie des croisades 14 (Paris, 1982), p. 93; Peter W. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and theThird Crusade: Sources in Translation (Aldershot, 1996), p. 84. For the Old French Continuations ofWiIliam of Tyre, especially for the period 1184-97, see Peter W. Edbury, "The Lyon Eracles and the OldFrench Continuations ofWiIliam of Tyre," in Montjoie, pp. 139-53.

S3 Eracles, p. 132; La Continuation, p. 93; trans., p. 84. That the Greeks hated the Latins is a centraltheme ofWilliam of Tyre's Historia. See WT, pp. 173-74,744, 1020-21.

54 "Tagenonis decani Pataviensis descriptio," p. 410.

11IE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 97

3. The Report of the French Envoys 10 Constantinople

The two full versions of the alleged report of an embassy of King Philip 11(1180-1223) to Isaak 11,given by Roger of Hoveden in his Gesta Regis Henrici Secundiand Ralph of Dice to in his YmaginesHistoriarum, are almost identical; nonetheless,it should be underlined that the works of the two chroniclers are independent ofeach other.ss Lilie uses neither of the two versions in his discussion in Byzantiumand Ihe Crusader States, but employs a version preserved in Roger of Hoveden'sChronica.S6 The same choice of version is made by Angold in his book, The FourthCrusade: Event and Context. The latter, however, is only an abridged version of thefull report, given by Roger in his earlier work Gesta Regis. The version preservedin the Gesta Regis should therefore be preferred.

Brand and Harris make reference to the full version of the report in Roger'sGesla Regis. Although aware of the version in Ralph's Ymagines Historiarum,Brand favours and chooses to cite the one in Roger's work.S7 Harris, on the otherhand, completely disregards Ralph's version.s8 In Roger's work the report is givenwith the following preface: "At the same time the envoys of King Philip [11] ofFrance, who had been dispatched to the emperor of Constantinople, who was calledIsaak. have written to the king of France in this fashion.?" Modem scholars havetaken Roger's testimony at face value.60 However, there is absolutely no reference,direct or indirect, in the report itself to substantiate Roger's statement. Quite thecontrary. The appeal to the reader's attention - notate fratres - found in both fullversions of the report leads to the inescapable conclusion that the addressee was notthe French king. I would argue that, as in the case of the anonymous letter preservedin Magnus of Reichersberg's Chronicon, the report was written by an anonymousWesterner in the East and was sent to Europe, and I will henceforth refer to it asthe "anonYmous report. .. The fact that the report was not written to King Philip 11by his ambassadors to Isaak 11deprives it of much of the authority ascribed to it bymodern scholars.

The writer of the anonymous report observed resentfully that "in the palace ofthe emperor of Constantinople more honor was paid to the envoys of Saladin thanto any other persons of the very highest dignity.'~1 The remark recalls the equally

55 AntoDia Gransden. Historical Writing in England. c.550 to c.1307 (London, 1974), p. 232." RogerofHoveden, Chronica, ed,WiIIiam Stubbs, RS SI, 2 (London, 1869), pp. 355-56; Roger of

Hoveden. TheAnnals of Roger de Hoveden: Comprising lhe History of England and of Other CountriesofEurope/romAD 7J210AD 1201, U'lIIlS. HeruyT. Riley, 2 (London, 1853), pp. 99-100.

" Brand. "The Byzantines and Saladin," pp. 172. n. 13, 173, 0.14,181; Byzantium, p, 358, n. S.51 Harris. B~ium, p. 214, D. 9." Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi; p. SI.60 Brand, "1be Byzantines and Saladin," pp. 172. 181; Lilie, Byzantium, p. 237; Harris, Byzantium,

.129; JacobY. "Diplomacy," p. 95; Magdalino, "Isaak 11,"pp. 94, D. 4, 97, 0.17; Angelov, "Domestic~ition," pp. S0,n. 4, 61, n. SI; Angold, TIle Fourth CTVSode, pp. ~S.

61 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica,

p.59.

98 SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

bitter comment of Magnus's informant about the lavish palace provided to theMuslim envoys in the Byzantine capital. In addition, according to the anonymousreport, "Saladin has delivered all the churches of the Land of Promise to the envoysof the emperor of Constantinople so that sacred rites may be performed in them afterthe Greek custom.'>62The claim of the anonymous reporter, however, is groundless.Only in May 1192 Isaak had explicitly requested the transfer of the ecclesiasticalinstitutions of Jerusalem to the jurisdiction of the Greek Church but his demandwas turned down by Saladin/"

The author of the anonymous report further alleged that "Salad in, by consentof the emperor of Constantinople, sent his idol (ido/um) to Constantinople tobe publicly worshipped there.'>64 The ido/um mentioned by the report should beidentified with the maumeria mentioned by Magnus's correspondent." The so-called ido/um was in fact nothing more than the "mimbar" or pulpit which was tobe installed in the mosque in Constantinople, as mentioned earlier. However, in theimagination of the Western reporter, profoundly ignorant about Muslim religiouspractices, the pulpit seems to have taken the form of an image of Saladin that wouldbe worshipped as a god in Constantinople.

The wildest accusations against the Byzantine emperor were to follow. Isaakwas reported to have promised the sultan a hundred galleys, and "Saladin has givenhim [Isaak] the entire Land of Promise [Holy Land], if he will obstruct the marchof the Franks [i.e. the Third Crusade].'>66 Moreover, according to the report, "ifanyone at Constantinople takes the cross, he is immediately captured and throwninto prison.'>67Finally, the anonymous correspondent recorded that, on the very dayhe left Constantinople, Isaak ordered the expulsion of all Latins from the ByzantineEmpire/" The Byzantine sovereign is once again painted as a close ally of Salad inin an unholy conspiracy against the Third Crusade.

Almost all the accusations thrown at Isaak by the anonymous reporter aretotally unfounded. As Lilie observes, the Byzantine ruler was not in a position toprovide Saladin with a fleet, since he did not possess one.69 The accusation thatthe sultan would hand the Holy Land over to Isaak if the emperor hampered theThird Crusade is totally preposterous. Saladin would never have promised to hand

62 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica,pp. 59--60.

63 Baha'al-Din Ibn Shaddad, Rare and Excellent History, pp. 201-2. See also Jacoby, "Diplomacy,"p.100.

64 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica,p.60.

65 Brand, "The Byzantines and Salad in,"p, 172.66 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica,

p.60.67 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundl, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica,

p.60.68 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 53; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Hislorica,

p.60.69 Lilie, Byzantium, p. 238.

THE BYZANTINES Ato.'DSALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 99

the Holy Land. the focus of the jihad pietistic propaganda. over to the Byzantines.Such an action - if at all conceivable - would have certainly led to his downfall.As regards the accusation that Isaak ordered the expulsion of all the Latins fromthe Byzantine Empire, this is not corroborated by other accounts. Besides, as Brandpoints out, numerous Latin traders, mercenaries and civil servants were staying inConstantinople during the Third Crusade." The allegation that the Byzantine rulerimprisoned crusaders in Constantinople is admittedly confirmed by the evidence. Inhis letter dated 16 November 1189 and sent from Philippopolis to his son Henry inGermany, the Emperor Frederick I himself reported that "many of the pilgrims fromour empire ... who went to Constantinople to meet us, are held captive there.?"

4. Conrad of Montferrat s Letter to Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury

Let us now consider the so-called letter of Conrad of Montferrat, preserved inRoger of Wendover's Flores Historiarum, and used extensively by Brand, Lilie,and Harris in their discussions. What will in fact be demonstrated below is thatsuch a letter had not been written by Conrad of Montferrat. The addressee of the"Ietter" is allegedly Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury. In his "letter," Conrad firstlaments the sad state of affairs in three of the four patriarchates in the East: "the seeof Jerusalem is separated from the apostolic see [of Rome] ... [since] Jerusalem hasbecome extinct, and the inactivity of the Christians is most worthies sly discussed bythe Saracens ••. the see of Constantinople shows no reverence for the see of Rome.The see of Antioch indeed is known to be in extreme distress.,,72 Then, Conradimplores the archbishop to "encourage kings, [and] impress upon the faithful" theneed to come to the rescue of the Holy Land and deliver it from the "infidels.':"Finally, Conrad repeats almost verbatim almost all the accusations against Isaakfound in the anonymous report, that is, the alleged report of the French envoys.

Brand and Harris do not comment on the fact that a great part of the anonymousreport is repeated almost verbatim in Conrad's "letter." Lilie mistakenly treatsCoDrad's "letter," as preserved in Roger of Wend over's Flares Historiarum, as themore important source and argues that the alleged report of the French "obviously

f· ..74takes account 0 It.The key to solving the enigma is found in Ralph of Diceto's Ymagines

Hisloriarum, a work disregarded by all the aforementioned commentators. Asalready said. Ralph cites the anonymous report without a preface. Tacked on to theend of the report is a letter ofConrad of Montferrat to Archbishop Baldwin.P The

70 Brand. "The Byzantines and Saladin," p. 173.71 His/oria de apedilione Friderici imperatoris; p. 43; trans., p. 64. The letter is reproduced in the

His/oria de expedi/ione Friderici imperatons, pp. ~3; trans., pp S~.12 Roger ofWendover. Flores Historiorum, p. 153.7J Ibid.7. Lilie, Byzantium. p. 237.75 Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica, pp. 60-62.

lOO SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

letter was written in Tyre on 20 September 1188 or 1189.76This is a different versionofConrad's letter to the one preserved in Roger of Wend over's Flores Historiarum.Nevertheless, part ofConrad's letter in Ralph of Diceto's Ymagines Historiarum isrepeated verbatim in the alleged letter of Conrad in Roger of Wendover's FloresHistoriarum.

In his letter preserved in Ralph of Diceto's work. Conrad states that "as thescheme of the world is believed to consist off our elements, likewise the faith of theorthodox was considered to be governed by four sees [the four eastern patriarchates]through the glorious apostolic [see of Rome].,,77 However, "the see of Alexandriahas ended, and its blossoms thoroughly dried up," "the see of Jerusalem is separatedfrom the apostolic see [of Rome] ... [since] Jerusalem has become extinct ... Thesee of Antioch indeed is known to be in extreme distress. The see of Constantinopleobviously shows no reverence for the see of Rome.,,78 Conrad concludes that ''theapostolic see obviously endures maximum loss of rights, when it loses cities andfreedoms and is deprived of its right," and he puts forward the rhetorical question:"it [the see of Rome] obviously lost its branches, how will it carry fruits?""? Conradthen proceeds to describe the desolation of Jerusalem and how he had saved Tyreand incurred the enmity of King Guy and the Knights Templar. Finally, he requestsArchbishop Baldwin to encourage kings and stir up people to come to the rescueof the Holy Land. No accusations are levelled against Isaak, while the reference tothe disobedience of the Church of Constantinople to that of Rome was not intendedto arouse anti-Byzantine sentiment; obviously, it merely served Conrad's rhetoricalargumentation. The letter's purpose was to encourage recruitment for the ThirdCrusade, not to accuse the Byzantines.

Thus it is not difficult to discover what happened. It is known that Roger ofWendover had the work of the earlier chronicler Ralph of Diceto in his study as hewrote, and drew upon it.80 In Ralph's Ymagines Historiarum, the genuine letter ofConrad to Archbishop Baldwin is tacked on to the end of the alleged report of theFrench, which, as we have seen, is furnished with no preface. Roger of Wend overassumed that the report was part of Conrad's letter to Baldwin. Thus havingselected, and copied verbatim, part of the anonymous report and part of Conrad'sgenuine letter to Baldwin, he constructed a new, spurious "letter" of Conrad tothe archbishop. All arguments advanced by modern scholars based on this fakeletter are therefore invalid." In his article "The Unromantic Death of Richard I,"

76 The editor of the Ymagines Historiarum ascribed the letter to 1188. Edbury has argued that theletter was composed either in 1188 or in 1189. See Edbury, Sources, pp. 167-69.

77 Ralph of Dice to, Opera Historica, p. 60.78 Ibid., pp. 60-61.79 Ibid., p. 61.80 Gransden, Historical Writing, pp. 359-60; F. M. Powicke, "Roger of Wendover and the

Coggeshall Chronicle," English Historical Review 21 (1906), pp. 286-96, at pp. 287, 289 and 293.81 Some of the modem scholars who use the allegedly "important" letter in their discussions are

Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin," pp. 172, 179, n. 25,181; Lilie, Byzantium. pp. 237-39; Harris,

TIlE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPO?o.'ENTS OF nIE nIlRO CRUSADE? 101

published in 1979, Gillingharn was right to advise us to be suspicious of=Roger ofWendover whom even schoolboys are now taught to distrust. ..s2

The fact that the letter in Roger's Flores Historiarum is spurious deprivesthe commentators who argue that a Muslim-Byzantine alliance against the ThirdCrusade existed of one of their principal sources used to substantiate their thesis.At the same time, the view that an alliance between lsaak and Saladin against thecrusaders did not exist is further corroborated.

A Medieval Popular Myth: "The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185-1192:opponents of tbe Tbird Crusade"

Isaak did not attempt to weaken the German army in order to promote and protectSaladin's interests or to keep his side of a bargain struck between himself and thesultan. Rather he did so only to make sure the Germans could not pose a danger toConstantinople's security.8JIsaak could not understand Frederick's artless sincerityand honesty, and was convinced that the German's objective was not so much torecapture Jerusalem as to conquer the Byzantine Empire."

With the very recent exception of Magdalino," modem historians have paidlittle or DO attention to the fact that Isaak was particularly prone to superstitionand fateful prophecies. This is plainly evidenced in the account of Isaak's firstand second reign by the Byzantine historian Choniates.86 While the Germancrusading expedition was marching on Jerusalem through Europe, the patriarchof Constantinople, Dositheos (1189-91). who exerted an extraordinary influenceon I~87 is said to have prophesied "that the king [Frederick] never proposed totake possession of Palestine, but that his intention was to march against the queen

ByzanIhnn, pp. 129-31; Geoffrey ~indley, !M C~.~A History of Armed Pilgrimage and Holy War(London. 20(3). p. 126;Angelov. DomestK: OpposItIOn, pp. SO,D. 4, 61, D. 51.Il JobB GiJ1ingham. "The Unromantic Death of Richard L" Spenlum 54 (1979), pp. I~I, at

p.lO.83 Harris. Byzantium, pp. 132-33.... Peter Munz. FredericA: /Jorbaroua: A Study ill Medieval Po/itics (London, 1969), p. 392. In fact,

the B~ paranoid belief Ihal Frederick coveted the Byzantine Empire dated back to the 1160s.The Byzantine historian Kinnamos three times refers 10 this subject. According 10 the historian, in 1161". J1IJ]lOUt was c:unmt Ihal Frederick ••• was setting his ~·hole nation in motion to attack the Romans'Iand." With the increase of the German emperor', power in Italy in the middle I I60s, "Manue1 himselfbecame c:oncerncd as 10 how he could check his [Frederick'sJ ad\·ancc, 1est his unexpected successshould turn him against the Romans'1and, It which from a long time back he had east a greedy eye."Fear ofFreder1ck reached such heights Ihal the B)'l3IItines imagined that "as he [Frederick] intended toinvade the RoßIaDS'Jand ••• he commenc:ed 10 divide it among his followers." John Kinnamos, IoannisetnnmnJ Epitome1WUIII ab 1_ n AtexioComnmis ge.JtOl1l"', cd. Augustus Meineke, CorpusscriptofUID bistoriae B)'l3IItinae (Bono, 1836), pp. 202, 228, 262; John Kinnamos, Deeds of John andMmrueICornnenus, traIlS. awtcs M. Brand (New York. 1976), pp. 154, 172, 197 .

., Magdalioo."1saak IL"pp. 96-100.16 NiceUJe Chon/aIoe Histoeia; pp. 404, 432-33, 557-58; Irans., pp. 222, 237-38, 305.11 Magdalino. "Isaak 11," p. 99.

102 SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

of cities [Constantinople], which he would undoubtedly enter through the so-called Xylokerkos postern.?" Furthermore, according to the author of the allegedreport of King Philip Il's envoys, "the prophecy, which a certain old Greek manfrom Astralix told the lord Walter the Templar ... will now be fulfilled, as theysay: namely, that the Latins will reign and hold rule in the city of Constantinople,because it was written on the Golden Gate ... 'When the Yellow-haired King of theWest shall come, then shall I open of my own accord.t'"? Amidst prophecies of thiskind, Isaak, overtaken by panic, "blocked up the [Xylokerkos] postern with limeand baked bricks.,,90

The German emperor's negotiations with the Serbian and Seljuk rulers beforesetting out for his eastward journey heightened Isaak's suspicions and fears. TheByzantine ruler's imagination ran wild. He pictured Frederick giving lands of theByzantine Empire "as a benefice (in beneficio) to the Grand Count of Serbia"?' andconspiring to capture and ''transfer the [Byzantine] Empire to the rule of his son[Frederick VI] the duke of Swabia;092who accompanied his father on the ThirdCrusade. With his fear bordering on paranoia, Isaak decided to stop the Germansby using all the means he could.

Since the German crusaders genuinely and sincerely intended to liberateJerusalem, and not to conquer Constantinople, they failed to appreciate that Isaak'shostility to them was due to the fact that he regarded the German army as a threatto the safety of the Byzantine capital. In their attempt to rationalize Isaak's hostilebehaviour, the Germans naturally concluded that the Byzantine sovereign was actingin collusion with Saladin. The anonymous author of the Historia de expeditioneFriderici irnperatoris offers his interpretation for the motivation behind Isaak'sarrest and imprisonment of the German envoys dispatched to Constantinople toensure full implementation of the assistance promised by a previous Byzantineembassy to Nuremberg. As the anonymous author alleges, the Byzantine sovereign"desired to offer this favour to his friend and confederate iamico et conJederato)Saladin the Saracen, the enemy of the cross and of all Christians.':" The Germans'

88 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, p. 404; trans., p. 222.89 Roger of Hoveden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, p. 52; Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica, p. 60.

The anonymous Western reporter almost certainly heard the "prophecy" in Constantinople where he wasat some point in late 1189 during his travels in the East.

90 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, p. 404; trans., p. 222.91 Hlstoria de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, p. 46; trans., p. 68.92 Magnus of Reichersberg, p. SW. On 25 August 1189, Frederick received letters from lsaak.

The Byzantine emperor "said that the friendship, which he had heard had united the lord emperor[Frederick] and the great count [of Serbia], seemed to him greatly grave and suspicious." Isaak accusedFrederick of having given lands of the Byzantine Empire "as a benefice to the Grand Count of Serbia"and conspiring to capture and "transfer the [Byzantine] Empire to the rule of his son [Frederick VI] theduke of Swabia," Information on the letters of25 August is provided by the anonymous author of theHistoria de expeditione Friderici imperatoris and a letter of Bishop Dietpold ofPassau to Duke LeopoldV of Austria. See Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, pp. 46-47; trans., pp. 68-69; Magnusof Reichersberg, p. 510.

93 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, p. 39; trans., p. 57.

TIlE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPOSENTS OF TIlE TIlIRD CRUSADE? 103

belief that Isaak was in league with Saladin was doubtless formed once the Byzantineruler's hostility to the crusaders had become manifest at the end of August 1189. ByOctober, as Choniates informs us, "the Germans contended that nothing else couldhave convinced the emperor of the Romans [Isaak] to disregard the solemn oathsof the Western Christians except that he had concluded a peace with the ruler of theSaracens, and that, in accordance with their prevailing custom regarding friendship,they bad both opened a vein on their chests and offered to each other the bloodflowing out therefrom to drink. ,>94

The date of the letter preserved in Magnus of Reichersberg 's chronicle, of thesupposed letter of Sibylla, and of the anonymous report, that is the alleged reportof the French, further invalidates the conviction that a conspiracy to destroy theGermans existed between Isaak and Saladin. In Ralph of Diceto the anonymousreport is placed under the year 1189.As has been seen, Brand, who disregards Ralph'saccount, has conveniently dated the report between September and November1188.9s The same commentator dated the letter in Magnus of Reichersberg insummer or fall 1188 - he did so based on the fake letter of Conrad which he dated20 September 1188. Brand's dating of the documents served his false argument: aByzantine-Muslim alliance existed and "in the autumn of 1188 ... became publicknowledge in Western Europe ..;96 according to the provisions of this alliance, Isaakbad to destroy the Germans who would march through his empire.In actual fact, there is no particular reason to date the letter preserved in

Magnus's chronicle to 1188. I would suggest that, as in the case of the anonymousreport, this document was written in 1189. Magnus interpolated it after an accountof the German expedition's difficulties in the European territories of the ByzantineEmpire, under the year 1189. In addition, Saladin's envoys mentioned by bothMagnus's informant and the anonymous report were doubtless the same emissariesmentioned by the author of the Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris; inother words, the sultan's ambassadors who were in Constantinople in June 1189,to whom lsaak had allegedly given the confiscated horses of the arrested German

97envoys.I would argue that the letter in Magnus's Chronicon, the anonymous report and

the supposed letter of Sibylla (or the report on which the latter letter was based),were written in late 1189, that is, after lsaak's hostility to the German crusadersbecame manifest This dating would explain, first, Magnus's correspondent's chargeagainst lsaak that he hated and feared the Latins; and secondly, the striking similaritybetween the accusations against the Byzantine ruler found in the three documents(namely the letter in Magnus's chronicle, the anonymous report and the supposedletter of Sibylla) and those occurring in the eyewitness Historia de expeditioneFriderici imperatoris - Isaak's friendship and alliance with Saladin, the emperor's

,. Nicetoe Chonia/ae Historia; pp. 409-10; trans.. p. 225.'IS er. lacoby, "Diplomacy," p. 95, who favours a date in summer 1189.96 Brand. "Tbe Byzantines and SaIadin, "p. 172.97 HislOria de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, pp. 48-t9; trans., p. 72.

104 SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

favourable treatment of the sultan's envoys, his imprisonment of crusaders, and hisuse of poison to eliminate the Germans." The fact that the anonymous report, themissive in Magnus's Chronicon, and the supposed letter of Sibylla were writtenafter Isaak attacked the Germans supports the thesis that I am attempting to defendin this essay: the purported Byzantine-Muslim collusion against the Third Crusadewas a myth created by the Latins to make sense of lsaak's efforts to destroy theGermans. The letter in Magnus's chronicle, the anonymous report and the supposedletter of Sibylla are nothing more than three elaborate versions of this imaginativemedieval myth, aimed at explaining the Byzantine ruler's behaviour and eventuallyenshrined as truth.

While modem scholars were quick to accept the myth that Isaak had alliedhimself with Saladin against the Germans, Frederick himself had given no credenceto the circulating rumours that his Byzantine counterpart "had concluded a peacewith the ruler of the Saracens.r"" By 16 November 1189, with a settlement betweenIsaak and the Germans nowhere in sight, Frederick had run out of patience with theByzantine emperor. Therefore, in his letter of the same date to Henry in Germany,the German ruler ordered his son to dispatch envoys to the Italian maritime cities soas to supply him with a fleet for a combined attack on Constantinople. According tothe plan, the German crusaders would besiege the imperial capital by land, and theItalian fleet by sea. Henry was also instructed to write to Pope Clement III (1187-91) to preach a crusade against the Byzantines. In order to justify requesting papalblessing for an attack on Constantinople, Henry was commanded to inform Clementofa vehemently anti-Latin speech delivered by Patriarch Dositheos in the church ofHagia Sophia."? An accusation against Isaak of collusion with the "infidel" wouldfurther justify the German emperor's demanding the preaching of a crusade againstthe Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, nowhere in his letter does Frederick chargethe Byzantine ruler with having connived with Saladin against the Germans. Thefailure of the German emperor's letter to accuse Isaak of alliance with the "infidel"is of considerable weight. Frederick was certainly in a better position than any other"Latin" to know if an alliance existed between Isaak and Saladin.Itshould finally be added that as soon as the Germans were across the Hellespont

a relieved Isaak changed his attitude to Frederick to whom he sent a tent and goldengoblet as gifts. lOt The Byzantine emperor did not have to worry about the safetyof his capital any longer and further action against the crusaders was unnecessary.Isaak's fear for the safety of Constantinople was the sole reason for his hostilityto the Germans marching through the European territories of his empire. Hadthe Byzantine sovereign been concerned with Saladin's interests, he would havecontinued being aggressive to Frederick.

98 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, pp. 39, 43, 48-49,54-55; trans., pp. 57,64,72,81-83.

99 Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 409-10; trans., p. 225.100 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, pp. 42-43; trans., pp. 62--M.101 Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, p. 73; trans., p. lIS.

THE BYZANTINES AND SALADIN: OPPONENTS OF THE THIRD CRUSADE? 105

Despite the fact that Isaak never agreed with Saladin to destroy the Germans, thestory of the alleged connivance between the Byzantine and Muslim rulers seemsto have circulated widely among the Latins and ultimately found its way into thepages of the Western chroniclers of the German expedition of the Third Crusade.In his Historia Rerum Anglicarum, written from about 1196 to 1198, the Englishchronicler William of New burgh (ca. 1136-<:a. 1198) informs us that Isaak, "as it isreported (ut diciturt, after Jerusalem was taken, made a treaty ifredus) with Saladin,that most atrocious enemy of the Christian name, promising that, by land andsea, he would, in his dominions, prohibit the passage of the Latins into Syria.,,102William of Newburgh labels Isaak as "more faithful to Saladin than to Christ,"and quotes Frederick as denouncing the Byzantine ruler as "one equal to, or ratherworse than Saladin.t'l'" Fanciful accounts of the so-called conspiracy between theByzantine and Muslim rulers against the German crusading army continued tocirculate in the West decades after the Third Crusade. According to the ChroniconMontis Sereni, authored between 1224 and 1225, Isaak, "who had allied himselfwith Saladin against the Christians, having received from him [the sultan] eighthundred Turkish archers in assistance, intended to prevent by all means the emperor[Frederick] from marching through his empire, despite the fact that peace had beenconcluded between them by oath."I04 Thus, Isaak went down in Western medievalhistoriography as an ally of Saladin against the Third Crusade.105

Conclusion

In 1962, Brand's article "The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185-1192: Opponentsof the Third Crusade" legitimized a medieval myth. In 2003, Harris rejected it.However, he failed to adequately support his view and, as noted above, manyscholars remained unconvinced (see notes 25-29) and continued to maintain thefalse conviction that an alliance had existed between Isaak and Saladin against theGerman army of the Third Crusade. In this paper I have analysed, discussed andchecked the authenticity and dating of the Latin sources that allegedly demonstratethe existence ofa Byzantine-Muslim alliance. The purpose is to invalidate Brand's

102 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen,Henry 11,and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, RS 82, I (London, 1884), p. 326; William of Newburgh,The History of William of Newburgh, trans. Joseph Stevenson (London, 1856), pp. 573-74.

103 William of Newburgh, His/aria Rerum Anglicarum, p. 326; trans., p. 574.104 Chronicon Man/is Sereni, ed. Emest Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS 23 (Hanover, 1874), pp. 130-226,

at p. 161.105 As in the case of Isaak Il, the hostility of Isaak Komnenos of Cyprus towards the English

expedition of the Third Crusade was interpreted by the crusaders in the following of King Richard I(1189-99) as a sign of collusion with Saladin, and the ruler of Cyprus was imagined to have exchangedblood with the sultan. See Sav~as ~eocleous, "Imaging Isaak of Cyprus (1I84-9 I) and the Cypriots:Evidence from the Western Historiography of the Third Crusade" in From U I UT / P ,r, I. . ' r , HO y nar 0 eacejuCo-Habitation (CEU Medievalia), ed. J6zsefLaszlovszky and Zsolt Hunyadi (forthcoming).

106 SA\'\'AS :\EOCLEOl'S

theory and reinforce the thesis that there was no complicity between the Byzantineand the Muslim rulers. The supposed conspiracy was a popular Latin myth developedin an attempt to explain Isaak's efforts to destroy the German expedition of theThird Crusade. To answer the question posed by the title: Isaak and Saladin wereindeed opponents of the Third Crusade. However, there was no alliance betweenthe Byzantine and Muslim rulers against the German crusaders.l'"

106 Readers are encouraged to read this paper in conjunction with the author's later article"Byzantine-Muslim Conspiracies against the Crusades: History and Myth," Journal of Medieval His/Dry36 (2010), pp. 253-74.