|
Crusader Studies MA degree essay from the
module Louis IX, Mongols and Mameluk (footnotes not included here)
The Impact of Frederick II on the Crusading Movement
Bust thought to represent Frederick
II
Oliver of Paderborn wrote in 1220 that 'the illustrious Emperor and King
of Sicily is being eagerly awaited by the people of God for the happy
consummation of the enterprise.' Oliver had helped preach the enterprise
in question, the Fifth Crusade. He had witnessed its major engagements,
from indecisive actions in the Holy Land to the bloody siege of Damietta,
which had at last fallen. The Crusaders, including the papal legate Pelagius
of Albano, were aware that the newly-crowned Emperor had taken the Cross.
They regarded him as the Crusade's natural leader, who would come to lead
them south against Cairo, thus depriving the Muslims of the riches of
Egypt and facilitating the recovery of Jerusalem - a Jerusalem, as it
was hoped, that would no-longer be vulnerable to incursions from the Nile.
Seven years later Frederick did embark on Crusade, but by then he was
excommunicate and on his way to becoming the object of crusades himself.
Perhaps because he acted without Church backing, Frederick's Crusade and
its achievements have been downplayed, and the extent of his impact on
the movement has been under-appreciated. Frederick's career, meanwhile,
also posed questions about the definition of Crusades and the papacy's
role therein.
Frederick II of Hohenstaufen was the grandson of Frederick Barbarossa,
and the heir to a Crusading tradition. With the near-fatal blow that the
Byzantine Empire had suffered in 1204, and although Capetian France was
on the ascent, there was no secular ruler who could so-credibly claim
to have inherited the authority of the Caesars, and the leadership of
Christendom. The papacy, however, made claims of its own to universal
supremacy, increasingly involving itself in the temporal sphere. Conflict
between Rome and the Holy Roman Empire had caused recurring strife within
Europe, and had previously hampered the organization of Crusades. Frederick
II was also heir to this unresolved power-struggle, played out primarily
in Italy.
In the years when Frederick was coming of age, though the Crusading movement
retained popularity, it was becoming tarnished. The cause had met with
such setbacks that troubadours expressed disgust with the quarrelling
rulers of Christendom, and even with God, for allowing the failures. The
Third Crusade had concluded disappointingly, and Richard I's subsequent
experience indicated that the 'peace of God' was a defunct notion. Afterwards
Pope Innocent III had inaugurated an era of crusades against Christians,
preaching against Markward of Anweiler. It therefore cannot be said that
Crusading, because of Frederick, was grafted to the political situation
in Italy although as a result of the hostility between the papacy and
Frederick the phenomenon would resurface. The politicisation may be traced
to Innocent III, who enshrined the papacy's claim to temporal authority
in central Italy and to suzerainty over the Kingdom of Sicily. Innocent
established the precedent for the later pontiffs who would assert these
territorial claims, and declare crusades against Frederick and his heirs.
In 1202-04, the Fourth Crusade was diverted by Venetians interests towards
the attacks on Zara and Byzantium. Innocent's initial displeasure was
mollified by the installation of Latin clergy in Constantinople, and by
a share of the spoils. Five years later he sent Crusaders against the
Albigensians. Despite his avowed desire to see Jerusalem recovered, Innocent's
projects hardly advanced that aim, instead seeing Christian regions ravaged.
It is hard to imagine much real idealism motivating the perpetrators of
these atrocities; certainly those on the receiving end doubted it. Many
besides felt that an authentic Crusade should focus on Jerusalem. Tellingly,
the Templars and Hospitallers avoided active participation in the controversial
crusades. The transformation, even so, had taken place from crux transmarine
to crux cismarina. Even before Frederick's era, the Crusades had rebounded
into Christendom.
The Fifth Crusade was also Innocent III's conception, though he died before
its commencement. It was an opportunity to put Crusading back on course.
However, this campaign too was misdirected, focussing, ultimately, on
the conquest of Egypt. The Crusaders beset Damietta and in November 1219,
after a costly siege, captured it. To the consternation of some, Pelagius
refused peace proposals from Sultan al-Kamil, who offered to return all
of Palestine apart from two castles beyond the Jordan. Pelagius delayed
in Damietta throughout 1220, waiting for Frederick. (He also hoped for
deliverance from the mythical Prester John- garbled reports of Chingis
Khan's advance having fuelled false expectations). The delay was costly,
and in the meantime Frankish Palestine also lay vulnerable. Even so the
Muslims feared the loss of Egypt as a result of the Crusaders' presence,
and felt beset on two fronts, with the Mongols encroaching into Mesopotamia.
Ibn al-Athir may have been melodramatic to predict doom- Egypt had lost
only one city- but if he truly reflected Muslim anxiety at that juncture
then Frederick's arrival might indeed have precipitated the collapse of
Ayyubid power. Frederick's earliest impact on the Crusades, then, was
as the leader who never materialised.
The Crusaders' delay allowed the Ayyubids to regroup. Frederick did send
an advance force under the pugnacious Ludwig of Bavaria, who arrived in
June 1221. The decision was made to advance south, despite the approaching
inundation. Near Mansourah, the expedition was bottlenecked beside the
rising Nile, and trapped 'like fish in a net' after the Egyptians opened
a channel behind them. Surrounded by water and enemies, the Christians
had to exchanged Damietta for their lives. Their comrades in Damietta
complied with the terms, despite the arrival of fresh imperial forces
under Henry of Malta; thus the venture failed. Allegedly Frederick had
forbidden negotiation with the Muslims until his arrival, a factor in
Pelagius's seeming stubbornness. Whether or not Frederick was indirectly
responsible for this debacle, he evidently bore some of the recriminations.
(Honorius III was also criticized for supporting Pelagius's stance.)
Frederick had been detained first by affairs in Germany then by a rebellion
in the Sicilian mountains. That the rebels were irredentist Muslims did
something to excuse his failure to embark. Frederick was evidently still
seen as the leading hope for Crusading. It has been said that he was an
unusual Crusader, being the product of his mother's cosmopolitan inheritance,
where Byzantine and Islamic cultural influences persisted. This may be
so but Bohemond and Tancred had hailed from similar regions, and this
had hardly compromised their credentials. Frederick clearly felt no animus
against the Muslim, per-se but rather considered them people he could
treat with. Although he had been ruthless in putting down the Sicilian
Muslim revolt, and forced many to relocate to Apulia, he allowed them
to practice their faith there, isolated in Lucera, where they settled
to become dependable subjects. Frederick placed such trust in them that
when he finally did embark on Crusade he took Muslim bodyguards- a departure
from the norm, although some of Sicily's Norman rulers had also enlisted
'Saracen' guards.
In March 1223, leaders of the Latin East, including John of Brienne and
representatives of the Military Orders, met Frederick at Ferentino. They
decided to postpone the planned Crusade for two years. The delegates also
decided to offer Frederick the hand of John's daughter Yolande of Jerusalem.
Honorius supported this arrangement, hoping it might augment Frederick's
Crusading interests. The marriage took place in 1225, linking the Emperor
to the dynasty that had dominated the Crusades. Frederick at once asserted
his authority over the Latin East, marginalizing his father-in-law. Frederick
continued to delay his departure until the birth of an heir, who would
cement his position. Conrad's birth (though overshadowed by Yolande's
death) gave Frederick a personal incentive to recover Jerusalem, his son's
birthright. There were grounds to hope, therefore, that Frederick would
put the Crusade back on track, an intention he affirmed at San Germano.
Rome probably had a vested interest in making Frederick commit to the
new Crusade that went beyond concern for his soul and the recovery of
Christ's patrimony.
The curia was keen to have Frederick absent on a long campaign as his
presence in Italy seemed to threaten Rome's own position and thwarted
its ambition to dominate the peninsula. Rome's underlying agenda was to
prise the kingdom of Sicily from the northern Empire. Perhaps, though,
some in the curia began to fear that this might become harder should Frederick
succeed and win prestige as a Crusader. Thus forces within the curia may
have plotted subversive action even as Frederick built his fleet.
News of Frederick's preparations, meanwhile, motivated al-Kamil of Egypt
to send his envoy to Palermo. Fakhr al-Din returned reports of a cultivated
European ruler who esteemed Islamic culture. The envoy and the emperor
became friends and a correspondence commenced also between Frederick and
al-Kamil . Perhaps at this time the notion dawned in the East that here
was a Westerner whom Egypt could do business with, and perhaps use. Even
before Frederick embarked, the tacit understanding was reached that al-Kamil
would cede Jerusalem in exchange for assistance against his rebellious
brother, al-Muazzam of Damascus. Although Franco-Arab alliances were nothing
new, this level of collusion between a Sultan and a Crusade was unprecedented.
For Frederick, though, it was all a means of achieving Jerusalem. If the
Holy Places could be regained with minimal bloodshed then all the better.
Augustinian doctrine, after all, supposed war to be a last resort. True,
some Christian minds had become so warped that Holy warfare seemed an
end in itself, surpassing the stated objectives of the given campaign.
However even St Bernard had conceded that the Infidel was only to be slain
when there was no other option. He would have been obliged to condone
Frederick's expediency.
Frederick embarked in 1227 but was forced back by illness. Pope Gregory
IX (a Conti like Innocent III and likewise a rigid papal supremacist)
excommunicated Frederick, ostensibly for this latest in a series of delays.
Actually Gregory was using this to justify a wider campaign against the
imperial position. In 1288, unreconciled, Frederick left for the Holy
Land. Thousands of others accompanied him, indicating that society did
not necessarily deem a legitimate Crusade dependent on papal endorsement.
The movement had a life of its own. This revelation may be considered
part of Frederick's legacy, and surely embarrassed the papacy. It marked
a distinct divergence between papal crusading, premised on the offer of
indulgences, and popular Crusading, driven by lay devotion and the pilgrimage
impulse. (The centrality of the papacy to Crusading in general may have
been exaggerated by curia-centric historians. ) But for past Crusaders
to have pre-empted Papal invitation was one thing, to Crusade under excommunication
was another. Frederick's decision to proceed thus amounted to taking up
the gauntlet in a battle of wills with Rome. It also meant that for the
first time the curia would find itself actively out to undermine the efforts
of Crusaders striving to recover Jerusalem. It had little choice, if it
was not to rethink its doctrines, for the Crusade, under Frederick, seemed
now a movement to invalidate rather than consolidate papal supremacy.
Frederick's initial impact in the Levant was inauspicious. His attempt
to intimidate John of Beirut at a banquet at Limmasol backfired when John
stood firm for the prerogatives of the Latin barons, despite the entry
into the hall of imperial troops. This set the tone for later confrontations.
Problems were caused less by Frederick's excommunication than by his presumption
that he would receive automatic submission. Crossing to Tyre, Frederick
received a warm reception from the Christian inhabitants. Templars and
Hospitallers kissed his knees. Most were less concerned about his spiritual
condition than they were grateful for the military support he brought.
Frederick sent Rome notification of his arrival. The Eastern Latins hoped
this would dispose Gregory to absolve Frederick, so that the Crusade could
proceed conventionally. However Frederick had sent among the messengers
Rainald of Spoleto, lord of lands claimed by the papacy, whom Gregory
refused to see. The embassy achieved the opposite of the desired effect.
Refortification commenced at Caesarea and Joppa. Then, supplies having
arrived, the Crusaders marched out to reclaim Jerusalem. Relations between
Frederick and the Eastern Latins deteriorated when his unforgiven status
became widely known. Moreover his autocratic style ruffled feathers, in
a region used to a more corporate system of government. He became an enemy
especially of the Templars, then under Peter de Montaigu. Matthew Paris
recorded that they later sought Frederick's death, and sent a message
to the Sultan revealing that Frederick would visit the River Jordan undefended
where the Muslims could ambush him. The Sultan, in disgust, supposedly
forwarded the Templars' message on to Frederick, complete with incriminating
seal. Though it seems unlikely the Templars would actually have been so
naive as to solicit the Sultan against Frederick this way, a Muslim source
does attributes Frederick's reluctance to stay long in Jerusalem to fear
of the Templars; clearly they became resolute opponents of his. He in
turn disseminated propaganda against them, saying that they were secretly
working against the Christian cause, because if the Crusades succeeded
their calling would be redundant. This slur gained some currency, and
would be repeated, supposedly, by Robert of Artois, during the Seventh
Crusade, when attempting to goad the Templars into action at Mansourah.
The persisting slur against the Templars was a less fortunate bequest
of Frederick to the Crusading Movement. Perhaps it was remembered at the
time of their suppression. After all, according to Frederick (if Paris
accurately reflects imperial allegations), the Templars had stooped to
betraying the pilgrims they once defended. Frederick went to the lengths
of besieging them in Atlit. By this time he had already crowned himself
in the Holy Sepulchre, after which the Patriarch Gerold, from Acre, had
placed Jerusalem under interdict. It was all, indeed, 'hardly edifying'.
Frederick had entered Jerusalem supported by Teutonic Knights, German
pilgrims and Sicilian and English bishops. Evidently the Church was not
united in its opposition to him. Frederick, even knowing that the Pope
had worked against his efforts, made a conciliatory speech during his
coronation. He might have hoped that the Church would respond by lifting
his excommunication and ending the farce. When the Church did the opposite,
Frederick was furious. News of Gerold's interdict was delivered by the
Archbishop of Caesarea, and it immediately ended the tenuous co-operation
Frederick had established with the Military Orders. Gerold's action also
made it clear that the Church presumed the authority to put any earthly
location beyond the grace of God. Popes and Patriarchs could desanctify
even Jerusalem. The interdict exposed the Church's view of it as just
another place subject to ecclesiastical sanctions.
Jerusalem's sacred sites had been restored to Christian custody, as Frederick
put it, almost miraculously. No one seemed more offended than the high
clergy. The Church had attributed the failure of previous Crusades since
the mid twelfth century to God's punishment for the sins of Christians
(peccatis ecigentius). An impact of Frederick's success was to call this
explanation into question, given that the Church was already portraying
him as reprobate. Frederick's victory therefore caused problems to clerical
commentators, challenging the moral rationale of Holy War. It certainly
undermined the Church's control over Crusading as a penitential exercise,
as the participants of Frederick's Crusade evidently felt that it had
value even without the indulgences being on offer. This discrepancy of
interpretation was something Frederick helped to expose.
One response to this problem for the papal faction was to pick holes in
Frederick's achievement. It seemed Jerusalem could not be fortified, in
accordance with the treaty, and the sacred precincts of the Temple, which
Frederick toured in the company of his Muslim host, were to remain Islamic.
Gerold thundered against Frederick, likening him to the Antichrist. He
called Frederick's actions deplorable and detrimental to the cause of
the Christian faith. He catalogued Frederick's misdeeds including coming
excommunicated and mistreating the local nobility. Unilaterally, and after
'long and mysterious conferences' with the Muslims, Frederick had announced
his truce, and had gone to Jerusalem with only the Sultan's word that
it was to be surrendered. He had crowned himself in the Holy Sepulchre,
although the Saracens still held the Temple, and although they 'proclaimed
publicly the Law of Mohammed- to the great confusion and chagrin of the
pilgrims.' Frederick had skulked out of Jerusalem despite the promise
of the Military Orders that they would help him refortify it. Frederick
was content with Jerusalem's nominal surrender, and had no care to make
it secure. The main, underlying criticism was that Frederick trusted the
Muslims. Few of the Patriarch's charges withstood scrutiny, for Islamic
worship had continued previously in the Kingdom of Jerusalem without confounding
the Christians, as the ever-diplomatic Hermann von Salza mentioned in
a letter to a friendlier cardinal in Rome. Gerold himself was responsible
for wrecking Frederick's rapprochement with the Military Orders. If Gerold's
biggest complaint was that Frederick had pulled off only a partial success,
than under the circumstances that was fatuous. Gerold represented an institution
with ulterior motives for seeking to discredit Frederick; indeed papal
mercenaries were besetting Frederick's lands even as he entered Jerusalem.
So much, then, for the Peace of God.
The Sixth Crusade was successful, compromises and clerical maligning notwithstanding.
Church-backed Crusades had poured out blood to no avail, whereas Frederick
had gained all he had with barely a skirmish. He was well placed to claim
divine vindication, and was not slow to. Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Galilee
again lay within a recovering Christian enclave. It was a great diplomatic
tour-de-force on Frederick's part that he had persuaded al-Kamil to make
these concessions, especially given how little he offered in return. Moreover
Frederick's policy of supporting Egypt against Damascus might have preserved
these gains. It was only when certain Frankish factions (including the
Templars under Armand de Perigord) sought to reverse this alignment that
Jerusalem was again lost - ravaged by Khoresmians summoned by a panicked
Cairo. The new Syrian alliance was of little worth and crumbled after
la Forbie. This new disaster was less the result of Frederick's policy
than of its abandonment.
Frederick II with a falcon. Frederick
wrote a book on falcory
When discussing Frederick and the Crusades, it becomes superfluous to
speak of irony. Other Crusaders had won admiration from the Saracens as
worthy opponents, but none left such a good impression with the Muslims,
or at least with Egypt's elite. Ibn Wasil recorded that Frederick was
a ruler 'distinguished and gifted, a student of philosophy, logic and
medicine and a friend of Muslims.' This legacy of admiration was confirmed
by Jean de Joinville. In 1250, when Joinville was captured aboard a vessel
on the Nile, the Saracen admiral asked if he happened to be related to
Frederick of Germany. Joinville replied that he thought his mother was
the emperor's first cousin '
whereupon the admiral remarked that
he loved me all the more'.
Frederick's struggle with Rome had overshadowed the Sixth Crusade. Frederick
himself was not entirely responsible for this, for while either side showed
intransigence, Frederick was generally the more conciliatory. Rome could
have absolved Frederick when he embarked for the east, when he arrived
in Tyre and when he entered Jerusalem. Gregory personally might have had
to swallow pride to do so but in reality the Church would have lost little
face. It would have been seen to be acting magnanimously, for the general
good of Christendom and the participants of the Crusade, and, moreover,
according with divine will. It could also then have shared in the glory
of the recovery of Jerusalem. Instead of attempting to sabotage that achievement
the Church could have helped to consolidate it. It is unfortunate that
the Curia was so ungracious. The papacy created a crisis for itself, and
sacrificed its own credibility as a source of spiritual leadership. Its
later crusades against Frederick and his heirs would prove yet costlier
in this respect.
John of Brienne had been leading papal armies attacking Apulia. Frederick
landed in Brindisi in June 1229, and by October had chased his erstwhile
father-in-law back into papal territory. Rather than pushing his advantage,
however, Frederick halted and sought peace. Hermann von Salza mediated,
persuading a reluctant Gregory to absolve Frederick on 1 September 1230.
Frederick subsequently helped the Teutonic Knights establish themselves
as the vanguard of the ongoing Baltic Crusade. The birth of the Order's
state in Prussia was to some extent another legacy of his. Hermann von
Salza, meanwhile, continued endeavouring to preserve harmony between his
two overlords. Relations between Frederick (who was engaged in war with
the Lombard league) and Gregory remained strained and Hermann died on
the same day that Frederick was again excommunicated (20 March 1239).
By February 1240, Frederick was poised to enter Rome itself, and the Pope
called a crusade against him. Afterwards, at the Council of Lyons, Innocent
IV declared Frederick deposed, and prioritised an anti-Hohenstaufen crusade
over Louis IX's projected Eastern expedition. Papal letters flew about
detailing Frederick's 'manifold villainies' Innocent's propagandists also
accused Frederick of impeding aid to Jerusalem, while Frederick countered
that only papal hostility prevented him from succouring the Holy Land.
Papal obstinacy over Frederick also hampered Louis's preparations.
Matthew Paris was critical of the anti-Hohenstaufen crusades, and of Innocent's
demands for English funds and troops. Paris recorded how English Crusaders
swore an oath to proceed to the Holy Land, and not to be diverted by Rome
to fight in Greece or Italy, indicating grass-roots scepticism concerning
papal policy. Another critic was the Venetian Marino Sanudo, who urged
an end to the wars in Italy, seeing them as a major reason for eastern
losses. Housley has argued that the Italian crusades were not viewed by
most contemporaries as perversions of the Crusade ideal, or devaluing
to indulgences. However he conceded that the popes who concentrated on
these wars were criticized from many quarters. The view that these crusades
were scandalous and detrimental to the cause of the Latin East can withstand
such attempts at revisionism. Only those with political interests in the
Guelf cause could have convinced themselves that these civil wars were
remotely holy. That Rome was willing to resort to bribery, and to restrain
the Inquisition in regions where it might jeopardise anti-Hohenstaufen
alliances, moreover, perhaps shows willingness to compromise principles,
and the shifting nature of alliances in these conflicts made it difficult
to associate them with higher ideals.
Rome's exploitation of Crusading to serve its worldly interests was resisted
by purist Crusaders. Richard of Cornwall's force in 1239 refused to have
their vow to assist the Holy Land commuted, and would not be steered aside.
Frederick indeed, backed Richard of Cornwall's Crusade of 1240 and might
have supported the Seventh Crusade but for Innocent's hostility. Frederick
was not without clerical supporters, either. In 1240, for example, the
dean of Passau publicly preached the cross against the papal legate Adam
von Bahem, who had been sent to discipline the pro-imperial clerics. Thus
the 'anti-crusade' was born. It was not the last time Christians would
proclaim holy war against each other. It seems a natural reaction, however;
it would have been unreasonable for Frederick's supporters (themselves
potential Crusaders) to accept Rome's invectives. Frederick, after all,
could and did argue that as the restorer of Jerusalem, he and not the
Pope had been the true instrument of God's will. The anti-Hohenstaufen
crusade was one in a succession of political/territorial conflicts involving
the papacy, which ultimately brought Crusading into disrepute. It is difficult,
however, to see how Frederick could have avoided the conflict without
allowing Rome to establish theocratic mastery over Europe. (Gregory had
claimed in 1236 that the whole earth was subject to the judgement of the
Apostolic See). Frederick died in 1250 passing into legend. As it was,
the Church triumphed over his heirs, though in the process it bound itself
to Capetian tyrants and ended up with similar problems as it had before.
Frederick's status as a Crusader has been underestimated. In a short time
he did more for Latin Palestine than any Christian leader since Richard.
Surpassing Richard, Frederick recovered Jerusalem, and did so peacefully,
while the violent efforts of previous Crusaders had tended if anything
to do more harm than good. Frederick's impact on the Crusades in the Holy
Land was on balance positive, and may have been more so but for the Church's
uncharitable behaviour. Later Frederick became the subject of papal crusades.
The impact of these wars was universally negative, hampering support for
Jerusalem, and causing widespread strife and division at a time when European
unity was vital in order to maintain Crusading efforts and to confront
the looming threat from the Mongols.
The premise of a Crusade was of a Holy War, and, from a curial standpoint,
of papal authority on God's behalf to grant indulgences to the participants.
Success or failure, however, depended on divine favour. All the later
Crusades that embarked with papal blessing failed to achieve their objectives.
Frederick's Crusade, which succeeded in spite of a papal curse, did achieve
its material goals. This undermined the theology of Crusading as predicated
by the clergy. Frederick's success also brought into focus that aspect
of the Crusading movement that while still religious was more than a vehicle
for upholding papal authority. Instead it subverted papal pretension.
When it came to warfare in Europe (which Rome was prepared to wage at
Jerusalem's expense) Frederick had no little justice on his side, and
little choice but to resist an increasingly absolutist enemy.
There is a more positive aspect to Frederick's Crusading legacy. His 1229
arrangement with al-Kamil over Jerusalem set an example of compromise.
It was a victory of diplomacy over force, and of humanity over bigotry.
As David Abulafia has suggested, it points to the possibility of mutual
tolerance between religious groups and coexistence as a way forward for
the Holy Land. Although the treaty was born largely from political expediency,
from a progressive point of view it was the finest moment in the history
of the Crusades.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bernard of Clairvaux. 'In Praise of the New Knighthood':
Greenia, C. (trans.), Werblowsky, R.J.Z. (intro.), in Works of St Bernard
of Clairvaux, vol. VII, treatises, 3.
Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Wasil &c.:
Gabrielli, F. (trans.) Arab Historians of the Crusades (London 1969).
Jean de Joinville, 'Vie de Saint Louis':
Shaw, M.R.B. (trans.), Joinville and Villehardoun, Chronicles of the Crusades
(London 1963).
'L'Estoire d'Eacles Empereur':
Recueil des Hostoriens des Croisades. Historiens Oxidentaux, vol. 2, (Paris,
1844-59) pp. 436-42.
Matthew Paris, 'Chronica Majora':
Vaughan, R., (trans.) The Illustrated Chronicles of Matthew Paris: Observations
of Thirteenth Century Life (Stroud, 1993).
Oliver of Paderborn, Patriarch Gerold, Frederick II, Roger of Wendover
etc. :
Peters, E. (ed.) Gavin, G.J. (trans.) Christian Society and the Crusades
1198-1229: Sources in Translation including The Capture of Damietta by
Oliver of Paderborn (Pennsylvania, 1948).
Philip de Novarre:
Philip de Novare: Les Gestes des Ciprois, No. 135-37, ed. Gaston Reynaud,
(Geneva: Jules-Guillaumefick, 1887), 48-50, translated by James Brundage,
The Crusades: A Documentary History, (Milwaukee, 1962), pp. 231-32
Secondary Works
Abulafia, D., Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor (London 2002).
_____., The Two Italies (Cambridge, 1977).
Aziz, M.A., 'La Croisade de l'Empereur Frédéric II et l'Orient
Latin', Autour de la Première Croisade; Actes du Colloque de la
Society for the Study of the Crusades in the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand,
22-25 juin 1995). ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996).
Barber, M., The New Knighthood (Cambridge, 1994).
Bartlett, R., The Making of Europe (London, 1993).
Billings, M., The Crusades (Stroud, 2000).
Forey, A., The Military Orders from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth
Centuries (Basingstoke, 1992).
Hilenbrand, C., The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, 1999).
Jotischky, A., Crusading and the Crusader States (Harlow, 2004).
Lock, P., The Routledge Companion to the Crusades (London, 2006).
Kantorwicz, E. Frederick the Second (New York, 1931).
Maalouf, A., The Crusades through Arab Eyes (Paris, 1983).
Masson, G. Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, a Life (London, 1957).
Mayer, H.E., The Crusades, 2nd edition, trans. J. Gillingham (Oxford,
1988).
Nicholson, H., , The Knights Templar, a New History (Stroud, 2001).
Omran, M.S., 'Truces between Moslems and Crusaders (1174-1217 A.D.)' Autour
de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996) p. 423-441.
Phillips, J., The Fourth Crusade ( London, 2005).
Powell, J.M., Anatomy of a Crusade 1213-1221. (Pennsylvania 1986).
Read, P.P., The Templars (London, 1999).
Riley-Smith, J.S.C., ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades
(Oxford, 1995).
_____, What Were the Crusades, (Basingstoke 2002)
Runciman, S., A History of the Crusades: the Kingdom of Acre and the Later
Crusades (Cambridge, 1955).
Seward, D., The Monks of War (London, 1972).
Smith, C., Crusading in the Age of Joinville (Aldershot, 2006).
Tyerman, C., The Invention of the Crusades (London, 1998).
_____, God's War (London, 2006).
Van Cleeve, T.C., The Emperor Frederick II: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972).
Journal Articles:
Throop, P.A., 'Criticism of Papal Crusade Policy in Old French and Provençal',
Spectrum, vol 13, no. 4 (1938).
Weiler, B., 'Image and Reality in Richard of Cornwall's German Career',
The English Historical Review, Nov 1998, pp.1111-1142.
Powell, J.M., 'Frederick II and the Church in the Kingdom of Sicily 1220-1224'
Church History (1961) pp. 28-34.
|
|