![]() ![]() ![]() In the prosperous coastal towns of Outremer, there were many such “money-fiefs” with military obligations. More common, income from customs duties, tariffs and other royal sources of income could be “enfeoffed” to a nobleman/knight in exchange for feudal service. Thus, for example, the Baron of Ramla owed four knights service to the crown in exchange for the right to rent out grazing land to the Bedouins. However, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was unique in that activities and income sources not usually associated with feudal service were also often subject to military service obligations. So far, all is as it would have been in the West, including the large number of “household” or mercenary knights. Peter Edbury’s analysis of the John d’Ibelin’s catalogue suggests that the ratio of “retained” knights to “vassals” (knights who owed their service by right of holding land from the lord) ranged anywhere from 1:2 to 3:2, making it clear that the knights fielded in the feudal army due to feudal obligation made up maybe no more than half of the total host! men without land holdings of their own who served the baron (were “retained”) in exchange for an annual salary (that would usually include payments in-kind such as meals, cloaks, and in some cases horses). Barons would have been supported by younger brothers and adult sons, if they had them, and by “household knights,” i.e. The knights owed by each fief to the crown would not, however, have been the total extent of fighting power that a baron brought to the battlefield. Lances, on the other hand, were relatively cheap, “throw away” weapons that the lord would usually provide. In addition, they would need a helmet, a long sword, dagger and optionally a mace or axe. Knights were expected to be armed and armored, which means that throughout the 12th century they would be expected to provide their own chainmail hauberk, coif and mittens, and chainmail chausses for their legs. It is important to remember that the term “knight” does not refer to a single man but rather to a fighting-unit consisting of a knight and his warhorse (destrier), one or more mounted squires, a riding horse (palfrey) and one more pack-horses. (John d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, was writing in the mid-13th century but attempting to catalogue military service owed to the King of Jerusalem at the time of his grandfather Balian d’Ibelin.) Jonathan Riley-Smith in his Atlas of the Crusades, for example, lists the baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon as owing 100 knights each, while according to the incomplete records of John d’Ibelin, the Bishops of Nazareth and Lydda owed 6 and 10 knights respectively. The baronies of Outremer could be very substantial or almost insignificant. Tenants-in-chief might be secular lords (barons) or ecclesiastical lords (bishops and independent abbots). Most unusual, however, they were characterized by types of fighting men completely unknown in the West: Sergeants and Turcopoles, while the arriere ban enabled the King of Jerusalem to keep his army in the field up to one year.īelow is a short description of the key components of the armies of Outremer in the 12th Century.Īs in the West, the backbone of the Army of Jerusalem was the feudal host composed of the “knights” which the “tenants-in-chief” of the king owed in exchange for their fiefs. Knights Templar and Hospitaller) became an increasingly important component. They always included “armed pilgrims,” for example, and with time the militant monks (i.e. Yet their composition was far more complex than the term “feudal” implies. For the nearly ninety years, between the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Christian army at Hattin in July 1187, the armies of “Outremer” were substantial, surprisingly effective and nominally feudal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |