A History of the Crusades-Vol 2 (60 page)

According to Ernoul, when the King saw the
slaughter of the infantry, he told Raymond to lead a charge against the
Saracens. Raymond as lord of the district was the proper person to do so, and
such a charge offered the only chance for the army to extricate itself. There
seems therefore to be no ground for the accusation of treachery levelled at
Raymond by later Christian writers, the Genoese and the King’s friends, nor for
the accusation of cowardice levelled at him by the Moslems. But Taki’s clever
manoeuvre in opening his ranks to let Raymond through seemed to support the
former accusation, though Imad ed-Din says that Raymond’s men suffered heavy
losses. Ernoul says that Raymond only fled from the battlefield when he saw
that the King’s position was hopeless and there was no chance of rescuing him.
The
De Expugnatione
says that Balian and Reynald of Sidon fled with
Raymond, without giving details, as does Imad ed-Din. But Ernoul implies that
they escaped separately, which is more probable, as they were in a different
part of the army. They must have broken through with the few Templars whose
escape is reported by Terence. The
De Expugnatione’
s detailed account of
the battle stops with Raymond’s escape. Probably the author’s informant was one
of Raymond’s men.

Imad ed-Din says that after Raymond’s escape
the King and his knights began to retire up the hill of Hattin, leaving their
horses (which presumably had been wounded and were useless). He remarks how
powerless Christian knights are without their horses. Ibn al-Athir says that
they attempted to set up their tents on the summit but only had time to dress
the King’s. The knights were dismounted and exhausted when they were taken.
Both say that the Cross was captured by Taki. Al-Afdal’s account gives the
story of the last moments of the Christian army; while Ibn el-Kadesi gives the
detail that a strong wind arose at midday when the Moslems made their final
attack.

The incidents in Saladin’s tent after the
battle are told in almost the same language by Ernoul and the
Estoire
and by Imad ed-Din and Ibn al-Athir. There is no need to doubt the story of the
drink given to King Guy nor of Reynald of Chatillon’s death at Saladin’s own
hands.

The size of the Christian army is given by the
Historia
Regni Hierosolymitani
as 1000 knights of the Kingdom with an extra 1200
paid for by King Henry II, 4000 Turcopoles and 32,000 infantrymen, 7000 of
which were paid for by Henry. This number is clearly exaggerated. The
Itinerarium
talks of a total of 20,000, which is still probably too high. The true figure
for the knights may be 1000, with 200 more equipped by Henry, that is, 1200 in
all. The
Estoire d’Eracles
gives the whole army as 9000 in one MS. and
40,000 in another. The Hospitaller’s letter talks of 1000 knights being killed
or captured at the battle and 200 escaping. Ernoul says that Raymond of Antioch
brought 50 or 60 knights (the MS. readings vary). Terence says that 260
Templars were slain at the battle and hardly anyone escaped — he says ‘nos’
which may mean only himself. The Hospitallers’ letter puts the survivors at
200. The infantry cannot have outnumbered the cavalry by as much as ten to one,
and probably numbered considerably less than 10,000. The Turcopole light
cavalry may have numbered 4000, but it seems to have played no special role in
the battle and was probably smaller. Saladin’s army was probably slightly larger,
but no reliable figures are given. The figure of 12,000 horsemen and numerous
volunteers given by Imad ed-Din is certainly exaggerated, though not as
exaggerated as the figure of 50,000 that he gives for the Christian army. (Beha
ed-Din, however, goes further, saying that 30,000 Christians were killed and 30,000
captured.) We may perhaps assume that Saladin’s total regular army numbered
about 12,000 but that it was swelled by volunteers and contingents from allies
to about 18,000. The armies seem to have been amongst the largest put in the
field up to that date by either the Crusaders or their enemies; but 15,000 on
the Christian side and 18,000 on the Moslem must be regarded as the maximum
figure. The Christian knights were better armed than any Moslem soldiers, but
the Moslem light cavalry was probably better armed than the Turcopoles and the
infantry as well or better than the Christian.

There is a brief account of the battle in
Michael the Syrian, III, p. 404, and a longer and inaccurate one in
Bar-Hebraeus, trans. Budge, pp. 322-4, in which he mixes up Queen Sibylla with
the Countess Eschiva of Tripoli. The Armenian version of Michael the Syrian
(pp. 396-8) and Kirakos of Gantzag (pp. 420-1) give inaccurate accounts. The
Syriac and Armenian accounts all report Raymond as a traitor.

There is valuable discussion of the sources and
of Raymond’s role in Baldwin,
Raymond III of Tripolis
, pp. 151-60.