The Monks of War Read online

  Those who stayed in Palestine were adventurers, mainly French, with nothing to go back to, and the state they created reflected the feudalism of their own land. It came to include four great baronies: the principality of Galilee, the county of Jaffa and Ascalon, the lordship of Kerak and Montréal, and the lordship of Sidon, together with twelve smaller fiefs. There were also three lesser states: the principality of Antioch and the counties of Tripoli and Edessa. Without the assent of the Haute Cour, or great council of the realm, in theory no political action was valid, though the king was extremely powerful. Outremer was shaped like an hour-glass, extending for nearly five hundred miles from the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea to Edessa, which lay east of the Euphrates. At the centre, Tripoli, it was only twenty-five miles broad and never more than seventy miles across in the south. There was a chronic shortage of manpower, while the desert frontier was far from impenetrable, holding water and fodder. The 'Franks' put their trust in sea power and fortresses. Genoese, Pisan and Venetian fleets soon controlled the sea, eager for commerce as the lure of spices, rice and sugarcane, of ostrich plumes from Africa and furs from Russia, of carpets from Persia, of inlaid metalwork from Damascus, of silks and of muslin from Mosul, and of countless other luxuries attracted merchants who settled in the coastal towns.

  There was a large native Christian population, Maronite, Melkite, Syrian and Armenian. In about the year 1120, Fulcher de Chartres wrote of how 'Some of us have married Syrians, Armenians or even baptized Saracens . . .', and how his people were no longer Frenchmen but Palestinians who were accepted by the natives as fellow countrymen.1 Morfia, the queen of Baldwin II himself, was the daughter of an Armenian prince. Many officials and merchants were Christianized Arabs, while great barons employed Moslem secretaries. But if European visitors talked of poulains, Syrian-born Franks, it is too much to say that a new Franco-Syrian race had been born. The local Christian churches were treated with contemptuous tolerance, patriarchs of the Latin rite being installed at Jerusalem and Antioch. French was the language of administration, and the ruling classes remained French.

  Nevertheless, to the Franks Jerusalem was home. The king dressed in a golden burnous and keffiyeh, and gave audiences sitting, cross-legged, on a carpet. Nobles wore turbans and shoes with upturned points, and the silks, damasks, muslins and cottons that were so different from the wool and furs of France. In the towns they lived in villas with courtyards, fountains and mosaic floors, reclining on divans, listening to Arab lutes and watching dancing girls. They ate sugar, rice, lemons and melons and washed with soap in tubs or sunken baths, while the women used cosmetics and glass mirrors, unknown in Europe. Merchants, grown accustomed to bazaars, veiled their wives, and professional wailers were seen at Christian funerals. Coins had Arabic inscriptions. Yet this success in sinking roots vitiated the brutal missionary urge necessary for a detested minority to survive on the edge of a vast and hostile world empire. It was not only a higher civilization which softened the Franks. The climate, with its short but stormy winters and long, sweltering summers, and the new diseases, caused heavy mortality despite Arab medicine.

  Now, for the last time, the neighbouring Eastern Empire was reviving under the Comnenoi emperors. The Franks were overawed by Constantinople with its million inhabitants, although they thought them soft and corrupt. Schism with Rome was not yet an accomplished fact, but the West had little understanding of Eastern Christendom. The Byzantine army was still extremely formidable, consisting almost entirely of mercenaries, English and Danish infantry and Patzinak and Cuman cavalry.

  At this date the Armenians were still fierce mountain warriors, though their old kingdoms in Greater Armenia, the land of Mount Ararat where Noah's Ark rested, had been absorbed and their princes murdered by the Byzantines so that they were unable to resist the Seldjuk onslaught. The 'Haiots'* did not despair, and throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries many trekked down to Cilicia, the southern shore of Asia Minor. Led by Ruben, a cousin of their last king, they carved out a new country among the glens and crags of the Taurus mountains, half wrested from the crumbling imperial administration, half conquered from the Turks. They welcomed Outremer and their nobility married Frankish ladies and acquired a feudal character.2 But if an ally against Islam, Armenia was nevertheless a rival of the Latin states.

  Frankish success in battle depended on skilful use of specially equipped cavalry over carefully chosen ground.3 Infantry with spears, long Danish axes and crossbows provided cover until the moment for a single decisive charge.4 There were two sorts of cavalry, knights and sergeants, the former's armour consisting of a conical steel helmet, a chain-mail tunic with sleeves and hood worn over a quilted undershirt, padded breeches and a kite-shaped shield. Later the shield became smaller, the conical helmet was superseded by the helm covering the whole face, and mail stockings were adopted, with a burnous and keffiyeh to ward off the sun. They carried a lance held under the arm, a long, two-edged cutting sword and occasionally a mace. On the march the knight rode a hack or mule, mounting his carefully trained warhorse when action was imminent. These 'destriers' were enormous animals, often seventeen hands high, more akin to a dray-horse than a cavalry charger, and taught to bite, butt and kick. Sergeants were similarly armed but did not wear the chain hauberk. They charged with the knights, riding in the rear ranks.5 To time the charge correctly, restraining troops beneath blistering sun and the enemy's arrows, demanded real leadership.

  Their Turkish opponents used classic Turanian tactics, highly manoeuvrable mounted bowmen shooting from the saddle; they never attacked frontally but tried to divide and surround the enemy, before closing in with short sabres or yataghans. Their arrow fire was extremely rapid and they liked to attack the Franks on the march, aiming at the horses and leaving their opponents no time to prepare defensive formations. There were some armoured cavalrymen, but even these rode Arab ponies chosen for speed.6

  The Franks had a certain admiration for the Turks, but little for the Egyptians.7 The caliph at Cairo – whom the Franks called King of Babylon – was the pope-emperor of the Shias, who did not bear allegiance to the Caliph of Baghdad, head of the other great Moslem sect, the Sunni. Fatimid armies were made up of Arab horsemen, who charged home with the lance or waited to receive the Frankish charge, and Sudanese archers on foot. Their discipline was wretched. However, just before their conquest by Saladin's family, the Egyptians began to employ cavalry of Turkish type, recruited from Caucasian slaves known as Mamelukes.

  Battles between Frank and Turk were like the combats of bull and matador, but when the bull got home the effect was shattering, victories being won in the face of incredible odds.8 Not only were the Franks and their horses bigger and heavier, but they were better at in-fighting and could deal out terrible punishment. The perennial problem of Outremer was to muster enough of these tank-like noblemen.

  When the first king of Jerusalem, Baldwin I, died in 1118 the land was still in wretched disorder, infested with criminals; with some justice Latin Syria has been compared to a medieval Botany Bay.9 Many Franks had been sent on the crusade as penance for atrocious offences such as rape and murder, and they reverted to their unpleasant habits. Pilgrims were a natural prey, though one of the principal objects of the crusade had been to make the Holy Places safe for them. Baldwin's successor, Baldwin II, had no means of policing the kingdom. The English merchant, Saewulf, wrote of the miseries of pilgrims in 1103; and about the same time the German abbot, Ekkehard, recorded robberies and martyrdoms as daily occurrences. William of Tyre observed that in the early days of the kingdom the Moslem peasants of Galilee kidnapped solitary pilgrims and sold them into slavery.

  Hugues de Payens was no mere adventurer but lord of the castle of Martigny in Burgundy, a cousin of the counts of Champagne, and may have been a relative of St Bernard, whose family home was near Martigny. Hugues arrived in Syria in 1115, and by 1118 had become a self-appointed protector of pilgrims on the dangerous road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, harried ceaselessly fro
m Ascalon. This ragged eccentric persuaded seven knights, also from northern France, to help him, all taking a solemn oath before the patriarch to protect pilgrims and observe poverty, chastity and obedience. They looked very odd, dressing only in what old clothes were given to them, but King Baldwin was impressed and gave the 'Poor Knights' a wing of the royal palace, the mosque of al-Aqsa, thought to be the Temple of Solomon. He also joined the patriarch in subsidizing them.10

  Even before the crusade there was a hospital of St John the Almoner for pilgrims at Jerusalem, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; it was both an infirmary and a guest house.11 It had been founded about 1070 by some merchants of Amalfi. In 1100 a certain Fra' Gerard, about whom little is known, was elected master. Probably he arrived before the crusaders. After the kingdom's establishment, the increased number of pilgrims necessitated a reorganization and Gerard abandoned the Benedictine rule for St Augustine's while another more important St John was adopted as patron, the Baptist himself. The new order became deeply respected, acquiring estates in many European countries,12 and in 1113 Pope Paschal II took them under his special protection.13 Possibly Gerard employed Poor Knights to protect his hospitals, which spread throughout Outremer.

  King Baldwin must have lost many men in the bloody victory of Tel-Shaqab in 1126. The solution appeared to be another crusade. Not only did Hugues de Payens have some link with St Bernard, but Hugues, Count of Champagne, founder of the abbey of Clairvaux, had joined the Poor Knights, while another recruit may have been St Bernard's maternal uncle. In 1126 two brethren were sent to France with letters for St Bernard from the king, and the next year Hugues de Payens himself came to ask Bernard for a new crusade.

  Other founders of religious orders had asked the abbot's advice, St Norbert of the Premonstratensian canons and the English Gilbert of Sempringham. Indeed there was a spate of new vocations during this period: Carthusians, Grandmontines and Tironians, besides those of Savignac and Fontevrault. Cistercians and Templars were produced by the same wave of asceticism. However, Hugues and his companions did not see themselves as a religious order until they met the great abbot. A document of 1123 refers to Hugues as 'Master of the Knights of the Temple'* but his little band was merely a voluntary brotherhood; recent research seems to indicate that they were having difficulty in finding recruits and were on the verge of dissolution.14 Hugues had come about another crusade, not to ask for a rule.

  St Bernard took a strong liking to Hugues, promising to compile a rule for him and find recruits. 'They can fight the battle of the Lord and indeed be soldiers of Christ.' In 1128 a council was convened at Troyes and, on Bernard's advice, Hugues attended it. Though the abbot was not present he sent a rule, which was debated and endorsed by the council. Copies of the Templar constitutions survive from the thirteenth century and these state that the first part of the rule was 'par le commandement dou concile et dou venerable père Bernart abbés de Clerevaus'.15

  Bernard thought of Hugues's new brethren as military Cistercians. Significantly, brother-knights wore a white hooded habit in the cloister, like Cistercian choir monks, while lesser brethren wore brown, as did Cistercian lay brothers. On active service this habit was replaced by a cloak. An emphasis on silence, even to the extent of using signs in the refectory, came from the same source, while the simplicity of Cistercian altar furnishings was paralleled by the plainest weapons and saddlery possible, with no trace of gold or silver. Brethren slept in dormitories in shirt and breeches, as Cistercians still do today. Unless on night duty, attendance at matins was strictly enforced, for they said Office together in choir, not the full Roman Office, but the Little Office – psalms and prayers easily memorized by men who could not read; on campaign, thirteen 'Pater Nosters' were said in lieu of matins, seven for each canonical hour and nine for vespers. Religious services alternated with military exercises. There were two main meals, both eaten in silence with sacred reading from a French translation of the Bible, special emphasis being placed on the Books of Joshua and the Maccabees. All found inspiration in the ferocious exploits of Judas, his brothers and their war-bands in reconquering the Holy Land from cruel infidels. Brethren ate in pairs to see that the other did not weaken himself by fasting. Wine was served with every meal and meat three times a week; their mortification was the rigours of war. Each knight was allowed three horses but, with the symbolic exception of the lion, hawking and hunting were forbidden. He had to crop his hair and grow a beard, being forbidden to kiss even mother or sister, and no nuns were to be affiliated to the Order. His Master was not merely a commanding officer but an abbot. For the first time in Christian history soldiers would live as monks.16

  St Bernard's rule was the basis of those of all military orders, even if only indirectly, whether the framework was Cistercian or Augustinian, for he had defined a new vocation. Its ideals were set out in a pamphlet, In Praise of the New Knighthood,17 written to attract recruits. The Templars found themselves heroes almost overnight and donations poured in from the kings of Aragon and Castile, from the Count of Flanders and many other princes. Hugues was especially well received in England and Scotland18 while in France the Archbishop of Rheims instituted an annual collection. Europe was thrilled by these holy warriors who guarded the throne of David.

  1. A Templar in his everyday habit

  When Hugues returned to Palestine in 1130 he began to erect a system of preceptories or commanderies. This evolved slowly, ultimately depending on temples in the front-line territories, Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli, Castile–León, Aragon and Portugal, each ruled by a master who owed allegiance to the Master at Jerusalem. However, centralization was not complete until the next century. Temples, with preceptories, were also set up in France, England (including Scotland and Ireland), Sicily (including Apulia and Greece) and Germany. These were used to administer estates, as training or recruiting depots, and as homes for elderly brethren. It was very different from the days when the Templars' only resources had been a scanty portion of the bishop's tithes.

  By the mid-thirteenth century the hierarchy would comprise a Master; his deputy, the Seneschal; the Marshal, supreme military official; the Commander of the Land and Realm of Jerusalem, who was both treasurer and in charge of the navy and estate management; the Commander of the City of Jerusalem, who was hospitaller; and finally the Draper or keeper of the wardrobe – a sort of quartermaster general. The Master was chosen by an elaborate combination of vote and lot designed to ensure impartiality, a procedure which recalled the election of the Venetian Doge. Powerful though he was, important decisions were taken by the General Chapter. Provincial Masters had all the Grand Master's rights in their own lands save when he was present in person. The Marshal was the Order's third most important officer and provincial Marshals were responsible to him. This organization took many years to evolve, but it became increasingly necessary, for there were many recruits. Their number was swollen by confrère knights, who served for only a short period, donating half their property, and who could marry. Cistercian confratres were the model for these auxiliary brethren.19

  The Order's ecclesiastical privileges were very great, since, though it soon acquired its own clergy, priest brothers, it was exempt from episcopal visitations, being responsible to the pope alone; the bull Omne datum optimum20 allowed these chaplains to celebrate Mass and dispense the sacraments during an interdict. As clerics, brethren could be tried only in ecclesiastical courts: it has been said that they were both a Church within a Church and a State within a State.

  The new brethren had joined the Order not just to fight but to pray. They saw nothing contradictory in their vocation. In St Bernard's words, 'killing for Christ' was malecide not homicide, the extermination of injustice rather than of the unjust, and therefore desirable; indeed, 'to kill a pagan is to win glory since it gives glory to Christ'. Long before the Crusades, Popes Leo IV and John VIII had declared that warriors pure in heart who died fighting for the Church would inherit the kingdom of God. Death in battle was martyrdom, a
road travelled by 20,000 Templars during the next two centuries.

  Yet basically their ideals were those of contemplative monasticism. A monk abandons his will and his desires to search for God; the monastic life is often described as a martyrdom in which the monk must die to be reborn. Many of the early brethren ended in contemplative houses, and it is no exaggeration to call the first Templars military Cistercians. Active service – usually of a fire brigade nature, galloping off at a moment's notice to deal with Turkish razzias – was the only interruption in an essentially ascetic existence. The worst hardship of monastic life is not self-denial or celibacy, but obedience to a superior's least command; a Templar was not even allowed to adjust his stirrup without permission. In battle they neither gave nor asked for quarter and were not allowed to ask for ransom. 'They neglected to live, but they were prepared to die in the service of Christ', full of that holy delirium which, according to Ekkehard, filled the first crusaders.21 These soldiers with cropped hair and hooded white mantles were unmistakable. They faced death if captured; after the Field of Blood in 1119 the atabeg Togtekin gave Frankish prisoners to his soldiers for archery practice or hacked off their legs and arms, leaving them in the streets of Aleppo for the townsmen to finish off, though this was before the days of the brethren, who suffered much worse. For a brother to lose the black-and-silver gonfalon, 'Beau Séant', meant expulsion from the Order. This was the ultimate penalty, also inflicted for desertion to the Saracens, heresy or murdering a fellow Christian.