1114/5 CE Mamistra and Marash Quakes

Text (with hotlink)	Original Language	Biographical Info	Religion	Date of Composition	Location Composed	Notes
Damage and Chronology Reports from Textual Sources	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Fulcher of Chartres	Latin	Biography	Roman Catholic	1114 CE	Jerusalem	Summary In Book II, Fulcher of Chartres mentions several earthquakes between 1113 and 1117 CE. These are discussed below: 1113 CE - In Book II Chapter LI, Fulcher states that we twice felt an earthquake. No damage was mentioned and a location was not specified. It could have been in Jerusalem where Fulcher was living. Fulcher specified times and dates which work out to midnight on 17 or 18 July 1113 CE and the third hour (~9 am) on 8 or 9 August 1113 CE. 1114 CE - In Book II Section LII, Fulcher of Chartres, who was living in Jerusalem at the time, specifies that an earthquake struck on 10 August 1114 CE at an unspecified location. Perhaps this earthquake was felt in Jerusalem. Later that year, he mentioned a 2nd earthquake on 13 November 1114 CE which destroyed part of Mamistra (aka Mopsuestia). He then adds that a greater quake ... shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls where some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins. It is unclear if the greater quake refers to the same earthquake which struck Mamistra or is a separate event. It is very possible that the greater quake refers to the 29 November earthquake which apparently almost completely destroyed Marash (aka Kahramanmaraş). After mentioning the greater quake, Fulcher goes on state that they say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash ... The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there, alas! were all killed. Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed. Various authors have suggested that Trialeth may refer to Balis on the Euphrates or Tell Khalid (Trialeth). 1115 CE - In Book II Chapter LIV, Fulcher states that an earthquake struck in 1115 CE without specifying a date. In the 1115 CE earthquake, Mamistra. was demolished by an earthquake and other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less 1117 CE - In Book II Chapter LXI, Fulcher states He moreover as He wills causes the earth to tremble and then to be still. No damage was mentioned and a location was not specified. Ambraseys (2009) suggests Jerusalem and Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest the vicinity of Scandelion Castle (12 km. from Tyre). Ambraseys (2009) is probably correct as Fulcher mentions that the earthquake struck in the silence of an unseasonable night suggesting that Fulcher experienced this event first hand where he was living in Jerusalem. There are some chronological inconsistencies in Fulcher's account that cast doubt on the exact date Fulcher specified. When these inconsistencies are considered, the earthquake appears to have struck between 26 and 29 June 1117 CE.
The Antiochene Wars by Walter the Chancellor	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	between late 1115 CE and mid-1119 CE ( Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:10)	Antioch	Summary At the start of Book One of the Antiochene Wars, right after a prologue which described a locust invasion usually dated to 1114 CE, Walter the Chancellor wrote an eyewitness account of an earthquake which struck the Principality of Antioch while he was presumably living in Antioch. He described the collapse of walls, towers and buildings as well as casualties. He also relayed reports of damage from Marash, which he said was entirely destroyed and Mamistra. He suggests that al-Atharib was also damaged. The town residents were described as sleeping afterwards in tents in streets, gardens, squares, thickets, and open plains due to continuing aftershocks (each day, the earthquake threatened for hopeless hours). Later in his text, Walter mentions 5 months of continuing aftershocks. Walter says the earthquake struck on the night of 29 November 1115 CE while other sources date it to 29 November 1114 CE. Walter's translators Asbridge and Edgington (2019:80 n.24) date this earthquake to 29 November 1114 CE as does Ambraseys (2009). Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) date it to 29 November 1115 CE. Unfortunately, the day of the week was not specified which would allow for a secure determination of 1114 or 1115. However, since Walter dates the earthquake to before the Battle of Tell Danish on 15 September 1115, it seems he or his copyist erred with the 1115 and the date should have been 1114. Walter also notes that the town of Mamistra was previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the Feast of Saint Brice (13 November).
Abbot Anselm of Gembloux (Belgium)'s Continuation of Chronica Monasterii Gemblacensis by Sigebert of Gembloux	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic (Benedictine Monk)	Between 1115 and 1135 CE	Gembloux (Belgium)	Summary Anselm wrote that on the night of 13 November 1115 CE, the earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch, swallowing up many towers and the houses next to them together with their inhabitants while adding that some, as is the custom with those people, had gone away from those places with their wives and children; but on the way back the earthquake swallowed them up where they were. Ambraseys (2009) suggests that the correct date should be 29 November 1114 CE. Ambraseys (2009) notes that there is no evidence that Anselm (N.B. Sigbert died in 1112) ever visited Outremer [The Crusader States], so this story may come from returning crusaders. Alexandre (1990:147) suggests that the correct date should be 29 November 1114 CE and opined the following: This earthquake, which actually took place on 29/11/1114, is known in more detail by Eastern sources, notably Walter the Chancellor and Matthew of Edessa. Anselm placed the event in 1115 and apparently confused it with the earthquake in Cilicia that occurred two weeks earlier, on 13 November 1114
Chronicle by Matthew of Edessa	Western Armenian	Biography	member of the Armenian Apostolic Church	no later than 1136 CE	probably the Karmir Vanq (Red Convent) Monastery outside of Kaysun	Summary Matthew of Edessa wrote about an earthquake that he apparently experienced firsthand. The quake struck on the night of Sunday 29 November 1114 CE while people were sleeping. Matthew appears to have described the motion as like a churned up sea and described the noise as horrible, crackling, reverberating, echoing, and like the clanging of bronze or the sound of a large throng in camp. Matthew also described rockfalls, landslides, trees swaying back and forth, and roughly an hour of aftershocks suggesting that he was close to or inside of the epicentral region. Matthew reported that Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kesoun, and Raban were destroyed. Marash was also destroyed. According to Matthew no-one survived in Marash which led to 40,000 dead. Destruction and fatalities in Mamistra was, according to Matthew, similar to the destruction experienced in Marash. Two monasteries were also reported to have been destroyed. In the Basilian Monastery in the Black Mountains (location debated), monks and Armenian vardapets died during a divine service when their church collapsed upon them. A monastery of the Jesuits near Marash was said to have suffered a similar fate. After the earthquake and aftershocks (when the tremors had ceased, Matthew wrote that snow began to fall and cover the entire land.
Al-Azimi	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	before 1160 CE	Aleppo	Wikipedia reports that Al-Azimi says that it was dark before the earthquake, and then it snowed and covered with snow on all sides.
Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane	Latin	Biography	Roman Catholic	third quarter of the 12th c.		Summary Secunda pars is a text which is traditionally considered to be a sort of epitome of the work of Fulcher of Chartres ( Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005). Earthquakes are described in 1113, 1114, and 1115 CE. The chronology appears to muddled. 1113 CE - In what appears to be July-August 1113 CE, two shocks are described - the earth is shaken twice A terrible earthquake, and the overthrow of the buildings, withering away, threatens mortals with fear. Immediately before this, secunda pars says that the sea is disturbed even more than usual, and even denies the possibility of fishing in the seas. This might describe a minor tsunami or seiche. The location is unspecified but the two earthquake shocks are described as taking place during hostilities in the Galilee between Baldwin I's Crusader Army and Maudud's Selchukid army. Ambraseys (2009) characterizes this earthquake account as questionable. 1114 CE - Secunda pars states that in April-May and the following [months ?] of 1114 CE a horrible earthquake struck and that some parts of the city of Mamistria was overturned and many towns were affected in the region of Antioch, some partially destroyed and some fully destroyed with some of the people killed. Secunda pars adds that also in the city of Mariscum, the entire populace was overwhelmed by the sudden collapse of the buildings and in the Euphrates a town called Thihalet was completely overthrown. Luard (1890 v. 2:43 n.7) identifies Mariscum as Marash. The location of Thihalet is debated. Ryan (1969:210 n.5) suggests it may be Balis on the Euphrates while Ambraseys (2009) suggests that Trialeth is Tell Khalid (Trialeth), a fortified site at the head of Sadjour Suyu, a tributary of the Euphrates River. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that Trihaleth is present day Akçakoyunlu. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that the author of Secunda pars misread Fulcher of Chartres account and therefore misdated the earthquake. They note that Secunda pars places the earthquake in April-May 1114 when Fulcher described a locust swarm that predated an earthquake described by Fulcher. Fulcher dated an earthquake at an unspecified location to 10 August 1114 CE after the April-May locust invasion an earthquake which destroyed Mamistra to 13 November 1114 CE a greater earthquake which destroyed Marash and Trialeth to some time in 1114 CE an earthquake which demolished Mamistra and other places in the area of Antioch to some time in 1115 CE. Ambraseys (2009) and Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) interpret Latin text to indicate that Jerusalem was shaken in Secunda pars 1114 CE earthquake account. However, the way I read the text from RHC, it specifies Mamistra not Jerusalem. This is the text from RHC: prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, a territorium Jerosolimitanum per dies aliquot vehementer vastalum est; mense Aprili vel Maio et sequenti terrae motu horribiliter concussum Mamistriae urbis pars nonnulla subversa. Specifically, this extract does not have a semicolon (;) in between concussum and Mamistriae. Perhaps they read a different Latin text that does does have a semicolon (;) in between concussum and Mamistriae. Ambraseys (2009) indicates that he obtained his Secunda pars from an edition by Bongars (1611:610-611). In the Bongars edition, the Latin text reads prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, territorium Hierosolimitanum, per dies aliquot vehementer vastatum est: mense Aprili vel Maio & sequenti terramotu horribiliter cocusliuum; Mamistria urbis pars nonnulla subversa;. There is a semicolon between cocusliuum and Mamistria which would suggest an earthquake(s) in the territory of the Jerusalemites (a territorium Jerosolimitanum) 1115 CE - Secunda pars states that in this year an earthquake overthrew the city of Mamistra and most other places in the Antiochene territory suffered a similar horror. Dating was no more specific than 1115 CE.
Flores Historiaum	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	1235 CE	Abbey of St Albans in St Albans, England	Summary A brief description in Flores Historiaum states that in 1113 CE, in the month of May, a great comet appeared, and a little afterwards here was an earthquake, which threw down part of the city of Manistre (aka Mamistria), not far from Antioch, with two castles, called Triphalet and Mariacus. The comet description appears to date this to 1114 CE. Kronk (1999 v.1:196) reports that this comet was widely reported in monastic histories of the 12th-15th centuries, with dates ranging from 1113 to 1115 with the vast majority of reports dating the comet to 1114. Kronk (1999 v.1:196) adds that although its late May visibility makes it somewhat similar to C/1110 K1, the consistent descriptions of a long tail contradict the observations of C/1110 K1 and add to the likelihood that there was a large comet seen in 1114. Flores Historiaum reports two comets; a large one in May 1113 CE and another one in May 1114 CE. The comet sighting appears to been repeated with May 1114 CE the more likely date due to more widespread agreement with other authors.
Ibn al-Qalanisi	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	12th century CE (before 1160 CE)	Damascus	Summary In a brief passage, Ibn Al-Qalanisi, a contemporaneous source who lived in Damascus, reports that in A.H. 508 (7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE) there was a strong earthquake in Syria which caused both the earth and the hearts of its inhabitants to tremble
Ibn al-Jawzi	Arabic	Biography	Hanbali Sunni Muslim	2nd half of the 12th c. CE	Baghdad	Summary Ibn al-Jawzi, citing a second hand account of a letter which arrived in Baghdad on 17 December 1114 CE, describes an earthquake which collapsed 13 towers and the city walls of Al-Ruha (aka Sanliurfa aka Edessa), collapsed part of the walls and many houses of Harran, destroyed about 100 houses and half of the citadel at Balis, and led to collapses in Sumaysa (aka Samsat). The time and date of the earthquake is recorded as the night of Sunday 18 Jumada II in A.H. 508 which works out to Thursday 19 November 1114 CE. Disagreement between date and day of the week suggests a typographic or transmission error and that the correct date is the night of 29 November 1114 CE which fell on a Sunday and is in agreement with other authors.
William of Tyre	Latin with an early translation to Vulgar French made between 1220 and 1277 CE	Biography	Christian	between 1170 and 1184 CE		Summary William of Tyre reports that in 1114 CE an earthquake struck the whole of Syria which was so great that it destroyed many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Coele-Syria. In Cilicia, Mamistra and many other towns were said to be completely prostrated. The earthquake also threw down Maresia together with its suburbs, so that scarcely any traces remained. He also reports that towers shook and the larger buildings fell down causing countless deaths, and cities, like stone ramparts, formed great mounds, and crushing their penitent citizens entombed them. People were said to have fled their homes in the cities, fearing the ruin of their houses hoping to find rest under the open sky. This suggests energetic and continuing after shocks. A specific date for the earthquake was not supplied - only the year.
Romuald of Salerno	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	Before 1179 CE (Oldoni, 2003	Salerno, Italy	Summary Romuald of Salerno wrote that there was an earthquake in Syria, so great that Mamistra and Marais [Marash] were razed to the ground, and several other cities and fort-towns fell, their men crushed. Romauld added that part of Antioch and even Jerusalem collapsed to the ground. Romuald dated the earthquake to the month of December, before Christmas, in 1115 CE. He also dated it to the 8th indiction which would place it in December 1114 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) note that Romauld of Salerno, like other secondary Latin sources, tend to give wrong dates for this earthquake and, in particular, to confuse it with the previous destructive earthquake of 13 November 1114, whose damage zone becomes partly superimposed on that of the earthquake of 29 November 1115, while adding that Archbishop Romuald of Salerno (1120/1130-1181) ... confuses information about the 1114 earthquakes with that of 29 November 1115, making an entry for December 1115. Ambraseys (2009) placed this account from Romauld in his entry for an earthquake on 29 November 1114 CE and expressed doubts about the geographical extent of damage, particularly about 'the damage extending to Jerusalem'. Ambraseys (2009) wrote that this damage in Jerusalem] might be dismissed as gross exaggeration, perhaps to implicate all the crusader states in the sins that brought on the earthquake however it is unlikely that the earthquake extended this far ... since Fulcher was probably living in Jerusalem when the earthquake happened, but does not even say that it was felt there.
Robert of Torigni	Latin	Biography	Christian	Before 1186 CE	Monastery of Mount-Saint-Michel in Normandy France	Summary Robert of Torigni wrote about two earthquakes for which he only supplied the year. The first struck in 1114 CE where part of the city of Mamistria collapsed ... and two forts not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphalech. The second stronger earthquake struck in 1115 CE and desolated Mamistria.
Michael the Syrian	Syriac	Biography	Syriac Orthodox Church	late 12th century CE	Mor Hanayo Monastery (aka the Saffron Monastery)	Summary Michael the Syrian wrote that a violent earthquake struck at dawn on Sunday 29 November 1114 CE where the city of Marash was entirely swallowed up and overturned ... so that it became a grave for its inhabitants, the church of Mar John of Kaishum and that of the Forty Martyrs collapsed, and Samosata fell and many people died. He added that In every city and village numerous places collapsed.
Chronicon Ad Annum 1234	Syriac	Biography		1204 CE (e-GEDESH)	possibly Edessa	Summary In Chronicon Ad Annum 1234, there is a report of an earthquake which destroyed Marash where its houses were destroyed, its whole wall collapsed, and 24,000 died besides strangers along with more than a hundred priests and deacons. Chronicon Ad Annum 1234 also reports that the castle of Mansur and many other places were wiped out. A separate later passage seems to suggest that a prison in Samosata collapsed during this earthquake. The Seleucid Era years supplied in the two seperate passages do not agree and both years appear to be incorrect. However, the earlier passage specifies a date (29 November) and a day of the week (Sunday) which leads to the conclusion that the earthquake struck on the night of Sunday 29 November 1114 CE in agreement with many other authors.
Ibn al-Athir	Arabic	Biography	Sunni Muslim	~ 1200 - 1231 CE	Mosul	Summary Ibn al-Athir reports that in Jumada II A.H. 508 (2-30 November 1114 CE), there was a violent earthquake in the regions of Gazira and Syria as well as other regions where Ruha, Harran, Sumaysat (aka Samsat), Balis and other towns were largely destroyed, and many people died in the ruins.
Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi	Arabic	Biography	Hanbali Sunni Muslim - may have had Shi'a tendencies (Keany, 2013:83)	before 1256 CE	Damascus	Summary Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi reports that there was a terrible earthquake in Mesopotamia (Jazira) where the greater part of the ramparts of Edessa (aka Rufa) and Haran were overturned, with a great number of houses. He also reports that the Euphrates overflowed and ruined 100 houses at Balis and swept away half of the citadel, flooding Samosata (aka Samsat) as well as other places. A date was not supplied in the excerpt provided by Ambraseys (2009). In another section of the text (Mir'at), Kronk (1999 v.1:193-195) notes that Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi mentions a comet that appeared in the skies in 1110 CE.
Kemal ad-Din (aka Ibn al-Adim)	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	before 1260 CE	Aleppo or Cairo	Summary Kemal ad-Din reports that during the night of Sunday 29 November 1114 CE, a terrible earthquake laid waste the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders. In Antioch the tower of the north gate and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims. He also reports that the fort of A’zaz was no more than a ruin, presumably due to the earthquake. Kemal ad-Din notes that the damage was not very serious in Aleppo, but other places, like el-Athareb and Zerdanah, were almost completely destroyed.
Abu Shama	Arabic	Biography	Sunni Muslim	before 1268 CE	Damascus	Summary In an excerpt supplied by Ambraseys (2009), Abu Shama wrote that Nur ad-Din repaired the damage to the mosques which was caused by the earthquakes or by other causes. Neither a date nor a location(s) was provided and the damage referred to earthquake(s) that preceded the repair(s). Nur ad-Din ruled the Syrian province (Shām) of the Seljuk Empire from 1146 to 1174 CE and fought against the armies of the Second Crusade (1147-1150 CE).
Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche by Anonymous	French	Biography	Roman Catholic	2nd half of 13th c.	?	Summary Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche is a text that apparently depended heavily on Fulcher of Chartres' chronicle. In Estoire, we can read that we were visited by an earthquake on the day of the Feast of Saint Lawrence in 1114, which dates the earthquake to 10 August 1114 CE. Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche goes on to say that all the towns and settlements along the coast collapsed, thereby killing the inhabitants and the towns of Marash and Trihalet collapsed in ruins. Various authors have suggested that Trialeth may refer to Balis on the Euphrates or Tell Khalid (Trialeth). Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think that Estoire's references to towns and settlements along the coast, Maras, and Trihalet collapsing was in fact due to the 13 November Earthquake and Estoire conflated the 10 August and 13 November earthquakes. However, spatial distribution of IDPs indicates that it is more likely that Estoire conflated the 10 August and 29 November earthquakes.
Chronicle of Sembat	Armenian	Background and Biography	The Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church (wikipedia)	~1274 CE	probably Candir Castle in Cilician Armenia (wikipedia)	Summary The Chronicle of Sembat describes an earthquake that generated multiple shocks in the middle of the night. It's sound was a rumble with terrible roars adding that the sea got up, and the mountains and hills made terrifying sounds. A great number of cities was said to have been ruined. Collapsed cities included Antioch, Mecis (Mamistra aka Mopsuestia ?), Hisn-Mansur, Kaysum, Ablastha, Raban, and Samosata. Marash was said to be completely overturned with 40,000 dead. A church collapse at the Basilian Monastery in the Black Mountains (location debated) led to the death of two doctors and thirty monks. The specific date provided in the Chronicle of Sembat seems to be in error. The earthquake is said to have struck in the Armenian month of Mareri in the Armenian year of 563 which works out to a Julian date range of 18 November - 17 December 1114 CE. However, the Chronicle of Sembat also says that the earthquake struck on the day of the Finding of the Cross which is typically celebrated on 15 September or in some traditions on 25 October. Ambraseys (2009) opined that the account in the Chronicle of Sembat ... is based in part on Matthew of Edessa’s record, from which it takes the date of the Finding of the Cross and Armenian year 563. Thus, like Matthew, Sembat may have specified the wrong celebration. If the celebration was the eve of feast of Saint Andrew, then the date works out to nighttime 29 November 1114 CE in agreement with other authors.
Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis by Marino Sanudo the Elder	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	~between 1306 and 1321 CE	Venice and elsewhere (he traveled extensively)	Summary Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that Venetian writer Marin Sanudo the Elder used Wiliam of Tyre as his source when he wrote that in 1114 a huge earthquake shook the Orient especially in Cilicia where it damaged Mamistra and all the fortifications round about.. Sanudo added that elsewhere other cities were destroyed, so that no trace of the temple remained and men wandering through the fields were afraid that they would be sucked down by the earth. This last statement about wandering men may be reflective of continuing aftershocks. Lock (2016:8) suggests that Marin Sanudo the Elder likely accessed an earlier version of Wiliam of Tyre than is currently available.
Bar Hebraeus	Syriac	Biography	Syriac Orthodox Church	13th century CE	possibly Maraghah	Summary Bar Hebraeus wrote that on the 29th or 30th of November 1114 CE, a terribly violent earthquake took place and the whole city of Marash sunk underground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof, very many houses fell down and Constantine, the lord of Gargar ... together with many others, was suffocated in the ruins of Samosata (aka Samsat), thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa fell, portions of the wall of Harran collapsed, a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash were overturned, and the the church of Mar John and the church of the Forty Martyrs in Khishum were damaged or destroyed.
Treasure of Pearls and the Collection of Shining Objects by Ibn al-Dawadari	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	1331 - 1335 CE	Damascus	Summary Ibn al-Dawādārī wrote that in A.H. 508 (7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE), there was an earthquake at Aleppo and Samsat and Marash were swallowed up and many people [were] killed.
Satirica Ystoria by Paulinus Minorita (aka Paolino Veneto)	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic (Franciscan)	Between 1324 and 1344	Italy	Andrea Dandolo used Satirica Ystoria as a source but editions are hard to come by
Chronica per extensum descripta by Andrea Dandolo	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	between 1344 and 1351/2 according to wikipedia	Venice	Summary Dandolo wrote about an earthquake in two seperate passages separated by two sentences. In the 1st account, he says that the East was shaken by so tremendous an earthquake that it completely destroyed buildings especially in Cilicia, at Mamistra, and all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing and men wandered through the fields fearing that they would be swallowed up by the earth. No date was provided for the 1st earthquake. In the 2nd account, Dandolo stated that during the night of the Ides of November [13 November], in the suburbs of Antioch, the earth swallowed up many towers and the houses beside them, together with their inhabitants". Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that Dandolo used Marino Sanudo the Elder for the 1st account and Anselm of Gembloux for the 2nd account as the wording is very similar (verbatim ?) and then mistakenly separated their accounts into two different earthquakes - when in fact both descriptions by Dandolo refer to the same 13 November 1114 CE earthquake. Ambraseys (2009) also dates Dandolo's account to 13 November 1114 CE.
Ibn Kathir	Arabic	Biography	Muslim	Before 1373 CE	Damascus	Summary Ibn Kathir wrote that in A.H. 508 (7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE), there was a great earthquake in Al-Jazira, causing destruction of 13 towers and many houses in Al-Ruha and some houses in Khurasan. Khurasan seems unlikely as it was too far away. Ibn Kathir added that there were 100,000 victims in many houses in many countries, half of the Harran castle collapsed, and Samsat was swallowed up and many people were killed under [the] debris
as-Suyuti	Arabic	Biography	Sufi Muslim	15th c. CE	Cairo	Summary al-Suyuti wrote that in A.H. 508 (7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE), an extremely violent earthquake took place in the territory of al-Jazirah causing thirteen towers of Ruha to collapse, creating damage to part of the girdle-wall and numerous houses in Harran, and the destruction of 100 houses and half of the citadel of Balis. Sumaysat is said to have disappeared under the ground and a great number of victims were mourned.
Historia Gotefridi by Benedetto Accolti the Elder	Latin	Biography	Roman Catholic	1463/4 (Black, 1985:225)	Italy	In a chronologically inconsistent passage, Accolti states that a terrible earthquake reduced many towns throughout Syria to ruins.
Liber Pontificalis	Latin	Background and Biography	Roman Catholic	compiled by multiple authors over centuries	Probably mostly in Rome	Summary Liber Pontificalis describes earthquake(s) in what appears to be the 16th year of the reign of Pope Pashal II which works out to 13 Aug. 1114 to 12 Aug. 1115 CE. Liber states that an earthquake destroyed all the town walls and houses at Mamistra; and most of the inhabitants were caught up in the disaster. It adds that a knight who was trying to flee to Antioch, was swallowed up by the earth together with his horse when a fissure suddenly appeared such that he was buried alive. Another fissure is reported on that same occasion when an ox was caught in another crack in the earth. The ox is reported to have sunk into the earth up to its horns. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) attribute the damage in Mamistra to an earthquake on 13 November 1114 CE, which fits into the 16th year of Pope Pashal II, however they take the story of the Knight fleeing to Antioch as a report of a fissure in Antioch which they say amalgamates in an earthquake which they date to 29 November 1115 CE and Ambraseys (2009) dates to 29 November 1114 CE. It must be pointed out, however, that the Knight was reported to be *fleeing* to Antioch. It does not say he was in Antioch. The location where the Knight got swallowed up by the earth is unspecified and may be somewhere between Mamistra and Antioch.
Rasa’il, MS Dar al-Kutub, at Cairo, f. 11	Arabic		Muslim	?	Cairo ?	Summary Ambraseys (2009) supplies an excerpt with a brief description of an eclipse and an earthquake which is difficult to date and no location is specified. Nur ad-Din (r. 1146-1174 CE) is mentioned and appears to be party to a judicial ruling which Taher (1979) includes in his catalog entry for the 1170 CE Earthquake(s) in a section related to Nur ad-Din's efforts to use funds of the Waqf to repair earthquake damage. and Antioch.
Gesta Dei per Francos by Jacques de Bongars	Latin and possibly some French	Background and Biography	Reformed Christian (aka Calvinist)	1611 CE	Paris	Summary Gesta Dei per Francos is a collection of accounts of the Crusades published in 1611 by Jacques de Bongars. One of the texts in this compilation is Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane often attributed to Lisiard of Tours. Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane has its own section among Textual Evidence however an embedded copy of of Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane inside Bongar's compilation is bookmarked and shown in the collapsible Panel for Gesta Dei per Francos by Jacques de Bongars
Other Authors
Historiography
Text (with hotlink)	Original Language	Biographical Info	Religion	Date of Composition	Location Composed	Notes

Damage and Chronology Reports from Textual Sources

Date and Time

10 Aug. 1114 CE

**Certain Date Assignments**
Source	Reporting Location	Time and Date	Notes
Fulcher of Chartres	Jerusalem	10 Aug. 1114 CE	Later, on the Feast of St. Lawrence, there was an earthquake
Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	?	10 Aug. 1114 CE	At the feast of Saint Lawrence, an earthquake affected us all the towns and settlements along the coast collapsed, thereby killing the inhabitants The towns of Maras and Trihalet collapsed in ruins Estoire is believed to be a heavily abbreviated vernacular version of the crusade chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this actually describes the 13 November Earthquake

13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**Certain Date Assignments**
Source	Reporting Location	Time and Date	Notes
Fulcher of Chartres	Jerusalem	13 Nov. 1114 CE	Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city
Abbot Anslem	Gembloux (Belgium)	night of 13 Nov. 1115 CE	during the night, the earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch, swallowing up many towers and the houses next to them together with their inhabitants Some, as is the custom with those people, had gone away from those places with their wives and children; but on the way back the earthquake swallowed them up where they were
Andrea Dondolo	Venice	night of 13 Nov. 1115 CE	the East was shaken by so tremendous an earthquake that it completely destroyed buildings especially in Cilicia, at Malmistra, and all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing Men wandered through the fields fearing that they would be swallowed up by the earth During the night of the Ides of November [13 November], in the suburbs of Antioch, the earth swallowed up many towers and the houses beside them, together with their inhabitants possibly sourced from Abbot Anslem Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) write that Venetian writer Andrea Dandolo (1306-1354), whose sources are Marin Sanudo and Anselm of Gembloux, mistakenly thought that the information recorded in his sources referred to two different earthquakes. The result, according to Guidoboni and Comastri (2005), is that Dandolo provides two separate reports, both of which really refer to the earthquake of 13 November 1114.
Walter the Chancellor	Antioch	13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE	Walter alludes to an earlier earthquake when he states that not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra, previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the feast of St Brice. The feast of St Brice is held on 13 November.

29 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**Certain Date Assignments**
Source	Reporting Location	Time and Date	Notes
Walter the Chancellor	Antioch	nighttime 29 Nov. 1115 CE	Seismic Effects Walter alludes to an earlier earthquake when he states that not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra, previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the feast of St Brice. The feast of St Brice is held on 13 November. there was an immense and terrible earthquake in Antioch and its region men were horribly knocked around, and they felt, saw, heard the collapse of walls, towers and different buildings deeply threatening themselves and others some thought to escape the collapse by running away, some to slide down from the walls, certain men gave themselves up and threw themselves down from high houses More, indeed, were caught piecemeal in their sleep by the collapse, in such a way that even if a part of the wall remained intact, they were nowhere to be seen Others, indeed, were terrified; they abandoned their homes, scorned their wealth, left everything, and behaved as if demented in the streets and squares of the town When morning came, and the vast scale of the wretched disaster was clear beneath the ruin both of men and of other things certain people who had escaped by God's favour in the town of Marash testified that that same town had been entirely destroyed with its lord and bishop, also the clergy and all the people And not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra, previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the Feast of Saint Brice (13 November) What of al-Atharib? What of the other Antiochene lands? A comparable torment was imagined happening in quite disparate places aftershocks - each day, the earthquake threatened for hopeless hours they [the people of Antioch and possibly elsewhere] decided it was easier to cohabit with the animals outside than to live inside in constant fear of the impending collapse of the buildings. they adopted tents for homes in the streets, in the squares, in gardens, in thickets, with other dwellings abandoned More, indeed, left the towns and took their huts from place to place, staying on the plains Ambraseys (2009) notes that strangely, Walter places this event in 1115, after the plague of locusts (presumably of 1114), but before the alliance between il-Ghazi and Tughtigin, which was made in 1114 (Grousset 1991, 484).
Matthew of Edessa	probably from a monastery just outside of Kaysun	nighttime 29 Nov. 1114 CE	Seismic Effects while we were in a deep sleep, a horrible, crackling, and reverberating sound was heard, and all of creation resounded from the noise. Rockfalls and Landslides - A severe concussion was felt, and the plains and mountains shook with a frightful echoing sound, while tremendous rocks were cleft and hills were split open Because of the intensity of this frightful calamity, the mountains and hills resounded, just like live animals who when they are terrified, shrilly cry out; this resounding noise hit the ears like the sound of a large throng in a camp In this way, like a churned-up sea, all living creatures quaked and trembled from fear of the might of the Lord God; for all the plains and mountains resounded like the clanging of bronze, shaking and moving to and fro like trees struck by a high wind The cries and groans of people issued forth like the plaintive moans of persons sick for a very long time, forcing them through fear to seek their own destruction aftershocks - the whole land was reduced to despair and trembled with fear and like one condemned [to die], gave forth plaintive and tearful cries; moreover, these noises were heard even after the trembling ended, for about an hour during the night during this night many towns and districts were destroyed all the areas destroyed were those of the Franks, while no harm or destruction came to other regions or peoples. on this night Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kesoun, and Raban were destroyed Marash was destroyed in such a frightful manner that as many as forty thousand persons died; it was a populous city and yet not one person survived The same thing happened to the town of Mamistra, where a countless number of men and women perished many other villages and monasteries were destroyed, and thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children perished in the Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains, where the holy monks and Armenian vardapets had gathered for the consecration of a new church building; in the midst of the divine service the church collapsed on them, and thirty monks and two vardapets perished beneath the ruins, their bodies remaining in the rubble to this day A similar mishap occurred near Marash in the great Monastery of the Jesuits, where the monastery was destroyed and all the monks perished. when the tremors had ceased, snow began to fall and cover the entire land The illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Maschguévor, perished in the same place
Ibn al-Jawzi	Baghdad	night of 29 Nov. 1114 CE	there had been an earthquake at Al-Ruha, and 13 towers in the city walls had collapsed Part of the walls at Harran had also collapsed, and many houses had collapsed on top of their inhabitants There had been collapses at Sumaysa at Balis, about a hundred houses have been destroyed, and half of the citadel has collapsed, but the other half has survived Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 13 November Earthquake but I disagree. I think it more likely 29 November was meant. There is an apparent dating error in Ibn al-Jawzi's account and the date and day of the week do not agree. Date and day of the week agree for the 29 November date so I think that is the more likely date.
Michael the Syrian	Mor Hanayo Monastery (aka the Saffron Monastery)	dawn on 29 Nov. 1114 CE	there was a very violent earthquake in which the city of Mar`ash was entirely swallowed up and overturned, that is to say its foundations rose up and its buildings collapsed, so that it became a grave for its inhabitants and a terror to those who saw it In this earthquake, the church of Mar John of Kaishum and that of the Forty Martyrs collapsed Samosata also fell in that earthquake, and Constantine, lord of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated there [at Samosata, not Gargar] with many people In every city and village numerous places collapsed For reasons unknown, Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) lists this in their 13 November Earthquake entry Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry.
Chronicon Ad Annum 1234	probably Edessa	night of 29 Nov. 1114 CE	there was a severe earthquake and Germanicia, which is Mar`ash, was destroyed and entirely perished. Its houses were destroyed, its whole wall collapsed. Twenty-four thousand died besides strangers, and more than a hundred priests and deacons. The castle of Mansur and many other places were wiped out. Michael ... the son of Constantine ... was buried under the prison of Samosata during the earthquake, which destroyed Mar`ash. For reasons not quite understood, Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) lists this in their 13 November Earthquake entry. They state that it contains a dating error. The primary passage describing the earthquake specifies a date of 29 November 1114 CE. It should be noted that Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) date the 29 November Earthquake to 1115 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) add that that this report does indeed refer to the earthquake of 1114, is made clear by the fact that the same chronicle gives the right date [i.e., year] for the earthquake in a later passage In the year fourteen hundred and twenty-five (of the Greeks, 1114) ... at this time the country of Gargar was ruled by an Armenian, whose name was Michael. He was the son of Constantine, who was buried under the prison of Samosata during the earth quake, which destroyed Mar`ash. Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry while noting that The chronology at this point in the text is very confused, however, insofar as the author places this earthquake immediately after Roger of Antioch took Azaz, which was in 1118 (Tritton 1933, 85) and in the same year as Joscelin of Courtenay was banished and Baldwin was made governor of Tiberias, which may have been either 1104 (Will. Tyr. xi. 22/493) or 1109 (Albert of Aix, xi. 12/668). Ambraseys (2009) adds It is not known how Runciman derived his date of 1113 (Runciman 1952, vol. 2, 96 and n.3). There is no doubt to which earthquake the Chronicle is referring, however, since it notes the total destruction of ‘Germanicia, which is Mar’as’, with the collapse of houses and ramparts’ and the deaths of ‘more than 100 priests and shammas [deacons]’, in addition to the ruin of Hisn Mansur and the total destruction of ‘several other places’ (Cosmas, 226). This is a typical description of the earthquake – note that no mention is made of Antioch or even Mopsuestia.. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) state that Matthew of Edessa wrongly dates the death of the Armenian nobleman Constantine, lord of Gargar, who was imprisoned in the fortress at Samosata, to the year 566 [20 February 1117 — 19 February 1118], evidently attributing the collapse of the fortress at Samosata to the Marmet earthquake in 1117-1118 (see the entry concerned); but it actually happened on 13 November 1114.
Kemal ad-Din	Aleppo or Cairo	night of 29 Nov. 1114 CE	a terrible earthquake laid waste the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders The tower of the north gate of Antioch and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims the fort of A’zaz was no more than a ruin The damage was not very serious in Aleppo, but other places, like el-Athareb and Zerdanah, were almost completely destroyed Ambraseys (2009) notes that Kemal’s record is unusual among ‘eastern’ sources for its geographical spread, but by virtue of living in Aleppo he was much further west than most.
Chronicle of Sembat	Cilician Armenia	nighttime 29 Nov. 1114 CE	The earth trembled In the middle of the night, the shocks were felt A rumble and terrible roars came from the depths of the earth The sea got up, and the mountains and hills made terrifying sounds A great number of cities were ruined Antioch collapsed, as well as Mecis, Hisn-Mansur, Kaysum, Ablastha, R’aban and Samosata Marash was completely overturned, and 40000 people were found dead On the Black Mountain, at the monastery of the Basilians ... this building [the church] collapsed around them, and thirty monks and two doctors were killed Chronicle of Sembat is based in part on Matthew of Edessa Ambraseys (2009) notes that Sembat says nothing about the death of Gregory of Mashgevor, in an earthquake or otherwise.
Bar Hebreaus	possibly Maraghah	29 or 30 Nov. 1114 CE	a terribly violent earthquake took place the whole city of Mar'ash sunk underground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof very many houses fell down in Samosata Constantine, the lord of Gargar, was present in the town [of Samasota], and he, together with many others, was suffocated in the ruins there fell down thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa; and portions of the wall of Harran; and a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash; and two churches of Khishum, viz. the church of Mar John, and the church of the Forty Martyrs likely sourced from Michael the Syrian Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry and notes that Budge (1928) incorrectly interprets this as 1115 and he records Samosata’s collapse and Constantine of Garagar’s death there, but adds numerous other details about the damage..

Other Date Assignments

**Other Date Assignments**
Source	Reporting Location	Time and Date	Notes
Fulcher of Chartres	Jerusalem	17/18 July and 8/9 August 1113 CE	we twice felt and earthquake
Fulcher of Chartres	Jerusalem	1114 CE	Likewise a greater quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins. They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash, which I think is about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there, alas! were all killed Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed. greater quake only dated to 1114 CE but follows the 13 Nov. 1114 CE quake. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this greater quake does describe the 13 November Earthquake Ambraseys (2009) discusses this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry and notes that it was undated.
Fulcher of Chartres	Jerusalem	1115 CE	In that year the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 29 November Earthquake which they date to 1115 CE
Secunda Pars		July-August 1113 CE	The sea is disturbed even more than usual, and even denies the possibility of fishing in the seas; and the earth is shaken twice A terrible earthquake, and the overthrow of the buildings, withering away, threatens mortals with fear Secunda pars is considered to be an epitome of sorts of Fulcher of Chartres Fulcher of Chartres dates these earthquakes to midnight 17/18 July 1113 CE and ~9 am (3rd Hour) 8/9 August 1113 CE. Fulcher also includes a description of the sea being so rough, no-one could fish before the two earthquakes. Ambraseys (2009) writes that Secunda pars, which Ambraseys (2009) refers to as Historia Hierosolomitana and claims to quote from a compilation by Bongars (1611) lists two and possibly three earthquakes - The first, which is questionable, is placed in 1113 – ‘the sea was rougher than usual, such that it was impossible to fish in the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake’, but he does not give a location. Christians were apparently terrified and ‘were afflicted in this way for two months’.
Secunda Pars		April-May and the following [months ?] 1114 CE	a horrible earthquake struck Some parts of the city of Mamistria was overturned and many towns were affected in the region of Antioch, some partially destroyed and some fully destroyed with some of the people killed Also in the city of Mariscum, the entire populace was overwhelmed by the sudden collapse of the buildings Also in the Euphrates a town called Thihalet was completely overthrown Secunda pars is considered to be an epitome of sorts of Fulcher of Chartres Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think that although the author of Secunda pars derives his information from Fulk [Fulcher] of Chartres, he fails to take account of the exact chronological sequence of events in 1114 provided by Fulk (a plague of locusts in April and May, an earthquake without damage on 10 August in the Jerusalem area, and a destructive earthquake on 13 November in the Antioch region), and conflates the two separate earthquakes of 10 August and 13 November 1114, recording a single earthquake which supposedly began in the April-May period. Ambraseys (2009) writes that Secunda pars, which Ambraseys (2009) refers to as Historia Hierosolomitana and claims to quote from a compilation by Bongars (1611) lists two and possibly three earthquakes - More earthquakes are given for 1114. The first occurred in Jerusalem in April or May, before the plague of locusts from Arabia. Then, in either the same or a separate earthquake, the Historia does not make it clear, part of Mopsuestia, ‘part of the city centre as well as part of the new district’ of Antioch (cf. Anselm of Gembloux’s account of the damage in Antioch), Marash and ‘Thihalet’ (Tell Halid) were destroyed. A further earthquake is given for 1115, ‘which overthrew Mamistria [Mopsuestia], once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia’ – this may be based on Fulcher’s 1115 earthquake (liv. 7/214/428). The Historia seems to give a muddled picture, but does provide the interesting details about the rough sea (note Sembat’s remark that ‘the sea got up’) and the damage to the centre of Antioch.. JW: I see no reason to label this as questionable as it sourced from contemporaneous source Fulcher of Chartres who wrote we felt twice an earthquake. This would suggest an earthquake felt in Jerusalem where Fulcher lived or possibly around the Sea of Galilee if Fulcher was with King Baldwin I at the Battle of al-Sinnabrah and its aftermath
Secunda Pars		1115 CE	in the same year and overthrowing Mamistria by an earthquake, a city once quite illustrious, and shaking most other places in the Antiochene territory with similar horror. Secunda pars is considered to be an epitome of sorts of Fulcher of Chartres Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 29 November Earthquake which they date to 1115 CE. Ambraseys (2009) writes that Secunda pars, which Ambraseys (2009) refers to as Historia Hierosolomitana and claims to quote from a compilation by Bongars (1611) lists two and possibly three earthquakes - More earthquakes are given for 1114. The first occurred in Jerusalem in April or May, before the plague of locusts from Arabia. Then, in either the same or a separate earthquake, the Historia does not make it clear, part of Mopsuestia, ‘part of the city centre as well as part of the new district’ of Antioch (cf. Anselm of Gembloux’s account of the damage in Antioch), Marash and ‘Thihalet’ (Tell Halid) were destroyed. A further earthquake is given for 1115, ‘which overthrew Mamistria [Mopsuestia], once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia’ – this may be based on Fulcher’s 1115 earthquake (liv. 7/214/428). The Historia seems to give a muddled picture, but does provide the interesting details about the rough sea (note Sembat’s remark that ‘the sea got up’) and the damage to the centre of Antioch..
Flores Historiaum	England	a little after a comet appeared in May 1114 CE	here was an earthquake, which threw down part of the city of Manistre, not far from Antioch, with two castles, called Triphalet and Mariacus Flores Historiaum specified 1113 but a comet was reported by many European sources in May 1114 CE Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry.
Ibn al-Qalanisi	Damascus	7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	there was a strong earthquake in Syria which caused both the earth and the hearts of its inhabitants to tremble Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 13 November Earthquake. However, there is nothing in this brief passage which allows one to distinguish whether he is describing the earthquake of 13 November, 29 November, or both.
William of Tyre		1114 CE	an earthquake struck the whole of Syria which was so great that it destroyed many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Caelo-Syria in Cilicia it completely prostrated Mamistra and many other towns it also threw down Maresia together with its suburbs, so that scarcely any traces remained Towers shook and the larger buildings fell down causing countless deaths, and cities, like stone ramparts, formed great mounds, and crushing their penitent citizens entombed them probable human reaction to aftershocks - people fled their homes in the cities, fearing the ruin of their houses, and while they hoped to find rest under the open sky, they were struck with a fear which interrupted their sleep, suffering, as the watch men had feared, violent seizures in their sleep Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 13 November Earthquake Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry.
Romuald of Salerno	Salerno, Italy	December 1114 or 1115 CE	there was an earthquake in Syria, so great that Mamistra and Marais [Mar’ash] were razed to the ground, and several other cities and fort-towns fell, their men crushed part of Antioch and even Jerusalem collapsed to the ground Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 29 November Earthquake which they date to 1115 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) state Archbishop Romuald of Salerno (1120/1130-1181), for example, confuses information about the 1114 earthquakes (see the preceding entries [10 Aug., 13 Nov.]) and that of 29 November 1115, making the following entry for December 1115. Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry.
Robert of Torghini	Normandy France	1114 CE	Part of the city of Mamistria collapsed in an earthquake, and two forts not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphalech date is from a marginal note
Robert of Torghini	Normandy France	1115 CE	Mamistra is desolated from the greater earthquake date is from a marginal note Ambraseys (2009) suggests that this may refer to a destructive aftershock and is possibly the same as Benedict of Accolti’s second earthquake. Benedict of Accolti reported earthquakes in chronologically inconsistent passages.
Ibn al-Athir	Mosul	2 November - 30 November 1114 CE	there was a violent earthquake in the regions of Gazira and Syria as well as other regions Ruha, Harran, Sumaysat, Balis and other towns were largely destroyed, and many people died in the ruins Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 13 November Earthquake Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry while stating that Ibn al-Athir dates this event to A.H. 508, 28th of latter Jumada (27 November 1114) however in his excerpt, Ambraseys (2009) lists the date specified as only latter Jumada A.H. 508 which works out to 2 November - 30 November 1114 CE. The excerpts of Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) and Sbeinati et al. (2005) likewise only specify latter Jumada A.H. 508 as the date Ambraseys (2009) adds that Ibn al-Athir describes the earthquake as affecting al-Jazirah (not ‘Mesopotamia, Syria’ as in RHC) and other regions. Clearly Ibn al-Athir saw it as extending much further north, insofar as he notes in particular the collapse of ‘great parts’ of al-Ruha (Edessa), ‘Harran, Samosata, Balis and other cities’, with many deaths ensuing. Once again, no mention is made of the more western cities. Runciman (1952, vol. 2, 481) notes Ibn al-Athir’s chronological deficiencies and his tendency to transform his sources’ accounts after his own prejudices; but he praises him as ‘a real historian who tried to understand the broad significance of the event that he described’.
Marino Sanudo the Elder	Venice	1114 CE	In 1114 a huge earthquake shook the Orient especially in Cilicia where it damaged Mamistra and all the fortifications round about. Elsewhere other cities were destroyed, so that no trace of the temple remained and men wandering through the fields were afraid that they would be sucked down by the earth. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think that Marino Sanudo used William of Tyre as his source and that, like Williams of Tyre, he is describing the 13 November Earthquake
Ibn al-Dawadari	Damascus	7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	there was an earthquake at Aleppo Samsat and Marash were swallowed up and many people killed
Ibn Kathir	Damascus	7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	there was a great earthquake in Al-Jazira, causing destruction of 13 towers and many houses in Al-Ruha and some houses in Khurasan (?) many houses in many countries where many of its inhabitants were killed about 100,000 victims half of Harran castle was collapsed Samsat was swallowed up and many people were killed under debris Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this describes the 13 November Earthquake
al-Suyuti	Cairo	7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	An extremely violent earthquake took place in the territory of al-Jazirah it caused thirteen towers of Ruha to collapse, part of the girdle-wall of Harran and numerous houses At Balis, 100 houses were destroyed, and whereas half of the citadel was overturned, the other half remained intact The town of Sumaysat disappeared under the ground: a great number of victims were mourned Ambraseys (2009) lists this in his 29 November 1114 CE entry and notes that Al-Suyuti’s perspective on the earthquake is characteristically ‘eastern’, being based mostly, it seems, on the account of Ibn al-Athir while adding that Al-Suyuti places the earthquake in the Jazirah, and notes the damage to Edessa, Harran, Balis and Samosata..
Liber Pontificalis	probably Rome	13 Aug. 1114 to 12 Aug. 1115 CE	an earthquake destroyed all the town walls and houses at Mamistra; and most of the inhabitants were caught up in the disaster One knight, for example, who was trying to flee to Antioch, was swallowed up by the earth together with his horse when a fissure suddenly appeared, so that he was buried alive on that same occasion, an ox was caught in another crack in the earth, and while its body disappeared into the abyss, its horns remained attached to the surface Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) think this amalgamates the 13 and 29 November earthquakes noting that while the complete collapse of Mamistra did indeed occur on 29 November 1115, the surface faulting at Antioch was in fact caused by the previous earthquake [13 November]. However, this is based on the assumption that the Knight who got swallowed was in Antioch when in fact he was fleeing to Antioch and may have been closer to Mamistra when he met his demise.

Notes on chronology from Ambraseys (2009)

These chronological problems are not too difficult to resolve, however. Firstly, it must be remembered that this earthquake was followed by five months of after shocks, and may have been preceded by foreshocks. A destructive foreshock might have done most of the earthquake’s damage in a given city, and, since this would be the most perceptible effect, a local source would naturally tend to use this to date the earthquake. This would also account for the few references to an earthquake in 1115 (Fulcher, Rob. Tor, Bongars), which was probably a damaging aftershock.

In fact, there is strong agreement between the two eyewitnesses, Walter the Chancellor and Matthew of Edessa, about the date of the main shock. Both give the night of 29 November. Walter’s year of 1115 was shown above to be an anomaly, and was probably due to a scribal error. It should be 1114, thus agreeing with Matthew’s a.Arm. 563. The problem of the latter’s incorrectly placing the earthquake on the day of the Finding of the Cross may be due to a scribe’s misunderstanding his source. Dulaurier observes that the dominical letter of a.Arm. 563, which was D, was sent out on 29 November 1114, the very day of the earthquake (Dulaurier 1861, n. 65).

Walter also gives an earlier earthquake in Mopsuestia, on 13 November 1114, the same date as given by Fulcher (lii/210) and the Continuation of Sigbert (241). It is thus likely that a strong foreshock destroyed Mopsuestia and parts of Cilicia, the destruction extending over a much wider area on 29 November, which must therefore have been the main shocks.

The slight variation of dates among the ‘eastern’ sources, all of whom place the earthquake in November 1114, is probably explained by the occurrence of variably destructive foreshocks and aftershocks. Ibn al Jauzi’s record of the letter to Baghdad gives 19 November, as has been seen. At Aleppo the earthquake may well have done the most damage on 27 November, hence Kemal’s date. Other later writers, such as Abu’l Faraj, seem to have chosen one date from their sources. It is thus likely that the earthquake, with its foreshocks and aftershocks, had damaging effects from November 1114 until some time in the first quarter of 1115.

It is hard to justify Runciman’s date of 1117, which is given by none of the sources, and indeed would require systematic errors in all the early sources (Runciman 1952, vol. 2, 130).

A final factual difficulty is the number of deaths at Mopsuestia given by Matthew of Edessa and the Chronicon ad annum 1234. The former gives 40000 and the latter 24000. The former sounds like a biblical formula for a multitude, but the violence of this earthquake, and the fact that it happened at night when people were indoors, does not rule out such a number. Also it is not impossible that the Chronicon ad annum 1234 is referring to the destructive aftershock in Mopsuestia in 1115.

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005, 74) split this earthquake into two events, one on 13 November 1114 and another on 29 November 1115; the reasons for this do not seem clear.

Seismic Effects

10 Aug. 1114 CE

**10 Aug. 1114 CE**
Effect	Sources	Notes
On the Feast of St. Lawrence, there was an earthquake	Fulcher of Chartres, Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire is beleived to be a heavily abbreviated vernacular version of the crusade chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres
all the towns and settlements along the coast collapsed, thereby killing the inhabitants	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire is beleived to be a heavily abbreviated vernacular version of the crusade chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres
The towns of Maras and Trihalet collapsed in ruins	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire is beleived to be a heavily abbreviated vernacular version of the crusade chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres

13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE**
Effect	Sources	Notes
Struck on the Ides of November	Fulcher of Chartres, Abbot Anselm, Andrea Dandolo
Struck at night	Abbot Anselm, Andrea Dandolo
Towers, Houses, and their inhabitants swallowed up in suburbs of Antioch	Abbot Anselm, Andrea Dandolo
people wandering after earthquake were swallowed up or feared they would be swallowed up	Abbot Anselm, Andrea Dandolo
an earthquake at Mamistria destroyed a part of the city	Fulcher of Chartres
completely destroyed buildings in Mamistria	Andrea Dandolo
destroyed all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing	Andrea Dandolo

29 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**29 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE**
Effect	Sources	Notes
Loud noises	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat
Aftershocks	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa	Walter mentions 5 months of aftershocks
like a churned-up sea or the sea got up metaphor	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat
Rockfalls and Landslides	Matthew of Edessa
Damage confined to the lands of the Franks	Matthew of Edessa
Snow fell after the tremors stopped	Matthew of Edessa
Marash entirely destroyed	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa, Michael the Syrian, Chron. ad. annum 1234, Kemal ad-Din, Chronicle of Sembat, Bar Hebraeus	Matthew of Edessa says Monastery of the Jesuits destroyed near Marash
Samosata collapsed or destroyed	Matthew of Edessa, Ibn al-Jawzi, Michael the Syrian, Chron. ad. annum 1234, Chronicle of Sembat, Bar Hebraeus
Collapses in Kaishum	Matthew of Edessa, Michael the Syrian, Chronicle of Sembat, Bar Hebraeus	Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus say that Church of Mar John and Church of the Forty Martyrs near Kaishum collapsed Matthew of Edessa says Kaishum was destroyed
Mamistra heavily damaged	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat	Walter the Chancellor said that Mamistra was previously ruined on the Feast of Saint Brice (13 November)
Antioch damaged or collapsed	Walter the Chancellor, Kemal ad-Din, Chronicle of Sembat	Kemal ad-Din says that tower of the north gate of Antioch and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims Walter the Chancellor describes Roger and others examining the extent of the destruction of the walls and towers of Antioch (Asbridge and Edgington (2019:86)).
Building Collapses and Casualties in Antioch and its region	Walter the Chancellor
Collapses in Harran	Ibn al-Jawzi, Kemal ad-Din, Bar Hebraeus	Ibn al-Jawzi and Bar Hebraeus say that Part of the walls and many houses at Harran had collapsed
13 towers in the city walls of Edessa collapsed	Ibn al-Jawzi, Bar Hebraeus
~100 homes and half the citadel collapsed in Balis	Ibn al-Jawzi, Bar Hebraeus
Church Collapse at Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat
Collapses in Raban	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat
Mansur or Hisn-Mansur destroyed or collapsed	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat
Collapses in Ablastha	Chronicle of Sembat
fort of A’zaz ruined	Kemal ad-Din
el-Athareb almost completely destroyed	Kemal ad-Din
Zerdanah almost completely destroyed	Kemal ad-Din
Damage in Aleppo not serious	Kemal ad-Din

Locations

10 Aug. 1114 CE

**10 Aug. 1114 CE**
Location	Sources	Notes
Jerusalem ?	Fulcher of Chartres, Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche is thought to be dependent on Fulcher of Chartres
all the towns and settlements along the coast	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche is thought to be dependent on Fulcher of Chartres
Marash	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche is thought to be dependent on Fulcher of Chartres
Trihalet, near the Euphrates River¹	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche	Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche is thought to be dependent on Fulcher of Chartres

Footnotes

1 Ryan (1969:210 n.5) states that Trialeth cannot be identified, but Hagenmeyer suggests that it may have been Balis on the Euphrates, about 100 miles east of Antioch, the scene of an earthquake in A.H. 508 (June 7, 1114—May 26, 1115) recorded by Sibt Ibn-al-Jauzi (RHC, Or., III, 551-52; HF 580, note 12). Ambraseys (2009) suggests that Trialeth is Tell Khalid (Trialeth), a fortified site at the head of Sadjour Suyu, a tributary of the Euphrates River. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that Trihaleth is present day Akçakoyunlu.

13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE**
Location	Sources	Notes
Antioch suburbs	Abbot Anselm, Andrea Dandolo
Cilicia	Andrea Dandolo
Mamistra	Fulcher of Chartres, Andrea Dandolo

29 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE

**29 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE**
Location	Sources	Notes
Marash	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa, Michael the Syrian, Chron. Ad. Annum 1234, Kemal ad-Din, Chronicle of Sembat, Bar Hebraeus	Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period. Matthew of Edessa also specified damage at the Monastery of the Jesuits² near Marash
Samosata	Matthew of Edessa, Ibn al-Jawzi, Michael the Syrian, Ibn al-Athir, Chron. Ad. Annum 1234, Bar Hebraeus
Kesoun	Matthew of Edessa, Michael the Syrian, Chronicle of Sembat, Bar Hebraeus	Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus specified the church of Mar John of Kesoun Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus specified the church of 40 Martyrs of Kesoun Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period
Mamistra	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat	Chronicle of Sembat specifies Mecis which may be Mamistra. Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period.
Principality of Antioch	Walter the Chancellor, Matthew of Edessa, Kemal ad-Din
Antioch	Walter the Chancellor, Chronicle of Sembat
Hisn-Mansur	Matthew of Edessa, Chron. Ad. Annum 1234, Chronicle of Sembat	Chron. Ad. Annum 1234 specified the Castle of Mansur. Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period
Harran	Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn al-Athir, Kemal ad-Din, Bar Hebraeus
al-Ruha [Edessa]	Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn al-Athir, Bar Hebraeus
Balis	Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn al-Athir, Bar Hebraeus
Raban	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat	Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period
Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains¹	Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle of Sembat	Chronicle of Sembat was sourced from Matthew of Edessa during this time period
al-Atharib	Walter the Chancellor, Kemal ad-Din	Walter did not say that Atarib was damaged but said What of al-Atharib? (`quid de Cerepo?' in the original Latin)
Fort of Azaz	Kemal ad-Din
Zerdanah	Kemal ad-Din	Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:96 n. 115 State that Zerdanah was probably held by Robert fitz-Fulk die Leper in 1115; i.e. it was within the Principality of Antioch
Ablastha	Chronicle of Sembat
The monastery of Mashchgavor (Mashkur)³	Matthew of Edessa
Aleppo and environs	Kemal ad-Din	Kemal ad-Din said damage was not serious in the district of Aleppo
The Syrian borders	Kemal ad-Din
Apamea		Not mentioned by any author but Asbridge and Edgington (2019:89 n. 78) note that Apamea was probably still part of the princely domain in 1115, perhaps held in castellany by Engelrand, who was named prefect of Apamea in 1111 by Albert of Aachen, XI.40. Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Kafartab		Not mentioned by any author but Asbridge and Edgington (2019:92 n. 94) note that Kafartab was probably held by Bonable of Sarmin in 1115. Asbridge (1999:312) describe Bonable of Sarmin as the most important Latin (Crusader) lay landholder of the Principality of Antioch. Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Maarat al-Numan		Not mentioned by any author but probably was not in the principality of Antioch at the time of the earthquake. Asbridge and Edgington (2019:96 n. 114) indicate that Maarat al-Numan appears to have been in Muslim hands in 1115 CE. Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Shaizar		Not mentioned by any author but probably was not in the principality of Antioch at the time of the earthquake. Kennedy in Tonghini and Montevecchi (2011:9) writes that the Isma'ilis attacked and took control of Shaizar during Easter of 1114 CE but were soon expelled by the independently ruling Banu Munqidh family. According to Kennedy in Tonghini and Montevecchi (2011:10), Tancred extracted tribute from Shaizar but did not conquer it in 1110 CE. A later Crusader attempt to take Shaizar was repelled by the ruling Banu Munqidh family with help from muslim forces led by Mawdud (d. 1113 CE) in 1111 CE (Kennedy in Tonghini and Montevecchi, 2011:11). Despite this loss, Kennedy in Tonghini and Montevecchi (2011:11) reports that, according to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Prince Roger of Salerno insisted on continued payment of tribute in 1112 CE. Since Shaizar was still under control of the Banu Munqidh family in 1138 CE when it was attacked by a combined Byzantine-Crusader force in 1138 CE, it appears that Shaizar was not in Crusader control in 1114/5 CE. (Kennedy in Tonghini and Montevecchi, 2011:11). Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Hab		Hab is listed as a fortified site under Crusader control in 1114 CE on the map below: Fortifications of the Crusader States 1100-1170 CE Click on image to open a higher resolution magnifiable image in a new tab from i.pinimg.com Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Bourzey Castle		Bourzey Castle is listed as a fortified site under Crusader control in 1114 CE on the map below: Fortifications of the Crusader States 1100-1170 CE Click on image to open a higher resolution magnifiable image in a new tab from i.pinimg.com Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).
Saone		Saone is listed as a fortified site under Crusader control in 1114 CE on the map below: Fortifications of the Crusader States 1100-1170 CE Click on image to open a higher resolution magnifiable image in a new tab from i.pinimg.com Walter the Chancellor indicated that there was more earthquake damage without specifying exact locations when he wrote that after the earthquake, Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection (Asbridge and Edgington, 2019:84).

Footnotes

1 unsure of location. Basilian means they followed the rights of St. Basil. Ambraseys (2004:741) to this as as Shoughr, the monastery of the Brasilians on the Black Mountains (Lersar), which is between Maras and Sis (Missis, Kozan) about 50 km from the former (Dulaurier, 1861). The following comes from the houshamadyan.org website:

Monastery (Hermitage) of Shughr

One of the prominent monasteries of Cilicia, it was a center of learning. Its specific location is unknown. Writers give contradictory claims as to its location, and they often equate it with the Garmir (Red) Monastery of Kesun. Ghevont Alishan writes, “Someone says it is in Marash or Sis, another, in Kesun…” [12] In his “History”, Vartan the Historian writes the following: “The hermitage of Shughr is probably southwest of Marash.” [13] On the other hand, Father Ghazarian regards it as part of the Red Monastery of Kesun. “It is located in the Andiroun/Andırın-Dongala mountain valley, between Marash and Sis (…), on a promontory in the village of Shughr”, and he adds that until recently “the semi-circular arches of the altar and a portion of the roof were visible.” [14]

2. unsure of exact location. Ambraseys (2009) specifies the location as Esouanc’ near Marash. Ambraseys (2004:741) notes that Matthew describes a similar incident (similar to the collapse at the monastery of the Brasilians on the Black Mountains) at the monastery of Hiesuvank near Maras.

3. Ambraseys (2009) interprets the cause of death for Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Maschguévor, as death due to earthquake. Ambraseys (2009) states that the monastery of Mashchgavor (Mashkur) ... must be sought near the northern part of the Amanus Mountain (Giaur Dag).

Latin Progression

13 Nov. 1114 or 1115 CE


Source	Quote	Notes
Fulcher of Chartres	tempore autem sequenti, quod accidit Idus Novembris apud urbem Mamistriam terrae motus partem subruit oppidi.
Abbot Anslem	Idibus novembris in suburbio Antiochiae terra noctu dehiscens, turres multas et adiacentes domos, cum habitatoribus absorbuit. Quidam autem, ut est illud hominum genus, cum uxore et filiis de locis illis migraverat; sed in redeundo positum idem terraemotus absorbuit in loco quo erat.
Andrea Dondolo	In suburbano Antiochie, ydibus novembris, terra nocte turres plures et adiacentes domos, cum habitatoribus absorbuit.

History of Jerusalem by Fulcher of Chartres

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ryan (1969)

1113 CE - Book II - Chapters XLVIII-LI

from Ryan (1969:204-209)
Book II

XLVIII

The Signs That Appeared

In the year 1113 of the Incarnation of Our Lord, in the month of March and on the twenty-eighth day of the moon,¹ we saw the sun from early morning to the first hour. More than that we saw it wane by fading in one part. The section which first began to fade, at the top, at length came down like a round shape to the bottom. However, the sun did not lose its brightness, which was not diminished I think except in a fourth part. This part was in the shape of a small crescent.
This was an eclipse, which thus caused the sun to fail us.²

XLIX

The Battle Fought Against the Turks, in Which the King and the Christians Were Defeated and from Which Much Evil Followed

Then in the summer time the Turks massed their forces and crossed the Euphrates in order to advance upon the lands of Jerusalem and, as they thought, to destroy us Christians.¹ They left the territory of Antioch to their right, traversed Syria not far from Apamea, left Damascus to their left, and crossed between Tyre and Caesarea Philippi, which is called Paneas,² into the regions of Phoenicia. They intended to attack King Baldwin. But he heard of their advance and moved his army out of Ptolemais, i.e., Acre, against them.

After providing themselves with what they felt was useful to them and while we were ignorant of what they intended, they circled around the Sea of Galilee through the territories of Napthali and Zebulun to the south end of the aforesaid sea.³ There they hedged themselves between two streams, the Jor and Dan⁴.

An island lay between two bridges at this point.⁵ It was so secure that anyone located there could not be attacked because of the narrow entrances at the bridges. When the Turks had pitched their tents, they soon sent out two thousand men across one of the bridges to prepare an ambush for our men. They were confident that these latter would rush up to that point without delay.

When therefore the king came up to encamp near the bridge that has been mentioned, the one leading to Tiberias, he saw nearly five hundred Turks who burst forth from their hiding places to attack our men. Some of the latter rashly charged the Turks and in slaying them did not hesitate to follow the foe up to the place of ambush. Here two thousand of the enemy issued from their hiding places, repulsed our men in a vigorous attack, and scattered them killing three times as many as they themselves lost.⁶

Oh great sadness! On that day our great sins brought great shame. The king fled losing his flag and his fine tent with many furnishings and silver vessels. Likewise the patriarch who was present also fled. We lost nearly thirty of our best knights and about twelve hundred footmen.⁷

Phoebus had risen three times four in the Sign of Cancer When this faithless race scattered the incautious Franks.⁸

But all of the king’s forces were not yet there. In particular Roger, prince of Antioch and son of Richard, was not present. He had been summoned in the name of the love of God and I mg and was coming from Antioch with all haste. A part of the men of Tripoli had already joined the royal army. They were all greatly dismayed. They denounced the impudence of the king hi that he had rushed against the enemy in a rash and disorderly manner without waiting for their advice and aid.⁹

And because our men could not at that time do any damage to the Turks they camped not far from them. Thus each side i ould watch the other all day.

The leader of the enemy army was called Maledoctus. He had attached Tuldequinus, King of Damascus,¹⁰ to himself as an ally. The former led a huge force; the latter had gathered an in numerable host from the part of Syria subject to himself.

The Turks were in the lowland; the Franks settled down upon a height.¹¹ The Turks did not dare issue from their island; the Franks could not attack them. One side schemed, the other feared; one side was crafty, the other wary. The heat of summer oppressed them both Yet they were not able to end such suffering.

The Franks who were absent wondered why those who were there delayed so long. The Saracens subject to us deserted us and as enemies hemmed us in on every side. In addition the Turks went out from their army in bands to devastate our lands and to send back booty and supplies to their army by means of our Sara cens. Sichem, which we call the city of Neapolis, they not only took but destroyed with the help of the Saracens whom we ruled in the mountains.¹²

Indeed the men of Ascalon, who were Arabs and Saracens, although few in number, advanced upon Jerusalem. One day they reached the outer wall of the city and set fire to the harvests gathered there. They wounded with arrows some of our men on the ramparts of the wall; yet many of their men were mortally wounded. Our soldiers were not in the city, for they had gone against the enemy. On the following night the people of Ascalon retired to the great relief of our men, for they dreaded a siege by the former.¹³

L

The Great Fear Which Then Possessed Everyone

At that time it was almost impossible, because of the snares of the enemy, for a messenger sent by any of us to venture forth to the king nor for one from him to come through to any of our cities. Hence it was not known by the towns what the king was doing, nor could they tell him what they were doing.
In many fields the ripened harvest withered
And no one went into the fields to gather it [Matth. 9:37].
For none dared to do so. In that year the harvest was abundant, but while the sea is rough men fear to fish. Everything was in doubt to everyone, and all waited to see to whom God would give the victory. Our Christians ceased their business and their labors except to repair damages to the cities and their walls.¹

LI

The Earthquake; and the Marriage of the King to the Countess of Sicily

Meanwhile we twice felt an earthquake, to wit, on the fifteenth day before of the Kalends of August and again on the fifth day before the Ides of the same month: the first time at midnight, the second time at the third hour.¹

Meanwhile the crafty Turks waited for two months² for an opportune time for scattering or conquering us, but in vain because in that season the pilgrims from overseas were arriving as was customary, and our army grew from day to day. In addition the men of Antioch did not leave us. At length the Turks with drew into the territories of Damascus.³

King Baldwin then retired with his men to Acre where he found the Countess of Sicily. She had been the wife of Count Roger, brother of Robert Guiscard, but now was to be the wife of King Baldwin.⁴

Very soon after this event Maledoctus was killed at Damascus by a certain Saracen. The latter had a dagger concealed under his cloak and with it stabbed his victim thrice in the stomach. Thus he there committed a double homicide, for he both killed and was killed instantly by those present.⁵ It is an ill-omened victory in which he who conquers is conquered. And so it transpired according to the saying of the philosopher:
Fortune is of glass; while it is shining it breaks.⁶

Maledoctus was very rich and powerful and very renowned among the Turks. He was extremely astute in his actions but could not resist the will of God.⁷ The Lord permitted him to scourge us for a while but afterwards willed that he should die a vile death and by the hand of an insignificant man.

Footnotes

XLVIII

1 March 19, 1113 (HF 564, note 2).

2 For discussion of this solar eclipse, see HF 564, notes 1-5.

XLIX

1 The date was near the end of Dhu’l Qa'da, A.H. 506 (ended May 18, 1113), according to Ibn-al-Athir (RHC, Or., I, 288). In this chapter Fulcher gives the principal Latin account of the great Turkish invasion of 1113 , led by Maudud of Mosul and Tughtigin of Damascus, which nearly destroyed the Frankish kingdom. Fulcher himself seems to have been in or near Jerusalem, not with King Baldwin (note 13). The most complete account is by another contemporary, Ibn-al- Qalanisi (The Damascus Chronicle, 132-39). See Fink, “Mawdud,” 23-25, for discussion.

2 Banyas, about twenty-eight miles north of Lake Tiberias.

3 Fulcher indicates that the Turks approached on the west side of Lake Tiberias. See HF 566, note 9.

4 Fulcher is confused because these are not the springs of Jor and Dan he mentioned earlier (I, xxxiv, 4) but streams that he imagined were south of Lake Tiberias (cf. HF 567, note 10). He added these names in his second redaction (HF 567, note b)

5 From Ibn-al-QalanisI we learn that the Franks camped west of the bridge of as-Sinnabrah and hoped to attack the Turks at al-Uqhuwanah (The Damascus Chronicle, 134-35), which is east of the Jordan. His account is followed by Ibn-al-Athir (RHC, Or., I, 288). Fulcher’s version of an island and two bridges is to be doubted, although Hagenmeyer, who did not have access to Ibn-al-Qalanisi, accepts it (HF 567, notes 10, 11).

6 Ibn-al-QalanisI states that a Turkish foraging party crossed the bridge and encountered the Franks west of the Jordan (The Damascus Chronicle, 135).

7 Nearly two thousand Franks were killed, according to Ibn-al-Qalanisi (ibid.).

8 June 28, 1113. Ibn-al-QalanisI agrees (ibid., 136).

9 This refers to Baldwin’s youthful colleagues, Roger, regent of Antioch (1112- 19), and Pons, Count of Tripoli (1112-37).

10 Maudud, Atabeg of Mosul, and Tughtigin, Atabeg of Damascus.

11 This hill was west of the city of Tiberias (Ibn-al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle, 136).

12 This paragraph is particularly enlightening because it shows how near the Pranks were to total destruction. The Saracens mentioned were the native peasantry on the estates of the Franks, for they were never evicted. Ibn-al-Qalanisi writes that the Turks raided as far as the environs of Jerusalem and Joppa (ibid., 137). Neapolis was Nablus. The Turks gave up and went home after August 16,

13 The date of this foray from Ascalon cannot be determined. This paragraph and the next chapter seem to indicate that Fulcher was in or around Jerusalem, certainly not with Baldwin near Tiberias.

L

1 Damage to the walls would seem to refer to the effects of the earthquakes of that summer (chap, li, 1).

LI

1 July 18 and August 9, 1113.

2a During July and August, the two months after the battle at as-Sinnabrah (chap, xlix, note 8).

3 According to Ibn-al-Qalanisi, the Turks reached Damascus on September (The Damascus Chronicle, 139).

4 The countess was Adelaide, widow of Roger I of Sicily (d. 1101). Baldwin married her for her money and because he wanted diplomatic and naval support from her son, Roger II. See Runciman, Crusades, II, 102-103. Guiscard (d. 1085) was the father of Bohemond I.

5 Maudud was murdered in the great mosque of Damascus on October 2, 1113 (Ibn-al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle, 139-40).

6 Publius Syrus Mim. 242 (quoted in HF 578, note 10).

7 Fulcher could not resist admiring this very able foe.

1114 CE - Book II - Chapter LII

from Ryan (1969:210)
Book II

LII

The Earthquake That Was Felt in Many Places

In the year 1114 an infinite multitude of locusts swarmed out of a part of Arabia and flew into the land of Jerusalem. In a few days, during the months of April and May, they severely damaged our crops.¹

Later, on the Feast of St. Lawrence,² there was an earthquake. Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city.³

Likewise a greater quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins.

They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash, which I think is about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there, alas! were all killed.⁴

Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed.⁵

Footnotes

LII

1 This plague is also mentioned by Walter the Chancellor (Bella Antiochena, Prolog., 2). Fulcher mentions another plague of locusts occurring in May, 1117 (chap. lx, 2).

2 August 10, 1114.

3 November 13, 1114. Mamistra was damaged by another earthquake in 1115 (chap. liv, 7).

4 The effects of this earthquake, of November 29, 1114 (HF 579, note 7), upon Antioch are graphically described by Walter the Chancellor (Bella Antiochena, I, i, 1). The quake is apparently mentioned by several Arab writers (Kamal-ad-Din, RHC, Or., III, 607; Ibn-al-Athir, ibid., I, 295; and Ibn-al-Qalinisi, The Damascus Chronicle, 149). Marash is about a hundred miles north of Antioch.

5 Trialeth cannot be identified, but Hagenmeyer suggests that it may have been Balis on the Euphrates, about 100 miles east of Antioch, the scene of an earthquake in A.H. 508 (June 7, 1114—May 26, 1115) recorded by Sibt Ibn-al-Jauzi (RHC, Or., III, 551-52; HF 580, note 12).

1115 CE - Book II - Chapter LIII-LV

from Ryan (1969:210-215)
Book II

LIII

The Gathering of the Turkish Army, and the Siege of the People of Joppa by the Ascalonites and the Babylonians.

In the year 1115 the Turks, resuming their accustomed fierceness and audacity, stealthily crossed the River Euphrates in June, entered Syria, and camped between Antioch and Damascus, to wit, in front of the city of Shaizar.¹ They had similarly taken a position here four years before, as has been written above.²

Tuldequinus, the King of Damascus, discovered this and realized that he was no less odious to these Turks than to us Christians because he had deceitfully been privy to the murder of Mandulf in a previous year, as was stated above³. This Mandulf had been the chief satrap of their army. Tuldequinus made peace with King Baldwin and with Roger, Prince of Antioch, to that a third army was added to their two, and a triple cord, as it were, was made which could not afterwards be easily broken by the Turks. For he feared that if he remained alone he together with his kingdom would be entirely destroyed⁴.

Urged indeed by necessity and advised by an embassy from Antioch, King Baldwin came to the battle which he thought would occur. But when the Turks heard that he had already come up close to them they regarded this as the advance of the men of Antioch and Damascus which they had been expecting for nearly three months.⁵ Fearing for their lives if they fought so many although they were much more numerous, the Turks quietly retired and entered some caverns which were not very far from us.⁶ When they did this King Baldwin and his allies thought that the Turks had departed entirely from our territories. For this reason the king went back to Tripoli.

While these things were happening the men of Ascalon, knowing that the land of Jerusalem was devoid of soldiers, rushed up to our city of Joppa and besieged it by land and sea.⁷ Present there was the Babylonian fleet of nearly seventy vessels, of which some were triremes, some were beaked ships, and some were freighted with supplies for the undertaking.

The men of Ascalon approached, some by sea and the rest by land, prepared to attack the city. And when they made a vigorous effort to scale the wall with ladders which they brought with them, they were strongly repulsed by the citizens although the latter were few and weakened by sickness.

However, when the Ascalonites saw that they could not accomplish anything as they had planned, except to set fire to the gates of the city, they feared that perchance the people of Jerusalem who had already heard the news might bring help to Joppa, and hence they retired. Those that had come by land went back to Ascalon, and those that had come by sea sailed to Tyre.

Ten days later⁸ the men of Ascalon returned to Joppa thinking that if they were prepared they might by sudden attack destroy their enemy unprepared. But the Omnipotent God as He has done before similarly protected and saved us a second time. In defending themselves the Franks killed some of the enemy and captured their horses. The Ascalonites began to be siege the city with fundibula and tried to enter it as before with ladders brought in small boats. After they had exhausted them selves during the course of six hours they sadly retired carrying with them their dead.

LIV

The Battle Between the Turks and the Men of Antioch in Which the Latter Gained the Victory.¹

However, the Turks mentioned above, when they discovered that our army had returned home, went back to their former position and scoured the regions of Syria. They captured whatever castles they could, plundered villages, devastated the countryside, and carried off men and women into captivity.²

But when this was announced to the men of Antioch, who had already retired, they quickly turned back against the Turks by the way they had left. And when they had approached the Turks and noticed that the camp of the latter was closer than they had first thought, they at once formed battle lines and came down into the area of the camp, galloping against the enemy with banners flying. This battle was near the town of Sarmin.³

As soon as the Turks saw the Franks, the Turkish corps of archers forthwith resisted furiously.⁴ But our Franks were stirred by a mighty spirit of courage and chose to conquer if God willed or be conquered if He permitted, rather than be thus molested by the Turks every year. They assailed the enemy in wondrous manner wherever they saw the mass was densest.

The Turks at first resisted for a little while, then suddenly fled from those who smote and slew them. It is estimated that three thousand Turks were killed, and many captured. Those who escaped death saved themselves by flight. They lost their tents in which were found much money and property. The value of the money was estimated at three hundred thousand bezants. The Turks abandoned there our people whom they had captured, Franks as well as Syrians, and their own wives and maid-servants and many camels. Thousands of mules and horses were counted.⁵

Truly is God marvelous in all of His miracles. For while the men of Jerusalem along with those of Antioch and Damascus were prepared for battle they accomplished nothing whatever. For when did the victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon [I—II Mach.; Judic. 6-8], and many others who confided not in their own strength but in that of God and in that way overcame many thousands.

And so by this description the event shall be known to future generations.
Three nights went by before the Constellation Virgo went away
As deceptive fortune cruelly betrayed the Turks.⁶
Whence it is quite clear that manifestly all must fear
That before the end of a matter nothing is ever to be regarded as certain.

In that year the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less⁷.

In that same year the Bishop of Orange arrived, sent to Jerusalem by the Apostolic See, and deposed Patriarch Arnulf from his seat. Wherefore Arnulf afterwards went to Rome and recovered the patriarchate.⁸

LV

The Castle Built in Arabia

In that year¹ King Baldwin went into Arabia and built a castle strongly situated on a small mountain. It is not far from the Red Sea, about three days’ journey, and about four from Jerusalem. He placed a garrison in it to dominate the country in the interest of the Christians. He decided to name this castle Montréal in honor of himself because he built it in a short time with a few men and with great boldness.²

Footnotes

LIII

1 In this chapter Fulcher tells of the invasion of Syria by Bursuk ibn-Bursuk of Hamadan, commander-in-chief for the Selchiikid Sultan Muhammad ibn-Malik-Shah in the jihad of 1115. According to Ibn-al-Athir, who was, however, a later writer, the crossing of the Euphrates was prior to the end of A.H. 508, i.e., before May 26, 1115 (RHC, Or., I, 296; cf. Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, 98, note 2). For discussion of this campaign, see Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, 98-100; and Cahen, La Syrie du Nord, 271-73.

2 Chap, xlv, 6.

3 The murder of Maudud of Mosul, Sultan Muhammad’s commander, in 1113 (chap, li, 4).

4 Fulcher correctly diagnoses the plight of Tughtigin. Tughtigin, who was practically independent, preferred an alliance with his neighbors the Syrian Franks to the presence in Syria of a powerful representative of the Selchukid sultan of Bagdad. Fulcher does not mention the regent Lu’ lu’ of Aleppo and Il-Ghazi of Mardin, who also allied with the Franks in 1115. See H. S. Fink, “The Role of Damascus in the History of the Crusades,” Muslim World, XLIX (1959), 45-47

5 Walter the Chancellor, an excellent contemporary authority from Antioch, states that Roger, while at Apamea in August, summoned King Baldwin (Bella Antiochena, I, iii, 2), which bears out the statement of Fulcher. Two Arab writers, both later, indicate that Baldwin was with the allies for two months i.e., from June (Ibn-al-Athlr, RHC, Or., I, 297; Sibt Ibn-al-Jauzi, ibid., Ill, 554). By “three months” Fulcher refers loosely to June, July, and August.

6 I.e., Bursuk broke contact with his enemies. See HF 584, note 16.

7 Fulcher is the sole authority for this campaign against Jerusalem. It may have been prior to August 15, 1115, since Albert of Aix speaks of an Egyptian fleet at Tyre between August 15-September 11 of that year (XII, xvii; see HF 585, note 18; 586, note 21).

8 Ca. August 22, 1115, according to Hagenmeyer (HF 586, note 22)

LIV

1 In this chapter Fulcher gives his account of the great victory of Roger of Antioch over the Selchukid generalissimo Bursuk ibn-Bursuk in the valley of Sarmin near Tell Danith on September 14, 1115. Although Fulcher was not present, he agrees very well with Walter the Chancellor, of Antioch, whose account is quite complete (Bella Antiochena, I, iv, 6; vii, 5). For discussion see Grousset, Croisades, I, 504-10.

2 Bursuk, after the departure of his enemies in August (chap, liii, 3) captured Roger’s stronghold of Kafartab and then ravaged the area around Ma‘arrat-an-Nu'man (Walter the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, I, iv, 6-7).

3 The town of Sarmin is about thirty-three miles southeast of Antioch and about the same distance southwest of Aleppo.

4 Apparently this is the attack made upon Roger by the Turk Tamirek of Sinjar (Walter the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, I, vi, 8).

5 Kamal-ad-Din also tells of the great quantity of booty (RHC, Or., Ill, 610). Walter the Chancellor writes that it took three days to divide it (Bella Antiochena, I, vii, 5).

6 September 14, 1115. Two other Latin sources agree with Fulcher (Walter the Chancellor, Bella Antiochene, I, v, 3; Albert of Aix, XII, xx), while Usamah the Arab gives September 15, 1115, as the date (An Arab-Syrian Gentleman, 105). See Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, 100, note 1.

7 No other writer mentions this earthquake, nor is the exact day known (HF 586, note 1; 590, note 22).

8 Arnulf’s reinstatement is announced in a letter of Pope Paschal II dated July 19, 1116 (Rozière, Cartulaire de l'Église du Saint-Sépulcre, No. 11; HF 590, note 24). Fulcher’s original text refers to Paschal “qui tunc Romae papae praeerat,” an indication that Fulcher was writing after 1118, when Paschal died (HF 591, note c; Fulcher, II, briii, 4).

LV

1 1115.

2 This castle, Krak de Montréal, destined to be famous in the time of Saladin, was built upon a ridge at ash-Shaubak, about ninety miles south of Jerusalem and seventy-five north of al-‘Aqabah on the Red Sea gulf of that name. Consult HF 592, note 4; 593, note 5; and Fedden and Thompson, Crusader Castles, 26, 28, 60. Baldwin reconnoitered this area in 1100 (chaps, iv-v).

1116 CE - Book II - Chapter LVI

from Ryan (1969:215-216)
Book II

LVI

The Expedition of the King into Arabia and What He Saw There

In the year 1116 when the king went from Jerusalem with nearly two hundred knights to revisit his castle in Arabia, he advanced as far as the Red Sea to see what he had not seen and perchance to find something on the way that he might want.¹

At that time they found the city of Elim on the shore of this sea where we read that the people of Israel camped after crossing the sea.² Those who dwelt there, when they heard of the king’s approach, withdrew and embarking upon their little vessels rushed out to sea in great fear.

However, when the king and his men looked over the place as long as they wished, they returned to their castle of Montréal and then to Jerusalem.

When they told us what they had seen we were delighted with their tales as well as by the sea shells and certain precious stones which they brought and showed to us. I myself very eagerly questioned them to find what the sea was like, for until then I had wondered whether it was saline or fresh, stagnant water or a lake, whether it had an inlet and outlet like the Sea of Galilee, and whether it was confined by its own dimensions like the Dead Sea, which received the Jordan but had no outlet.³ For on the south the Dead Sea is bounded by Segor, the city of Lot [Gen. 13:10; 19:22-2 3].⁴

Footnotes

LVI

1 According to Albert of Aix, Baldwin advanced with two hundred knights and four hundred footmen to the vicinity of Mount Horeb, where he built a fortification in eighteen days, and then proceeded with sixty knights to the Red Sea (XII, xxi). However, Albert confused this story with that of the construction of the castle in 1115 (HF 593, note 25).

2 Fulcher confuses Elim, where the Hebrews are said to have crossed the bed of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:27; Num. 33:9), presumably in the Gulf of Suez, with Elath (Ailah, modem al-‘Aqabah) at the head of the Gulf of ‘Aqabah (I Reg. 9:26; II Paralip. 8:17).

3 Cf. Fulcher’s similar curiosity about the Dead Sea in 1110 (chap, v, 1-3).

4 See reference to Segor in chap, v, 4, note 6.

1117 CE - Book II - Chapters LX-LXIII

from Ryan (1969:218-221)
Book II

LX

The Great Plague of the Locusts

In the year 1117 of the Incarnation of Our Lord this queen who has been mentioned¹ departed from the port of Acre on the day on which, in accordance with the rule of the church, the greater litany is chanted² and with seven ships in her company crossed over to Sicily.

Then in the month of May an infinite multitude of locusts swarmed into the land of Jerusalem devouring more completely than usual the vines, field crops, and trees of all kinds.³ You could see them advance like an army of men in good order as if they had previously arranged it in council. When they had made their day's journey, some on foot and some flying, they mutually chose a resting place for themselves. And so when they had eaten up everything green, and had gnawed the bark of the trees, the wingless locusts as well as the others departed in companies.

Oh the wickedness of men who persist in their wicked perversity! How often and how much our Creator touches us with His reproaches and admonishes us, terrifies us by His portents, stirs us by His threats, instructs us by His lessons, and represses us by His punishment. But we always persist in our iniquities, despise His admonitions, and contemptuously violate His precepts.

What wonder that the Saracens or other wicked lords should take from us our lands since we ourselves reach out with thievish hands into the fields of our neighbors! Indeed we wrongfully cheat them with the furrow of the plow or otherwise secretly rob them with greedy acts of fraud and thus sinfully enrich ourselves from their possessions.

What wonder is it that, God permitting, the mice destroy our crops while they are sprouting from the roots in the ground or the locusts devour them ripened in the ear, or that they are damaged in the granaries by worms of every kind or by rotting, when we dishonestly sell the tithes owed to God or sacrilegiously retain them entirely?

LXI

The Portent of the Moon

In the following month, which was June, the moon appeared to us who were looking at it in the sky after cockcrow, first entirely red; very soon, however, the redness changed to black so that the moon lost the strength of its light for nearly two hours. This happened on the thirteenth of the month. If it had happened on the fourteenth we would certainly have thought it an eclipse.¹

Therefore we regarded it as a portent. From this redness some conjectured that blood would be shed in battle; from the blackness others prophesied that a famine was coming. But we committed the matter to the disposition and providence of God, who foretold to His disciples that there would be portents in the sun and the moon [Luc. 21:25].

He moreover as He wills causes the earth to tremble and then to be still. This subsequently happened in the same month in the silence of an unseasonable night, on the sixth day before the Kalends of June.²

LXII

The Castle Built near Tyre

Then the king built a castle near the city of Tyre, within five miles. He named it Scandalion, which interpreted means "Field of the Lion."¹ He repaired the breaches in it and placed a garrison within to be a restraint upon the people of Tyre.

LXIII

The Marvelous Portent Appearing in the Sun

In the same year, in the month of December, on the fifth night after the eclipse of the moon which happened on the thirteenth of the month,¹ in the beginning of the night we all saw the northern sky streaked with the bright color of fire or of blood. Thinking that this phenomenon was full of wondrous portents, we marveled greatly.

Through the midst of this redness, which first began to increase a little by little, we saw a great many white rays rise in a remarkable way from the bottom upwards, now in front, then in the rear, then in the center.² In the lower part the sky appeared light as if it were dawn when the sky is wont to brighten just before sunrise. In front of this phenomenon, to the east, we saw a white ness as if the moon were about to rise there. For this reason the land and all the places about us glistened clearly in apparition.

If this had happened in the morning we would all have said that the day was bright. Therefore we conjectured that either much blood would be shed in war or that something no less threatening was forecast. But what was uncertain to us we humbly committed to the Lord God for His disposition.

However, some people, prophesying, declared that this was a portent of death for those who were to die during the next year. And subsequently these did die: Pope Paschal in the month of January; Baldwin, king of the people of Jerusalem, in April; also his wife in Sicily, whom he had forsaken; Arnulf, the Patriarch of Jerusalem; Alexius, the Emperor of Constantinople; and many others of the great men of the world.³

Footnotes

LX

1 Adelaide.

2 April 25, 1117 (HF 6o2, note 3).

3 Cf. locust plague in May, 1114 (chap. lii, 4).

LXI

1 Fulcher, here using the Golden Number system of chronology, a lunar system for calculating the dates of Easter, expected the new moon on June 4, which he, however, regarded as the first of the month. He expected the full moon to occur fifteen days later on June 28 (or June 25 by his reckoning). However, his calculations were incorrect in this instance: the new moon came on June 2 (JW: verified with clearskytonight.com), and the full moon followed in fifteen days, on June 26 (JW: This appears to be a typographic error and should be 16 June - clearskytonight.com shows a Full Moon in Jerusalem on 16 June 1117 CE at 3:01 am) (which he regarded as June 13). Hence his astonishment and superstititious awe. He adds that if the full moon had appeared on the fourteenth day (i.e., at any other interval than fifteen days) he would have regarded it as an eclipse. For further discussion, see HF 604, note 3; and Henri Wallon, edition of Fulcher, RHC, Occ., III, 434, note b. Regarding the Golden Number system, see A. Giry, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1894), 148.

2 June 26, 1117.

3 Fulcher apparently errs in his interpretation of Scandalion, for William of Tyre explains that it was named after Alexander the Great, called "Scandar' in Arabic (XI, xxx).

LXII

1 Fulcher apparently errs in his interpretation of Scandalion, for William of Tyre explains that it was named after Alexander the Great, called “Scandar” in Arabic (XI, xxx).

LXIII

1 Fulcher, again using the Golden Number system, began his reckoning for the month of December on November 29, 1117, the date of the new moon. The thirteenth day, counting November 29, was December 11, and the fifth day after that was December 16. This time his calculations were correct. See HF 607, note 3; and Wallon, edition of Fulcher, RHC, Occ., Ill, 435, note d.

2 This was a display of the aurora borealis.

3 Pope Paschal died on January 21, 1118; King Baldwin, on April 2; ex-Queen Adelaide on April 16; Arnulf, possibly on April 28; and Alexius on August 15 (HF 608, notes 12-16).

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

1114. A plague of locusts poured out of Arabia into the territory of Jerusalem and devastated the cultivated fields for many days during the months of April and May. Then, on the feast of St.Lawrence [10 August], there was an earthquake.

1114. [...] Immediately afterwards, that is to say on the Ides of November [13 November], an earthquake at Mamistra razed part of the town to the ground. The earthquake was even more violent in the region of Antioch, to the extent that walls and houses were totally or partially destroyed in many towns; and some of the inhabitants were also crushed in the ruins. It is said that the earthquake shock was so severe at the town of Mariscum, which stands, I think, about sixty miles to the north of Antioch, that houses and town walls were completely destroyed, and all the inhabitants were killed. What a tragedy!

Another town, called Trihalet, which is situated by the river Euphrates, was also completely destroyed.

1115. [...] Indeed, just as [God] in his love protected men, so he also called them unto himself with implacable justice, [as he showed] that same year by destroying with an earthquake the formerly quite illustrious town of Mamistra, and also by striking many other places in the region of Antioch with a similar disaster.

1117. [...] The month of June. [...] When He wishes, God causes the earth to shake and then calms it again. That is what happened a little later that month, deep in the silence of the night, on the sixth day before the Calends of July [26 June]. Then the king [Baldwin of Jerusalem] built a fortified place about five miles outside the city of Tyre, and called it Scandelion, which means Field of the Lion, and he repaired the damage and posted guardians there to keep the said place under control.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Meanwhile we twice felt an earthquake, to wit, on the 15th day before the Kalends of August and again on the 5th day before the Ides of the same month: the first time at midnight, the second time at the third hour. (Fulch., Gest. Franc. 50/208f)

(1113) And the sea was rougher than usual, making it impossible to fish on the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake, and the people were consumed with fear, frightened lest buildings collapsed. (Fulch.Hist. Hier.571)

In the year 1114 and before a multitude of locusts swarmed from parts of Arabia, the territory of Jerusalem was violently laid waste; in the months of April and May and after (sequenti) it was shaken terribly by an earthquake. (Fulch., Hist. Hier.572)

The earthquake that was felt in many places...In the year 1114 an infinite multitude of locusts swarmed out of a part of Arabia... Later, on the Feast of St Lawrence, there was an earthquake. Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city...Likewise a great quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins...They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash, which I think is about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there were killed...Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed. (Fulch. Gest. Franc. lii/210)

In that year [1115] the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less. (Fulch. Gest. Franc. liv. 7/214/428)

He moreover as He wills causes the earth to tremble and then to be still. This subsequently happened in the same month in the silence of an unseasonable night, on the sixth day before the Kalends of July. (Fulch.Gest. Franc. lxi/220)

Latin from Hagenmeyer (1913)

1113 CE - Book II - Chapters XLVIII, L-LI

Book II
Critical Edition in Latin
see embedded text for footnotes (which are largely in German)
from Hagenmeyer (1913:564-578)

XLVIII

De signis apparentibus

Anno M°C°X°III° ab incarnatione dominica, dum niense in Martio lunam habebamus XXVIII, vidimus solem a mane usque ad primam et eo amplius defectione quadam ab una parte minorari, et pars, quae primitus a summo tabescere coepit, tandem quasi in rotundo ad ima devenit. attamen sol claritatem suam non amisit, qui non minoratus est, nisi, ut aestimo, a IV parte suae formae aliquantulum cornutus.
Hoc eclipsis erat, quo sol ita deficiebat.

L

De metu nimio, qui universos tunc cohibebat

Ea tempestate aut vix aut nunquam valebat nuntius ad regem ab aliquo nostrum mittendus exire nec ab eo ad civitates nostras propter hostiles insidias transire; ideoque nesciebatur ab illis quid isti, nec ab istis quid facerent illi.
Ruribus in multis marcebat messis adulta,
Nec qui colligerent in agros exire videres.
non audebant enim. eo quidem anno messis abunda fuit. sed dum mare turbatur, homines terret, ne piscentur. cuncta cunctis in dubio pendebant, et quibus triumphum daturus esset Deus, unanimiter exspectabant. Christiani nostri a negotiis et operibus cessabant, excepto quod urbium et munitionum fracturas resarciebant.

LI

De terrae motu et quod rex comitissam Siciliae duxit uxorem

Interea terrae motum sensimus bis, scilicet XV Kalend. Augusti et V Idus eiusdem: primum nocte media, secundum hora diei tertia.

Turci autem versipelles, cum per II menses opportunitatem vel dissipandi vel superandi nostros exspectassent nec potuissent, quia de transmarinis partibus, ut mos est, venientibus peregrinis, eo tempore diatim exercitus noster crescebat nec gens Antiochena abibat, secesserunt in partes Damascenorum.

et rex Balduinus cum suis Ptolemaidem reversus est, ubi comitissam Siciliae repperit, quae coniunx fuerat Rogeri, comitis Roberti Guiscardi fratris, nunc autem uxor futura regis Balduini.

nec mora, postmodum apud Damascum interemptus est Maledoctus a quodam Saraceno, qui, sica sub veste occultata et ter in ventrem illius impacta, duplex illic explevit homicidium. illo enim sic occiso et ipse confestim ab adsistentibus occisus est. dira victoria, qua qui vincit vincitur. itaque contigit iuxta illud philosophi
Fortuna vitrea est, tunc cum splendet frangitur.
erat Maledoctus dives valde et magnipotens, inter Turcos nominatissimus et in actibus suis astutissimus sed voluntati Dei resistere non valuit. permisit eum Dominus aliquandiu nos flagellare, postea voluit eum morte vili et imbecilli manu perire.

1114 CE - Book II - Chapter LII

Book II
Critical Edition in Latin
see embedded text for footnotes (which are largely in German)
from Hagenmeyer (1913:578-580)

LII

De terrae motu multis in locis exsistente^p¹

Anno^q M^oC^oX^oIV^o multitudo locustarum² infinita ebulliit a parte Arabiae advolans in terram Hierosolymitanam^r, quae per dies aliquantos segetes^s mense Aprili et Maio³ multum^t vastaverunt^u.

die deinde festo S.^a Laurentii⁴ terrae motus^b factus est^c. tempore autem^d sequenti, quod accidit Idus Novembris⁵ apud urbem Mamistriam^e⁶ terrae motus partem^f subruit^g oppidi.

item^h maior et inauditus regionem Antiochenam⁷ adeoⁱ per loca⁸ concussit^k, ut oppida plurima^l sive tota sive dimidia, tam domos quam muralia⁹ solotenus subrueret, in qua etiam ruina^m pars plebis suffocatae interiretⁿ.¹⁰

Mariscum¹¹ dicunt civitatem ab^o Antiochia LX, ut aestimo, distantem^a miliariis in parte septentrionali subvertit^b in tantum commotio illa^c, ut domos^d et muralia penitus corruerent et populum inhabitantem, pro dolor! cunctum exstingueret^e.

aliud^f quoque oppidum^g, quod Trialeth^h¹² nuncupantⁱ, prope fluvium Euphratem nihilominus^k subruit^l.

Footnotes

LII

p De multitudine locustarum et terrae motu K.

q anno autem ABFIO; anno ab incarnatione domini grβ.

r Hierosolymorum ABFGIORβ; terra hierosolymitana Eδμ.

s segetes nostras ABFGHIORβ.

t atque maio valde ABFGIORβ.

u vastavit I.

a sancti martyris ABFGIRβ.

b terrae tremor K.

c est magnus ABFGIORβ.; om. est R.

d item ABDFGHIKORβ.

e manustriam CEP.

f factus est magnus qui partem Gβ.

g subvertit ABDFGHIORβ.

h itemque maiorque K; itaque β; itemque ABFGHIO; itaque R.

i terrae motus adeo ABFGIORβ.

k conbussit E.

l quamplurima ABFGIORβ.

m plnrima O.

n suffocata [suffocatae E] interiit EIδμ; interire R.

o dicunt oppidum peroptimum, quod ABFGIORβ.

a distat ABFGIORβ.

b quam subvertit Kδμ.

c subvertit adeo motus ille ABFGIORβ.

d domus I.

e extingeret R; extinguerent O.

f alium GRβ; aliut E.

g castrum ABFGIORβ.

h Trihaleth ABFH; Trialech Fβ; trihaleth O; Traleth Eδμ.

i nuncupatur Eδμ.

k non minus ABFGIORβ.

l subvertit Gβ.

see embedded text for numerical footnotes

1115 CE - Book II - Chapter LIV

Book II
Critical Edition in Latin
see embedded text for footnotes (which are largely in German)
from Hagenmeyer (1913:586-590)

LIV

De pugna Turcorum et Antiochenorum, in qua Antiocheni victoriam adepti sunt

... 7. Ipso anno iterum subversa est urbs Mamistrias terrae motu. alias autem in regione Antiochena non minus accidit.

1116 CE - Book II - Chapter LVI

Book II
Critical Edition in Latin
see embedded text for footnotes (which are largely in German)
from Hagenmeyer (1913:592-593)

LVI

De castro in Arabia constructo

Eo anno profectus est rex Balduinus in Arabiam et aedificavit ibi castrum unum in monticulo quodam situ forti non longe a mari Rubro, sed quasi dierum trium itinere, ab Hierusalem vero IV, et posuit in eo custodes, qui patriae illius dominarentur ad utilitatem Christianismi. quod castrum ob honorificentiam sui Regalem montem nominari constituit, quia parvo tempore cum pauca gente sed maxima probitate illud aedificaverat.

1117 CE - Book II - Chapters LXI

Book II
Critical Edition in Latin
see embedded text for footnotes (which are largely in German)
from Hagenmeyer (1913:604-605)

LXI

De signo lunae

Sequenti quidem mense, qui Iunius erat, apparuit nobis in caelum suspicientibus luna post galli cantum prius tota rubea; novissime vero, mutato rubore, nigredine adeo fuscata est, ut vim sui luminis per II paene horas perderet. contigit autem hoc die, qua eam XIII habebamus. quod si XIV die illo esset, eclipsim nimirum eius esse intelllgeremus.

quod ergo pro signo id accepinius, ex hoc quidam coniectabant rubore in proelio fore fundendum sanguinem; alii vero nigredine significabant venturam famem; nos autem dispositioni et providentiae Dei hoc commisimus, qui in sole et luna discipulis suis praedixit signa fore futura.

qui etiam, quando vult, terram facit tremere et postea quiescere; quod subsequenter accidit in eodem mense noctis intempestae silentio, VI Kalendas lulii

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Anno millesimo centesimo decimo quarto, multitudo locustarum infinita ebuliit, a parte Arabiae advolans in terram Iherosolymitanam, quae per dies aliquantos segetes, mense Aprili et Maio, multum vastaverunt. Die deinde festo sancti Laurentii, terrae motus factus est.

Anno millesimo centesimo decimo quarto 1...). Tempore autem sequenti, quod accidit idus Novembris, apud urbem Mamistriam terrae motus partem subruit oppidi. Item major et inauditus regionem Antiochenam adeo per loca concussit, ut oppida plurima sive tota, sive dimidia, tam domos quam muralia solo tenus subrueret, in qua etiam ruina pars plebis suffocatae interiret. Mariscum dicunt civitatem ab Antiochia sexaginta, ut aestimo, distantem milliariis, in parte septentrionali, subvertit in tantum cornmotio ilia, ut domos et muralia penitus corruerent, et populum inhabitantem, proh dolor!

cunctum exstingueret. Aliud quoque oppidum, quod Trialeth nuncupant, prope fluvium Eufraten nihilominus subruit.

Anno .M.C.XV. [...] Verum quos ita Deus per se protegebat pius, per se quoque ipse corripiebat justus, eodem anno et Mamistriam terrae motu subvertens, urbem olim satis illustrem, et pleraque alia in territorio Antiocheno loca horrore simili concutiens.

1117. [...] Quidem mense, qui Iunius erat [...]. Deus [...] qui etiam quando vult terrain facit tremere, et postea quiescere; quod subsequenter accidit in eodem mense noctis intempestae silentio, VI kalendas Iulii.

Tune edificavit rex quoddam castrum prope urbem Tyrum, intra quintum ab urbe milliarium, quod vocavit Scandalion, et Campum Leonis interpretatum, et resarcivit diruta eius, et posuit in eo custodes ad coercendum urbem predictam.

English from Ryan (1969) - embedded

Starts with Book II Section LII
See top of the left page section LII
from Ryan (1969:210)
from archive.org

Latin from Hagenmeyer (1913) - embedded

Critical Edition in Latin
Book II Sections LII and LIV
See bottom of left page section LII De terrae motu multis in locis exsistente
from Hagenmeyer (1913:578-579, 590)
from archive.org

Chronology

Chronology Tables

**1113 CE - Two Earthquakes (17/18 July and 8/9 August)**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
midnight 17/18 July 1113 CE ~9 am (3rd Hour) 8/9 August 1113 CE	Meanwhile we twice felt an earthquake, to wit, on the fifteenth day before of the Kalends of August and again on the fifth day before the Ides of the same month: the first time at midnight, the second time at the third hour	none	Chapters XLVIII - LI all refer to 1113 CE Kalends refers to the first day of a month in the Roman calendar. The 15th day before the Kalends of August refers to 17 July (calculated with calculat.io) but midnight means it could have also been 18 July. Ryan (1969:209 n.1) dates this earthquake to 17 July 1113 CE Ides of August refers to 13th of August in the Roman calendar. The 5th day before the Ides of August refers to 8 August (calculated with calculat.io). Ryan (1969:209 n.1) dates this earthquake to 9 August 1113 CE Fulcher's dates could be off by a few days as occurred during the 1117 CE Quake Earlier in the year of 1113 CE, Fulcher mentions a solar eclipse which Ryan (1969:204 n.1) dates to March 19. imcee has a total solar eclipse on 26 March 1113 CE (Gregorian) which works out to 19 March 1113 CE in the Julian Calendar (calculated using CHRONOS)

**1114 CE - 1st Earthquake (10 August)**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
10 August 1114 CE	In the year 1114 ... Later, on the Feast of St. Lawrence, there was an earthquake	none	The Feast of Saint Lawrence is held on 10 August in the Roman Catholic Church Guidoboni and Comastri (2005), Ambraseys (2009), and Ryan (1969:210 n.2) all dated the first earthquake mentioned in Section LII Line 2 to 10 August 1114 CE when the Feast of Saint Lawrence was held

**1114 CE - 2nd Earthquake (13 November)**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
13 November 1114 CE	In the year 1114 ... Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city.	none	The Ides of November was a Roman festival in honor of the Jupiter which took place on 13 November Guidoboni and Comastri (2005), Ambraseys (2009), and Ryan (1969:210 n.3) all dated this 2nd, still later, earthquake in Section LII Line 2 to 13 November 1114 CE.

**1114 CE - greater quake**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1114 CE	Likewise a greater quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins.	none	It is unclear if the greater quake is the same as the 2nd earthquake of 13 November 1114 CE or if it refers to a seperate event. However, the year in Section LII is 1114 CE.

**1115 CE - Earthquake**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1115 CE	In that year the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less	none	Sections LIII-LV all refer to 1115 CE so that year was 1115 CE. Fulcher did not specify the date. Ryan (1969:214 n. 3) states that Mamistra was damaged by another earthquake in 1115 (chap. liv, 7). Ryan (1969:214 n. 7c) states that No other writer mentions this earthquake, nor is the exact day known (HF 586, note 1; 590, note 22) Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) appear to date this earthquake in Book II Section LIV Line 7 to 29 November 1115 CE. Ambraseys (2009) appears to date this same earthquake to 29 November 1114 CE and states that Guidoboni and Comastri (2005, 74) split this earthquake into two events, one on 13 November 1114 and another on 29 November 1115; the reasons for this do not seem clear. Their dates are based on considering other sources.

**1117 CE - Earthquake (26-29 June)**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
nighttime between the 26th and 29th of June in 1117 CE	This subsequently happened in the same month in the silence of an unseasonable night, on the sixth day before the Kalends of June	"before the Kalends of July" substituted for "before the Kalends of June" due to apparent typographic error (this error also shows up in the critical Latin edition by Hagenmeyer, 1913). An earlier paragraph (LXI paragraph 1) indicates that the events described occurred in June - not May. Since Fulcher misdated the 16 June total lunar eclipse to June 13 and misdated the 16 June full moon to 14 June, he may have also misdated the earthquake - dating it 2-3 days too early. Although this might be solvable by investigating the Golden Number system of chronology that Ryan (1969:219 n.1) says he employed, for now I am going to just say that the earthquake appears to have struck between the 26th and 29th of June.	NASA's Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer shows that a total Lunar Eclipse was visible in Jerusalem on 16 June 1117 CE starting at 12:05 am and ending at 5:44 am (local time). The total part of the eclipse lasted from 2:20 am until 3:28 am. imcee dates this total lunar eclipse to 23 June 1117 CE however they are using the Gregorian Calendar for their date. Once this is converted to a Julian Date, they also have the eclipse occurring on 16 June 1117 CE (calculated using CHRONOS) Fulcher of Chartres was an eyewitness to this eclipse and described it earlier in the text - before the earthquake. Fulcher reported the date of the eclipse as 13 June 1117 CE and stated that the moon lost the strength of its light for nearly two hours. Ryan (1969:219 n.1) has a brief discussion about the Golden Number system of chronology used by Fulcher for this passage. She cites Giry (1894:148) for more details about this chronological system

Seismic Effects

1113 CE - Two Earthquakes (17/18 July and 8/9 August)

we twice felt an earthquake,

1114 CE - 1st Earthquake (10 August)

Later, on the Feast of St. Lawrence, there was an earthquake

1114 CE - 2nd Earthquake (13 November)

Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city

1114 CE - greater quake (29 November ?)

Likewise a greater quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins.
They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash, which I think is about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there, alas! were all killed.
Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed
It is possible that the greater quake is the 29 November Quake.

1115 CE - Earthquake

In that year the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less

1117 CE - Earthquake (26-29 June)

He moreover as He wills causes the earth to tremble and then to be still

Locations

1113 CE - Two Earthquakes (17/18 July and 8/9 August)

unspecified - probably Jerusalem

1114 CE - 1st Earthquake (10 August)

unspecified - it could have been felt in Jerusalem since that is where Fulcher was living at the time

1114 CE - 2nd Earthquake (13 November)

Mamistra (aka Mopsuestia)

1114 CE - greater quake (29 November ?)

Other places in the area of Antioch
Marash (aka Kahramanmaraş)
Trialeth, near the Euphrates River¹
It is possible that the greater quake is the same as the 29 November earthquake

Footnotes

1115 CE - Earthquake

Mamistra (aka Mopsuestia)
Other places in the area of Antioch

1117 CE - Earthquake (26-29 June)

unspecified - Jerusalem according to Ambraseys (2009) and vicinity of Scandelion Castle (12 km. from Tyre) according to Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Sources

Notes and Further Reading

References

The Antiochene Wars by Walter the Chancellor

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Asbridge and Edgington (2019)

Prologue and I.1 - The great earthquake in Antioch and its effect on the inhabitants

from Asbridge and Edgington (2019:78-84)
Book 1 Part of the Prologue and Chapter 1

Book One - The First War

Prologue

... Nevertheless, having looked into the necessary aspects of the battle, and having selected the material which is equal to my powers,¹⁰ it seems to me essential, before the account of the battle, first to outline the evils which happened earlier, so that by an examination of the previous reasons for the events which follow, our achievement may more easily be appreciated.¹¹

First, therefore, hordes of locusts, stirred up far and wide by way of a metaphor for the enemy, stole nearly all the things necessary to feed the farmers of Syria. Then they were dispersed partly by crawling along the ground, partly through the air, and they afflicted almost the whole region of the eastern Christians to the same devastating effect;¹²

... Since these people did not lament the evil deeds they had done and they did lamentable deeds willingly and openly, the originator of supreme justice allowed them to be afflicted with signs, prodigies, plagues, trouble and even enemy peoples for the duration of many years, not to destroy them but to save them.¹⁷ For while the Greeks ruled they were persuaded to be enslaved to their empire.¹⁸ When those same people had been driven forth from Asia they had yielded to the dominion of the ruling Persians; eventually, God willing, they succumbed to the irresistible power of the Gauls.¹⁹ When their behaviour was set right neither by the Persians nor the Gauls, the aforesaid Syrians and their rulers²⁰ suffered so great a destruction and ruin from the earthquake²¹ which befell them as no previous history has ever told.²²

I.1 The great earthquake in Antioch and its effect on the inhabitants.²³

Therefore in the 1115th year from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the eve of the feast of St Andrew the apostle²⁴ and in the silence at the dead of night,²⁵ when human frailty²⁶ was accustomed more suitably and more sweetly to sleep, there was an immense and terrible earthquake in Antioch and its region. And as a matter of fact, in that same unexpected earthquake men were horribly knocked around, and they felt, saw, heard the collapse of walls, towers and different buildings deeply threatening themselves and others; some thought to escape the collapse by running away, some to slide down from the walls, certain men gave themselves up and threw themselves down from high houses. More, indeed, were caught piecemeal in their sleep by the collapse, in such a way that even if a part of the wall remained intact, they were nowhere to be seen. Others, indeed, were terrified; they abandoned their homes, scorned their wealth, left everything, and behaved as if demented in the streets and squares of the town. They stretched their hands towards the heavens because of their manifold fear and powerlessness, and cried tearfully without ceasing in different languages: `Spare us, Lord, spare your people.²⁷

When morning came, and the vast scale of the wretched disaster was clear beneath the ruin both of men and of other things, everyone of one accord Latins, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians,²⁸ strangers and pilgrims - claimed the earthquake had happened because of their own sins.²⁹ At once they took advantage of good advice and had recourse to the very church of St Peter the apostle,³⁰ seeking the protection of his eternal patronage. And so that that very same saint whom they had failed to appreciate when things were going well, in bad times they recognized as omnipotent and merciful, his utter goodness performing with justice, and those same men confessed that they had grievously sinned and, renouncing their past and present pleasures to Lord Bernard, the first Latin patriarch,³¹ they promised most devoutly to mend their ways, and by his faith, merits and prayers, with his own clergy and the rest of the faithful very humbly entreating God, so we truly believe, the Lord took pity on the rest of his Antiochene people.

When the divine office had been celebrated, a sermon delivered and some instructions imposed as to how they should behave or what they ought to do, just as they were thinking nothing very serious had happened, they were suddenly frightened by terrible news. For certain people who had escaped by God's favour in the town of Marash³² testified that that same town had been entirely destroyed with its lord³³ and bishop,³⁴ also the clergy and all the people.³⁵ And not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra,³⁶ previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the feast of St Brice,³⁷ increased their fear. What of al-Atharib?³⁸ What of the other Antiochene lands? A comparable torment was imagined happening in quite disparate places. Therefore fear was mingled with terror and thus redoubled for the wretched masses, because they absolutely did not know where they should stay or where they should flee. For each day, the earthquake threatened for hopeless hours; and for this reason they said this to one another: `Oh the wretched necessity of being born, the miserable need to die, our hard necessity to live!' Although these people knew that the power of God could nowhere and never be escaped, yet they decided it was easier to cohabit with the animals outside than to live inside in constant fear of the impending collapse of the buildings. For this reason they adopted tents for homes in the streets, in the squares, in gardens, in thickets, with other dwellings abandoned. More, indeed, left the towns and took their huts from place to place, staying on the plains.

And yet the patriarch, most experienced of all men of the place and time,³⁹ drawing discursively on the necessary divisions of philosophical teaching, pacified the hearts of the desolate people, who were now almost despairing of life, by means of the encouraging sweetness of holy preaching. And then finally he proclaimed a three-day fast for all the people,⁴⁰ with sighing and in a spirit of contrition, adding also that they should avoid evil works and pay attention to all good things. What, therefore, of the result? The people who had been brought back into the Lord's service were described in this manner: they flee feasting; they abhor drunkenness; they shun the baths;⁴¹ they curse immorality; having laid aside everything, even care of the body, they have changed their style of dress into sackcloth and ashes;⁴² they roam from street to street, from church to church, first the men, then the women, with bare feet, with loosened hair, beating their breasts, copiously watering their faces with tears; from day to day⁴³ with all their heart they repeat litanies to God; even by night they have time for vehement prayers, in churches as well as in their bedrooms. They call back the scattered citizens, they reform those in error, they are fully occupied bringing comfort to orphans and widows and remedying their need. Their hospitality also suffices: they strive with happy expressions to refresh the bodies of the poor, the needy and the destitute and to give them cheer by presenting them with gifts once they are refreshed. What more? Reformed by the benefit of penance, adorned by good works, they were kept safe from the danger of threatening earthquake for five months⁴⁴ and more not because of their own merits but through God's grace, and they gladly gave thanks to the Almighty in His church.

Footnotes

10 Vergil, Aeneid, 12.230: ‘viribus aequi’. Ovid, Trist. 5, 7, 47: ‘viribus aequum’.

11 In this first section Walter explores some of the central themes of his narrative: the idea that God inspired both the Latin successes of 1115 and Walter’s own desire to write about them; his interest in recording a chronological record of events; and the fact that this account is designed to act as an exemplar to future generations. He also seems to suggest that he will be presenting only a selection of the evidence available to him. See: Walter’s purpose in writing The Antiochene Wars, pp. 11-12.

12 The sins and retribution described in this section seem to be focused upon the indigenous eastern Christian population of northern Syria, rather than the Latins who had settled in the Levant. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, pp. 67-8.

17 The concept of adversity as a means to salvation gained considerable currency during the twelfth century. It was used, for example, by St Bernard to explain the failure of the Second Crusade. See: E. Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, p. 78; G. Constable, ‘The Second Crusade as seen by Contemporaries’, Traditio, vol. 9 (1953), pp. 213-79.

18 The Byzantine empire had held the city of Antioch until 1084. Walter’s use of the word ‘enslaved* to characterize Greek rule suggests that he subscribed to the general antipathy towards Byzantium which was prevalent amongst the Latins of Antioch in this period. The Greeks disputed possession of the city and had, in the first decade of the principality’s existence, constantly contested control of the fertile region of Cilician Armenia and the port of Latakia. See: R.J. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204, trans. J.C. Morris & J.E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), pp. 61-87.

19 For discussion of B.Z. Kedar’s alternative views on this phrase see: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 68.

20 Walter seems to suggest that the Latins also deserved to be punished because they had failed to reform the eastern Christian population of the principality. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 68.

21 In common with many medieval writers, Walter here interprets a natural disaster as a punishment or sign of God’s displeasure. Northern Syria was, however, prone to consistent tectonic activity in this period.

22 Walter seems to have believed himself to be writing a unique historical account. See: Our knowledge of Walter, p. 6.

23 These italicized chapter headings do not appear in the manuscripts of Walter's text. Chapter breaks and titles were introduced by Riant in his edition of 1895 and the headings used here roughly follow his.

24 29 November 1114. Galterii cancellarii, Bella Antiochena, ed. H. Hagenmeyer, p. 126, n. 1, translating this date as 1115, wrongly suggested that Walter followed the Pisan calendar, which dates the start of the year from 25 March. Other sources confirm that by the standard dating system this earthquake occurred in 1114. Fulcher of Chartres, 11.52, pp. 578-80; Matthew of Edessa, 1II.67, p. 216, place the earthquake earlier in the year; Kemal ed-Din, p. 607; Ibn al-Athir, p. 295; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 149. See: Our knowledge of Walter, p. 7.

25 Vergilian, e.g Georgics, 1.247: 'intempesta silet nox'.

26 Cicero, Tusc. 5.4: `fragilitas humani generis'.

27 Joel, 2.17: `Parse, Domine, parce populo tuo'.

28 Walter provides a number of insights into the religious and ethnic diversity of the inhabitants of Antioch. Note his above comment on the number of different languages spoken in the city. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 67.

29 In spite of Walter's earlier concentration upon the sins of the Eastern Christians, he here seems to admit that the Latin population was also guilty of sinfulness.

30 The Basilica of St Peter, the main Christian church of the city of Antioch. During the First Crusade the Latins discovered the Holy Lance, believed to be a relic of the spear which pierced the side of Christ, buried within this building. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 68-75; Gesta Francorum, pp. 59-60. Walter provides a number of insights into the close association between Antioch and St Peter, who according to tradition had chosen the site to found the first Christian church. See: Walter's attitude to religion and piety, pp. 69-70.

31 Bernard of Valence, the first Latin Patriarch of Antioch (1100-1135). Bernard had previously held the new episcopal see of Artah for approximately six months in 1100. Ralph of Caen, p. 704. See: Bernard of Valence, patriarch of Antioch, pp. 34-42, for a discussion of Bernard's career and his portrayal in Walter's account. See also: B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, pp. 21-30.

32 Marash, from the Latin `Miragium', a large town to the far north of Antioch which had originally been part of the county of Edessa, being held by Joscelin of Courtenay in 1104. Ralph of Caen, 148, p. 710. By 1111 it seems, however, to have become more closely associated with the principality of Antioch. Albert of Aachen, XI.47. See also: G.T. Beech, `The crusader lordship of Marash in Armenian Cilicia, 1104-1149', pp. 35-52.

33 This may be a reference to Richard of Salerno. He had been appointed as ruler of Marash in 1108. Michael the Syrian, XV.10, p. 195. Albert of Aachen noted that in 1111 a man named Richard was `prefect (praefectus) of the town of Marash'. Albert of Aachen, XI.40. It is, however, strange that Walter makes no further comment on the death of the `lord' of Marash if the town were still held by the same Richard in 1114, given the fact that he was Roger of Salemo's father. G.T. Beech, `The crusader lordship of Marash in Armenian Cilicia, 1104-1149', pp. 40-42, argues that Richard must have already been dead in 1112.

34 The name of the Latin bishop of Marash is unknown.

35 Fulcher of Chartres also recorded that an earthquake affected Marash in this period. Fulcher of Chartres, II.52, pp. 579-80.

36 A town to the north-west of Antioch, on the Cilician Plain. Sometimes also referred to as Misis or Mistra. Occupied by the First Crusaders in 1097. Ralph of Caen, pp. 636-9; Albert of Aachen, III.15-16.

37 13 November 1114.

38 From the Latin `quid de Cerepo?' This town, which was in 1114 on the border between the principality and Aleppo, seems to have been known by the Latins as Cerep. It was first conquered by Tancred in 1111. Albert of Aachen, XI.44; Kemal ed-Din, pp. 597-8.

39 This phrase is a perfect example of Walter's laudatory attitude to Patriarch Bernard. See: Bernard of Valence, patriarch of Antioch, pp. 34-6.

40 The First Crusaders had also followed this form of ritualized purification through three days of fasting during the sieges of Antioch and Jerusalem. J.S.C. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the idea of crusading, p. 85.

41 The idea that bath houses were places of sin may be related to their connection to Eastern culture or because they encouraged baring of the flesh. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, pp. 67-8.

42 Matt. 11.21: 'in cilicio et cinere poenitentiam egissent'.

43 This phrase is common in ecclesiastical Latin. Psalm 60 (61).89; 2 Cor. 4.16.44 From this comment we can assume that northern Syria experienced tremors and aftershocks until March 1115.

44 From this comment we can assume that northern Syria experienced tremors and aftershocks until March 1115.

I.2 The Antiochenes repair their defences and prepare for war against the Persians

from Asbridge and Edgington (2019:84-89)
Book 1 Chapter 1

Therefore the aforementioned Prince Roger visited his own demolished buildings in his castles and elsewhere and, having carefully sought out necessary supplies, he hastened to repair and fortify those which he knew to be most useful for the defence of his land and nearest to the enemy, even if he could not do it fully, nevertheless he would do it sufficiently for immediate protection.⁴⁵ When this was accomplished, as the summer weather returned, as is the custom of that region he made for the borderlands, where he would be able more swiftly to hear of the approach of the Persians and whence he might more swiftly meet the hordes of the enemy.⁴⁶ So they came to the bridge on the river Far, where he ordered in advance his army to meet him,⁴⁷ and in that place he discussed with his men matters of common utility,⁴⁸ and resolved to send scouts of different races⁴⁹ into those regions belonging to the Persians, the rulers of which, never deceived by rumours, were accustomed also through their own messengers to harass the garrisons of the Christian militia. The prince disbanded his army there, and returned with a few men to Antioch, where the Antiochene duke, Ralph of Acre, was summoned, a man experienced in council, and the prince decided with him above all what was to be done about putting the city to rights and about its entire condition; he also consulted him about those things which ought to be done with the lord and his warriors for the exigencies of war.⁵⁰

Therefore the duke commanded the viscount⁵¹ to be called before him, the viscount the magistrate,⁵² the magistrate the herald, the herald the judge. When they had been summoned the matter was examined before them. The more important men were summoned by the lord prince’s authorized command; the lesser were summoned too.⁵³ They assembled without delay. And so the duke addressed them eloquently and referred to the cause of the matter in hand and to his lord’s decree; moreover, he told them what was to be done, if he were not to be displeased by their advice. When they had heard the cause of the matter and received the prince’s orders, they were all of the same opinion.⁵⁴ The extent of the destruction of the walls and towers was calculated and restoration works were offered to those who held lands and honours, more responsibility or less according to the size of their tenancy.⁵⁵

Meanwhile the prince was very careful to place garrisons both in the citadel and in the city, with watchmen whom he knew were loyal to him, so that he could go forth to war. Then, having sent ahead weapons and other necessities of war and provisioning, he heard divine office, prayed in the churches of the blessed intercessors St Mary the Virgin, Peter and Paul, George and very many others,⁵⁶ received permission and patriarchal blessing, commending to God and the lord patriarch himself the city and all his possessions, then he bade farewell to all and set out on the expedition.⁵⁷

From one direction the lord arrived in the army, from the other the scouts arrived. When questioned, they replied that there was official rejoicing in Persia on account of the ruin and destruction of Syria, and they reported that the sultan of Khorasan⁵⁸ had consulted the auguries of sun and moon⁵⁹ and taken command of the army of all Persia,⁶⁰ asserting that Syria itself - deserted by God, as shown by the earthquake - along with whatever tiny remnant there was of its inhabitants, could really be easily subjected to his rule.⁶¹ Moreover, once the scouts had been admitted they hastened to reveal new and more secret information to the prince alone, with his interpreter, in his privy apartments.⁶²

When the envoys of the people had been heard, those who needed to be got rid of from the curtained apartment were sent away, so that they would not make a noise, while those who should be admitted for their wise counsel were admitted.⁶³ The prince, therefore, thought things over, and since javelins seen in advance do less harm and wise men have no regrets after taking advice,⁶⁴ he disclosed to his men in due order the envoys and the reasons for the envoys, and he consulted them as to what best should be done.⁶⁵ When the necessary reason for the council had been revealed, they led off in haste to worthy al-Atharib. For they had heard, by way of rumour, that the king of Damascans, Tughtegin,⁶⁶ had arrived at Aleppo with Il-ghazi, emir of the Turcomans,⁶⁷ accompanied by ten thousand soldiers,⁶⁸ on account of the fealty of Ridwan’s son;⁶⁹ however, the fact of the matter was that, having made peace for the murder of Maudud,⁷⁰ they would strive to hand Aleppo over to the sultan, if they could.⁷¹ For this reason our men had hurried, being eager to change utterly their fate by provoking trial by battle.

When the Turks heard that our men had reached their frontiers, they were brought low by fear and they concealed their state of mind by falsifying the evidence of their voice. For they said, by way of go-betweens sent to the prince, that they had come for the sake of confirming a treaty of friendship with him and against the conquered Persian enemy. Tughtegin, moreover, although he feared the formidable power of both of them, Christians and Persians, yet he preferred to be united with the Christians in a pretended peace, so that he might lead them to disaster, rather than to make an agreement with the Persians, whom he knew to be much more cruel towards him in peace than in war.⁷²

So they assembled in the designated place, and there they confirmed agreements and became as if they were friends.⁷³ They arranged how they should best proceed against the hordes of the enemy, but in different ways. For the Damascene ordained that it was more advantageous for him and his men to go to places of both sorts of fortune, while the Antiochene ordered his men to those places from which he could sooner attack the enemy head on. To cut a long story short: the opinion of the prince prevailed, to whom it had already been predicted that an army of barbarians would come through Salamyah⁷⁴ to Shaizar, which had formerly been tributary and served our men, but now had turned against us,⁷⁵ relying for approval on the Persians, by whose later action it suffered losses from both sides.

Footnotes

45 Roger appears, at this point, to have visited sites outside the city of Antioch which had suffered earthquake damage. These probably included both fortified and un-fortified sites, but it is clear that Roger concentrated repairs at frontier settlements. Walter’s use of the phrase ‘his castles and elsewhere* may suggest that Roger was primarily concerned with lands within the princely domain at this point.

46 Walter provides the interesting revelation that it was customary for the rulers of Antioch to make an annual tour of the frontiers of the principality in the early summer, on this occasion probably in May or June 1115. No other source from this period makes explicit mention of this custom in northern Syria, and it is not clear whether Walter refers to the customs of Latin settlers in the East or pre-existing Levantine customs.

47 The ‘Iron Bridge* crossed the Orontes River approximately 10 kilometres to the north east of Antioch. It probably derives its name from a corruption of the local Arabic name for the Orontes ‘Farfar’ to ‘Pons Ferreus’. Albert of Aachen, III.33, did, however, record that ‘on each side of the bridge two towers overhung, indestructible by iron and perfectly adapted for defence*. The bridge was known in Arabic as Jisr al-Hadid. It was captured by the First Crusaders on 20 October 1097, during their approach on Antioch. Gesta Francorum, p. 28; Albert of Aachen, III.33-5. The relatively flat plains around the Iron Bridge would have made a suitable muster-point for the Antiochene forces.

48 This example of the prince’s consultation with his vassals correlates with other examples amongst Roger’s predecessors. Bohemond I received advice about Melitene in 1100, while Tancred took ‘advice from his men* about Apamea in 1106 and about the king of Jerusalem’s summons in 1110. Ralph of Caen, p. 705; Albert of Aachen, X.22; XI.21.

49 This explicit reference to the use of eastern Christian and perhaps even Muslim scouts is unusual in this period. See; The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 68.

50 The title duke was probably derived from the Byzantine office ‘dux*. See: Walter and the early history of the principality of Antioch, p. 47.

51 This may refer to ‘Toroid the viscount’, who appeared in a charter issued by Roger of Salerno between 1113 and 1118. Italia Sacra, vol. 4, ed. Ughelli, pp. 847-8.

52 From the Latin ‘praetor*. This specific pattern of summoning implies a descending order of importance amongst these offices. The office described as ‘judge* may have been derived from the Greek krites. The title of praetor certainly appears to have come from a Byzantine template.

53 It seems that although the duke had the authority to initiate this call to council his power may have been derived from the prince.

54 Walter’s two references to the ‘orders’ of the prince bring into the question the actual ability of this civil council to formulate policy.

55 It appears that repairs were only organized within the city of Antioch itself.

56 Those saints mentioned here are of course all universal, but the cults of St Peter, who was believed to have founded the Christian church in the city and St George, who was an important saint of the eastern church, were of particular importance in Antioch. M. Rheinheimer, ‘Tankred und das Siegel Boemunds’, pp. 75-93. See: Walter’s attitude to religion and piety, pp. 69-70.

57 The phrase ‘permission and patriarchal blessing’ is of particular interest as it suggests that Patriarch Bernard gave some form of licence to the forthcoming expedition. This might imply that he had the ability to either condone or condemn the military activities of the prince. It is also probable that Roger left Patriarch Bernard in control of Antioch as some form of regent. See: Bernard of Valence, patriarch of Antioch, pp. 36-7.

58 The sultan of Baghdad, Ghiyah ad-Din Muhammad Shah, brother of Barkuraq. Ibn al- Athir, p. 217.

59 Walter may here demonstrate his misunderstanding of Islam, suggesting that the Muslims revered solar and lunar portents, perhaps conflating ideas of astrology and religion. It is interesting that Walter goes on to suggest that the Muslim’s consultation of auguries had led him to reach the same conclusion as the Christians, namely that the recent earthquakes indicated God’s displeasure. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 61.

60 In fact, as Walter subsequently related, the sultan’s forces were commanded by Bursuq of Hamadan. Walter the Chancellor, 1.3, p. 90.

61 Walter seems to have believed that Bursuq’s invasion of the principality was designed to completely expel the Latin presence in northern Syria.

62 This passage confirms that these scouts were not Latins and indicates that Roger could not speak their foreign tongue, be it Arabic, Armenian or another eastern language.

63 Walter may be indicating that Roger dismissed the scouts and perhaps also his interpreter before receiving his advisors.

64 This may be a play on Cicero, Tusc. 5.117.

65 Walter again portrays Roger asking the advice of his vassals, on this occasion making it clear that he views such consultation as shrewd.

66 Tughtegin, atabeg to Dukak of Damascus, and ruler of the city after Dukak’s death in 1104 until his own demise in 1128. Walter’s use of the title of king may result from his misunderstanding of the title of atabeg, which actually meant a Mamluk military chief and regent. For a discussion of Walter’s knowledge of the Muslim world see: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, pp. 59-61.

67 Il-ghazi ibn Artuk, brother of Soqman, ruler of Mardin, d. 1122.

68 This is the first example of Walter’s tendency to report Muslim numbers in multiples of 10,000. See: Walter as a military source, pp. 55-7.

69 Ridwan ibn Tutush, emir of Aleppo (1095-1113) was succeeded by his two sons, first by Alp Arslan until his assassination in 1114 and then by Sultan-shah, whom Walter refers to here. Kemal ed-Din, p. 602.

70 Maudud, atabeg of Mosul (1108-1113). This former commander of the sultan of Baghdad’s armies and ally of Tughtegin was assassinated in Damascus in 1113. Public opinion suspected Tughtegin of being involved. Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 137-42.

71 In this passage Walter draws a distinction between the ‘rumour’ which Roger and his advisors believed - namely that Tughtegin and Il-ghazi travelled to Aleppo because of their allegiance to Sultan-shah - and what he believed to be ‘the fact of the matter’: that they intended to hand over the city to Ghiyah ad-Din, the Seldjuk Sultan of Baghdad. In fact the Arab sources record that Tughtegin and Il-ghazi brought their forces to Aleppo precisely because they hoped to prevent the city falling into the hands of the Sultan, probably in an attempt to preserve the existing balance of power in northern Syria. Ibn al-Athir, p. 296; Kemal ed-Din, p. 608. See: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, p. 60.

72 Walter is probably right to state that Tughtegin was prompted to seek an alliance by fear for his political future if the sultan of Baghdad gained a foothold in northern Syria. However, Walter uses the phrases ‘pretended peace’ and ‘lead them to disaster’ to make it clear from the start that he does not approve of this Latin-Muslim alliance. For a discussion of his attitudes and the other sources for these events see: The depiction of Islam and eastern Christendom, pp. 66-7. It is interesting that he focuses his attacks upon Tughtegin and not Il- ghazi, given the fact that it was the latter who led the subsequent attacks against the principality in 1119. For a discussion of how this affects the possible dating of composition of Books One and Two see: Our knowledge of Walter, p. 8.

73 From subsequent events it would seem that an alliance between Roger, Tughtegin and Il-ghazi was arranged for the duration of the summer of 1115.

74 A Muslim held town to the south east of Shaizar and Hamah..

75 Shaizar lies on the banks of the Orontes, to the south of Apamea. Its formidable citadel survives to this day. The Banu Munqidh, the ruling family of Shaizar at this time, had begun paying tribute to Antioch in 1111, and had renewed this payment to Roger, upon his accession, in 1113. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 99, p. 132; Ibn al-Athir, p. 279. Shaizar had, however, co-operated with the sultan of Baghdad’s armies, under the command of Maudud of Mosul, in 1111. Kemal ed-Din, pp. 600-1; Ibn al-Athir, pp. 282-3. The predicted course of the Persian approach, which was presumably made by Roger’s advisors, proved to be accurate. It was perhaps based on the fact that in recent years Shaizar had been the sultan’s main ally in northern Syria. The Muslim writer Usamah ibn Munqidh, a member of the Banu Munqidh, also recorded their participation in this campaign, pp. 101-5.

I.3 Bursuq, the Persian general, invades Syria and Prince Roger summons his allies to resist.

from Asbridge and Edgington (2019:89-93)
Book 1 Chapter 1

At length⁷⁶ our men, having sent out scouts against the enemy,⁷⁷ set out for Apamea⁷⁸ where they seemed to meet with a welcome, even a bond of complete love, like sons and parents in companionship, although they might differ in number or military worth.⁷⁹ For on the side of the prince no more than two thousand warriors were to be found, while the side of his counterpart was reckoned by many to equal ten thousand. Yet this side, which was greater in number, was indeed less in worth. They camped before Apamea and stayed there two months, before the certain approach of the Persians was announced to them. In August it was reported that Bursuq, general of the Persians,⁸⁰ had massed his very powerful ranks of warriors beyond the Euphrates and now he had invaded and fiercely attacked the regions of Syria. When the prince realized this was true he notified, by means of messengers with sealed letters, the king of Jerusalem⁸¹ and the count of Tripoli,⁸² and he revealed the enemy’s approach and that the place named was not far from our men at Salinas,⁸³ where, having taken drink and other pleasures, they were awaiting the augury of the crescent moon, and he urged them for the sake of his own forces to march towards the position of the Christian army with all speed.⁸⁴

The king, therefore, who was always intent on valour, did not respond sluggishly, he sent ahead messengers to the count of Tripoli that very same day so that he would make no delay, and he himself followed as swiftly as possible.⁸⁵ Yet he warned the prince with an oath of Christianity and by the bond of brotherly affection, wherever they should go or wherever they stood firm, not to venture to attack the Persians now without the assistance of themselves.⁸⁶ Meanwhile the enemy, as rumour foretold, set out through Salamyah, taking on provisions there, and arrived at Hamah.⁸⁷ Since the had demanded on behalf of the sultan that this town be handed over to him, and they had been unable to take it by threats or by entreaties, they surrounded it with a very powerful force of armed men and launched a vigorous assault, and after the assault from all sides, when many had been slaughtered, the enemy boldly forced an entry; this deed causing no slight terror to the inhabitants. Once in the town they immediately expelled its lord⁸⁸ and certain of the more powerful of the townspeople; some they killed and distributed their wealth among themselves, and they installed their own garrison there.⁸⁹

When these things had been achieved, relying on the friendship of the emir of Shaizar⁹⁰ and wishing to billet themselves upon him, they marched on Shaizar. He, however, was not unmindful of the injury done to the people of Hamah, and he considered it more advantageous to offer them provisions while stationed outside, rather than to put up with the inconveniences of their entering Shaizar. For he was afraid that the enemy’s savagery would overflow among his possessions, but much more he feared that he himself would be murdered. Therefore he sent out his brother,⁹¹ so rumour reports, accompanied by horses bearing exotic gifts, by means of whom he might endow Bursuq in advance with the precious gifts, and the other magnates with other things, and they might make themselves agreeable to him, and with the brother as mediator a treaty of friendship might be confirmed between them, yet in this way, that while the lord of Shaizar stayed in the citadel of the town, his brother, as a native knowing the advances and retreats of their native land that were necessary for devastation in time of war, would set out with them as leader of their march and be of service to them;⁹² but as I shall tell in the following chapters, with God’s help, contrary to their hope the affair turned out against them. The brother, obeying his brother’s orders, gladly undertook the business enjoined on him; however the army pitched camp in the caves of Shaizar, and they once again took to drinking day after day, having posted the watch at a distance, tempting our men to join battle. The prince, indeed, who was joined with the king by a sacred Christian oath and by brotherly love, forbade all his men generally either to skirmish or even to wage war on pain of having their eyes tom out.⁹³ Hearing this, a part of the enemy army unexpectedly laid claim to Kafartab, a castle three leagues distant from our men,⁹⁴ and they reached it and attacked it again and again, but although the army inside was assaulted by frequent blows of arrows and stones⁹⁵ and by awful wounds, yet it could not be taken on that account, but, after one of their emirs was killed and many wounded, they returned to the main army, claiming that their own grief could be lessened by revenge.⁹⁶

While they were doing their best to attack our men dreadfully, a rumour reached their ears announcing that the king’s approach was very close. They, indeed, had confidence not in the power of the Holy Ghost but in the great numbers of the army,⁹⁷ so before the king came near they drew up marching columns and ordered those who were more skilled in skirmishing to the tents of our men. They determined the battle-lines, ordered according to their custom to follow one another at intervals,⁹⁸ while Bursuq, their general, assigned them a place, remaining with the greatest force of warriors in the camp. What more? They shook their spears, loosed their arrows and charged almost into our camp. When he saw this, the renowned prince, riding a swift horse, unsheathed his sword and rode around his men’s encampment, declaiming: ‘God’s faith, by which we live, if anyone dares to ride out now, he will perish by my sword.’ Indeed, on the contrary, he warned every one of them to stand before his camp, weapons in hand and mind alert, and yet not to venture in any way or to signal the start of the battle for themselves. Therefore the Persians marvelled that a race so ready for war and always intolerant of injury, who had been provoked so often by arrows, afflicted so often by jeers, was so long-suffering, because the Christians did not signal the start of battle and were already submitting as if conquered by fear of them.⁹⁹ Some of our men even considered it an act of cowardice; however some of greater perspicacity interpreted it as the purpose of the prince so that, when he was sure the time was right, they would be stronger to attack, not at the enemy’s summoning, nor in anticipation of their forces, but by the prudent disposition and enormous experience of himself and the king,¹⁰⁰ whose arrival was very near. For, as experience shows, a handful of warriors with boldness and ingenuity will more often prevail in war than an ill-disciplined and unreliable multitude of armed men.¹⁰¹

Footnotes

76 The departure of the Latin army can be dated to June 1115 on the basis of Walter’s subsequent statement that the army camped at Apamea for two months up to August.

77 Even within the borders of the principality it seems to have been accepted practice to utilize scouts ahead of a marching army.

78 The town of Apamea lies on the south western fringes of the Jabal as-Summaq. Also known as Femia, Afamyah or, in Arabic, QaTat al-Mudiq. It was captured from the Muslim Abu 1-Fath by Tancred in 1106. It was probably still part of the princely domain in 1115, perhaps held in castellany by Engelrand, who was named prefect of Apamea in 1111 by Albert of Aachen, XI.40.

79 Again Walter reflects on the apparent friendship between Roger of Salerno and Tughtegin of Damascus. It is clear, however, that he believed Latin and Muslim forces joined in co-operation at Apamea as early as June 1115.

80 Bursuq ibn Bursuq of Hamadan, commander of the sultan of Baghdad’s army.

81 Baldwin I king of Jerusalem (1100-1118). Also styled as Baldwin of Boulogne, count of Rethel. Baldwin had participated in the First Crusade and was count of Edessa (1098-1100). He succeeded his brother, Godfrey of Bouillon, as ruler of Jerusalem.

82 Pons, count of Tripoli (1112-1137), son of Bertrand of Toulouse.

83 This site is unidentifiable.

84 In spite of frequent bickering, the Latin rulers of the Levant frequently cooperated in times of military crisis. The princes of Antioch had both given and received military assistance on a number of previous occasions. Fulcher of Chartres, 11.27, p. 475; Albert of Aachen, XII.9.

85 Although separate messages were sent by Roger to both Jerusalem and Tripoli, Walter records that King Baldwin sent word to Pons. This may be because the count of Tripoli was the king’s vassal.

86 There were precedents for Baldwin I’s suggestion that Roger should perform a holding manoeuvre at Apamea. The combined armies of Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and Jerusalem had forced a stalemate with Maudud of Mosul’s army, camped at Shaizar, in 1111 by holding their position at Apamea. Albert of Aachen, XI.42; Fulcher of Chartres, 11.45, pp. 557. See: Walter as a military source, p. 50.

87 A town, to the south east of Shaizar, held by dependants of Tughtegin of Damascus at this point.

88 Ali the Kurd. Ibn al-Athir, p. 279.

89 Hamah was given into the possession of Kirkhan of Homs at this point. Sibt ibn al- Jauzi, ‘Mir’at ez-Zeman’, Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens orientaux, vol. 3 (Paris, 1884), p. 354; Kemal ed-Din, p. 608.

90 Abu’l Asakir ibn-Munqidh, emir of Shaizar.

91 Abu Salama Murschid ibn-Munqidh.

92 Apparently Murschid ibn-Munqidh was to act both as a mediator and a military advisor to Bursuq’s army, offering his superior knowledge of local geography in order to give him a strategic advantage against the Latins.

93 This harsh threat has parallels, particularly in the Byzantine empire, where blinding was a traditional method of removing someone from power or a punishment for treason. Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, ed. & trans. S.J. Leib (Paris, 1945), XII.6, p. 385.

94 Kafartab, a fortified town in the Jabal as-Summaq. Occupied by the First Crusaders in 1099. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 101-2. It was probably held by Bonable of Sarmin in 1115. See charter (b), p. 207.

95 This suggests 'that the Muslims used catapults against Kafartab at this point. See: Walter as a military source, p. 58.

96 This attack upon Kafartab was probably designed to lure Roger from the safety of Apamea. Although severely harried, however, Kafartab remained in Latin hands at this point. 97 Walter is keen to highlight the differences between the Latins, who maintain their bravery by trusting in God, and the Muslims, who trusted not their faith but their military manpower.

98 Walter suggests that it was Muslim practice to attack in successive waves of troops.

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) citing Walter (Gautier) the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, RHC, H.Occ., vol.5,Paris, 1895
Book 1 Chapter 1

In the one thousand one hundred and fifteenth year since the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the eve of the feast of St.Andrew the Apostle [29 November], deep in the silence of the night, when human frailty can most sweetly enjoy the calm of sleep, an immense and terrible earthquake struck the city of Antioch and its territory. Men are taken by surprise. They feel, see and hear that they and others are in danger from collapsing walls, towers and other buildings; and so they leap down from the fortifications and even throw themselves from tall houses. Many, however, are taken by surprise in their sleep, and are crushed in their collapsing homes, so that although some walls of their houses remained standing, they were never found. Others abandoned their homes and all their possessions and belongings in terror, and wandered through the streets and squares of the city in a daze. And as all were torn between fear and a sense of impotence, they raised their hands to heaven, and each in his own tongue cried out incessantly with tearful voice: '0 Lord, have mercy on your people!' When morning came, and it was clear what slaughter of men and animals was concealed beneath the ruins, everyone together, whether Greeks, Latins, Syrians, Armenians, strangers or pilgrims, agreed that what had happened was a result of their sins. [...] When church services had been held, the sermon delivered and men had decided where to go and what to do [the Antiochenes] who thought that nothing worse could happen to them, were suddenly horrified by a terrible piece of news. For some people, who by the grace of God had escaped the destruction of the town of Maresia, told how that town had been razed to the ground [by the earthquake] and its lord and bishop with all his clergy and the whole population had met their deaths. And shortly afterwards, their terror was increased by the memory of what had happened at the town of Mamistra, where, on the feast of St.Brice in the previous year [13 November 1114], the townspeople and most of the town itself had been swept away in the disaster. And what could have happened to the town of Cerepum? And what to the rest of the Antioch region? Everyone felt a torment of this kind. This mixture of fear and apprehension so increased in the wretched population [of the town] that no-one knew whether to stay or flee. Fear of an earthquake so weighed upon these wretches every day and at any time that they all said to one another: 'Oh cursed fate to be born, unhappy fate to die, and intolerable fate to be alive!'. Although they had all seen that there is no place or way to avoid the power of God, yet they preferred to live in the open with the animals rather than suffer the continual fear that the buildings in which they found themselves would collapse. And so they abandoned their homes and went to live in the streets, squares, gardens and thickets, using tents as homes. Yet others left the towns and travelled from place to place with their makeshift camps.

But the patriarch, who was a man capable of dealing with the situation and all eventualities, by calling upon all the resources of his wisdom, managed to soothe the hearts of the stricken and of those who had no further hope in life, succouring them with the sweetness of holy preaching [...]. Those who had fled were called back, sinners were led back to the path of righteousness, comfort was given to orphans and widows, by pro viding what was necessary in their indigence. Efforts were made, with suitable help and joyous countenance, to restore the bodily health of the poor, the sick and the indigent, and to cheer those who had already recovered. What more needs to be said? Men were reformed through penitence, ennobled by good works, and freed from the fear of the earthquake, though it continued to threaten them for more than five months, not by their own merits but by the will of God; and so they joyfully gave thanks to the Omnipotent in His church".

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009) citing Walter (Gautier) the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, RHC, H.Occ., vol.5,Paris, 1895
Book 1 Chapter 1

Thus in the 1115th year after the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the vigil of the Feast of the blessed Apostle Andrew, in the silence of an untimely night...there was a massive and terrible earthquake in Antioch and the surrounding area. Men were agitated by this unexpected phenomenon, feeling, seeing and hearing the walls collapsing and other things leaning over acutely. Some thought to flee, some fell from the walls and some others hurled themselves headlong from high houses. Still others were torn limb from limb in their sleep by the [collapsing] ruins; and since part of the wall remained intact, no one [in that part] could escape. Some were struck by terror, and abandoning their homes and possessions, and leaving everything, they rushed through the open spaces and neighbouring towns like madmen. Stretching out their hands to heaven on account of diverse fears and needs, they did not cease to cry out in various tongues and piteous lamentation, “Spare, O Lord, spare Thy people”.

When morning came, since so vast a mass of wretchedly slaughtered men and beasts lay under the ruins, all the Latins, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, foreigners and pilgrims unanimously declared that this had happened because of their atrocious sins. And they did not delay: in obedience to saving counsel, they fled to the very church of the blessed Apostle Peter, seeking his advocacy in perpetual protection...

When the Divine Office had been celebrated and a sermon preached, and orders enjoined as to how they should behave and what they should do, they thought that nothing more serious had happened [than the events of the night], but were suddenly greeted with terrifying news. For certain men, who by God’s will had escaped the destruction of Miragium [Marash], claimed that their city, together with its seigneur and bishop, the clergy and all the people, had been razed to its foundations. Not long after, report came from the city of Mamistra, that the citizenry and the greater part of the city had previously been destroyed on the feast of St Bricius [13 November 1114], which only increased their fears: what about Cyprus? What about the rest of Antiochia? Other things equally tormented the people. Fear and terror made that wretched people groan, for in short they did not know where to stay or whither to flee. Each day and hour the earthquake oppressed them dreadfully. As God permitted them to know neither when to flee nor whither, they thought it easier to live with the beasts in the open, than inside in constant fear of the buildings’ collapse. And thus in the suburbs, on the plains, in gardens, thickets and deserts as well as other places, they dwelt in tents rather than houses. More of them, having left their cities and moving their huts from one place to another, remained on the plains. [The people do penance.] Corrected by the fruit of their penance, and adorned with good works, they were freed from the danger of the earthquake of five months and more, not by their own merits, but by the grace of God... Having visited the forts and other places, the prince [Roger] obtained what was needed as quickly as possible, then, noting the things which would be useful for the defence of his land and were closer to the enemy, he did not rush to do everything, but made whatever repairs and works were necessary for immediate safety. And thus, having dismissed his army, and returned to Antioch with a few of his men, he summoned the mayor (dux) of Antioch, Radulf of Acre, a man of sound judgment and discussed with him first what was to be done about repairs to and the condition of the whole city. ... (Walt. Chan. I. i–II. i/83–85/106)

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) citing Walter (Gautier) the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, RHC, H.Occ., vol.5,Paris, 1895
Book 1 Chapter 1

I - Anno igitur millesimo centesimo quinto decimo ab Incarnatione Domini nostri Iesu Christi, in vigilia festivitatis beati Andreae apostoli, sub intempestate noctis silentio, qua humana fragilitas habilius atque dulcius quiescere consuevit, factus est terraemotus in Antiochiam et eius partes immensus et orribilis. Ipso etenim ex insperato homines terribiliter pulsi, sentiunt, vident, audiunt murorum, turrium, aedificiorumque diversorum ruinam sibi ac caeteris penitus imminere; quam nonnulli fugtendo putantes evadere, quidam elapsi a moenibus, quidam ab altis domibus in praecipitium se dedere. Plures equidem in somno cum ruina membratim ita sunt rapti, quod, manente etiam parte parietis integra, nusquam comparuere. Alii vero terrore percussi, dimissis domibus, spretis opibus, relictis omnibus, per plateas et oleos civitatis velut amentes se agebant. Expansis tamen ad coelum manibus, pro diversitate metus et impotentiae, pro diverso linguarum genere, voce lacrimabili: 'Three, Domine, puree populo tuo!' clamare non cessabant.

II — Mane autem facto, cum sub ruina tam hominum quam et aliorum animalium miserae cladis pateret immanitas, omnes unanimiter Latini, Graeci, Syri, Armeni, advenae et peregrini, suis peccatibus exigentibus id accidisse profitentur

III— Celebrato vero divino officio, facto sermone, iniuntisque mandatis quo modo se habeant, vel quid agere debeant, nihil gravius accidisse putantes, repente horribili terrentur nuntio. Quidam namque, a periculo ruinae oppidi Miragii divino nutu elapsi, ipsam civitatem cum eiusdem domino et episcopo, clero etiam et omni populo, funditus eversam fuisse protestantur. Nec multo post recordatio oppidi Mamistrae, cum oppidanis et maiore parte civitatis in festo sancti Bricii antea pessumdati, metum multiplicat. Quid de Cerepo? Quid de ceteris Antiochenis finibus? Par tormentum predicatur de disparibus. Metus ergo timori permixtus ita miserae plebi ingeminatur, quod ubi maneant aut quo fugiant prorsus ignorant. Quaque enim die, horis, desperatis instabat terraemotus; unde ad invicem haec pronuntiant: '0 necessitas abiecta nascendi, misera moriendi, dura vivendi nostra necessitas!' Hi, licet noverint Dei potentia nusquam et numquam posse aufugi, eligunt tamen facilius esse cohabitare cum bestiis extra, quam intus incessanter aedificia timere ruitura. Quocirca in vicis, in plateis, in hortis, in virgultis, desertis habitationibus aliis, tentoribus pro domibus potiebantur. Plures etiam, relictis civitatibus, de loco ad locum translatis mapalibus, in campis morabantur.

IV — Atqui patriarcha, loci, temporis, omnium peritissimus, per necessaria disciplinarum philosophiae membra discurrens, desolatorum et iam fere de vita desperantium corda, sanctae predicationis dulcedine fota, mitigavit. 1...] Dispersos revocant, devios corrigunt, orphanis, visuis ferre solatium, et eorum indigentium supplere satagunt. Sufficienti etiam hospitalitate, pauperum, inpoum et indigentium corpora vultu hilari nituntur recreare, ac recreates datis muneribus exhilarare. Quid ultra? Fructu poenitentiae correcti, bonis operibus adornati, a periculo terrae motus per quinque menses et ultra imminentis, non suis meritis, sed Dei gratia liberati, Cunctipotenti referunt gratiarum actiones in ecclesia sua laeti.

Latin from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades (1895, v. 5) - embedded

Book 1 Chapter 1
starts with page 83 on the right
from Walter (Gautier) the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena, RHC, H.Occ., vol.5, Paris, 1895
from archive.org
This is the text cited by Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) and Ambraseys (2009)

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Nighttime 29 November 1114 CE or 1115 CE	in the 1115th year from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the eve of the feast of St Andrew the apostle, and in the silence at the dead of night ... there was an immense and terrible earthquake in Antioch and its region	year may be 1114 CE - see Notes	The feast of St Andrew is held on 30 November dating the eve of the feast to 29 November Asbridge and Edgington (2019:80 n.24) date this to 29 November 1114 CE While noting Galterii cancellarii, Bella Antiochena, ed. H. Hagenmeyer, p. 126, n. 1, translating this date as 1115, wrongly suggested that Walter followed the Pisan calendar, which dates the start of the year from 25 March. Other sources confirm that by the standard dating system this earthquake occurred in 1114. Fulcher of Chartres, 11.52, pp. 578-80; Matthew of Edessa, III.67, p. 216, place the earthquake earlier in the year; Kemal ed-Din, p. 607; Ibn al-Athir, p. 295; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 149. See: Our knowledge of Walter, p. 7. Ambraseys (2009) dates this earthquake to 29 November 1114 CE while noting that strangely, Walter places this event in 1115, after the plague of locusts (presumably of 1114), but before the alliance between il-Ghazi and Tughtigin, which was made in 1114 (Grousset 1991, 484). Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) date this to 29 November 1115 CE The day of the week is not specified 29 November 1114 CE fell on a Sunday (calculated using CHRONOS) 29 November 1115 CE fell on a Monday (calculated using CHRONOS) Walter alludes to an earlier earthquake when he states that and not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra, previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the feast of St Brice. The feast of St Brice is held on 13 November. Asbridge and Edgington (2019:82 n.37) date this earlier earthquake to 13 November 1114 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) also date this allusion to an earlier earthquake to 13 November 1114 CE. Ambraseys (2009) has an entry for a 13 November 1114 CE which struck on the southeastern part of the plain of Adana, in the Principality of Antioch. He relies on annals Genetic Braves, in Andrea Dandul. Chron. 265 (Dan dolo, 265; see also Alexander 1990, 146) for the date

Seismic Effects

there was an immense and terrible earthquake in Antioch and its region
men were horribly knocked around, and they felt, saw, heard the collapse of walls, towers and different buildings deeply threatening themselves and others
some thought to escape the collapse by running away, some to slide down from the walls, certain men gave themselves up and threw themselves down from high houses
More, indeed, were caught piecemeal in their sleep by the collapse, in such a way that even if a part of the wall remained intact, they were nowhere to be seen
Others, indeed, were terrified; they abandoned their homes, scorned their wealth, left everything, and behaved as if demented in the streets and squares of the town
When morning came, and the vast scale of the wretched disaster was clear beneath the ruin both of men and of other things
certain people who had escaped by God's favour in the town of Marash testified that that same town had been entirely destroyed with its lord and bishop, also the clergy and all the people
And not long afterwards testimony from the town of Mamistra, previously ruined with its citizens and the greater part of the town on the Feast of Saint Brice (13 November)
What of al-Atharib? What of the other Antiochene lands? A comparable torment was imagined happening in quite disparate places
aftershocks - each day, the earthquake threatened for hopeless hours
they [the people of Antioch and possibly elsewhere] decided it was easier to cohabit with the animals outside than to live inside in constant fear of the impending collapse of the buildings.
they adopted tents for homes in the streets, in the squares, in gardens, in thickets, with other dwellings abandoned
More, indeed, left the towns and took their huts from place to place, staying on the plains
Aftershocks - the danger of threatening earthquake for five months

Locations

Antioch and its region
Marash - entirely destroyed
Mamistra
al-Atharib (later devastated by the 1138 CE Aleppo Earthquake)
other Antiochene lands (i.e the Principality of Antioch)

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Abbot Anselm of Gembloux (Belgium)'s Continuation of Chronica Monasterii Gemblacensis by Sigebert of Gembloux

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

1115. The earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch on the day of the Ides of November [13 November], during the night, and it swallowed up a number of towers and houses nearby together with their inhabitants. Certain men, as is human wont, left the place with their wives and children; but when they returned to the places where their homes had been, the earthquake had swallowed them up. (Sigeb. (cont.) 241)

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

1115. On the Ides of November, during the night, the earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch, swallowing up many towers and the houses next to them together with their inhabitants. Some, as is the custom with those people, had gone away from those places with their wives and children; but on the way back the earthquake swallowed them up where they were.

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) citing Bethmann (1844:375-376)

1115. Idibus novembris in suburbio Antiochiae terra noctu dehiscens, turres multas et adiacentes domos, cum habitatoribus absorbuit. Quidam autem, ut est illud hominum genus, cum uxore et filiis de locis illis migraverat; sed in redeundo positum idem terraemotus absorbuit in loco quo erat.

Latin from Bethmann (1844) - embedded

If required, use left pane to navigate to Scriptores (in Folio) SS -> 6. [Chronica et annales aevi Salici] -> Anselmi Gemblacense continuatio
see bottom sentence on page 375 starting with 1115. Idibus novembris
from Bethmann (1844:375-376)
from Digital Monumenta Germaniae historica Scriptores

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Night of 13 November 1115 CE	during the night on the Ides of November 1115 CE	none - but appears to be misdated	The Ides of November was a Roman festival in honor of the Jupiter which took place on 13 November Alexandre (1990:147) suggests that the correct date should be 29 November 1114 CE and opined the following: This earthquake, which actually took place on 29/11/1114, is known in more detail by Eastern sources, notably Gautier the Chancellor and Matthew of Edessa. Anselm placed the event in 1115 and apparently confused it with the earthquake in Cilicia that occurred two weeks earlier, on 13/11/1114. Ambraseys (2009) suggests that the correct date should be 29 November 1114 CE. Ambraseys (2009) notes that there is no evidence that Anselm (N.B. Sigbert died in 1112) ever visited Outremer [The Crusader States], so this story may come from returning crusaders.

Seismic Effects

during the night, the earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch, swallowing up many towers and the houses next to them together with their inhabitants
Some, as is the custom with those people, had gone away from those places with their wives and children; but on the way back the earthquake swallowed them up where they were

Locations

Antioch suburbs

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Dostourian (1993)

from Dostourian (1993:215-218)
Footnotes from Dostourian (1993:343-344)
Part III

66. In the year 563 of the Armenian era [1114-1115] the Persian sultan Tap'ar, the son of Malik-Shah, collected troops and appointed as commander over them the great emir al-Bursuki.¹ Taking with him the sultan's son², who was a mere boy, this emir marched forth with a countless number of troops and came against the city of Edessa. On Friday the 24th of the month of Sahmi, al-Bursuki arrived at the gates of the city. After he had subjected Edessa to a heavy siege for thirty days, the emir then departed and reached the Euphrates River, ravaging all the districts along its banks. Then he came against the town of Bira, located on the banks of the Euphrates River. All the Frankish troops on the other side of the river united together but did not dare cross over and engage in combat [with the infidels]. So al-Bursuki returned to Edessa and from there went to the Muslim town of Nisibis. After this the emirs Il-Ghazi³ and Balik⁴ united their troops and in a formidable battle defeated al-Bursuki, putting him to flight and taking prisoner the sultan's son,⁵ whom they later freed.⁶

67. In this same year the divine-rebuking wrath of God fell upon all living creatures. The Lord in all his omnipotence and wrathfulness looked down upon those whom he had created, for the sons of man had all strayed from the path of righteousness, according to the words of the prophet who said: "In these times there will be no prince, prophet, or leader who will practice goodness, no not even one".¹ In like manner everyone delighted in the wicked path of sin and scorned all the precepts and laws of God; for none of the princes, soldiers, men of the people, leaders, priests, and monks stood fast in truly carrying out God's work, but rather sought after the fulfillment of fleshly and worldly desires. God considered all this the highest degree of sinfulness. Thus were fulfilled the words of the prophet, who said: "Lo, he looked at the earth and caused it to tremble."² Now, since God wrathfully looked askance at his creation, all living creatures gave up hope and succumbed to the terror of the Lord's might. In accordance with this, on Sunday the 12th of the month of Mareri, the day of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross, a frightful phenomenon occurred on the earth; moreover, we have never heard of such a wrathful event having happened in the past or in the present, or having been mentioned in Scripture. Now, while we were in a deep sleep, a horrible, crackling, and reverberating sound was heard, and all of creation resounded from the noise. A severe concussion was felt, and the plains and mountains shook with a frightful echoing sound, while tremendous rocks were cleft and hills were split open.

Because of the intensity of this frightful calamity, the mountains and hills resounded, just like live animals who when they are terrified, shrilly cry out; this resounding noise hit the ears like the sound of a large throng in a camp. In this way, like a churned-up sea, all living creatures quaked and trembled from fear of the might of the Lord God; for all the plains and mountains resounded like the clanging of bronze, shaking and moving to and fro like trees struck by a high wind. The cries and groans of people issued forth like the plaintive moans of persons sick for a very long time, forcing them through fear to seek their own destruction. Like a fugitive, the whole land was reduced to despair and trembled with fear and like one condemned [to die], gave forth plaintive and tearful cries; moreover, these noises were heard even after the trembling ended, for about an hour during the night. Now, out of fear of the noises concomitant with this calamity, everyone despaired of their lives, saying: "The final day, the day of judgement, has arrived." Indeed the day of this calamity was a true mirror of that last day of judgment; for it happened to be Sunday and the day on which the heavy and somber tone of the Armenian chant was used³, besides which the moon was in its last phase. Thus all the signs pointing to the last day were in evidence at this time.

In consequence of all this, those who already were plunged into the depths of despair now became horror-struck and frozen with fear as if they had just died. Now during this night many towns and districts were destroyed. However, all the areas destroyed were those of the Franks, while no harm or destruction came to other regions or peoples.⁴ So on this night Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kesoun, and Raban were destroyed. On the other hand, Marash was destroyed in such a frightful manner that as many as forty thousand persons died; it was a populous city and yet not one person survived. The same thing happened to the town of Mamistra,⁵ where a countless number of men and women perished. Moreover, many other villages and monasteries were destroyed, and thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children perished. An incident occurred in the Basilian Monastery⁶ located in the renowned Black Mountains, where the holy monks and Armenian vardapets had gathered for the consecration of a new church building; in the midst of the divine service the church collapsed on them, and thirty monks and two vardapets perished beneath the ruins, their bodies remaining in the rubble to this day. A similar mishap occurred near Marash in the great Monastery of the Jesuits,⁷ where the monastery was destroyed and all the monks perished. Now, when the tremors had ceased, snow began to fall and cover the entire land. The Armenian vardapet Gregory, surnamed Mashkewor, perished in the same place. Thus in this way many mishaps and frightful calamities befell the Christian faithful. All of these things happened because of their sins, for each of them abandoned the true path of the precepts of God and enthusiastically embraced the erroneous way; so they separated themselves from the precepts of the holy books and became involved in foolish pursuits. As in the days of Noah they ate and drank until the time of their destruction, an end which they well deserved because of their sins; these persons continued giving themselves to merriment until the wrath oft he Lord God fell upon them and obliterated their iniquities, for they had committed outrageous crimes.

68. In this same year the holy Annenian vardapet George, surnamed Meghrik, who was an eminent man and an admirable monk, died. He devoted most of his life - namely fifty years - to the monastic discipline and passed away at the age of seventy. In his abstemious and austere conduct and in his use of dry foods,¹ his discipline and piety were very much like that of the saints of old. Moreover, every Sunday during his lifetime was spent in prayer. This vardapet was from Annenia, from a large village called Analiwr, which is located in the province of Vaspurakan. Having dedicated himself to the monastic life since childhood, he gained wide renown [for his piety] and achieved a high state of perfection, becoming an example for many Christians and a father confessor to all the Armenians; moreover, he recalled people to the enlightened path and presented all of them-regenerated through the act of repentance - for adoption by the heavenly Father. So, having sincerely confessed his sins, this vardapet passed away in harmony with Jesus Christ and was buried in the territory of Anazarba, in the great Monastery of Drazark,² which had been restored by the illustrious Armenian prince T'oros.

69. In the year 564 of the Armenian era [1115-1116] a frightful and marvelous phenomenon occurred in the Muslim town of Arnida. Now, because there was an increase of evil wickedness and abominable crimes¹ among their people, fire from heaven suddenly fell upon their chief mosque during the night. This fire was of such intensity and flared up with such dynamism that it voraciously consumed the stone walls as if they were made of wood. All the men of the town tried to put it out, but were unable to handle this inextinguishable fire; on the contrary, the flames of the fire heightened and reached the sky, thus burning and completely destroying this house of prayer-this vile place of worship. All this occurred in the town of Amida, which the Armenian king Tigran had built.

Footnotes

Section 66

1. Aksungur al-Bursuki, Seljuk governor of Mosul (1113-1114 and 1124 1126).

2. Mas'ud, later Seljuk sultan (1134-1150).

3. Artukid ruler of Mardin (1107-1122).

4. Nur-ad-Daulah Balik, nephew of Il-Ghazi and later Artukid ruler of Aleppo (1123-1123).

5. The text reads "Sulaiman's son." One variant and the Jerusalem text have "the sultan's son," which makes more sense here.

6. Both Bar Hebraeu8 and Ibn-al-Athir relate the arrival of al-Bursuki in upper Mesopotamia and his campaigns in the area. The Arab historian's account gives fuller details than does Matthew's, at the same time differing with some oftheArmenian chronicler's facts. Ibn al-Athir says that al-Bursuki was made emir of Mosul and sent by the Seljuk sultan to fight the Franks. This emir forced Il-Ghazi to contribute troops to his campaign. Il-Ghazl would not join him, but sent his son Ayaz in his stead. After al-Bursuki's unsuccessful attack on Edessa, the emir took Ayaz into his custody in order to punish his father for not being present during the campaign against Edessa. Moreover, he devastated Il-Ghazl's territories. When Il-Ghazi learned of this, he summoned Da'ud, the son of his brother Sokman (Artukid ruler of Hisn Kaifa), to his aid. Both men marched against al-Bursuki, defeated the emir, and freed Ayaz.

Section 67

1. Cf. Psalms 14:3; 63:3.

2. Cf. Psalms 104:32.

3. Armenian chant consists of eight tones, used on different days. The tone used on this day happened to be one of the more somber tones.

4. The Arab chronicler Kamal-ad-Din says that the earthquake also hit the territory of Aleppo.

5. One variant and the Jerusalem text have Sis.

6. A monastery following the Basilian discipline of monasticism.

7. Not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Jesuit order. These monks were members of a Cilician monastery. Dulaurier calls them Jesueens.

Section 68

1. Dry food, in contrast to wine and olive oil.

2. Located near Sis

Section 69

1. The text reads "of evil and abominable wickedness." One variant and the Jerusalem text have "of evil wickedness and abominable crimes," which seems to make more sense here.

English from Dulaurier (1861)

from Dulaurier (1861:287-290)
Footnotes from Dulaurier (1861:454-455)

CCXVI. In the year 563 of the Armenian era (February 21, 1114-February 20, 1115), the Persian sultan Daph'ar, son of Melik-Scbah, assembled an army and entrusted its command to the great emir Boursonky (Poursoukh)¹. The latter, having taken with him the son of the sultan, still a child², marched against Edessa, at the head of imposing forces. On the 24th of the month of Sahmi, a Friday³, he arrived at the walls of this city and vigorously and unceasingly attacked it for thirty days. From there, he reached the Euphrates and ravaged all the country which runs along its banks; then he advanced against the city of Bir, situated on the Euphrates. All the Frankish troops on the western side of this river gathered together, but did not dare to measure themselves with him. Boursouky returned towards Edessa and from there towards Nisibis, a city of the Muslims. The emir Ilgazi (Khazi) and Balag, having joined their troops, gave him a severe fight, defeated him and put him to flight. They took the son of the sultan prisoner; but later they released him.

CCXXVII. In this same year, God made his anger burst forth against his creatures. In his omnipotence and his wrath, he cast his eyes upon them. He was angry with the sons of men who had gone astray, by straying from the right path, according to this word of the Prophet: "There is in this time, no one, neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader who practices justice; there is not one". (Jeremiah, XXXII, 32) It was thus that all followed with training the road of perversity, that they took into hatred the commandments and precepts of God; princes, warriors, men of the people, chiefs, priests, monks, none remained firm in the right way. All abandoned themselves to bodily inclinations, to pleasures which the Lord considers as the highest degree of sin. Then the Prophet's threat was realized: "Behold, he looks upon the earth and makes it tremble; God having cast an angry glance upon his creatures, they could not help being cast down by the terror of his wonders." (Psalm 104, 32.) This is precisely what happened; for on the 12th of the month of Mareri, a Sunday, the feast of the Invention of the Cross^1a a terrible phenomenon broke out, a sign of wrath such as never in the memory of man had the like occurred in past centuries, or in ours, such as was never any of those mentioned in Scripture. While we were plunged into a deep sleep, suddenly a horrible noise was heard, which resounded throughout the whole universe. An earthquake was felt; the plains and the mountains were lifted up with a crash; the hardest rocks were split and the hills were split open. The mountains and hills, shaken violently, resounded, and, like living animals, moved about, giving off a breath. This noise reached the ears, like the voice of the multitude in a camp. Like a sea in turmoil, the creatures rushed from all sides, distraught with the terror inspired in them by the anger of the Lord; for the plains and the mountains resounded with the sound of bronze and moved in all directions like trees tormented by the wind. The groans of the people escaped in muffled rumors, like the complaints of a man long sick. Fear made them run to their doom. The earth was like a fugitive reduced to bay and trembling; dismayed like a condemned man who utters lamentations and groans accompanied by tears. His voice was heard again after the earthquake, for about an hour, that same night. In this disaster, everyone believed that his life was over. All cried out: "This is our last hour! This is the day of the last judgment!" That day, in fact, formed a specific and characteristic date; it was a Sunday, it was marked by the sixth tone of Armenian music^2a, and, moreover, the moon was on its decline. It thus united all the signs of the last day. Everyone was plunged into despair, as if he had already died. This night saw the ruin of many cities and provinces; but this was only in the countries occupied by the Franks; in the others and in those of the infidels, nothing unfortunate happened. In Samosata, in Hisn-Mançour, in K'éçoun, in Raban, the scourge exercised its ravages. In Marasch, it was terrible, and forty thousand people lost their lives; for it was a very populous city, and no one escaped. It was the same in the city of Sis, where an innumerable multitude of inhabitants perished. Many villages and convents were destroyed, and a multitude of men and women were crushed. In the famous Black Mountain, at the Basilian monastery, there were gathered, for the blessing of the church, holy Armenian monks and doctors. While they were celebrating the divine office, the building fell on them, and thirty monks and two doctors were swallowed up under the rubble, and their bodies are buried to this day. A similar accident occurred near Marasch; the great monastery of the Jesuans ('Iswans)^3a crushed all the monks under its ruins. When the tremors ceased, snow began to fall, and the country was buried under its thick layers. The illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Maschguévor^4a, perished in the same place. It was thus that multiplied accidents and terrible misfortunes struck the faithful, as punishment for their sins: for they had abandoned the true path of divine precepts and had thrown themselves with ardor into the way of error, deviating from the rules traced by the Holy Books and acting foolishly. Like men, in the time of Noah, occupied only with eating and drinking until the day of their loss, so well deserved by their guilty actions; these continued to give themselves over to joy until the moment when they were overtaken by the Lord, who destroyed these workers of iniquity, because they committed enormous crimes.

Footnotes

1. Abou-Sa'id Ak-Sonkor el-Boursouky-el-Gâzi, surnamed Kacim-eddaula Seïf-eddin, freed from one of the two Boursoukh, of whom ch. CCVI, n. 6 is spoken. Sultan Mohammed made him emir of Mossoui, in place of Maudoud and after the death of the latter. Boursouky retained this government until 509 (1115-1116), when he was replaced by the emir Djoïousch-Beg, and he withdrew to the city of Rahaba, which was assigned to him as a fief. In 512 (1118-1119) the sultan appointed him prefect or schihneh Baghdad; later, in 515 (1121-1122), this sovereign mother returned to him the principality of Mossoui with its dependencies, such as Djéziré-ibn-'Omar and Sinjar (Aboulféda, T. III, p. 482, 388, 392 and 410). — Albert of Aix names him Burgoldus, and Guillaume de Tyre Borsequinus (Frankish translation, Borsses).

2. It was Gaïath-eddin Maç'oud. Ibn-Alathir and Ibn-Djouzi say, like Matthew, that he accompanied Boursouky in this expedition with considerable forces.

3. May 15. This date agrees with that given by Ibn Alathir, which indicates the month of dsulhidjé 508 = May 1114.

1a November 29, the eve of the feast of St. Andrew. It is by mistake that Matthew here recalls the Invention of the Cross. — See my Armenian Chronology, Vol. 1, 2, part, Anthol. chronoL, no. LXV.

2a This tone, which is one of the night tones of Armenian music, is called var. Each serves in turn to regulate the mode according to which the office of the day must be sung, in church. The tone has a plaintive character, and this circumstance, together with the coincidence of Sunday and the waning of the moon, explains the superstitious ideas that the populations formed of the physical phenomenon recounted by our chronicler. The night from Saturday to Sunday, dedicated to the memory of the Resurrection of Our Lord, must be witness, according to the ancient Armenian belief, to the general resurrection and the last judgment. — See the synodal speech of Patriarch John Otznetsi, p. 40 of his Complete Works, Venice, in-8° 1833.

3a In the list of prelates and barons who attended the coronation of the King of Armenia Leo II, the historian Sempad of Cillcie (Moscow ed., p. 99) mentions Joseph, archbishop of Antioch and abbot of the convent of the Jesuians.

4a Maschguévor or Maschgouor, convent of Cilicia, so named, doubtless, because the monks were dressed in animal skins stripped of their hair.

English from Bedrosian (2017)

from Bedrosian (2017:129-130)
Part III - Section 120

[120] In this period divine wrath was visited upon all creation. This was because God Himself in His omnipotent power looked with great anger upon His creations. For all the sons of Man had strayed from the path of righteousness, according to the words of the prophet, who said: "In these times there will be neither prince, prophet, nor leader, not a single person who will do good." In just this fashion, everyone loved the sinful path of impiety and loathed all the commandments and laws of God. For no one remained rightly in the work of God, neither princes, military men, laity, not the leaders, priests, nor clerics. Rather, they ran after the physical desires of the flesh and worldly [desires]. God regarded this as very sinful, just as the prophet said: "Behold, He looked upon the earth and made it tremble." Indeed, God looked upon His creations in anger and, from terror at the power of the Lord, all creation gave itself over to destruction.

Here is what happened. On a Sunday, on the 12th day of the month of Mareri on the feast-day of the Discovery of the Cross, tremendous destruction was visited upon the world [of a magnitude] that no similar manifestation of wrath had been heard about previously on in the present day or in Scripture. As we slept deeply there occurred a sudden explosion and a terrifying bang. All creation resounded [g331] [from the noise]. Severe shaking and trembling were felt, which moved land and mountains. Boulders and even hills were torn asunder. From the severity of the frightful [divine] rage, the mountains and hills roared and echoed with sounds, shrieking like terrified animals. It sounded like the din made by a multitudinous army. From fear of the power of the Lord God, all creation shook and trembled like a churning sea. All the plains and mountains resounded like the clanging of bronze, shaking and moving about and tossing about like trees in a hurricane. Like a person sick for a long time, all creation produced cries and groans as, with great dread, they were expecting their destruction. Like a dejected fugitive, the country was in great terror. Like a condemned person, it emitted sounds of lamentation and tearful weeping. After the earthquake, for an hour into the night those sounds could be heard. From fear of the sounds of this wrath, everyone despaired of life and said: "The Final Day, our Judgment Day, has arrived." That was the aspect that day produced. It was a Sunday. The noise [produced] was intense, the moon was waning and all appearances were [fitting] for the Final Day. [The people] were terrified and despondent. They were like dead people. During this night many cities and districts were ruined. As it happened, all [the places] destroyed were in the districts of the Franks. Other districts or other peoples were not harmed in any way. So it was that during this night [g332] the cities of Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kesoun, and Raban were destroyed. The city of Marash was terribly destroyed and some 40,000 souls perished, as it was a populous city. Not a single one of them remained [alive]. Similarly, the city of Mamistra (Msis) was destroyed with countless men and women. Moreover, many other villages and monasteries were destroyed with innumerable men, women, and children in their thousands and tens of thousands. On Black Mountain, at a famous retreat named Barsegheants', there had assembled holy clerics and vardapets of the Armenians to consecrate a church. They were worshipping God when the church collapsed on them. Thirty clerics and two vardapets died under it and [their remains] are there to this day. Similarly, close to Marash, at the great retreat called Yesuants', the monastery fell and was destroyed as were all the ranks of the clergy. Now when the earthquake stopped, snow started to fall and it covered the entire land. The great and glorious vardapet of the Armenians, Grigor called Mashkewor, died in that same place. Thus, in this manner, the faithful experienced many calamities and [divine] wrath. This occurred because of sins. For each man departed from the normal road of God's commandments. They pursued the path of deviance and were inflamed by it, they left the commandments of Scripture and became crazed. It was just as in the days of Noah: they ate and drank until they were destroyed by their deeds. Thus were they engaged in merriment until [g333] the wrath of the Lord God was visited upon them. It killed the workers of evil, for they had committed very grave offenses

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In that same year [563 in the Armenian calendar = 21 February 1114 to 20 February 1115], when the Persian sultan Daph’ar took Edessa and marched to the Euphrates], God visited his wrath on his creatures. On the 12th of the month of Mareri, a Sunday, the day of the Finding of the Cross, there was a terrible upheaval ... While we were deep in sleep, suddenly an awful noise was heard, echoed by the entire universe. An earthquake was felt; the plains and the mountains were cast up with a roar; the hardest rocks shattered and the hills broke open. The mountains and hills were shaken violently, echoed and, like living creatures, grew agitated and emitted a blast of air. To our ears this was like the sound made by a multitude of men ...Like a raging sea, creatures rushed from all sides, overcome with terror which the wrath of the Lord had inspired in them ... The earth was like a fugitive, at bay and trembling, in consternation like a condemned man who cries out in lamentations and tearful groans. Its sound was heard again after the earthquake for about an hour, on the same night. Faced with this disaster, everyone thought that he had reached the end of his life...That night saw the ruin of many towns and provinces, but this was only in the part occupied by the Franks; in the other parts and in those of the infidels nothing unfortunate occurred. Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kaysum and Raban were ravaged by this plague. At Marash it was terrible and 40000 persons lost their lives: it was a very populous city, and no one escaped. The same happened in the town of Sis where an innumerable multitude of the inhabitants perished; many villages and monasteries were destroyed and a multitude of men and women wiped out. On the famous Black Mountain, the holy monks and the Armenian doctors of the Basilian monastery were assembled for the blessing of the church. While they were celebrating the Divine Office, the building fell on them, and thirty monks as well as two doctors were swallowed up in the ruins: their bodies are still buried there. A similar incident occurred near Marash: the great monastery of the Jesuians [Icouanc] crushed all the religious under its ruins. When the shocks ceased, snow began to fall, and the country was buried under a thick blanket. The illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Mashgevor, died in the same place. (Matth. Edess. 217/287–290)

Commentary from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Matthew of Edessa wrongly dates the death of the Armenian nobleman Constantine, lord of Gargar, who was imprisoned in the fortress at Samosata, to the year 566 [20 February 1117 — 19 February 1118], evidently attributing the collapse of the fortress at Samosata to the Marmet earthquake in 1117-1118 (see the entry concerned); but it actually happened on 13 November 1114.

French from Dulaurier (1861)

from Dulaurier (1861:287-290)
Footnotes from Dulaurier (1861:454-455)

CCXVI. En l'année 563 de l'ère arménienne (21 février 1114- 20 février 1115), le sulthan des Perses Daph'ar, fils de Mélik-Scbah, rassembla une armée et en confia le commandement au grand émir Boursonky (Poursoukh)¹. Celui-ci, ayant pris avec lui le fils du sulthan encore enfant², marcha contre Édesse, à la tête de forces imposantes. Le 24 du mois de sahmi, un vendredi³, il arriva sous les murs de cette ville, et ne cessa de l'attaquer vivement pendant trente jours. De là, il atteignit l'Euphrate et ravagea tout le pays qui longe ses bords; puis il se porta contre la ville de Bir, située sur l'Euphrate. Toutes les troupes frankes du côté occidental de ce fleuve se réunirent, mais n'osèrent pas se mesurer avec lui. Boursouky revint vers Édesse et de là vers Nisibe, ville des musulmans. L'émir Ilgazi (Khazi) et Balag, ayant joint leurs troupes, lui livrèrent un rude combat, le vainquirent et le mirent en fuite. Ils firent prisonnier le fils du sulthan; mais plus tard ils le relâchèrent.

CCXXVII. Cette même année, Dieu fit éclater sa colère contre ses créatures. Dans sa toute-puissance et son courroux, il jeta ses regards sur elles. Il était irrité contre les fils des hommes qui s'étaient égarés, en s'écartant du droit sentier, d'après cette parole du Prophète: "Il n'y a dans ce temps-ri personne, ni prince, ni prophète, ni chef qui pratique la justice ; il n'y en a pas un seul". (Jérémie, XXXII, 32.) Ce fut ainsi que tous suivirent avec entraînement la route de la perversité, qu'ils prirent en haine les commandements et les préceptes de Dieu; princes, guerriers, hommes du peuple, chefs, prêtres, moines, aucun ne resta ferme dans la bonne voie. Tous s'abandonnèrent aux penchants corporels, aux voluptés choses que le Seigneur considère comme le plus haut degré du péché. On vit alors se réaliser cette menace du Prophète: "Voici, il regarde la terre et la fait trembler; Dieu ayant jeté un regard courroucé sur " ses créatures, elles n'ont pu s'empêcher d'être abattues par la terreur de sesprodiges."(Psaume GUI, 32.) C'est précisément ce qui eut lieu; car le 12 du mois de maréri, un dimanche, jour de la fête de l'Invention de la Croix^1a un phénomène terrible éclata, signe de colère tel que jamais de mémoire d'homme un pareil n'était survenu dans les siècles passés, ou dans le nôtre, tel que ne fut jamais aucun de ceux dont l'Écriture fait mention. Tandis que nous étions plongés dans un profond sommeil, tout à coup on entendit un bruit horrible, dont l'univers entier retentit. Un tremblement de terre se fit sentir; les plaines et les montagnes furent soulevées avec fracas; les rochers les plus durs se fendirent et les collines s'entr'ouvrirent. Les montagnes et les collines, ébranlées avec violence, retentissaient, et, comme des animaux vivants, s'agitaient en rendant un souffle. Ce fracas arrivait aux oreilles, comme la voix de la multitude dans un camp. Semblables à une mer bouleversée, les créatures se ruaient de tous rotés, éperdues de la terreur que leur inspirait la colère du Seigneur; car les plaines et les montagnes résonnaient avec la sonorité du bronze et s'agitaient en tous sens comme les arbres tourmentés par le vent. Les gémissements des populations s'échappaient en sourdes rumeurs, comme les plaintes d'un homme depuis longtemps malade. La frayeur les faisait courir à leur perte. La terre était comme un fugitif réduit aux abois et tremblant; consternée comme un condamné qui pousse des lamentations et des gémissements accompagnés de larmes. Sa voix se fit entendreencore après le tremblementde terre, pendant une heure environ, cette même nuit. Dans ce désastre, chacun crut que c'en était fait de sa vie. Tous s'écriaient: "C'est notre dernière heure ! c'est le jour du jugement dernier!" Ce jour-là formait, en effet, une date déterminée et caractéristique; c'était un dimanche, il était marqué par le sixième ton de là musique arménienne^2a, et, de plus, la lune était sur son déclin. Il réunissait ainsi tous les signes du dernier jour. Chacun était plongé dans le désespoir, comme s'il eût été déjà mort. Cette nuit vit la ruine de beaucoup de villes et de provinces; mais ce fut uniquement dans les pays occupés par les Franks; dans les autres et dans ceux des infidèles, rien de fâcheux n'arriva. À Samosate, à Hisn-Mançour, à K'éçoun, à Raban, le fléau exerça ses ravages. A Marasch, il fut terrible, et quarante mille personnes perdirent la vie ; car c'était une cité très-populeuse, et personne n'échappa. 11 en fut de même dans la ville de Sis, où il périt une multitude in nombrable d'habitants. Beaucoup de villages et de couvents furent détruits, et une multitude d'hommes et de femmes, écrasés. Dans la célèbre Montagne-Noire, au couvent des Basiliens, se trouvaient rassemblés, pour labéné diction de l'église, de saints moines etdocteurs arméniens. Tandis qu'ils étaient à célébrer l'office divin, l'édifice tomba sur eux, et trente moines ainsi que deux docteurs furent engloutissous les décombres, etleurs corpssontres tés enfouis iusou'à présent. Pareil accident se reproduisit auprès de Marasch; le grand couvent des Jésuéens ('Içouans)^3a écrasa sous ses ruines tous les religieux. Lorsque les secousses cessèrent, ilcommença à tomber de la neige, et le pays fut enseveli sous ses couches épaisses. L'illustre docteur arménien Grégoire, surnommé Maschguévor^4a, périt dans le même lieu. Ce fut ainsi que des accidents multipliés et d'effroyables malheurs frappèrent les fidèles, en punition de leurs péchés: car ils avaient abandonnéle véritable sentier des préceptes divins et s'étaient jetés avec ardeur dans la voie de l'erreur, s'écartant des règles tracées par les Livres-Saints et agis sant en insensés. Comme les hommes, autemps de Noé, uniquement occupés àmangeret à boirejusqu'au jourde leur perte, si bien méritée par leurs actions coupables; ceux-ci continuèrent à se livrer à la joie jusqu'au moment où ils furent atteints par le Seigneur, qui détruisit ces ouvrière d'iniquité, parce qu'ils commettaient des crimes énormes.

Footnotes

1. Abou-Sa'ïd Ak-Sonkor el-Boursouky-el-Gâzi, surnommé Kacim-eddaula Seïf-eddin , affranchi de l'un des deux Boursoukh, dont il est parlé ch. CCVI, n. 6. Le sulthan Mohammed le fit émir de Mossoui, à la place de Maudoud et après la mort de ce dernier. Boursouky conserva ce gouvernement jusqu'en 509 (1115-1116), où il fut remplacé par l'émïr Djoïousch-Beg, et il se retira dans la ville de Rahaba, qui lui fut assignée comme fief. En 512 (1118-1119) le sulthan le nomma préfet ou schihneh Bagdad; plus tard, en 515 (1121-1122), ce môee souverain lui rendit la principauté de Mossoui avec ses dépendances, comme Djéziré-ibn-'Omar et Sindjar (Aboulféda, T. III, p. 482, 388, 392 et 410). — Albert d'Aix le nomme Burgoldus, et Guillaumede Tyr Borsequinus (traduct franc, Borsses).

2. C'était Gaïath-eddin Maç'oud. Ibn-Alathir et Ibn-Djouzi disent, comme Matthieu, qu'il accompagna Boursouky dans cette expédition avec des forces considérables.

3. Le 15 mai. Cette date concorde avec celle que donne lbn Alathir, qui indique le mois de dsou'lhidjé 508 = mai 1114.

1a Le 29 novembre, veille de la fête de Str-André. C'est par erreur que Matthieu rappelle ici l'Invention de la Croix. — Voir ma Chronol. armén., T. 1^er 2^e partie, Anthol. chronoL, n° LXV.

2a Ce ton, qui est un des nuits tons de la musique arménienne, est appelé var. Chacun sert tour à tour à réglerle mode d'après lequel doit être chanté l'office du jour, à l'église. Le ton var' a un caractère plaintif, et cette circonstance, jointe à la coïncidence du dimanche et du déclin de la lune, explique les idées superstitieuses que les populations se formaient du phénomène physique raconté par notre chroniqueur. La nuit du samedi au dimanche, consacrée à la mémoire de la Résurrection de Notre Seigneur, doit être témoin, suivant l'antique croyance arménienne, de la résurrection générale et du jugement dernier. — Voir le dis cours synodal du patriarche Jean Otznetsi, p. 40 de ses OEuvres complètes, Venise, in-8° 1833.

3a Dans la liste des prélats et des barons qui assistèrent au couronnementdu roi d'Arménie Léon II, l'historien Sempad de Cillcie (éd. de Moscou, p. 99) mentionne Joseph, archevêque d'Antioche et abbé du couvent des Jésuéens.

4a Maschguévor ou Maschgouor, couvent de Cilicie, ainsi nommé, sans doute, parce que les religieux étaient vêtus de peaux d'animaux dépouillées de leurs poils.

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Nighttime - Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	year 563 of the Armenian era ... on Sunday the 12th of the month of Mareri, the day of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross earthquake struck at night - while we were in a deep sleep, a horrible, crackling, and reverberating sound was heard, and all of creation resounded from the noise. A severe concussion was felt the moon was in its last phase	eve of the feast of Saint Andrew was likely meant instead of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross.	12 Mareri in Armenian year 563 converted to a Gregorian date of 6 December 1114 CE using planetcalc.com Gregorian date of 6 December 1114 CE converted to a Julian Date of 29 November 1114 CE using CHRONOS Matthew's day of the week and date agree. 29 November 1114 CE fell on a Sunday (calculated using CHRONOS) According to wikipedia, the Armenian Apostolic Church and other Armenian Christians celebrate the day of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross on 15 September. According to wikipedia, in Byzantine liturgical observance, the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross also appears to date to 15 September. Episteme Academy calendar lists Sunday 25 October 1114 CE as the holiday for [Ap.C.] Discovery of the Cross. Dulaurier (1861:455 n.1) states that Matthew made a mistake in saying that the earthquake struck on the the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross and should have specified eve of the feast of St. Andrew. The feast on Saint Andrew falls on 30 November. Dulaurier's (1861:455 n.1) footnote reads as follows: November 29, the eve of the feast of St. Andrew. It is by mistake that Matthew recalls the Discovery of the Cross. — See my Armenian Chronology, Vol. 1, 2, part, Anthol. chronoL, no. LXV.

Seismic Effects

while we were in a deep sleep, a horrible, crackling, and reverberating sound was heard, and all of creation resounded from the noise.
Rockfalls and Landslides - A severe concussion was felt, and the plains and mountains shook with a frightful echoing sound, while tremendous rocks were cleft and hills were split open
Because of the intensity of this frightful calamity, the mountains and hills resounded, just like live animals who when they are terrified, shrilly cry out; this resounding noise hit the ears like the sound of a large throng in a camp
In this way, like a churned-up sea, all living creatures quaked and trembled from fear of the might of the Lord God; for all the plains and mountains resounded like the clanging of bronze, shaking and moving to and fro like trees struck by a high wind
The cries and groans of people issued forth like the plaintive moans of persons sick for a very long time, forcing them through fear to seek their own destruction
aftershocks - the whole land was reduced to despair and trembled with fear and like one condemned [to die], gave forth plaintive and tearful cries; moreover, these noises were heard even after the trembling ended, for about an hour during the night
during this night many towns and districts were destroyed
all the areas destroyed were those of the Franks, while no harm or destruction came to other regions or peoples.
on this night Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kesoun, and Raban were destroyed
Marash was destroyed in such a frightful manner that as many as forty thousand persons died; it was a populous city and yet not one person survived
The same thing happened to the town of Mamistra, where a countless number of men and women perished
many other villages and monasteries were destroyed, and thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children perished
in the Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains, where the holy monks and Armenian vardapets had gathered for the consecration of a new church building; in the midst of the divine service the church collapsed on them, and thirty monks and two vardapets perished beneath the ruins, their bodies remaining in the rubble to this day
A similar mishap occurred near Marash in the great Monastery of the Jesuits, where the monastery was destroyed and all the monks perished.
when the tremors had ceased, snow began to fall and cover the entire land
The illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Maschguévor, perished in the same place

Locations

all the areas destroyed were those of the Franks, while no harm or destruction came to other regions or peoples.
during this night many towns and districts were destroyed
Samosata - destroyed
Hisn-Mansur - destroyed - also among the worst affected cities in the February 2023 Turkey-Syria Quake
Kesoun - destroyed
Raban - destroyed
Marash - destroyed, no survivors, 40,000 died
Mamistra - similar to Marash, countless number of men and women perished
many other villages and monasteries were destroyed, and thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children perished
Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains¹
in the great Monastery of the Jesuits near Marash²
The monastery of Mashchgavor (Mashkur)³

Footnotes

Monastery (Hermitage) of Shughr

One of the prominent monasteries of Cilicia, it was a center of learning. Its specific location is unknown. Writers give contradictory claims as to its location, and they often equate it with the Garmir (Red) Monastery of Kesun. Ghevont Alishan writes, “Someone says it is in Marash or Sis, another, in Kesun…” [12] In his “History”, Vartan the Historian writes the following: “The hermitage of Shughr is probably southwest of Marash.” [13] On the other hand, Father Ghazarian regards it as part of the Red Monastery of Kesun. “It is located in the Andiroun/Andırın-Dongala mountain valley, between Marash and Sis (…), on a promontory in the village of Shughr”, and he adds that until recently “the semi-circular arches of the altar and a portion of the roof were visible.” [14]

Sources

Notes and Further Reading

References

al-Azimi

Al Muwassal 'ala al-Asl al-Mu'assal by al-Azimi

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
al-Azimi
	أبوعبدالله العظيمي
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Tanūkhī

Background and Biography

Excerpts

Characterization from Wikipedia

from wikipedia

Wikipedia reports that Al-Azimi says that it was dark before the earthquake, and then it snowed and covered with snow on all sides.

Arabic from Cahen (1938)

from Cahen (1938:383-389)
pages 509-515 in Arabic numerals
Cahen (1938:437 n.7) has the following footnote (7) for Page 512 This is actually in 508 (Cela en realite en 508) where 508 may refer to A.H. 508 (7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE)

Footnotes

Seismic Effects

it was dark before the earthquake, and then it snowed and covered with snow on all sides

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane often attributed to Lisiard of Tours

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English translated from from Recueil des Historiens des Croisades

Chapter 27, 28, and 29
from Recueil des historiens des croisades Historiens occidentaux Vol. III (1866:571-573)
Machine translated (Google) with minor cleaning by JW

Chapter 27

A.D. 1113. In the month of March, the sun was seen in the fourth part of its form, as if horned, first from above and then from below; from morning until three. Yet, it was not entirely deprived of its brightness. It is uncertain whether it was due to its encounter with the moon at that time -, the 28^a, whether the sun had suffered an eclipse, or whether some prodigy has appeared. In the summer^b next time the Turks assembled, having crossed the river Euphrates, passed through Syria between Damascus and Antioch, and thence through the Phoenician region between Tyre and Panaeada, which is also Caesarea Philippi. It is said that they wandered around the sea of Galilee and passed through the land of Naphtali and Zebulun toward the south; at last between two rivers Jor, of course, and Dan, enclosed in a small island indeed, but surrounded by a circuit of rivers, and fortified by two bridges on either side, pitching their camp. This place was comfortable and convenient. They could escape from wherever they wanted, and yet the attacks¹ or they could not easily be narrowed down, being protected by the passageways of the art of bridges. Which place the king and his men, hearing of the approach of the enemy, were to preemptively occupy they hastened, the army being moved by Ptolemais, they ran into an ambush prepared for them by their enemies, so dangerously that the king, having lost the standard and the best tent, was forced to flee together with the patriarch while nearly 30 soldiers and 1200 footmen (alas, for pain!) dead and this happened to the kings with a totally uncontrolled and unconscionable haste; those who do not have their military service expected, he had proceeded too imprudently and inconsiderately, and neither the consul of Tripoli nor Roger, the prince of Antioch, had yet allied himself with him. When they had come, hearing what had happened, blaming the kings for their immodesty, they pitched their camp on the mountain of the pre-eminence, and they themselves they rented Maledoctus^c was said to be the leader of those islanders, who, in association with King Tuldequinus of Damascus^d, took the island he kept her to himself longer; nor did they afford the Christians any opportunity of conversing with them. The islanders, however, could not be controlled from the mountaineers, without proceeding in groups, and ravaging the lands of the Christians, and bringing provisions to the island for themselves. Tune and those who the Muslims having been subdued, withdrew from the Christians, narrowing them down on every side, and not allowing the message to be conveyed from one to another. Napoli (Nablus) itself, anciently called Sichem or Sichima, was in the meantime occupied by the enemy and completely sacked. n reaching Jerusalem, Ascalonites and Arabs took possession of the ante-mural (wall?) of the city, setting fire to the many harvests accumulated there, and the following night, the Jerusalemites rejoicing, they went away Neither those who were in the cities or towns, nor those in the camp, could tell anything about each other. The possessions of the Christians were so narrowly placed, that not even the harvest, which was the most abundant that year, could be gathered, but in the fields it would perish if left behind. The sea is disturbed even more than usual, and even denies the possibility of fishing in the seas; and the earth is shaken twice A terrible earthquake, and the overthrow of the buildings, withering away, threatens mortals with fear. They besieged all the Christians places of deep silence; a kind of image of death had covered those who were stunned and nearly bled out of fear⁴ Christians It was evidently understood by all who had any sane sense, that this was the vengeance of God, who was angry with them. And so for two afflicted for whole months, at last, taking pity on God and turning his wrath into grace, the Christians breathed a sigh of relief. For the newcomers When the islanders saw that the army of the Christians was increasing day by day with foreign forces from overseas parts, God terrified them. they retired after two months to the parts of Damascus, and the king with his men had the opportunity to return to Ptolemais. Where the countess found that the king of Sicily had applied, to Roger, the brother of Robert Guiscard, formerly the spouse of afterwards you will rule over his future wife. But Maledoctus, having entered Damascus with the king of Tuldecinus, did not delay, judging God he was killed there by a certain assassin, and lost the ability to care for the Christians and to live: once a man of riches and the most powerful in arms among all the Turks, and the most cunning in all his acts.

Chapter 28

A.D. 1114, and before an infinite number of locusts swarmed from parts of Arabia and for several days the territory of the Jerusalemites was violently ravaged. In April or in May and the following (months?), a horrible earthquake struck Some parts of the city of Mamistria was overturned and many towns were affected in the region of Antioch, some partially destroyed and some fully destroyed with some of the people killed. Also in the city of Mariscum, the entire populace was overwhelmed by the sudden collapse of the buildings. Alas! - how terribly and miserably they perished. Also in the Euphrates a town called Thihalet was completely overthrown..

Chapter 29

A.D. 1115. The Turks returned as usual, and camped where they used to, between Antioch and Damascus, and Jerusalem and they forced the Antiochenes to meet again against each other; Toldequinum² also, king of the Damascenes, by the death of Maledoctus, by him deceitfully When they were destroyed, they forced themselves to make peace with the Christians, fearing that they would not be able to withstand their attacks alone. The truth is that and they found that the Damascenes, allied with the Christians, had assembled against them to war they concealed themselves, until they found that both the Christians, Antioch, the Antiochenes, and the king with his men had retired to Tripoli, and the Damascenes to their own; thinking that the Turks, having crossed the Euphrates, had returned to their own country. But in the meantime the Ascalonites, the kings and the Christian army but, in the absence of satisfying their fury, they took the opportunity to rush to Joppa with the Babylonian fleet, having 700 firm ships being strengthened, the iron and the sea besieging it and assailing it with great force, so much so that they even brought the ladders with them to this wall and fought against it they thought they could go up and capture the city. It is true that the citizens, who were indeed very few and weak, but who defended themselves with the greatest strength, when, as they had hoped in vain², they were not able, under the protection of God, to bring about their own, the gates of the city being burnt with fire⁴ they retreated in confusion, lest they should be overwhelmed by the approaching Jerusalemites, fearing them. After ten days, however, the same land was besieged recapturing the sea, and attacking the city with the most powerful assaults; The wicked, astonished at his infirmity, withdrew; bringing with them several of their own slain there, having also lost several of their horses. But indeed these Turks, of whom it has been said above, finding that the Christians had crossed over, broke out of their hiding-places, and again occupying the place, they ran through the regions of Syria, destroying by plundering and burning whatever towns or villages they could. Whereupon the Antiochians, compelled by necessity to join the army, chose not to commit themselves to discrimination, however often they were fatigued by the wicked. Wherefore, neither of those of Jerusalem, nor of those of Damascus, but only of God seeking and waiting for help, though very few, yet boldly The enemy, innumerable, sought out and attacked; so much so that, although they resisted most vigorously, yet, defending God, at last they began to flee they should force it, and leaving everything behind, throwing down their arms, to give way to the rear of the conquerors. Of whom three thousand were slain, but the greater number were taken captive. all the rest fled, so stripped of their tents and utensils, and of their carriages and money, that they had horses, mules, of camels, there was no number of captives; 300 (?) thousands of gold were also valued, and which is greater and more excellent than all these, that the freedom of most of the captives of the French or Syrians has been recovered. God is truly wonderful in all his works. Behold, when there were many Christians at the same time, so were the Jerusalemites when the Antiochians, or the defeated, fled, they made but little progress Now the Antiochians were alone, challenged by their fewness In the battle, the most numerous multitude of the enemy, strong to God, they poured out, scattered, and captured; and they took so much booty, that The population would overcome the estimation, the weight and the number. Why this? except that it may be made clear by the most evident indications in no one but in God let a man boast, who in himself has no power, yet dares to boast, as if he had made power in himself, and not in God? Nothing can be more abominable to God, nothing more abominable than the swelling of whose presumption; as from God nothing is more acceptable, nothing more acceptable, than to understand with a truly humble and devout heart that he himself works all things for us by our work. But those whom the pious man thus continually protected, he himself also rebuked the righteous, in the same year and overthrowing Mamistria by an earthquake. a city once quite illustrious, and shaking most other places in the Antiochene territory with similar horror. In the same year Arnulfus the patriarch expelled from his seat by a certain legate of the Roman city; ³ Romano, coming to Rome, returned to his seat, restored At that time the king of Jerusalem went into Arabia, building a castle on a certain mountain, in a natural situation sufficiently fortified. He called this a royal mountain, placing there guards and suitable inhabitants, whose object the robbers whether the robbers breaking out of Arabia should be hindered in their course. The castle is three miles from the Red Sea, and four miles from Jerusalem.

Footnotes

Chapter 27

1 Ora. yet B.

2 thousand. B.

3 Om. anything B.

4 Bloodless A. B.

5 In Ptolemais. B.

a on the 19th of March. (Cf. p. 425, note e.)

b Fulch. Chartres 1.II, c. xlix, p. 425, 426.

c Maududus (Cf. above, p. 426, note e.)

d Tughedekin. (Cf. above, p. 426, note f.)

e ibid. C. L, p. 427.

f lbid. C. LI, p. 427, 428.

g Name Adelaide. (Cf. above, p. 428, note a.)

Chapter 28

1 Om. and B.

1 Fulcher. Chartres, 1.II, C.LII, p. 428, 429

Chapter 29

1 And yet. A.

2 Because. B.

3 Populo, B.

4 This one. B.

a from Cf. Psalm 62, 18; cxxxv, 4.

b Berengario (Cf. above, p. 431)

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
Ambraseys (2009) states that he got his excerpts from The Historia Hierosolomitana [aka Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane] inside a compilation by Bongars (1611) however in his references section he lists Recueil des historiens des croisades Historiens occidentaux Vol. III (1866) (aka RHC Vol. 3] as the text by Bongars. His excerpt also appears to be translated from RHC Vol. 3 and the page numbers listed correspond exactly with RHV Vol. 3

(1113) The sea was rougher than usual, such that it was impossible to fish in the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake, and the parched (?) peoples were threatened with the terror of collapsing buildings. All Christian places were besieged with deep silence: a certain image of death touched the Christians, leaving them stupefied, and, in their terror, as white as sheets. For they all understood something which they knew to be true, that this was the vindication of God’s anger at them. They were afflicted in this way for two months, and then at last God had mercy and turned His anger into grace, and the Christians revived . . . (Bongars ii. 571–573)

In the year 1114, before the infinite swarm of locusts came from parts of Arabia, the territory of Jerusalem was laid waste for some days; in the month of April or May and following it Jerusalem was shaken terribly by an earthquake. A part of the city of Mamistria was overturned, and in the region of the great city of Antioch too, part of the city centre as well as part of the new district was overthrown together with some of the population. Likewise in a city called Mariscum – alas, what a tragedy! the people, sitting at their hearths, were wiped out, in a terrible and pitiful way, under the ruins of the buildings. In Euphratesia too the town which they call Thihalet was razed to its foundations. (Bongars ii. 572)

. . . in the same year [1115] [God] overthrew Mamistria, once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia. (Bongars ii. 573))

Notes by Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
Ambraseys (2009) states that he got his excerpts from The Historia Hierosolomitana [aka Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane] inside a compilation by Bongars (1611) however in his references section he lists Recueil des historiens des croisades Historiens occidentaux Vol. III (1866) (aka RHC Vol. 3] as the text by Bongars. His excerpt also appears to be translated from RHC Vol. 3 and the page numbers listed correspond exactly with RHV Vol. 3

The Historia Hierosolomitana [aka Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane], one of the histories of the Crusades in the compilation of Jacques de Bongars (1554–1612) gives two, possibly three, earthquakes for this event. The first, which is questionable, is placed in 1113 – ‘the sea was rougher than usual, such that it was impossible to fish in the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake’, but he does not give a location. Christians were apparently terrified and ‘were afflicted in this way for two months’. More earthquakes are given for 1114. The first occurred in Jerusalem in April or May, before the plague of locusts from Arabia. Then, in either the same or a separate earthquake, the Historia does not make it clear, part of Mopsuestia, ‘part of the city centre as well as part of the new district’ of Antioch (cf. Anselm of Gembloux’s account of the damage in Antioch), Marash and ‘Thihalet’ (Tell Halid) were destroyed. A further earthquake is given for 1115, ‘which overthrew Mamistria [Mopsuestia], once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia’ – this may be based on Fulcher’s 1115 earthquake (liv. 7/214/428). The Historia seems to give a muddled picture, but does provide the interesting details about the rough sea (note Sembat’s remark that ‘the sea got up’) and the damage to the centre of Antioch.

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) from a Latin edition edited by Huygens, R.B.G. (1986:934-936)

1114. After the arrival from Arabia of an infinite multitude of locusts, the territory of Jerusalem suffered violent devastation for a number of days, for in April and May and subsequently it was dreadfully shaken in an earthquake. A large part of the town of Mamistra was destroyed; in the region of Antioch, many fortified settlements were completely or partially razed to the ground and some of their inhabitants killed; and similarly, in the town called Mariscum, all the inhabitants were buried in the sudden collapse of buildings, and, alas, they all suffered a terrible and wretched death. And in the region of the Euphrates, the fortress of Trihalet was also razed to the ground.

1115. [...] Indeed, just as [God] in his love protected men, so he also called them unto himself with implacable justice, [as he showed] that same year by destroying with an earthquake the formerly quite illustrious town of Mamistra, and also by striking many other places in the region of Antioch with a similar disaster.

Latin from from Recueil des Historiens des Croisades

Chapter XXVII, XXVIII, and XXVIX
from Recueil des historiens des croisades Historiens occidentaux Vol. III (1866:571-573)

Capitulum XXVII

Anno M.C.XIII,. mense Martio, contigit solem quasi quarta formae suae parte ac si cornutum, prius a summo, deinde ab imo videri, a mane usque ad tertiam; nec tamen claritate sua omnino privari. Incertum sane, utrum ex concurrente occursu lunae tune, XXVIII^a. eclipsim passus sit sol, an aiiquid prodigium exstiterit. AEstivo^b deinde tempore congregati Turci, flumine transmeato Eufrate, per Siriam, inter Damascum et Antiochiam transeuntes, et inde per Phoenicis regionem inter Tirum et Paneadam, quae et Caesarea Philippi dicitur, pervagantes, mari etiam Gaiileae circumito, et terra Neptalim et Zabulon versus Austrum peragrata; tandem se inter duo flumina, Jor scilicet et Dan, incluserunt, in insula parva quidem, sed fluminum ambitu circumelusa, pontibus etiam duobus hinc inde munita, castra sua collocantes. Qui locus adeo opportunus eis erat et commodus, ut et inde quo vellent excurrere possent, et impeti tamen¹ vel angustari non facile possent, artis pontium meatibus muniti. Quem locum quum rex et sui, audito hostium accessu, praeoccupare festinarent, a Ptolomaida moto exercitu, insidias incurrerunt ab hostibus sibi jam exinde paratas, adeo periculose, ut rex ipse, et vexillo et tentorio peroptimo amissis, una cum patriarcha fugere cogeretur, militibus² ferme triginta, et peditibus mille ducentis, beu, pro dolor! exstinctis. Contigit et hoc régis immoderata prorsus et inconsulta festinatione; qui militia sua non exspectata, improvide nimis et inconsideratc praecesserat, nec consule Tripolitano, nec principe Antiochiae Rogero sibi adhuc sociatis. Qui quum venissent, audito quod acciderat, régis immodestiam culpantes, in monte praefalae insuis prééminente castra sua et ipsi locaverunt. Maledoctus^c, insulanorum illorum dux dicebatur, qui rege Damasci Tuldequino^d sibi sociato, insulam illam asservabat sibi diutius; nec ullam congrediendi secum facultatem Christianis prebebant. Coerceri tamen non poterant insulani a montanis, quin catervatim procedentes, et Christianorum vastarent terras, et victualia sibi in insulam convectarent. Tune et hi qui subjecti fuerant Sarraceni a Christianis recesserunt, angustantes eos undique, et nec nuntium ab aliis ad alios dirigi sinentes. Neapolim ipsam, antiquitus Sichem vel Sichimam nuncupatam, intérim occupaverunt hostes et penitus diripuenmt. Ascalonitae et Arabes, Jérusalem adeuntes, antemurale urbis occupaverunt, messes multas ibi congestas succendentes, sequentique nocte, laetantibus Jerosolimitis, abcesserunt. Nec^e qui in urbibus vel oppidis erant, nec qui in castris, de se invicem quicquam³ rescire poterant. Ita plane in angusto positae erant res Christianorum, ut nec messis, quae plurima eo anno provenerat, colligi posset, sed in agris relicta periret. Turbatur^f et mare plus solito, et vel piscandi maritimis denegat facultatem; concutitur et terra bis terrae motu horrisono, et aedificiorum eversionem arescentibus prae timoré minatur mortalibus. Obsederant omnia Christianorum loca profunda silentia; quaedam mortis imago stupefactos et prae pavore pene exsangues⁴ universos ibi obtexerat Christianos. Intelligebant evidenter omnes qui sanum aiiquid sapiebant, irati sibi Dei hanc esse vindictam. Taliter duobus integris mensibus afflicti, tandem, miserante Deo et iram in gratiam convertente, respiraverunt Christiani. Nam adventantium de transmarinis partibus peregrinorum copiis videntes insulani illi exercitum in dies augeri Christianorum, Deo eos perterrente, secesserunt post duos menses in partes Damasci, et régi cum suis, facultas patuit Ptolomaidam⁵ revertendi. Ubi et comitissam^g Siciliae rex repperit applicuisse, Rogeri, fratris Roberti Guischardi, quondam conjugem, postmodum suam régis futuram uxorem. Àt vero Maledoctus, Damascum cum Tuldequino rege ingressus, nec mora, judicante Deo, dolo ibi a quodam sicario peremptus, et afiligendi Christianos facultatem perdidit et vivendi: vir quondam et divitiis et armis potentissimus inter omnes Turcos, et in omnibus actibus suis astutissimus.

Capitulum XXVIII

Anno^a M.C.XIV, et¹ prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, a territorium Jerosolimitanum per dies aliquot vehementer vastalum est; mense Aprili vel Maio et sequenti terrae motu horribiliter concussum Mamistriae urbis pars nonnulla subversa; in regione quoque Antiochena plurima oppida, quaedam média, quaedam ex integro, solo tenus cum parte plebis subruta; itemque in urbe quam Mariscum nuncupant, populus universus repentinis aedificiorum ruinis praefocatus, heu pro dolor! terribiliter et miserabiliter exstinctus; in Eufratesia etiam oppidum quod Thihalet nuncupant funditus eversum;.

Capitulum XXIX

Anno^b M.C.XV. Turci, solita protervia regressi, et castra, ubi solebant, inter Antiochiam et Damascum locantes, et Jerosolimitas et Antiochenos rursus contra se compulerunt convenire; Toldequinum² quoque, Damascenorum regem, morte Maledocti, dolose ab eo perempti, exosum sibi factum, cum Christianis coegerunt pacem facere, metuentem ne non posset eorum impetus solus sustinere. Verum quum et Damascenos comperissent, Christianis foederatos, contra se ad bellum convenisse, clanculo recedentes occultantesque se in caveis delituerunt, donec et Christianos, Antiochiam Antiochenos, et regem cum suis Tripolim, et Damascenos in sua comperissent recessisse; arbitrantes quod Turci, Eufrate transmisso, in sua et ipsi remeassent. At vero Ascalonitae intérim, régis et exercitus Christiano rum absentia furoris sui satiendi nactos se occasionem rati, concurrunt, Joppem, classe Babilonica, .LXX. ferme naves habente, roborati, ferra marique obsidentes eam et fortissime oppugnantes, adeo ut etiam scalis secum ad hoc delatis murum contenderent ascendere, et comprehendere se urbem posse putarent. Verum civibus paucissimis quidem et debilibus, fortissime tamen se defendentibus, quum, quod frustra speraverant² , non valeerent, Deo protegente suos, efficere, portis urbis igne injecto combustis⁴, recesserunt confusi, ne ab Jerosolimitis supervenientibus opprimèrent ur metuentes. Post dies tamen decem obsidionem eamdem terra marique repetentes, fortissimisque invasionibus urbem impetentes, Deo pro suis resistente improbis, quum nihil efficere praevalerent, invaletudinem suam stupentes impii, recesserunt; pliures secum de suis ibi occisos déférentes, de caballis quoque suis pluribus amissis. At vero hi⁵ de quibus supra dictum est Turci, Christianos excessisse comperientes, de latebris suis erumpunt, et stationis solitae locum rursus occupantes, per regiones Siriae discurrebant, rapinis et incendiis quaeque poterant, vel oppida vel villas, pessundantes. Qua rursus Antiocheni necessitate in exercitum coacti, maluerunl se discriinini committere, quamtotiens ab improbis fatigari. Unde, nec Jerosolimorum, nec Damascenorum, sed solius Dei expetentes auxilium et exspectantes, licet admodum pauci, audacter tamen innumeros et expetierunt hostes et impetierunt; adeo ut, quamvis validissime répugnantes, tamen, Deo propugnante, tandem eos fugam inire compellerent, et relictis omnibus, armis quoque projectis, terga victoribus cedenda praebere. De quibus tria millia occisi, capti vero quam plurimi, reliqui omnes et tabernaculis et utensilibus, vecturis quoque et pecuniis omnibus adeo nudati diffugerunt, ut equorum, mulorum, camelorum, non fuerit numerus captivorum; .CCCC^ta. quoque millia aestimata sint aureorum, et, quod his omnibus majus atque praestantius est, recuperata quam plurimorum captivorum libertas Francorum, sive Sirorum. Vere mirabilis in cunctis operibus suis Deus^a. Ecce quum multi fuissent simul Christiani, tam Jerosolomitae quam Antiocheni, vel fugerunt victi, velomnino parum profecerunt. Nunc soli quum essent Antiocheni, paucitate sua provocatam in praelium plurimam hostium multitudinem Deo fortes, fuderunt, straverunt, captivaverunt; tantaque ceperunt spolia, ut et 0estimationem, pondus et numerum vinceret multitudo. Quare hoc? nisi ut evidentissimis clarescat indiciis in nullo nisi in Deo gloriandum homini, qui per se nihil valens, audet tamen¹ gloriari, quasi² in seipso fecerit virtutem, et non in Deo? Cujus praesumptionis tumore nihil apud Deum abominabilius, nihil esse exsecrabilius pot est; sicut e di verso, nihil gratius, nihil acceptabilius, quam vere humili et devoto corde intelligere quia omnia opéra nostra operatur nobis ipse. Verum quos ita perse protegebat pius, per se quoque ipse corripiebat justus, eodem anno et Mamistriam terrae motu subvertens, urbem olim satis illustrem, et pleraque alia in territorio Antiocheno loca horrore simili concutiens. Eodem anno et Arnulfus patriarcha, a quodam Romanae urbis legato^b de sede sua ejectus; sedab ipso papa³ Romano, Romam veniens, ad sedem suam rediit, restitutus. Quo tempore et rex Jerosolimorum in Arabiam profectus, castrum aedificans in monte quodam, naturali situ satis munito, Regalem hoc⁴ Montem nuncupavit, custodes ibi et habitatores idoneos ponens, quorum objectu praedonum latronumve ex Arabia erumpentium prapedirentur excursus. Quod castrum tribus a mari Rubro distans mansionibus, quatuor ab Jerosolimis disparatur dietis.

Footnotes

Capitulum XXVII

1 Ora. tamen B.

2 Milia. B.

3 Om. quicquam B.

4 Exangues. A. B.

5 In Ptolomaidam. B.

a Die XIX° Martii. (Cf. p. 425, annot. e.)

b Fulch. Carnot. 1.II, c. xlix, p. 425, 426.

c Maududus. (Cf. supra, p. 426, annot. e.)

d Tughedekin. (Cf. supra, p. 426, annot. f.)

e lbid. C. L, p. 427.

f lbid. C. LI, p. 427, 428.

g Nomine Adelaidem. (Cf. supra, p. 428, annot. a.)

Capitulum XXVIII

1 Om. et B.

2 Tuldeqaînam. B.

3 Speraverant. B.

4 Conbustis. A.

5 Ii. A.

a Fulcher. Carnot, 1.II, C.LII, p. 428, 429. b Ibid. c. liii, p. 429.

Capitulum XXIX

Tamenque. A.

2 Quia. B.

3 Populo, B.

4 Hanc. B.

a Cf. Psalm. lxxi, 18; cxxxv, 4.

b Berengario. (Cf. supra, p. 431)

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) from a Latin edition edited by Huygens, R.B.G. (1986:934-936)

Anno .M.C.XIV, et prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, terrirorium Jerosolimitanum per dies aliquot vehmenter vastatum; mense Aprili vel Maio et sequenti terrae motu horribiliter concussum; Mamistriae urbis pars nonnulla subversa; in regione quoque Antiochena plurima oppida, quaedam media, quaedam ex integro, solo tenus cum parte plebis subruta; itemque in urbe quam Mariscum noncupant, populus universus repentinis aedificiorum ruinis praefocatus, heu pro dolor! Terribiliter et miserabiliter exstinctus; in Eufratesia etiam oppidum quod Trihalet noncupant funditus eversum.

Anno .M.C.XV. [...] Verum quos ita Deus per se protegebat pius, per se quoque ipse corripiebat justus, eodem anno et Mamistriam terrae motu subvertens, urbem olim satis illustrem, et pleraque alia in territorio Antiocheno loca horrore simili concutiens.

Latin from Recueil des Historiens des Croisades - embedded

Chapter XXVII, XXVIII, and XXVIV
See bottom of left page starting with Capitulum XXVII
from Recueil des historiens des croisades Historiens occidentaux Vol. III (1866:571-573)
from archive.org

Chronology

Chronology Tables

**1st earthquakes dated to 1113 CE**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
July-August 1113 CE	A.D. 1113	none	Secunda pars places the battle at al-Sinnabra (28 June 1113 CE ) against Maudud's Selchukid army before the earthquake. After the Crusaders lost this battle, Secunda pars says that the army and Christians (in the area?) suffered ~2(?) months of ensuing hostilities in the Galilee. The earthquakes appears to have struck during these months. Fink in Baldwin and Setton (1969:372-409) date the battle at al-Sinnabra to 28 June 1113 CE and states that Maudud dismissed the men in the Selchukid army and went to Damascus on 5 September 1113 CE. Secunda pars describes an astronomical phenomenon in March sometime before the earthquakes - some kind of dimming of the sun, possibly a solar eclipse, but the author is unsure if it was an eclipse. However Fulcher of Chartes says it was an eclipse and dated it to the apparently correct date of 19 March 1113 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) note that Secunda pars is en epitome of Fulcher of Chartes' Chronicle. NASA has a partial solar eclipse on 13 May 1113 CE, a penumbral solar eclipse on 6 November 1113 CE, and a total solar eclipse on 23 May 1114 CE imcee has a total solar eclipse on 26 March 1113 CE and an annular solar eclipse on 18 September 1113 CE. These dates are Gregorian and convert to Julian dates of 19 March 1113 CE and 11 Sept. 1113 CE (calculated using CHRONOS) imcee has a one partial solar eclipse on 9 Aug. 1114 that was visible in the Levant. This date is Gregorian and convert to a Julian date of 2 August 1114 CE (calculated using CHRONOS)

**2nd earthquake dated to 1114 CE**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
April-May and the following [months ?] 1114 CE	A.D. 1114 ... in April or in May and the following [months ?] a horrible earthquake struck	none	Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) wrote that Secunda pars is traditionally considered to be a sort of epitome of the work of Fulcher of Chartres. In this passage Secunda pars dates the earthquake(s) to April-May when Fulcher of Chartres reported a locust swarm. Fulcher of Chartres dated the earthquake to 10 August Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that the author of Secunda pars misread Fulcher of Chartres account and therefore misdated the earthquake noting that they described an earthquake (singular) as occurring in the months of April-May (and later).

**3rd earthquake dated to 1115 CE**
Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1115 CE	in the same year (A.D. 1115)	none	Secunda pars describes Arnulfus [aka Arnulf of Choques] the patriarch [of Jerusalem] expelled from his seat by a certain legate of the Roman city as occurring in the same year. Fink in Baldwin and Setton (1969:372-409) date this to 1115 CE Secunda pars describes the construction of the fort at Montreal (aka Qal'at ash-Shawbak) as occurring in the same year. Fink in Baldwin and Setton (1969:372-409) date this to 1115 CE

Seismic Effects

1st earthquakes dated to 1113 CE

The sea is disturbed even more than usual, and even denies the possibility of fishing in the seas; and the earth is shaken twice A terrible earthquake, and the overthrow of the buildings, withering away, threatens mortals with fear

2nd earthquake dated to 1114 CE

a horrible earthquake struck
Some parts of the city of Mamistria was overturned and many towns were affected in the region of Antioch, some partially destroyed and some fully destroyed with some of the people killed
Also in the city of Mariscum, the entire populace was overwhelmed by the sudden collapse of the buildings
Also in the Euphrates a town called Thihalet was completely overthrown

3rd earthquake dated to 1115 CE

in the same year and overthrowing Mamistria by an earthquake, a city once quite illustrious, and shaking most other places in the Antiochene territory with similar horror.

Locations

1st earthquakes dated to 1113 CE

not specified

2nd earthquake dated to 1114 CE

Jerusalem ? - Ambraseys (2009) and Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) interpret Latin text to indicate that Jerusalem was shaken in Secunda pars 1114 CE earthquake account. However, the way I read the text from RHC, it specifies Mamistra not Jerusalem. This is the text from RHC:

prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, a territorium Jerosolimitanum per dies aliquot vehementer vastalum est; mense Aprili vel Maio et sequenti terrae motu horribiliter concussum Mamistriae urbis pars nonnulla subversa.

Specifically, this extract does not have a semicolon (;) in between concussum and Mamistriae. Perhaps they read a different Latin text that does does have a semicolon (;) in between concussum and Mamistriae. Ambraseys (2009) indicates that he obtained his Secunda pars from an edition by Bongars (1611:610-611). In the Bongars edition, the Latin text reads

prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, territorium Hierosolimitanum, per dies aliquot vehementer vastatum est: mense Aprili vel Maio & sequenti terramotu horribiliter cocusliuum; Mamistria urbis pars nonnulla subversa;.

There is a semicolon between cocusliuum and Mamistria which would suggest an earthquake(s) in the territory of the Jerusalemites (a territorium Jerosolimitanum)

Mamistria

Mariscum - Luard (1890 v. 2:43 n.7) identifies Mariscum as Marash

Thihalet¹

Footnotes

3rd earthquake dated to 1115 CE

Mamistria
Principality of Antioch - most other places in the Antiochene territory

Sources

Notes and Further Reading

References

Flores Historiaum

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Yonge (1853 v.2)

from Yonge (1853 v.2:34-36)
Chapter II - from A.D. 1101 to A.D. 1135

...

A quarrel arose between the pope and the emperor

A.D. 1112. There was a great mortality of men. This year also, a great quarrel arose between pope Paschal and the emperor Henry. The emperor desired to avail himself of the privilege of his predecessors, which they had enjoyed for three hundred years under sixty Roman pontiffs, by virtue of which they had lawfully given away bishoprics and abbacies by the donation of a pastoral staff and ring, which the pope thought unjust; the emperor thought the contrary, and in this way they came to a violent quarrel. At last peace was made between them, on condition that the bishops and abbots should for the future receive institution from the emperor and his successors by the staff and ring, and should afterwards vow canonical obedience to the pope or to some bishop, and receive the customary consecration. And these 'things were done before the altar of the apostles Peter and Paul, in the sight of all who stood by, and then the lord the pope absolved the emperor, and administered to him the sacrament of the body of Christ.

The same year, that illustrious man Tancred, so renowned for his exploits at Jerusalem, died. He was prince of Antioch and count of Edissa; he was succeeded by Roger, the son of Richard, a noble man, on condition that whenever Bohemond the Younger should demand the restoration of Antioch, Roger should resign it to him without any opposition.

King Henry gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Richard, bishop of London

A.D. 1113. On the sixth of April, Henry, king of England, led an army into Wales, and the Welch submitted themselves to his pleasure. King Henry gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Richard, bishop of London, and gave him investiture by the staff and ring. Thomas, archbishop of York, died, and was succeeded by Thurstan. Moreover, a violent quarrel arose between Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, and Thurstan, archbishop of York, because the arch-bishop of York refused to consider himself subordinate to the archbishop of Canterbury, as his predecessors had been used to do, and their cause was often discussed before the king and the lord the pope, although it was not as yet properly terminated. The same year, in the month of May, a great comet appeared, and a little afterwards here was an earthquake, which threw down part of the city of Manistre, not far from Antioch, with two castles, called Triphalet and Mariacus. Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, and Medusa, prince of Persia, fought a battle, in which Baldwin was defeated, and with difficulty saved himself by flight. In that battle, there fell of the Christians, thirty knights and fifteen hundred foot soldiers. But the victory which they afforded to the enemy was far from being a bloodless one.

Fealty is sworn to William, the son of king Henry

A.D. 1114. Henry, king of England, caused all the nobles in his dominions to swear fealty to his son William, whom his queen Matilda had borne to him. The same year, in the month of December, the heaven suddenly appeared red, as if it were on fire, and the moon was eclipsed at the same time. On the twenty-ninth of March the Thames was dried up, and so was the sea for twelve miles, and this lasted for two days. Radulph, bishop of Rochester, was elected to the archbishopric of Canterbury, on the twenty-sixth of April. A comet appeared in the month of May.

...

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009) translating from Luard (1890 v. 2:43)

1113: in the month of May a huge comet appeared and after a little while an earthquake flattened part of the city of Mamistra, not far from Antioch, together with two fortified towns, Triphalech and Mariscum. (Flor. Hist. ii. 43)

English translated from Latin from Luard (1890 v. 2)

from Luard (1890 v. 2:43)

King Henry gave the archbishopric to Ralph,² bishop of London

In the year 1113. On the eighth of April, King Henry of the English led an army into Wales, and the Welsh were subject to his will. King Henry gave the archbishopric of Ralph the Centurion to Ralph² bishop of London³, and he invested the ring and staff. Thomas, archbishop of York, died in the same year, and was succeeded by Thurstan. A great quarrel also arose between Ralph⁵ the archbishops of Canterbury and Thurstan of York, because York refused to submit to the Archbishop of Canterbury as his predecessors had been wont to do. Their case was taken before the king and the pope, but it was not yet finished with a due end. In the same year, in the month of May, a huge comet appeared, and a little later an earthquake destroyed a part of the city of Manistre, not far from Antioch, with two castles, namely Triphalech and Mariscum. Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, and Menduc, chief of the Persians, fought and Baldwin was defeated and barely escaped by fleeing. In that battle 30 Christian knights [cavalry] and 1500 Christian infantry [foot soldiers] died. But they their enemy was also bloodied.

Footnotes

2 Ralph] Richard, E.

3 of London] thus MSS. for Rofensi ; the error is repeated by Wendover and Paris. Lamb. has Roffensi.

4 and in the same year] om. E.

5 Ralph] Richard, E.

6 Manistre] Manif . . (an erasure), Ch.; manifestly, A. T.; manife, W.; manis, Cl.; Messissé.

7 Marash.

Latin from Luard (1890 v. 2)

from Luard (1890 v. 2:43)

Rex Henricus dedil archiepiscopatum Radulfo,² episcopo Londontensi

Anno gratie MCXIII^o. Octavo idus Aprilis rex Anglorum Henricus duxit exercitum in Walliam, et Walenses subditi sunt ci ad libitum. Rex Henricus dedit archiepiscopatum Ralph Centuariae Radulfo² Londoniensi³ episcopo, et illum per anulum et baculum investivit. Obiit, autem⁴ eodem anno Thomas Eboracensis archiepiscopus, cui Thurstanus successit. Orta est etiam inter Radulfum⁵ Cantuariensem et Thurstanum Eboracensem archiepiscopos magna dissensio, eo quod Eboracensis subici noluit archiepiscopo Cantuariensi sicut ejus antecessores facere solebant. Causa autem ssepe coram rege et domino papa ventilata est, sed nondum fine debito terminata. Eodem anno, mense Maio, cometa ingens apparuit, et post paululum terrsmotus partem urbis Manistre⁶ prostravit, non longe ab Antiochia, cum duobus castellis, Triphalech scilicet et Mariscum.⁷ Rex Jerusalem Baldewinus et Menduc Persarum princeps in quodam congressu bellico dum decertassent, victus Baldewinus vix fuga elapsus est. Ceciderunt in illo belli discrimine de Christianis equites triginta, pedites vero mille quingenti. Sed de se cruentam hostibus vietoriam reddiderunt.

Footnotes

2 Radulfo] Ricardo, E.

3 Londoniensi] sic MSS. for Rofensi ; the error is repeated by Wendover and Paris. Lamb. has Roffensi.

4 autem eodem anno] om. E.

5 Radulfum] Ricardum, E.

6 Manistre] Manif . . (an erasure), Ch.; manifeste, A. T.; manife, W.; manis, Cl.; Messissé.

7 Marash.

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
a little after a comet appeared in May 1114 CE	The same year [1113 A.D.], in the month of May, a great comet appeared, and a little afterwards here was an earthquake, which threw down part of the city of Manistre, not far from Antioch, with two castles, called Triphalet and Mariacus	year changed from 1113 to 1114 - see Notes	The comet likely appeared in May 1114 CE - Kronk (1999 v.1:196) reports that this comet was widely reported in monastic histories of the 12th-15th centuries, with dates ranging from 1113 to 1115 with the vast majority of reports dating the comet to 1114. Kronk (1999 v.1:196) adds that although its late May visibility makes it somewhat similar to C/1110 K1, the consistent descriptions of a long tail contradict the observations of C/1110 K1 and add to the likelihood that there was a large comet seen in 1114. Flores Historiaum reports two comets; a large one in May 1113 CE and another one in May 1114 CE. The comet sighting appears to been repeated with May 1114 CE the more likely date due to more widespread agreement with other authors.

Comet

Comet Catalogues

Kronk (1999)

1109 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193)

Two contemporary British texts give similar details of this object. The Chronicon ex Chronica (1118) and the Historia Novorum in Anglia (1122) both say an object was seen near the Milky Way during December. The former text refers to it as a comet, while the latter calls it a star. Both texts say it had a tail directed toward the southern part of the sky.

The Scottish text Chronicle of Melrose (1275) simply says "a comet appeared."

FULL MOON: December 9

SOURCES:

Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Historia Novorum in Anglia (1177), p. 226
Chronicle of Melrose (1275), p. 142
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 389-90
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575.

1110 CE - C/1110 K1

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193-195)

Discovered: 1110 May 28.8 (Δ=0.72 AU, r=0.85 AU, Elong.=56°)
Last seen: 1110 July
Closest to the Earth: 1110 June 11 (0.4807 AU)
Calculated path: PSC (Disc), AND (Jun. 1), CAS (Jun. 6), CEP (Jun. 12), DRA (Jun. 15), UMi (Jun. 16), DRA (Jun. 22), UMa (Jun. 23), CVn (Jun. 30)

Just four years after the appearance of the Great Comet of 1106, the skies were graced by another comet that was observed worldwide. Where the 1106 comet is important because of its possible relationship to the sungrazing family of comets, the comet of 1110 is important because it may be a previous appearance of the lost periodic comet Pons—Gambart which was only seen in 1827. This was also the first comet for which numerous detailed observations were provided by the Koreans. These observations played a major role in the determination of the orbit below.

The Chinese were apparently the first to spot this comet, with the texts Wen hsien t'ung k'ao (1308), Sung shih (1345), and Hsii Thung Chien Kong Mu (1476) giving pertinent details. The Chinese said a "broom star" was first seen on 1110 May 29. The comet appeared at the Khuei [β, δ, ε, ζ, η, μ, ν, and π Andromedae, and σ, τ, υ, φ, χ, and ψ 65 Piscium], and the Lou [α, β, and γ Arietis], with its rays measuring about 6°. It moved northward to enter the Tzu-Wei Enclosure [Draco, Ursa Minor, Cepheus, and Camelopardalis]. It then entered the horizon and went out of sight in the northwest. The date and location indicate a morning sky observation, and a probable UT of May 28.8.

The second culture to report this comet was the Koreans, who recorded the most extensive series of observations. The astronomical chapter of the Korean text Koryo-sa (1451) reports that a "broom star" was first seen on 1110 May 31. This comet is reported to have been within the Tzu-Wei Enclosure. On June 6 it is said to have appeared at the second watch of the night between T'ien-Chiang-Chiin [γ, υ, and 51 Andromedae, φ Persei, and β and γ Triartgulum] and Ko-Tao [ε, θ, ι, φ, and χ Cassiopeiae] and gone out of sight in the morning. On June 8 it appeared at Fu-Lu [ζ Cassiopeiae] and Tshe-Hsing [α Cassiopeiae]. On June 9 it was seen at the southwest of Wang-Liang [α, β, γ, η, κ, and υ Cassiopeiae]. On June 10 it appeared between Hua-Kai [ψ, ω, 32, 40, 42, 43, 48, and 50 Cassiopeiae] and Chhuan-She [13, 32, 55, and SAO 11424 in Cassiopeiae, SAO 12704, SAO 12743, and SAO 24054 in Camelopardalis, and SAO 20853 in Cepheus]. On June 12 it was below Hua-Kai, but was seen at the north of Liu-Chia [SAO 1179, SAO 5496, SAO 5946, SAO 6022, and SAO 6392 in Camelopardalis, and SAO 783 in Cepheus]. On June 14 it was said to have moved into the stars of Nii-Yn-Kung [τ, χ, 35, and 59 Draconis]. The probable UT of the discovery observation was May 30.8. Although the comet could have been observable the entire night for the remainder of the observations, it would have been best placed in the morning sky, implying UTs of June 5.8, 7.8, 8.8, 9.8, 11.8, and 13.8.

The Japanese were the next culture to discover this comet independently. In the text Dainihonshi (1715) the first appearance of this "broom star" is given as June 1. The comet measured about 5° and appeared in the east and lasted more than 20 days before going out of sight. The date and location indicate a possible morning sky observation, implying a UT of May 31.8.

The Muslim texts Mir'at al-zaman fi tarikh al- a'yan (1186) and al-Kamil fi al-ta'rikh (1233) indicate this comet was first seen barely one day after the Chinese discovery. The al-Kamil fi al-ta'rikh says, "On 8 Dhu al—Qa' da [May 30] there appeared in the heavens a star in the east with an elongated tail towards the qibla [i.e., south] and continued to rise until the end of Dhu al-Hijja [mid. July]." These accounts give the longest duration of any reports.

In Europe, details of this comet appear in monastic histories written in England, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Scotland, and France. Most of these simply say a comet was seen or a comet was seen in June, but a few do provide additional details. The Belgium text Chronica (1111) says the comet "radiated straight toward the south" during June. The British text Chronicon ex Chron-ica (1118) says the comet first appeared on June 8 and "continued visible for three weeks." The Italian text Annales Beneventani (1130) claims the cornet remained visible for 30 days. The German text Annales Corbeienses (1148) says the comet was seen from June 9 until June 30. The Peterborough edi¬tion of the English text Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154) notes, " . . in the month of June, a star appeared in the northeast, and its ray stood out in front of it to the southwest, and was seen thus for many nights; and later on in the night, after it climbed higher, it was seen going away to the northwest." The English text Chronicle of Henry of Huntington (1154) notes, "This year a comet made a very unusual appearance; for, rising in the east, when it had mounted in the sky it seemed to take a retrograde course." The Italian text Chronicon (1178) mentions a comet seen during the entire month of June in the north. The French text Chronicae S. Albini Andegavensis (1357) notes, "the entire month of June a comet was visible, where at one time a ray extended to the east and thereafter turned to the south." The English text Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia (1433) says, "At the same time of year that the moon was diminishing in June the comet appeared." The German text Annales Parchenses (1316) places the comet in 1111 July.

A link to the lost periodic comet Pons—Gambart was first suggested in 1972, when S. Kanda considered it as a "a probable identification." The suggested link was strengthened in 1979 when I. Hasegawa derived three rough positions for the period of May 29 to June 11 and computed an orbit. Upon comparing the orbit to that of Pons-Gambart he noted a resemblance and agreed with Kanda's earlier conclusion.

Hasegawa's orbit below gives the following details of the comet's movement. The comet reached a minimum solar elongation of 22° on April 3. On June 16 it reached a maximum declination of +84° (apparent). On June 25 the comet reached a maximum solar elongation of 76°.

T 1110 May 18 (UT)
ω 358
Ω (2000.0) 321
i 137
q 0.83
e 1.0

ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE: H_m=5.0 (Kronk)
FULL MOON: May 5, June 4, July 3

SOURCES:

Chronica (1111), p. 372
Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Annales Leodienses (1121), p. 29
Annales Beneventani (1130), p. 183
Annales Formoselenses (1136), p. 36
Annales Corbeienses (1148), p. 7
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 242
Chronicle of Henry of Huntington (1154), p. 244
Chronicon (1178), pp. 204-5
Mir'at al-zainan fi tarikh al- a'yan (1186), VIII, p. 32
Chronicle of Holyrood (1189), p. 114
Chronica (1201), p. 167
Chronicon S. Sergii Andegavensis (1215), p. 143
al-Kama fi al-ta'rikh (1233), X, p. 478
Annales Colonienses Maxinti (1238), p. 748
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, p. 138
Annales Monasterii de Win-tonia (1277), p. 43
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 214
Wen hsien Cling k'ao (1308), p. 187
Annales Eginundani (1315), p. 449
Annales Parchenses (1316), p. 604
Sung shih (1345), p. 187
Chronicae S. Albini Andegavensis (1357), p. 31
Chronicon Sancti Maxen-tii Pictavensis (14th century), p. 424
Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia (1433), p. 431
Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
Hsii Thung Chien Kang Mu (1476), p. 187
Dainihonshi (1715), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 390, 627
J. Williams (1871), pp. 60-1
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Early Sources of Scottish History: A.D. 500-1286, Volume 2, edited and translated by Alan Orr Anderson, London: Oliver and Boyd (1922), p. 142
Nihon Temmon Shiryo (1935), p. 505
EHD2 (1953), p. 181
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
R. R. Newton (1972), pp. 671, 673, 676, 680
I. Hasegawa (1979), pp. 260-1, 263-4.

1113 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:195)

1113 The astronomical chapter of the Korean text Koryo-sa (1451) is the sole source of information on this object. It reports that a "sparkling star" was seen on 1113 August 15. The object was seen at the Ying-Shih [α and β Pegasi]. The date and location indicate a morning observation and a probable UT of August 14.8.

FULL MOON: July 30, August 28

SOURCES:

Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93

1114 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:196)

1114 This comet was widely reported in monastic histories of the 12th-15th centuries, with dates ranging from 1113 to 1115. The vast majority of reports place the comet in 1114. Although its late May visibility makes it somewhat similar to C/1110 K1, the consistent descriptions of a long tail contradict the observations of C/1110 K1 and add to the likelihood that there was a large comet seen in 1114.

The details of this comet come primarily from England. The Peterborough edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154) notes, "This year, towards the end of May, a strange star was seen shining with long rays for many nights." Henry of Huntingdon wrote Historia Anglorum around 1154. For 1114 he said, "Comet appeared at the end of May." The Chronica Majora (1247) was written by Matthew Paris. He noted that in 1114, a "comet appeared in the month of May." Paris also wrote that an "enormous comet" appeared in 1113 during the month of May. His style of compiling his historical text from other sources, as well as the lack of support for a comet seen during 1113 May, makes it likely that this was a misdated account of the 1114 comet. The Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291) reports for 1114, "A strange star was seen at the end of May, with a long light visible for many nights." The Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia (1433) said, "Comet again appeared in May." This text also copied virtually every bit of historical information from other sources.

The Welsh text Annales de Margan (1232) actually says a "comet appeared" in 1115, but the lack of reliable support makes it likely that this was comet 1114. For the object dated as 1115, I. Hasegawa (1980) gave the date as June.

FULL MOON: May 21, June 20

SOURCES:

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 244
Historia Auglorum (1154), p. 239
Annales de Margan (1232), p. 10
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, pp. 140-1
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 215
Annales Monasterii de Bernitindeseia (1433), p. 432
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 576
EHD2 (1953), p. 183
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93.

Seismic Effects

here was an earthquake, which threw down part of the city of Manistre, not far from Antioch, with two castles, called Triphalet and Mariacus

Locations

Manistre (aka Mamistria) - Luard (1890 v. 2:43 n.6) reports an erasure in this part of the text leaving only Manif.. Other authors, however, state that Mamistria was damaged from the earthquake.
Castle at Mariacus (Mariscum in Latin version from Luard, 1890 v. 2:43 n.7) - Luard (1890 v. 2:43 n.7) identifies Mariscum as Marash
Castle at Thihalet¹

Footnotes

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Continuation of the Damascus Chronicle by Ibn al-Qalanisi

ذيـل تـاريـخ دمـشـق by ابو يعل

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Qalanisi	ابو يعل
Abu Ya‘la	ابو يعل
Abu Ya‘la Hamzah ibn Asad ibn al-Qalanisi	ابو يعلى حمزة ابن الاسد ابن القلانسي

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Gibb (1932)

from Gibb (1932:148-149)

A.H.508

... In this year, a great earthquake occurred in Syria. The earth shook with it, and the people were anxious, but as the tremors ceased, their souls were restored from palpitation and distress to tranquility, and their hearts were comforted after disquiet and fear.

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In that year [508 H.], there was a strong earthquake in Syria which caused both the earth and the hearts of its inhabitants to tremble

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In this year also a great earthquake occurred in Syria. The earth shook with it and the people were anxious. (Ibn al-Qalanisi 191/133; C 149)

Arabic from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Ibn al-Qalanisi

1114 November 13

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	In that year [508 A.H.]	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

there was a strong earthquake in Syria which caused both the earth and the hearts of its inhabitants to tremble

Locations

Syria

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Kitab al-muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi

by ابن الجوزي

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Jawzi	ابن الجوزي

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Al-Masaaf said: I saw in the handwriting of our Shaykh Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Bazaz the following: on Thursday 17th Rajab 508 [17 December 1114] there arrived in Baghdad a document which described how, in the night of Sunday 18th Jumada Iakhira [19 November, a Thursday (!)] of this year an earthquake had occurred in which thirteen towers in the walls of Ruha [Edessa] fell down. Some of the walls of Harran fell down and many houses came down on top of people, who perished. Sumaisat sank and its position was swallowed up. About 100 houses crashed down in Balis, where half the citadel was thrown down and half stayed secure (Ibn al-Jauzi, Munt. 9/180, 181; Seth 139b))

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

"I have seen a text by our master Ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abd al-Baqi al-Bazzaz, which stated: "On Thursday 17 Rajab in the year 508, a letter reached Baghdad in which it was written that on the night of Sunday 18 Jumada II in the same year [20 November 1114], there had been an earthquake at Al-Ruha, and 13 towers in the city walls had collapsed. Part of the walls at Harran had also collapsed, and many houses had collapsed on top of their inhabitants. There had been collapses at Sumaysat; at Balis, about a hundred houses have been destroyed, and half of the citadel has collapsed, but the other half has survived".

English from Sbeinati et al (2005)

from Sbeinati et al (2005)

In the year 508 A.H., the night of 18 Jamada II Sunday (1114 November 19), an earthquake occurred, causing collapse of 13 towers of Al-Ruha Wall, a part of Harran Wall fell down and many houses collapsed on their inhabitants, Samasat was swallowed up, 100 houses and half of the citadel collapsed at Balis.

Arabic from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Ibn al-Jawzi

1114 November 13

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Nighttime Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	the night of Sunday 18 Jumada II in the same year [A.H. 508]	Date changed from 19 November to 29 November - see Notes	A.H. date calculated using CHRONOS 19 November 1114 CE fell on a Thursday (calculated using CHRONOS) Disagreement between date and day of the week suggests a typographic or transmission error and that the correct date is 29 November 1114 CE which fell on a Sunday (calculated using CHRONOS) and is in agreement with other authors The letter is described as arriving on Thursday the 17th of Rajab in A.H. 508 which works out to Thursday 17 December 1114 CE. (calculated using CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

there had been an earthquake at Al-Ruha, and 13 towers in the city walls had collapsed
Part of the walls at Harran had also collapsed, and many houses had collapsed on top of their inhabitants
There had been collapses at Sumaysa
at Balis, about a hundred houses have been destroyed, and half of the citadel has collapsed, but the other half has survived

Locations

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Notes

Ibn al-Jawzi vs. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi

Historia by William of Tyre

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Babcock and Krey (1943)

from Babcock and Krey (1943:500)

23. A great earthquake shakes the land of Antioch. Bursuq, a very powerful Turkish satrap, ravishes that land.

IN the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1114, a great earthquake shook the whole land of Syria and utterly destroyed many cities and fortresses. It was most destructive in Cilicia, Isauria, and Coelesyria.⁸²

In Cilicia, it overwhelmed Mamistra, with many other fortified places. It also destroyed the city of Marash with the outlying districts so that only vestiges of some remained. Towers and fortifications were shattered, and the falling of large buildings brought destruction to a great many people. The largest cities became mere heaps of stones, burial mounds for those who had been killed, sepulchres for the people crushed in their fall. The populace fled in consternation from their dwellings in the cities, dreading the downfall of the houses. They hoped to find rest under the open sky, but their slumbers were broken by fear, for in dreams they lived through the fate which in their waking hours they had dreaded.

This overwhelming catastrophe was not confined to one district alone. It extended far and wide, even to the remotest regions of the Orient.

Footnotes

82 Earthquakes were of frequent occurrence. There had been quakes in Palestine in the previous year. This more destructive quake had repercussions throughout northern Syria during the last two weeks of November, 1114.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

A huge earthquake struck part of Antiochia ... In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1114 an earthquake struck the whole of Syria which was so great that it destroyed many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Caelo-Syria. For in Cilicia it completely prostrated Mamistra and many other towns; it also threw down Maresia together with its suburbs, so that scarcely any traces remained. Towers shook and the larger buildings fell down causing countless deaths, and cities, like stone ramparts, formed great mounds, and crushing their penitent citizens entombed them. In consternation people fled their homes in the cities, fearing the ruin of their houses, and while they hoped to find rest under the open sky, they were struck with a fear which interrupted their sleep, suffering, as the watch men had feared, violent seizures in their sleep. For this was not just a great peril in one region, but a plague which spread widely, to the furthest bounds of the East. (Will. Tyr. xi. 23/i. 529–530))

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) from a Latin edition edited by Huygens, R.B.G. (1986:934-936)

In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and fourteen, so great an earthquake shook the whole of Syria, that many towns and fortified settlements were razed to the ground, and major damage occurred in Cilicia, Isauria and Coelesyria.

For in Cilicia the town of Mamistra was razed to the ground, together with many fortified settlements. Maresia and all its territory were also struck, to the extent that it was scarcely possible to see anything left: towers and walls were violently shaken by the shocks, and as the bigger buildings crashed to the ground, they killed a great many inhabitants. Great cities were reduced to piles of debris, which became tombs for those inhabitants who were crushed beneath them.

People fled in dismay from the towns, fearing that their homes would collapse; and while they hoped to find safety by remaining in the open, they woke from their sleep in terror, tormented in their dreams by visions of the dangers which they tried to avoid when they were awake. Nor was the disaster confined to one region, for it had spread to the most distant parts of the Orient.

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) from a Latin edition edited by Huygens, R.B.G. (1986:934-936)

Anna ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo decimo quarto, tantus universam Syriam terrae motus concussit, ut multas urbes et oppida infinita dirueret funditus; maxime autem circa Ciliciam, Isauriam et Coelesyriam.

Nam in Cilicia Mamistram cum multis oppidis solo tenus prostravit; Maresiam quoque dejecit cum suburbanis suis, ita ut quorundam vix etiam exstarent vestigia: quatiebantur turres et moenia, majoribusque aedificiis periculosis ruentibus, fiebat populorum strages infinita; et civitates amplissimae quasi agger lapidum constitutae, tumulus erant oppressorum, at contritis habitatoribus vicem praestabant sepulchri.

Fugiebat plebs mente costernata habitationem urbium, domiciliorum ruinam formidantes: et dum sub dio requiem invenire sperant, timore concussi, somnis interrumpunt, oppressiones quas vigilantes timuerant, in somnis perpessi. Nec erat hoc, tam ingens, in una tantum regione, periculum: sed usque ad extremos Orientis fines, haec pestis late se diffuderat.

Other excerpts

Multiple versions of Historia exist. Three are shown and discussed below

Historia in Latin

An anonymous translation into Vulgar French made between 1220 and 1277 CE and variously titled History of Heraclius (Estoire d'Eracles), L'estorie de Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la terre d'Outremer, or Livre du conquest

An abridged English translation of Historia made by Samuel Purchas in 1614 CE

Commentary by Ambraseys (2009) on differences between three texts (Latin, French, and English)

Ambraseys (2009) noted the following from comparing the three texts.

Three different versions of William's account are extant: a Latin text, an Old French text and the abridged English translation by the travel writer Samuel Purchas (c. 1577-1626). The Latin text is rhetorical and self-consciously literary in its style, and, therefore, may well exaggerate the earthquake's effects, although in terms of content it closely resembles the briefer and plainer Old French version. Both texts agree that the event took place on 29 June (3 Kal. July in the Latin, Feast of Sts Peter and Paul in the Old French: from the narrative context, it is clear that the year is 1170), at the first hour of the day, i.e. 6 am, and that Jabalah, Laodicea, Aleppo, Shaizar and Hama/Haman (Hamah) were seriously damaged. The Latin text adds `Emissa' (Hims). Regarding aftershocks, the Latin text claims that they lasted 'three or four months, or longer', the Old French `nearly four months'. These two texts agree that aftershocks were felt three or four times per day or night. The remarks of both texts on the effects on Palestine are obscure. The Latin text says only that 'the superiors of our province, Palestine' (Superiores tamen nostrae provinciae, Palestinae videlicet) escaped harm, whereas the Old French asserts that 'the part of Palestine which is around Jerusalem did not suffer sufficient damage to lose towns or men' (en la terre de Palestine qui est vers Jerusalem, ne corut pas cist grant damage de perdre les viles ne les genz). The latter version would indicate that any damage in Palestine was slight.

Purchas' summary translation gives `Hanuin' where the Latin and Old French texts above have Hama/Haman. While this may just be an error, either in Purchas or in the Latin text which he was using (which may well have been different from the text established in modern editions), it is noteworthy that there was a Frankish fortress just over 30 km from Baniyas called Hunain (Le Strange 1890, 418; Dussaud 1927, 25), which was within the area affected by the earthquake.

Historia in Latin

English translation from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In the summer of the following year, which was the seventh year of the Lord Amalric, in the month of June, there was an earthquake around Eastern parts which was greater and more violent than any which were said to have happened in the memory of men of the present century. It razed to the ground a swathe of most ancient and well-fortified cities throughout the whole Orient, burying their inhabitants in the ruins and causing the collapse of buildings so as to reduce them to grinding poverty. There was no place, even as far as the ends of the earth, where there was not the distress of familial bereavement or domestic sorrow: everywhere there was grief and death to be faced. Among the places [affected] were the greatest cities of our provinces of Syria and Phoenicia - distinguished for their antiquity through the progression of centuries, they were utterly razed. In Caelo- Syria, Antioch, the metropolis of many provinces and once the mistress of many kings, was completely flattened together with its residents; the walls, its great strong towers, which were constructions of incomparable solidity, churches, and all manner of buildings were overthrown by the shock. Even today, and with much work, vast sums of money, continual care and tireless devotion [the Antiochenes] have been unable to restore it even to a mediocre standard. In the same province those famous maritime cities, Gabul [Jabalaj and Laodicea, also fell down; and in the Mediterranean districts which are held by the enemy, Berrhoe, which is also called Halapia [Aleppo], Caesara [Shaizar], Hama, Emissa and many other [cities collapsed]; and of the dependent towns which were affected, no number can be given. And in Phoenicia, Tripolis, that noble and populous city was struck on 3 Kal July at the 1st hour of the day by such a shock that there was no escape for scarcely anyone roundabouts. The whole city became as a pile of stones, a tomb of crushed citizens, and a public sepulchre. Even Tyre, which is the much famed metropolis of the same province, had its citizenry endangered and its robust towers thrown down by a more violent earthquake. They found that, as for us, so for the enemy, with the cities half-ruined; they were open to hostile attacks. Thus while each feared the wrath of a strict judge, he feared to molest the other. For each side their own grief was enough, and as long as domestic concerns weighed on them, they put off inflicting harm on the other. Therefore there was peace, albeit briefly ...

And this revelation of divine anger did not last merely an hour, as is mostly the case, but during the [following] three or four months, or longer, this terrifying movement [of the ground] was felt three or four times or more per day or night. For every [ground] movement was mistrusted, and nowhere was safe repose to be found. But often when a man was sleeping his soul, ever watchful, would tremble with fear and suddenly shatter his repose and cause his body to shake. However the superiors of our province, Palestine, under the protection of God, escaped all these evils. (Will. Tyr. RHC xviii/971-973 Lat.).

History of Heraclius (a Vulgar French translation from the original Latin)

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
derived from Recueil des historiens des croisades - Historiens occidentaux (1844) vol. 1 Part 2 pages 971-973

In the summer following that year, in the month of June there were earthquakes [lit. "collapses"] in these parts of the land of Syria greater in size than had ever been heard of for across the entire country it struck many of the ancient cities and the fortifications of many castles. The inhabitants were buried in the ruins, so great was the number of all kinds of people buried in the ground. In the country which is called Caelo-Syria the most part of the walls and houses of the noble city of Antioch collapsed: several churches collapsed, which it was hardly possible to repair and restore to their former state. In these parts two fine coastal cities also collapsed in the earthquake, Gibel [Jabala] and Lalische [Laodicea]. Others which are in enemy territory also collapsed, viz. Halape [Aleppo], Cesaire [Shaizar] and Haman. Very large numbers of castles collapsed in the land of Phoenicia. On the day of the feast of the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, around the hour of Prime [c. 6 am], the ground suddenly collapsed in the city of Tripolis. So badly was the ground affected that it resembled no more than a pile of stones, and entombed all the people who were buried underneath it. There was [also] destruction in the famous city of Tyre: while not many people were killed, some great towers collapsed and were reduced to rubble. One also saw on the land there fortifications which had been breached and were damaged. It would [thus] have been an easy thing for the Turks to have conquered our cities and castles on a large scale, but such was their fear even at the wrath which had come from Our Lord that they had no facility for making war; it was the same for us Christians, as each sought to have himself shriven and to repent of his sins and await the death which was before him, giving no thought at this time to taking up arms. And this upheaval which had struck the earth was not all finished, but it went on for nearly four months: three or four times per day or night, an earthquake [crolle] was felt in a town. Everyone was in such a state of fear that it took only the slightest noise to make them believe that they were about to die. Such was the misery of the living that they were unable to mourn for the dead: while they slept they had no repose, nor did they stop trembling, and it seemed to them that their houses would collapse on them. By the grace of Our Lord, the part of Palestine which is around survived. (Will. Tyr. RHC xviii. 971-973 Old Fr.).

French from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
derived from Recueil des historiens des croisades - Historiens occidentaux (1844) vol. 1 Part 2 pages 971-973

Section describing the 1170 CE earthquake from a Manuscript of the History of Heraclius (Creative Commons License)

CHAPITRE XVIII^b

Du grant crolle qui avint au tens le roi Amauri.

En l'esté qui vint après de cel an meismes, el mois de juing, si granz crolles avint en ces parties de la terre de Surie que l'en n'avoit onques mès oï parler à cel tens de si grant, quar il abati partout le païs grant partie des anciennes citez et les forteresces de raeinz chastiaux; les abiteeurs escachit des ruines, si que mout fu li nombres apeticiez en la terre de toutes manières de genz. En la contrée que l'en apele Celesurie fu fondue la greindre partie des murs et des mesons de la noble citez d'Antioche ; des eglyses meismes cheirent pluseurs qui à peinne porent puis estre trefaites et mises en tel point comme eles avoient esté devant. En ces parties meismes cheirent deus bones citez seur la marine , Gibel et La- lische. Des autres qui sont enmi la terre, là endroit, fondirent : Halape, Cesaire et Haman. Des chastiaux qui einssint perillierent estoit li nombres trop granz en la terre de Fenice. Le jor de la feste as deus glorieus apostres seint Pere etseint Pol, entour eure de prime, crolia soudeinement la terre dedenz la cité de Triple. Si durement fu la terre despeciée quele ne sembloit que uns murgier de pierre -, et estoit uns granz sépulcres des pueples et de genz qui desouz estoient escachiées. En la cité de Sur qui estoit renomée citez, fu li crolles. Là n'ot mie mout grant planté de gent perilliées, mès des gregneurs tors qui en la vile fussent, cheirent jus sor mesons et seur moustiers. L'en trovoit lors par la terre assez forteresces descloses et descomfites. Lors estoit legiere chose as Turs de conquerre seur nos citez et chastiaux à grant planté , mès aus meismes avoient tel paor de cele vengence qui de Nostre Seigneur venoit que il navoient nul talant de mouvoir guerre; ausint estoit il de nos crestiens, quar chascuns pensoit à soi fere comfès et repenti de ses péchiez por atendre la mort qui leur estoit devant les euls, ne leur souvenoit à cel point de porter armes. Icele tempeste qui einsint coroit por la terre ne fu mie toute finée, quar ele dura près de qatre mois, si que trois foiz ou qatre, entre jor et nuit, sentoit l'en le crolle en une vile. Tuit estoient en tel esfroi que l'en n'oïst jà si petite noise que chascuns ne cuidast morir tantost ; tel poor avoient cels qui vivoient d'els meismes que il ne pooient entendre à plorer les morz; en dormant n avoient il point de repox, ne finoient de tressaillir, et leur sembloit que leur mesons fondoient souz aus. Par la grâce Nostre Seigneur, en la terre de Palestine qui est vers Jérusalem , ne corut pas cist granz domage de perdre les viles ne les genz.

Footnotes

b Chapitre xvi.

Latin from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
derived from Recueil des historiens des croisades - Historiens occidentaux (1844) vol. 1 Part 2 pages 971-973 ?

CAPITULUM XVIII^6a

Terrae motus maximus pene universmn concutit Orientem, et urbes dejicit antiquissimas. iEstate vero scquente, anno videlicet domini Amalrici septimo^7a , mense Junio, tantus, tamque vehemens circa partes orientales terrœ motus factus est, quantus. qualisque memoria seculi praesentis hominum, nunquam legitur acfcidisse. Hic universi orientalis tractus urbès antiquissimas et munitissimas , funditus diruens, habita tores earum ruina involvens, aedificiorum casu contrivit, ut ad exiguam redigeret paucitatem. Non erat usque ad extremum terrae locus quem familiaris jactura, dolor domesticus non angeret : ubique luctus, ubique funebria tractabantur. Inter quas et provinciarum nostrarum, Syriae et Phœnicis, urbes quam maximas, et série seculorum antiquitate nobiles, solotenus dejecit. In Cœ- lesyria, multarum provinciarum metropolim, olimque multorum moderatricem regnorum, Antiochiam, cum populo in ea commorante, stravit funditus; mœnia, et in eorum circuitu turres validissimas, incomparabilis soliditatis opéra, ecclesias, et quaelibet aedificia tanto subvertit impetu , quod usque hodie multis laboribus , sumptibus immensis^1b , continua sollicitudine , et indefesso studio vix possunt saltem ad statum mediocrem reparari. Ceciderunt in eadem provincia urbes egre- giae de maritimis quidem, Gabulum et Laodicia; de mediterraneis vero, licet ab hostibus detinerentur, Berœa^2b , quae alio nomine dicitur Halapia, Caesara^3b , Hamam^4b, Emissâ^5b, et aliae multae; municipiorum autem non erat numerus. In Phœnice^6b autem, Tripolis, civitâs nobilis et populosa, tertio kalendas^7b julii, tanto terrae motus impetu, circa primam dieihoram, subito concussa est, ut vix uni de omnibus, qui infra ejus ambitum reperti sunt, salutis via pateret. Facta est tota civitas quasi agger lapidum, et oppressorum civium tumulus, et sepulchrum pu- blicum. Sed et Tyri, quae est ejusdem provinciae metropolis famosissima, terrae- motus violentior^8b absque tamen civium periculo, turres quasdam robustissimas, dejecit. Inveniebantur, tam apud nos, quam apud hostes oppida semiruta, insidiis^9b et hostium viribus late patentia. Sed dum quisque districti judicis iram sibi metuit, alium molestare pertimescit, Sufficit cuique dolor suus, et dum quemlibet cura fatigat domestica, alii differt inferre molestias. Facta est, sed brevis, pax T hominum studio procurata, et fœdus compositum, divinorum judiciorum timoré conscriptum^1c; et dum indignationem peccatis suis debitam expec- tat quisque desuper, ab his^2c quae hostiliter soient^3c inferri manum revocat, et impe- tus moderatur. Nec ad horam, ut plerumque solet, fuit ista ira Dei revelatio; sed tribus aut quatuor mensibus, vel etiameo ampli us, ter aut quater vel plerumque saepius, vel in die vel in nocte, sentiebatur motus ille tam formidabilis. Omnis motus jam suspectus erat, et nusquam tuta quies inveniebatur^4c Sed et dormientis animus plerumque quod vigilans timuerat perhorrescens, in subitum saltum, rupta quiete, corpus agitari compellebat, Superiores tamen nostrae provinciae, Palestine videlicet, horum omnium, Domino protegente, fuerunt expertes malorum.

Footnotes

6a XVII. B. — XIX. C. E.

7a Leg. nono. Cf. Wilken, op. cit. p. 140. n. 140. Al. n'estoient.

1b Et sumptibus immensis. E.

2b Verea. A. B. C. — Nerea. E.

3b Cf. lib. XVIII, cap. xviii, p. 849.

4b Aman. B. A. C. — Hamum. F.

5b Nempe Emesa quae et Emissa dicitur in Amm. Marc. XIV, 26. Ptolem. et Steph. Byz.

6b Phœnicia. E.

7b Kalendarum. E.

8b Violenter. E.

9b Et insidiis. E.

1c Confectum. A.

2c Iis. E.

3c Solent hostiliter. E.

4c Inveniebatur quies. E.

Abridged English translation from Purchas (1614)

excerpt provided by Ambraseys (2009)

The year following [1169] a most terrible earthquake, utterly overthrowing strong cities, involving the inhabitants in the ruins, filling every place in the land with laments. Thus fared it with the cities of Syria and Phoenicia throwne to the ground, and Antiochia in Coelesyria was quite overthrowne; the walls, towers, churches, houses so ruined, that to this day they cannot be reduced to a meane restoration. Gabul, Laodicea, Nerea called otherwise Halapia, Caesara, Hanuin, Emissa, and many other cities in the province, townes without number, fared likewise. Tripolis was made a heape of stones, and publike sepulchres scarcely any escaping. Tyrus lost her towers. These terrors continued three or foure monthes, thrice or foure times a day. (Will. Tyr. Purchas vii).

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1114 CE	In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1114 an earthquake struck the whole of Syria	none

Seismic Effects

an earthquake struck the whole of Syria which was so great that it destroyed many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Caelo-Syria
in Cilicia it completely prostrated Mamistra and many other towns
it also threw down Maresia together with its suburbs, so that scarcely any traces remained
Towers shook and the larger buildings fell down causing countless deaths, and cities, like stone ramparts, formed great mounds, and crushing their penitent citizens entombed them
probable human reaction to aftershocks - people fled their homes in the cities, fearing the ruin of their houses, and while they hoped to find rest under the open sky, they were struck with a fear which interrupted their sleep, suffering, as the watch men had feared, violent seizures in their sleep

Locations

the whole of Syria
around Cilicia
around Isauria
around Coele-Syria
Mamistra
Maresia

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Notes

Characterization of Historia

Romuald of Salerno

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In the same year [1115, indiction 8] in the month of December, before Christmas, there was an earthquake in Syria, so great that Mamistra and Marais [Mar’ash] were razed to the ground, and several other cities and fort-towns fell, their men crushed, as was part of the city of Antioch, the damage extending as far as Jerusalem.’ (Rom.Sal.207)

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In the month of December in that same year, before Christmas, there was so great an earthquake in Syria that Mamistra and Maras and many other towns and villages were razed to the ground, crushing men in the ruins; and part of Antioch and even of Jerusalem collapsed to the ground.

English from Garufi (1930)

from Garufi (1930:207)

In the year of the Sunday of the Incarnation 1115 by the indictment VIIJ (VIII?) at Cyperanus in the church of St. Father William The leader, a man from Ligius, came to Pope Paschal, who was then celebrating a synod, and the pope himself immediately delivered him by standard. He led the whole land to the same leader with honor, just as Pope Gregory granted it and handed it over to Duke Robert Guiscard with Cyperanus himself, and as Urbanus the pope granted Roger to be duke in the city of Melfia, and as the pope granted the same to Paschal and delivered the same to Duke Roger at Saint Trophimenus by the same gift and consent³. Indeed, in the aforesaid synod Landulfus, archbishop of Benuenta, was deposed from the pontifical order for disobeying. He was the pope, and he was restored to his seat by the same pope not after a long period of lavish service.⁴ In the same year in December in Syria before the Christmas of the Lord an earthquake was so great that Mamistra and Marais fell to the ground and many other cities and fortresses fell and the people were crushed, also a part of the city of Antioch and as far as Jerusalem fell prostrated.⁵ In the same year, in April, Duchess Ala, the mother of Duke William, died⁶.

Footnotes

3 La synodo di Ceprano, secondo gil Annales Beneventani, fu tenuta nel n. 14, in it Pandulph the archbishop is deposed. Even Falcone Beneventano in Del Re, op. city 1, p. 169 e 170, report in 1114, month of October: "Therefore, with such and so many fathers and nobles gathered together in the midst of his assembly, on the day of the sabbath he saw the leadership of Apulia, He granted Calabria and Sicily to the prefect (Guiliel) the apostolic duke".

4 Falco Beneventanus, Chr. cit., p. 173: 1117: "After these acts the aforesaid Apostolicus (Paschal) Landulphus, whom he had deposed, On the eleventh day of the month of August he returned to the archbishop.

5 William the Archbishop of Tyre, cit., VI, 23 (Hist. d. Crois. I, 492): "In the year from the incarnation of the Lord one thousand one hundred and fourteenth, so great was the earthquake of the whole of Syria, that it utterly destroyed many cities and towns without end; Isauria and Coelesyria. For in Cilicia he prostrated Mamistra with many towns on the ground; He also overthrew Maressia with its suburbs, so that there were scarcely even traces of some of them..."

6 Nessun ricordo di lei si ha nei Necrologi cassinese e Salernitano.

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Eodem anno mense Decembris in Siria ante Natalem Domini terre motus ita fuit magnus, quod Mamistra et Marais ad solum usque et alie quam plures civitates et castella, attritis hominibus, set et pars civitatis Antiochiae ac usque Jerusalem prostrate ceciderunt.

Latin from Garufi (1930)

from Garufi (1930:207)

Anno dominice incarnationis MCXV indictione VIIJ apud Ciperanum in ecclesia sancti Paterni Wilielmus' dux deuenit liggius homo pape Paschalis qui tunc sinodum celebrabat, et ipse papa statim per uexillum tradidit eidem duci totam terram cum honore ducatus, quemadmodum Gregorius papa concessit et tradidit eam duci Robberto Guiscardo apud ipsum Ciperanum, et quemadmodum Urbanus papa concessit Roggerio duci in ciuitate Melfia, et sicut idem Paschalis papa concessit et tradidit eidem duci Roggerio apud sanctum Trophimenem per illud idem donum atque consensum³. In predicta quidem synodo Landulfus Beneuentanus archiepiscopus ab ordine pontitìcalis deiectus est eo quod inobediens pape fuit, quique non post multum temporis largito munere in sede sua ab eodem papa restitutus est.⁴ Eodem anno mense Decembris in Syria ante natalem Domini terre motus ita fuit magnus, quod Mamistra' et Marais ad solum usque et alie quam plures ciuitates et castella attritis hominibus, sed et pars ciuitatis Antiochie ac usque Hiesusalem prostrate cecilederunt.⁵ Eodem anno mense Aprilis Ala ducissa mater Willelmi ducis defuncta est⁶.

Footnotes

3 La sinodo di Ceprano, secondo gil Annales Beneventani, fu tenuta nel n 14, in essa Pandulphus archiepiscopus deponitur. Anche Falcone Beneventano in Del Re, op. cit. I, p. 169 e 170, la riporta al 1114, mese di ottobre: "Talibus igitur et tantis patribus proceribusque congregatis in medio conventus ipsius, die videiicet "sabbati ducatum Apulie, Calabrie et Sicilie duci prefato (Guilielmo) apostolicus concessit". Cf. pure: Petrus Diaconus, IV, 49; Annales Ceccanenses in M. G. H., SS. XIX, p. 282.

4 Falco Beneventanus, Chr. cit., p. 173: an. 1117 : " His taliter actis predictus Apostolicus (Paschalis) Landulphum, quem deposuerat, undecimo die infrante mensis Augusti redintegravit ad Archiepiscopum ". Cf. pure Petrus Diaconus, IV, 61, M. G. H., SS. VII, 791.

5 Willelmus Tirensis Archiepiscopus, cit., VI, 23 (Hist. d. Crois. I, 492) : " Anno ab incarnatione Domini Millesimo centesimo decimo quarto, tantus universam Syriam terre motus, ut multas urbes et oppida infinita dirrueret funditus: maxime autem circa Ciliciam, Isauriam et Coelesyriam. Nam in Cilicia Mamistram cum multis oppidis solo tenus prostravit; Maresiam quoque deiecit cum suburbanis suis, ita ut quorumdam vix etiam estarent vestigia .....".

6 Nessun ricordo di lei si ha nei Necrologi cassinese e salernitano.

Latin from Garufi (1930) - embedded

2nd paragraph on page 207
from Garufi (1930:207)
from archive.org

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
December 1114 or 1115 CE	In the month of December in that same year 1115 CE], before Christmas Indiction VIIJ (VIII?)	appears to be misdated - see Notes	Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) note that Romauld of Salerno, like other secondary Latin sources, tend to give wrong dates for this earthquake and, in particular, to confuse it with the previous destructive earthquake of 13 November 1114, whose damage zone becomes partly superimposed on that of the earthquake of 29 November 1115, while adding that Archbishop Romuald of Salerno (1120/1130-1181) ... confuses information about the 1114 earthquakes (see the preceding entries) and that of 29 November 1115, making an entry for December 1115 Ambraseys (2009) placed this account from Romauld in his entry for an earthquake on 29 November 1114 CE The date is also specified as Indiction 8 which ran from 1 Sept. 1114 to 31 Aug. 1115 CE (calculated with CHRONOS) and suggests December 1114 CE as the date.

Seismic Effects

there was an earthquake in Syria, so great that Mamistra and Marais [Mar’ash] were razed to the ground, and several other cities and fort-towns fell, their men crushed
part of Antioch and even Jerusalem collapsed to the ground

Locations

Syria
several other cities and fort-towns fell
Mamistra
Marash
Antioch
Jerusalem

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronicle of Robert of Torigni

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English translated from Howlett (1889)

from Howlett (1889:96)

Marginal Note from editor - A.D. 1114

... An earthquake caused part of the city of Mamistia¹ to fall, and two castles not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphaleche.²

Marginal Note from editor - A.D. 1115

... Mamistra is desolated from the greater earthquake..

Footnotes

1 Manistrice, W.

2 B.F.H.J.L. (S. under 1115) and W. here proceed : Alexius, emperor of Constantinople, died, and was succeeded by his son John The entry is here erased from M., but re-introduced under 1118. It is not in Ca.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

(1114) Part of the city of Mamistria collapsed in an earthquake, and two forts not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphalech. (Rob. Tor. 145–147)

(1115) Mamistria was ruined by quite a great (or a greater) (majori) earthquake. (Rob. Tor. 146)

Latin from Howlett (1889)

from Howlett (1889:96)

Marginal Note from editor - A.D. 1114

... Terrrae motu pars urbis Mamistiae¹ corruit, et duo castella haud procul ab Antiochia, Mariscum et Triphaleche.²

Marginal Note from editor - A.D. 1115

... Desolate est mamistra majori Terrae motu.

Footnotes

1 Manistrice, W.

2 B.F.H.J.L. (S. under 1115) and W. here proceed : Alexius imperator Constantinopolitanus obiit, el successit Johannes filius ejus. The entry is here erased from M., but re-introduced under 1118. It is not in Ca.

Latin from Howlett (1889) - embedded

see top of 96 starting with Terrrae motu pars urbis Mamistiae¹
from Howlett (1889:96)
from archive.org

Chronology

**1st earthquake**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1114 CE	Marginal note by the editor says this occurred in A.D. 1114. A more specific date was not specified	none

**2nd earthquake**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1115 CE	Marginal note by the editor says this occurred in A.D. 1115. A more specific date was not specified	none

Seismic Effects

1st Earthquake

Part of the city of Mamistria collapsed in an earthquake, and two forts not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphalech

2nd Earthquake

Mamistra is desolated from the greater earthquake

Locations

1st Earthquake

Mamistria
Fort at Mariscum - Luard (1890 v. 2:43 n.7) identifies Mariscum as Marash
Castle at Thihalet¹

Footnotes

2nd Earthquake

Mamistria

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronicle by Michael the Syrian

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Volume 3, Book XIX, Chapter V
from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In the year fourteen hundred and twenty-six (of the Greeks, 1114), on 29 Tishrin II [November], He who has only to look at the earth for it to shake, did look; and there was a very violent earthquake in which the city of Mar`ash was entirely swallowed up and overturned, that is to say its foundations rose up and its buildings collapsed, so that it became a grave for its inhabitants and a terror to those who saw it. In this earthquake, the church of Mar John of Kaishum and that of the Forty Martyrs collapsed, and they were rebuilt by the care of Mar Dionysius, bishop of Kaishum. Samosata also fell in that earthquake, and Constantine, lord of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated there [at Samosata, not Gargar] with many people. In every city and village numerous places collapsed".

English from Ambraseys (2009)

Volume 3, Book XIX, Chapter V
from Ambraseys (2009)

In the year 1426, on 29th tesrin II [November], at the dawn of Sunday, He Who looketh on the earth and it trembleth (Ps. 96.4) looked and there was a very violent earthquake in which the town of Mar’as was completely swallowed up. It was overturned, that is to say that its foundations were tossed up high and the buildings thrown down. It became the tomb of its inhabitants and a source of terror to all who saw it. In this earthquake the church of Mar John of Kaysum collapsed, along with that of the Forty Martyrs; they were rebuilt under the care of Mar Dionysius, bishop of Kayˇsum. Samosata also collapsed in this earthquake, and in that town Constantine, seigneur of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated along with many other people. Large parts of all these towns and of villages collapsed. (Mich. Syr. xv. 11/iii. 200f.)

English from Chabot (1899-1910)

Volume 3, Book XV, Chapter XI
from Chabot (1899-1910:200)

In the year 1426, on the 29th of Tesrin II (November), at dawn on Sunday, he "who looks at the earth and it trembles"⁴, looked and there was a very [595] violent tremor in which the city of Mar'as was completely engulfed⁵. It was overturned: that is to say, its foundations were thrown upwards and the buildings downwards. It became the tomb of its inhabitants, and a subject of terror for those who saw it.

In this earthquake the church of Mar John of Kaisoum collapsed, as well as that of the XL Martyrs; they were rebuilt by the care of Mar Dionysius, bishop of Kaisoum.

Samosata also collapsed in this earthquake, and, in this city, with many other people, Constantinus, lord of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated.

Footnotes

4. Cf. Ps. xciv, 4. — 5, In 1114. Compare Matthew of Edessa, translation, p. 289.

5 footnote is missing

French from Chabot (1899-1910)

Volume 3, Book XV, Chapter XI
from Chabot (1899-1910:200)

En l'an 1426, le 29 de tésrîn II (nov.), à l'aube du dimanche, celui "qui regarde la terre et elle tremble"⁴, regarda et il y eut un tremblement très [595] violent dans lequel la ville de Mar'as fut totalement engloutie⁵. Elle fut renversée: c'est-à-dire que ses fondations étaient projetées en haut et les édifices en bas. Elle devint le tombeau de ses habitants, et un sujet d'effroi pour ceux qui la voyaient.

Dans ce tremblement de terre l'église de Mar Jean de Kaisoum s'écroula, ainsi que celle des XL Martyrs; elles furent rebâties par les soins de Mar Dionysius, évoque de Kaisoum.

Samosate s'écroula aussi dans ce tremblement de terre, et, dans cette ville, avec beaucoup d'autres personnes, Constantinus, seigneur de la forteresse de Gargar, fut suffoqué.

Footnotes

4. Cf. Ps. xciv, 4. — 5, En 1114. Comp. Matthieu d'Édesse, trad., p. 289.

5 footnote is missing

Syriac from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Volume 3, Book XIX, Chapter V
from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

French from Chabot (1899-1910) - embedded

see lower left column of page 200 starting with En l'an 1426, le 29 de tésrîn II (nov.), à
Volume 3, Book XV, Chapter XI
from Chabot (1899-1910:200)
from archive.org

Syriac from Chabot (1899-1910) - embedded

bookmarked to page 695
hand copied manuscript which shows some of the original layout
appears to be the manuscript which was written for Chabot between 1897 and 1899 CE in Edessa
ordered right to left
from Chabot (1899-1910)
from archive.org

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Dawn on Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	Dawn on Sunday 29 Tishrin II [November] A.G. 1426	none	calculated using CHRONOS 29 November 1114 CE fell on a Sunday (calculated using CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

there was a very violent earthquake in which the city of Mar`ash was entirely swallowed up and overturned, that is to say its foundations rose up and its buildings collapsed, so that it became a grave for its inhabitants and a terror to those who saw it
In this earthquake, the church of Mar John of Kaishum and that of the Forty Martyrs collapsed
Samosata also fell in that earthquake, and Constantine, lord of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated there [at Samosata, not Gargar] with many people
In every city and village numerous places collapsed

Locations

Marash
church of Mar John of Kaishum
church of the 40 Martyrs
Samosata

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronicon Ad Annum 1234

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In the year fourteen hundred and twenty-two of the Greeks (1111), on the night of Sunday, 29 Tishrin II [November], there was a severe earthquake and Germanicia, which is Mar`ash, was destroyed and entirely perished. Its houses were destroyed, its whole wall collapsed. Twenty-four thousand died besides strangers, and more than a hundred priests and deacons. The castle of Mansur and many other places were wiped out".

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) notes that the fact that this report does indeed refer to the earthquake of 1114, is made clear by the fact that the same chronicle gives the right date for the earthquake in a later passage:

In the year fourteen hundred and twenty-five (of the Greeks, 1114) ... at this time the country of Gargar was ruled by an Armenian, whose name was Michael. He was the son of Constantine, who was buried under the prison of Samosata during the earthquake, which destroyed Mar`ash.

Syriac from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Chron. Ad Annum 1234

1114 November 13

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
night of Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	night of Sunday 29 Tishrin II [November] A.G. 1422 in one passage and A.G. 1425 in another	year changed - see notes	29 Tishrin II [November] A.G. 1422 equates to 29 November 1110 CE (calculated using CHRONOS with Macedonian reckoning). 29 November 1110 CE fell on a Tuesday - not Sunday (calculated CHRONOS) 29 Tishrin II [November] A.G. 1425 equates to 29 November 1113 CE (calculated using CHRONOS with Macedonian reckoning). 29 November 1110 CE fell on a Saturday - not Sunday (calculated CHRONOS) 29 November 1114 CE fell on a Sunday as specified in the text (calculated CHRONOS) and as reported by many other authors. Thus, a correction is likely needed to list 1114 Ce as the year.

Seismic Effects

there was a severe earthquake and Germanicia, which is Mar`ash, was destroyed and entirely perished. Its houses were destroyed, its whole wall collapsed. Twenty-four thousand died besides strangers, and more than a hundred priests and deacons.
The castle of Mansur and many other places were wiped out.
Michael ... the son of Constantine ... was buried under the prison of Samosata during the earthquake, which destroyed Mar`ash.

Locations

Marash
Castle of Mansur
Samosata ?

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

The Complete History by Ibn al-Athir

الكامل في التاريخ by علي عز الدین بن الاثیر الجزري

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Athir
Ali 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari	علي عز الدین بن الاثیر الجزري
Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ash-Shaybani

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Richards (2006)

from Richards (2006 Part 1:253)

The Year 508

... Miscellaneous events

In Jumādā II [November 1114] there was a violent earthquake in the Jazīra, Syria and elsewhere. It destroyed much of Edessa, Ḥarrān, Sumaysāṭ, Bālis and other places. A great number of people perished under the rubble.

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In the month of Jumada II [508 H. = November 1114], there was a violent earthquake in the regions of Gazira and Syria as well as other regions. Ruha, Harran, Sumaysat, Balis and other towns were largely destroyed, and many people died in the ruins.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

(a.H. 508) In the same year, in the month of latter Jumada [November 1114], a violent earthquake was felt in Mesopotamia, Syria [al-Jazirah] and other regions. Great parts of Edessa, Harran, Samosata, Balis and other cities collapsed on their foundations; many people were buried in the debris. (Ibn al-Athir RHC,295)

English from Sbeinati et al (2005)

from Sbeinati et al (2005)

In this year (508 A.H.) in Jamada II (November 2-30), there was a strong earthquake in Al-Jazira area, Al-Sham and others, causing a wide destruction at Al-Ruha, Harran, Samsat, Balis and others, and many people killed under debris.

Arabic from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Ibn al-Athir

1114 November 13

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Original Document - embedded

not bookmarked

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
2 November - 30 November 1114 CE	in the month of latter Jumada A.H. 508	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

there was a violent earthquake in the regions of Gazira and Syria as well as other regions
Ruha, Harran, Sumaysat, Balis and other towns were largely destroyed, and many people died in the ruins

Locations

in the regions of Gazira and Syria as well as other regions
Ruha (aka Sanliurfa aka Edessa)
Harran
Sumaysat (aka Samsat)
Balis
other towns

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Mirror of time in histories of the notables by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi

مرآة الزمان في تواريخ الأعيان by سبط ابن الجوزي

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzi	سبط ابن الجوزي
Shams al-din Abu al-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn Kizoghlu

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Terrible earthquake in Mesopotamia – the greater part of the ramparts of Edessa and Haran were overturned, with a great number of houses. The Euphrates overflowed and ruined 100 houses at Bales and swept away half of the citadel, flooding Samosata as well as other places. (Sibt ibn al-Jauzi, Mirat., 551-554)

English from RHC Or. Vol. 3

from RHC Vol. 3 (1884:551-552)

Year 508 (1114-1115 AD). — Terrible earthquake in Mesopotamia; most of the ramparts of Edessa and Harran are overthrown, with a large number of houses. The overflowing Euphrates ruins a hundred houses at Bales, carries away half the citadel and floods Samosata, as well as other localities.

French from RHC Or. Vol. 3

from RHC Vol. 3 (1884:551-552)

Année 508 (1114-1115 de J.C). — Terrible tremblement de terre en Mésopotamie; la majeure partie des remparts d'Édesse et de Harrân sont renversés, avec un grand nombre de maisons. L'Euphrate débordé ruine une centaine de maisons à Balès, emporte la moitié de la citadelle et inonde Someïsat, ainsi que d'autres localités.

Comet

Comet Catalogues

Kronk (1999)

1109 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193)

Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Historia Novorum in Anglia (1177), p. 226
Chronicle of Melrose (1275), p. 142
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 389-90
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575.

1110 CE - C/1110 K1

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193-195)

T 1110 May 18 (UT)
ω 358
Ω (2000.0) 321
i 137
q 0.83
e 1.0

ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE: H_m=5.0 (Kronk)
FULL MOON: May 5, June 4, July 3

SOURCES:

Chronica (1111), p. 372
Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Annales Leodienses (1121), p. 29
Annales Beneventani (1130), p. 183
Annales Formoselenses (1136), p. 36
Annales Corbeienses (1148), p. 7
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 242
Chronicle of Henry of Huntington (1154), p. 244
Chronicon (1178), pp. 204-5
Mir'at al-zainan fi tarikh al- a'yan (1186), VIII, p. 32
Chronicle of Holyrood (1189), p. 114
Chronica (1201), p. 167
Chronicon S. Sergii Andegavensis (1215), p. 143
al-Kama fi al-ta'rikh (1233), X, p. 478
Annales Colonienses Maxinti (1238), p. 748
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, p. 138
Annales Monasterii de Win-tonia (1277), p. 43
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 214
Wen hsien Cling k'ao (1308), p. 187
Annales Eginundani (1315), p. 449
Annales Parchenses (1316), p. 604
Sung shih (1345), p. 187
Chronicae S. Albini Andegavensis (1357), p. 31
Chronicon Sancti Maxen-tii Pictavensis (14th century), p. 424
Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia (1433), p. 431
Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
Hsii Thung Chien Kang Mu (1476), p. 187
Dainihonshi (1715), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 390, 627
J. Williams (1871), pp. 60-1
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Early Sources of Scottish History: A.D. 500-1286, Volume 2, edited and translated by Alan Orr Anderson, London: Oliver and Boyd (1922), p. 142
Nihon Temmon Shiryo (1935), p. 505
EHD2 (1953), p. 181
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
R. R. Newton (1972), pp. 671, 673, 676, 680
I. Hasegawa (1979), pp. 260-1, 263-4.

1113 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:195)

Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93

1114 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:196)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 244
Historia Auglorum (1154), p. 239
Annales de Margan (1232), p. 10
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, pp. 140-1
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 215
Annales Monasterii de Bernitindeseia (1433), p. 432
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 576
EHD2 (1953), p. 183
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93.

Seismic Effects

Terrible earthquake in Mesopotamia
the greater part of the ramparts of Edessa and Haran were overturned, with a great number of houses
The Euphrates overflowed and ruined 100 houses at Bales and swept away half of the citadel, flooding Samosata as well as other places

Locations

Mesopotamia (Jazira)
Edessa
Haran
Samosata (aka Samsat)
Balis
other places

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Notes

Ibn al-Jawzi vs. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi

The Cream of the History of Aleppo by Kemal ad-Din (aka Ibn al-Adim)

زبدة الحلب في تأريخ حلب by مال الدين عمر بن أحمد ابن العديم

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Adim
Kamāl al-Dīn Abu ʾl-Ḳāsim ʿUmar ibn Aḥmad ibn Hibat Allāh Ibn al-ʿAdīm	مال الدين عمر بن أحمد ابن العديم
Kamāl al-Dīn Abu Hafs 'Umar b. Ahmad

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

During the night of Sunday 28th of latter Jumada of 508 [27 November 1114], a terrible earthquake laid waste the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders. The tower of the north gate of Antioch and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims. As the fort of A’zaz was no more than a ruin, the governor went to seek asylum at Aleppo, but when he arrived he was put to death by order of Lulu, with whom he was at logger heads; Lulu charged another governor to re-populate and repair the fort. The damage was not very serious in Aleppo, but other places, like el-Athareb and Zerdanah, were almost completely destroyed. (Kemal al-Din C Chron. Ale, ad ann. 508/RHC 607)

English from RHC Or. Vol. 3

from RHC Vol. 3 (1884:607)

During the night of Sunday 28th of Djemadi second 508 (November 27th 1114), a terrible earthquake devastated the countries of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar'ach and the Syrian borders. The tower of the northern gate of Antioch and some houses in the upper quarter (Akabah) collapsed and caused many victims. The castle of A'zaz being nothing more than a ruin, the governor came to seek asylum in Aleppo, but, upon his arrival, he was put to death by order of Loulou, with whom he was on bad terms, and who charged another governor to repopulate and repair the castle. The damage was not considerable in Aleppo, but other places, such as El-Athareb and Zerdanâ, were almost entirely destroyed.

French from RHC Or. Vol. 3

from RHC Vol. 3 (1884:607)

Pendant la nuit du dimanche 28 de djemadi second 508 (27 novembre 1114 ), un terrible tremblement de terre désola les pays d'Alep, Harrân, Antioche, Mar'ach et les frontières syriennes. La tour de la porte nord d' Antioche et quelques maisons du haut quartier (Akabah) s'écroulèrent et firent de nombreuses victimes. Le château d'A'zaz n'étant plus qu'une ruine, le gouverneur vint chercher un asile à Alep, mais, dès son arrivée, il fut mis à mort par ordre de Loulou, avec qui il était en mésintelligence, et qui chargea un autre gouverneur de repeupler et de réparer le château. Les dégâts furent peu considérables à Alep, mais d'autres places, comme El-Athareb et Zerdanâ, lurent presque entièrement détruites.

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
During the night of Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	During the night of Sunday 28th of latter Jumada of A.H. 508	none	Calculated with CHRONOS 29 November 1114 CE fell on a Sunday (calculated using CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

a terrible earthquake laid waste the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders
The tower of the north gate of Antioch and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims
the fort of A’zaz was no more than a ruin
The damage was not very serious in Aleppo, but other places, like el-Athareb and Zerdanah, were almost completely destroyed

Locations

district of Aleppo - damage not very serious
district of Harran
district of Antioch
district of Mar’ash
the Syrian borders
fort of A’zaz
el-Athareb
Zerdanah

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Sequel to the Two Gardens by Abu Shama

Al-Dhayl 'ala 'l-Rawdatayn by Abu Shama

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Abu Shama
Abū Shāma Shihāb al-Dīn al-Maḳdisī
Abū Shāma Shihāb al-Dīn Abuʾl-Ḳāsim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-Maḳdisī (or al-Maqdisī)
Shihāb al-Dīn Abuʾl-Ḳāsim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ismāʿīl al-Maḳdisī

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

According to Abu Shama, Nur ad-Din repaired the damage to the mosques which was caused by the earthquakes or by other causes. He delegated his powers to the qadi Kamal ad Din ash-Shahrzawri (the successor of ‘Asrun) for the business of the waqfs, with the mandate of applying the law, doing good and combating evil, and the authorisations to allot to the repairs the silver which remained from the treasure of the waqfs, with the agreement of the . . . (Abu Shama, Rawdat 1/229)

Seismic Effects

Nur ad-Din repaired the damage to the mosques which was caused by the earthquakes or by other causes

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Estoire de Jerusalem et d'Antioche by Anonymous

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

(1114) On the Feast of St Lawrence we were visited by an earthquake: all the maritime cities and fortified towns collapsed, and people died. The cities of Mareis [Marash] and Trichalet [Trihaleth] collapsed. The Turks passed the Euphrates, and came between the Euphrates and Antioch. (Estoire, 645C)

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

1114. Then we had a plague of locusts from the region of Arabia which destroyed all our corn and gardens. On the feast of St.Lawrence there was an earthquake, and all the towns and settlements along the coast collapsed, thereby killing the inhabitants. The towns of Maras and Trihalet collapsed in ruins

English from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens occidentaux (1895)

from French from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens occidentaux (1895) Volume 5 XII, p. 645

X. 1114 CE. Then a great plant of aosteroles [locusts]^f came to us from the regions of Arabia^g, which immediately spoiled our wheat and gardens [crops?]. At the feast of Saint Lawrence^h, an earthquake affected us, and all the coastal cities and castles collapsed and the people died. The cities of Mareis [Marash]ⁱ and Trichalet^j collapsed. The Tur passed Euphrates, and came between Antioch and Euphrates, before the city of Caesar^k. The kings Doldequins, who had consented to the death of Malduic, made peace with the king of Jerusalem, and with Roger, prince of Antioch; so they went; they gathered against the waters and they grew stronger.

Footnotes

f Grasshoppers, from August = August.

g From Arabia.

h August 10.

i Marash.

j Wilh. Tyr., I. XI, c. xxiii, p. 492; Fulch. Carn. I.II, c, lii, p. 428. Cf. Hist. Arab des cr., t. I, p. 295.

k Cesaree, on the Orontes. Fulch. Carn., I.I, c. XLIV; I.II, c. lii-lix [Hist. occ. des cr., III, pp. 423, 428, 433).

French from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

MCXIII. Puis nos vint tant grant plante d'aosteroles des contrees d'Airabe, qui tot nos gasterent blez et gardins. A feste saint Loraint, nos vint terre mote, et fundirent tote la marine citez et chastiaus, et deunc la gent morut; la cite de Mareis et Trichalet fundirent.

French from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens Occidentaux (1895)

from French from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens occidentaux (1895) Volume 5 XII, p. 645

X. MCXIIII. Puis nos vint tant grant piante d’aosteroles^f des contrees d’Airabe^g, qui tot nos gasterent blez et gardins. A feste saint Lorant^h, nos vint terre mote, et fundirent tote la marine citez et chastiaus, et deunc la gent morut; la cite de Mareisⁱ et Trichalet^j fundire[n]t. Li Tur passerent Eufrate, et vindrent antre Antioche et Eufrate, devant la cite de Cesar^k. Li roys Doldequins, qui avoit consanti a la mort Malduic, fist paiz au roy de Jerusalem, et a Rogier, prince d’Antioche; donc an alerent; assamblerent contre eaus et il se cresdrent an sus.

Footnotes

f Sauterelles, d'aost = aout.

g D’Arabie.

h Le 10 aout.

i Marasch.

j Wilh. Tyr., I. XI, c. xxiii, p. 492; Fulch. Carn. I.II, c, lii, p. 428. Cf. Hist. arabes des cr., t. I, p. 295.

k Cesaree, sur 1’Oronte. Fulch. Carn., I.I, c. XLIV; I.II, c. lii-lix [Hist. occ . des cr., III, pp. 423, 428, 433).

Chronology

**1st earthquake from Book II Section LII Line 2**
Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
10 August 1114 CE	MCXIIII (1114 CE) - On the Feast of St Lawrence we were visited by an earthquake	none	The Feast of Saint Lawrence is held on 10 August in the Roman Catholic Church

Seismic Effects

At the feast of Saint Lawrence, an earthquake affected us
all the towns and settlements along the coast collapsed, thereby killing the inhabitants
The towns of Maras and Trihalet collapsed in ruins

Locations

all the towns and settlements along the coast
Marash
Trihalet¹

Footnotes

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronicle of Sembat

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)
sourced from Dedayan (1869)

a.Arm. 563 [21 February 1114 to 20 February 1115]. The earth trembled, because God was wrathful. This was in the month of Mareri, for the Feast of the Finding of the Cross. In the middle of the night, the shocks were felt. A rumble and terrible roars came from the depths of the earth. The sea got up, and the mountains and hills made terrifying sounds. A great number of cities were ruined: Antioch collapsed, as well as Mecis, Hisn-Mansur, Kayˇsum, Ablastha, R’aban and Samosata. Marash was completely overturned, and 40000 people were found dead.

On the Black Mountain, at the monastery of the Basilians, some doctors (vartabeds) and monks had assembled to celebrate the blessing of the church; this building collapsed around them, and thirty monks and two doctors were killed. In that year the doctor Geoge Megh’rig, author of the rule established at Trazarg, died in Jesus Christ; he was buried in that monastery. (Sembat, ad ann. 563/RHC 614)

English from Bedrosian (2005)

from Bedrosian (2005)

[65] In the year 563 A.E. [1114] Tap'ar, sultan of the Persians, designated al-Bursuki (Brzux) as his military commander, gave his troops to him, and then [al-Bursuki] went as far as Edessa, taking the sultan's small son with him. They remained there for some days and then arose and encamped opposite Hromkla, destroying everything in its borders. Then they went against Bira. The Franks assembled on the far bank of the river and did not dare to cross over. Al-Bursuki left off and went on to Nisibis where he fought against Il-Ghazi and Balik (Xazi Palak) who defeated them and seized the sultan's son [g142]. But they freed him and returned to their own land. In the same year the ground trembled from God's wrath, on the night of the feast of the Discovery of the Cross in the month of Marer. There was a booming sound that issued from the depths of the earth. The sea also was agitated and the sea and land together presaged God's anger. Mountains and hills heaved and in places the earth was split asunder. In numerous cities the Christians were destroyed. Antioch, Mamistra, Hisn Masnsur (Harsnmsun), Aplast'ayn, R'apan, Samosata, and Marash collapsed and 40,000 people perished. At the Basilian [monastery] on Black Mountain vardapets and clerics had gathered in the church for blessing, and the church collapsed on them, killing 30 monks and two vardapets. Similarly among the Jesuits, the entire rank of clerics was killed, while the great vardapet [called] Mashkewor died at Vardku. In the same year the blessed vardapet Ge'org, who was nicknamed Meghrik, was translated to Christ in the land of Vaspurakan. He was a blessed, virtuous, and diligent ascetic who toiled for fifty years, spending every Sunday night in standing vigils, establishing the same practise among the blessed monks of Drazark [monastery] which had been rennovated by prince T'e'odoros, son of Kostandin. The blessed vardapet [g143] established canons for them in written form which are in effect to this day. After a life of goodly deeds, he was translated to Christ and was buried there.

English from Dedayan (1869)

from Dedayan (1869)

563 (February 21, 1114 — February 20, 1115).

The earth trembled, because God was angry. It was in the month of Mareri, for the feast of the invention of the Cross. In the middle of the night, the shocks were felt. A horrible murmur and crash came from the depths of the earth. The sea rose; the mountains and hills made lamentable noises. A great number of cities were ruined; Antioch collapsed, as well as Mecis, Harsen-Mecour (Hisn-Mansour), K'ecoun, Ablastha, R'aban and Samosata. Marasch was overthrown from top to bottom, and 40,000 people died there. In the Black Mountain, at the Basilian monastery, doctors [vartabeds] and monks had gathered to celebrate the blessing of the church; this building fell on them, and thirty monks and two doctors were crushed³.

This year, Doctor George Megh'rig, author of the rule established at Trazarg, died in Jesus Christ. He was buried in this monastery⁴.

Footnotes

3 Cf. Matthew of Edessa, chap i.xvii, p. 110-113

4 Cf. the same, chap, i.xviii, p. 113-114.

French from Dedayan (1869)

from Dedayan (1869)

563 (21 fevrier 1114 — 20 fevrier 1115).

La terre trembla, parce que Dieu etait irrite. Ce fut dans le mois de mareri, pour la fete de I'lnvention de la Croix. Au milieu de la nuit, les socousses se fircnl sentir. Uu murmure et un fracas horribles sortaient des profondeurs de la terre. La mer se souleva; les montagnes et les collinos faisaient entendre des bruits lamonlables. Un grand nombre de villes furent ruinees; Antioche s'ecroula, ainsi que Mecis, Harsen-Mecour (Hisn-Mansour) , K'ecoun, Ablastha, R'aban et Samosate. Marasch fut renversee de fond en comble, et 40,000 personnes y trouverent la mort. Dans la Montagne-Noire, au couvent des Basiliens, des docteurs [vartabeds] et des moines s'etaient rassembles pour celebrer la benediction de l'eglise; cet edifice tomba sur eux, et trente moines et deux docteurs furent ecrases³.

Cette annee, mourut en Jesus-Christ le docteur Georges Megh'rig, auteur de la regie etablie a Trazarg. Il fut enterre dans ce couvent⁴.

Footnotes

3 Cf. Matthieu d'Edesso, chap i.xvii, p. 110-113

4 Cf. le meme, chap, i.xviii, p. 113-114.

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
Nighttime - Sunday 29 November 1114 CE	a.Arm. 563 - in the month of Mareri, for the Feast of the Finding of the Cross ... In the middle of the night	eve of the feast of Saint Andrew was likely meant instead of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross.	Mareri in Armenian year 563 converted to a Gregorian date range of 25 November - 24 December 1114 CE using planetcalc.com Gregorian date range of 25 November - 24 December 1114 CE converted to a Julian Date of 18 November - 17 December 1114 CE using CHRONOS This date range is not compatible with the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross - According to wikipedia, the Armenian Apostolic Church and other Armenian Christians celebrate the day of the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross on 15 September. According to wikipedia, in Byzantine liturgical observance, the Feast of the Discovery of the Cross also appears to date to 15 September. Episteme Academy calendar lists Sunday 25 October 1114 CE as the holiday for [Ap.C.] Discovery of the Cross. Ambraseys (2009) opined that the account in the Chronicle of Sembat ... is based in part on Matthew of Edessa’s record, from which it takes the date of the Finding of the Cross and Armenian year 563. Thus, like Matthew, Sembat may have specified the wrong celebration. If the celebration was the eve of feast of Saint Andrew, then the date works out to nighttime 29 November 1114 CE in agreement with other authors.

Seismic Effects

The earth trembled
In the middle of the night, the shocks were felt
A rumble and terrible roars came from the depths of the earth
The sea got up, and the mountains and hills made terrifying sounds
A great number of cities were ruined
Antioch collapsed, as well as Mecis, Hisn-Mansur, Kaysum, Ablastha, R’aban and Samosata
Marash was completely overturned, and 40000 people were found dead
On the Black Mountain, at the monastery of the Basilians ... this building [the church] collapsed around them, and thirty monks and two doctors were killed

Locations

A great number of cities
Antioch
Mecis (Mamistra aka Mopsuestia?)¹
Hisn-Mansur - also among the worst affected cities in the February 2023 Turkey-Syria Quake
Kaysum
Ablastha
Raban
Samosata - destroyed
Marash
Basilian Monastery located in the renowned Black Mountains²

Footnotes

1 Ambraseys (2009) speculated that this might have referred to Mamistra aka Mopsuestia.

2 unsure of location. Basilian means they followed the rights of St. Basil. Ambraseys (2009) refers to the Black Mountain(s) as Shughr. The following comes from the houshamadyan.org website:

Monastery (Hermitage) of Shughr

One of the prominent monasteries of Cilicia, it was a center of learning. Its specific location is unknown. Writers give contradictory claims as to its location, and they often equate it with the Garmir (Red) Monastery of Kesun. Ghevont Alishan writes, “Someone says it is in Marash or Sis, another, in Kesun…” [12] In his “History”, Vartan the Historian writes the following: “The hermitage of Shughr is probably southwest of Marash.” [13] On the other hand, Father Ghazarian regards it as part of the Red Monastery of Kesun. “It is located in the Andiroun/Andırın-Dongala mountain valley, between Marash and Sis (…), on a promontory in the village of Shughr”, and he adds that until recently “the semi-circular arches of the altar and a portion of the roof were visible.” [14]

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis by Marino Sanudo the Elder

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Lock (2016)

from Lock (2016:248-249)
Book 3, Part 6, Chapter 7

Chapter 7: The fortune of Joscelin and the victory of Roger against the Turks

After this, famine arose in the countryside around Edessa. Joscelin, indeed, had an abundance of food, however, he did not assist the Count, his lord and brother, in the slightest. To a messenger sent by the Count the familia of Joscelin replied that however up-right and prudent he might be Joscelin was fitted for lordship, so the Count should behave circumspectly if he accepted money he might hand over the whole government of the land to him. On hearing this, the, messenger reported to his lord, who was in bed apparently ill but not from falsehood. For he was greatly incensed, thinking rather that the words of the familia came from the intentions of their lord, by whom he had experienced such ingratitude. And so having summoned his nephew, the Count accused him first of ingratitude and then of treachery and condemned him to prison in chains. Nor would he remit the sentence unless he returned all those things that he had formerly accepted freely and renounced all jurisdiction that he had had. The King had pity on him and granted him the city of Tiberias. [Joscelin] made many raids against Tyre, notwithstanding the mountains that lay between. In 1114 a huge earthquake shook the Orient especially in Cilicia where it damaged Mamistra and all the fortifications round about. Elsewhere other cities were destroyed, so that no trace of the temple remained and men wandering through the fields were afraid that they would be sucked down by the earth. In the following year Borges,¹ the most powerful leader of the Turks, with a large number of warriors invaded the principality of Antioch, and advancing he marched between Aleppo and damascus, planning to harm the Christians as seriously as he could. Meanwhile, dodequinus,² King of damascus, suspecting an invasion of his kingdom made truces with King Baldwin and the Prince of Antioch. With great exchange of gifts they made solemn promises of mutual support. This treaty was renewed each year with the Christians and 40 years after the conquest of Jerusalem it is still in place. And so the Prince of Antioch, to counter perceived dangers, sought the help of the Kings of Jerusalem and damascus and got it. Then Borges pretended to return to his homeland and the kings, not pretending, went home. On learning this, Borges, alias Bursequin, returned to the principality of Antioch and did whatever he wished, stealing animals, burning places and slaughtering men. Angered by these things the Prince of Antioch, supported by the count of Edessa, followed him as far as Castrum rubeum.³ With battlelines drawn up a battle was fought between the two. The courage of the faithful warrior prevailed against the multitude. The effusion of innocent blood was avenged, the plunder recovered and 3,000 Turks were slain. The Christian people were rich in everything.

Footnotes

1 Aqsonqor il-Bursuqi governor of Mosul, 1113–26.

2 Toghtechin.

3 Chastel rouge. This is the battle of Tel-danith, 14 September 1115

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)
sourced from Bongars (1611:156)
Liber III, Part 6, Cap. VII (Book 3, Part 6, Chapter 7)

1114. The East, and Cilicia in particular, were struck by such an earthquake that the town of Mamistra and all the fortresses in the surrounding area were razed to the ground; and elsewhere, other towns were so seriously damaged that no building was left standing. And as men wandered through the fields in flight, they were afraid of being swallowed up by the earth.

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)
sourced from Bongars (1611:156)
Liber III, Part 6, Cap. VII (Book 3, Part 6, Chapter 7)

MCXIV. Tantus terraemotus Orientem permovit, maxime in Cilicia, ut Malmistram, et in circuitu fortilitia cuncta deiceret: et alibi, civitates aliquae ita deletae sunt, ut aedium nullum remanserit vestigium. Homines quoque, per campos errantes, a terra absorberi metuentur.

Latin from Bongars (1611)

from Bongars (1611:156)
Liber III, Part 6, Cap. VII (Book 3, Part 6, Chapter 7)

Cap. VII

Continet Iocellini fortunam: & Roger y victoriam contra Turchos

MCXIV. Tantus terraemotus Orientem permovit, maxime in Cilicia, ut Malmistram, et in circuitu fortilitia cuncta deiceret: et alibi, civitates aliquae ita deletae sunt, ut aedium nullum remanserit vestigium. Homines quoque, per campos errantes, a terra absorberi metuentur.

Latin from Bongars (1611) - embedded

Liber III, Part 6, Cap. VII (Book 3, Part 6, Chapter 7)
halfway down the page under CAP. VII at the same level as the left marginal note "A. Dni. 1114" immediately after ""MCXIV"
from Bongars (1611:156)
from archive.org

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1114 CE	MCXIV	none

Seismic Effects

In 1114 a huge earthquake shook the Orient especially in Cilicia where it damaged Mamistra and all the fortifications round about.
Elsewhere other cities were destroyed, so that no trace of the temple remained and men wandering through the fields were afraid that they would be sucked down by the earth.

Locations

The East
Cilicia
Mamistra and all the fortresses in the surrounding area
other towns

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronicon by Bar Hebraeus

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Budge (1932)

from Budge (1932:247)

And in this year, which is the year fourteen hundred and twenty-six of the Greeks (A.D. 1115), on the twenty-ninth day of the month of the latter teshrin (November), which is the twenty-ninth day of the sixth month of the Arabs, a terribly violent earthquake took place, and the whole city of Mar'ash sunk underground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof. And very many houses fell down in Samosata. Constantine, the lord of Gargar, was present in the town, and he, together with many others, was suffocated in the ruins. And there fell down thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa; and portions of the wall of Harran; and a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash; and two churches of Khishum, viz. the church of Mar John, and the church of the Forty Martyrs. And through the care and solicitude of Dionysius, its bishop, they (i.e. the churches) were rebuilt.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In the year which is 1426 of the Greeks [AD 1114] on the 29th day of the month of the Later Teshrin [November], which is the 29th day of the 6th month of the Arabs, a terribly violent earthquake took place, and the whole city of Marash sank under ground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof. And very many houses fell down in Samosata. Constantine the lord of Gargar together with many others was suffocated in the ruins. And there fell down thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa; and a portion of the wall of Harran; and a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash; and two churches of Khishum, viz. the church of Mar-John and the church of the Forty Martyrs. (Abu’l-Faraj 247/280)

English from Budge(1932) - embedded

see start of paragraph two-thrids of the way down page 247 starting with And in this year, which is the year fourteen hundred and twenty-six of
from Budge (1932:247)
from archive.org

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
29 or 30 November 1114 CE	on the 29th day of the month of the Later Teshrin [November] in the year which is 1426 of the Greeks which is the 29th day of the 6th month of the Arabs	none	29 Later Teshrin A.G. 1426 equates to 29 November 1114 CE (calculated using CHRONOS) the 29th day of the 6th month (Jumada II) of the Arabs in A.G. 1426 equates to 30 November 1114 CE (calculated using CHRONOS) Budge (1932:247) calculated the incorrect year (1115 CE) for this earthquake. Ambraseys (2009) deduced the correct year (1114 CE)

Seismic Effects

a terribly violent earthquake took place
the whole city of Mar'ash sunk underground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof
very many houses fell down in Samosata
Constantine, the lord of Gargar, was present in the town [of Samasota], and he, together with many others, was suffocated in the ruins
there fell down thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa; and portions of the wall of Harran; and a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash; and two churches of Khishum, viz. the church of Mar John, and the church of the Forty Martyrs

Locations

Marash
Samosata (aka Samsat)
Edessa
Harran
Balash
Samosata
church of Mar John and the church of the 40 Martyrs in Khishum

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Treasure of Pearls and the Collection of Shining Objects by Ibn al-Dawadari

Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʿ al-ghurar by Ibn al-Dawādārī

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn al-Dawādārī
Sayf al-Din Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Aybak al-Dawādārī

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Sbeinati et al (2005)

from Sbeinati et al (2005)

In this year (508 A.H.), there was an earthquake at Aleppo. Samsat and Marash were swallowed up and many people killed.

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	In this year [508 A.H.]	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

there was an earthquake at Aleppo
Samsat and Marash were swallowed up and many people killed

Locations

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Satirica Ystoria by Paulinus Minorita (aka Paolino Veneto)

Background and Biography

Excerpts

Latin Manuscript Vat. lat. 1960

from Satirica rerum gestarum Manuscript Vat. lat. 1960 at The Vatican Library. Click on link to open a reader in a new tab

Latin Manuscript Bamberg Msc.Hist.4(1.

from Satirica historia rerum gestarum mundi (Speculum Paulini) - Staatsbibliothek Bamberg Msc.Hist.4(1. at SBB. Click on link to open a reader in a new tab

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Chronica per extensum descripta by Andrea Dandolo

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) citing Pastorello (1938-1958:230)
Liber nonus (Book 9), Capitulum (41) 11] De Ordelaf Faledro duce

Then the East was shaken by so tremendous an earthquake that it completely destroyed buildings especially in Cilicia, at Malmistra, and all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing. Men wandered through the fields fearing that they would be swallowed up by the earth.

... During the night of the Ides of November [13 November], in the suburbs of Antioch, the earth swallowed up many towers and the houses beside them, together with their inhabitants.

(Dandolo, Chron.,p.230)

English from Pastorello (1938-1958)

from Pastorello (1938-1958:230)
Liber nonus (Book 9), Capitulum (41) 11] De Ordelaf Faledro duce
Line numbers to right in bold are referred to in Notes
Machine translated (Google)

...

     At this time in Laude, as Singibertus says, a child was born having two heads, until
divided at the back, with his arms, who, being baptized, lived three days.
     In the twelfth year of the duke's reign, Bernardus, a young man, excellent in science, noble in character, and famous in character,
Born in the castle of Burgundy, with his German brothers and more than 30 counts,
He was introduced to the Cistercian habit when he was 22 years old.                                                                         5
     Then the East was shaken by so tremendous an earthquake that it completely destroyed buildings especially in Cilicia, at Malmistra,
and all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing. Men
wandered through the fields fearing that they would be swallowed up by the earth.
     In the village of Bachinc, so much snow fell, on the 9th of January, that even the woods were broken.
     At Ravenna and Parma blood rained in June.                                                                                                       10
     During the night of the Ides of November [13 November], in the suburbs of Antioch, the earth swallowed up
many towers and the houses beside them, together with their inhabitants.
     Ordelaf, in the 13th year in the month of August, with a great naval army, Dalmatia
he advanced, and took Jadra, except the castle, and Belgrade, which he fortified, against the Hungarians, guarding
At Jadre the castle, they obtained support, and, having taken the hostages, he returned.                                            15

...

Notes

notes appear to be in Italian

1. in the interlinear

3. Bernardus rewritten on abrasion

10. 1114 (M°CXIIII), on the other hand, in the interlinear, V accepts

1-2. At this time ..., see, PAOLINO, 225. I, C. 232 ν

3-5. Year.... annorum, PAOLINO, 225.4, C. 232 ν

6-8. Then ... they feared, MARIN SANUTO, Liber Secretorum Fidelium crucis III. VI. 7, a. 1114

9-12. In payment Bachinc .... absorbed, PAOLINO, 225. 5, C. 233 r

13-15. Ordelaf .... returned, PAOLINO, 225. 5, c. 2J3 r, with the date 1115 (MCXV)

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) citing Pastorello (1938-1958:230)
Liber nonus (Book 9), Capitulum (41) 11] De Ordelaf Faledro duce

Tunc tantus teremotus Orientem concusit, ut Cilicia maxime, ut Malmistra et cuncta fortilicia in circuitu deiceret et alicubi etiam edium nullum remansit vestigium; homines quoque per agros errantes terra assorbi timebant.

... In suburbano Antiochie, ydibus novembris, terra nocte turres plures et adiacentes domos, cum habitatoribus absorbuit.

(Dandolo, Chron.,p.230)

Latin from Pastorello (1938-1958)

from Pastorello (1938-1958:230)
Liber nonus (Book 9), Capitulum (41) 11] De Ordelaf Faledro duce
Line numbers to right in bold are referred to in Notes

...

     Hoc tempore in Laude, ut ait Singibertus, natus est puer duo capita habens, usque ad
renes divisus, cum suis brachiis, qui, baptiptus, triduo vixit.
     Anno ducis XII°, Bernardus iuvenis egregius sciencia, genere et moribus clarus,
Castelione castro Burgundie natus, cum germanis fratribus et alliis plus quam XXX^a comitibus,
habitu cisterciensi inducitur, cum XXII esset annorum.                                                                    5
     Tunc tantus teremotus Orientem concusit, ut Cilicia maxime, ut Malmistra et cuncta
fortilicia in circuitu deiceret et alicubi etiam edium nullum remansit vestigium; homines
quoque per agros errantes terra assorbi timebant.
     In pago Bachinc tanta nix cecidit, IX° kalendis madii, ut etiam silvas fregerit.
     Apud Ravenam et Parmam sanguis pluit in iunio.                                                                      10
     In suburbano Antiochie, ydibus novembris, terra nocte turres plures et adiacentes
domos, cum habitatoribus absorbuit'.
     Ordelaf, anno XIII° in mense augusti, cum magno exercitu navali, Dalmaciam
agressus est, et cepit Iadram, excepto castro, et Belgradum, quas muniit, ne Ungari, custodientes
Iadre castrum, subsidium optinerent, et, acceptis obsidibus, rediit.                                                 15

...

Notes

notes appear to be in Italian

1. in nell'interlineo

3. Bernardus riscritto sopra abrasione

10.M°CXIIII, d'altra nzano, nell'interlineo, V accetta

1-2. Hoc tempore ..., vixit, PAOLINO, 225. I, C. 232 ν

3-5. Anno.... annorum, PAOLINO, 225.4, C. 232 ν

6-8. Tunc ... timebant, MARIN SANUTO, Liber Secretorum Fidelium crucis III. VI. 7, a. 1114

9-12. In pago Bachinc .... absorbuit, PAOLINO, 225. 5, C. 233 r

13-15. Ordelaf .... rediit, PAOLINO, 225. 5, c. 2J3 r, con la data MCXV

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
13 November 1114 CE ?	see Notes	none	Note regarding line 10 from Pastorello (1938-1958:230) appears to date part of the text to ~1114 CE Two different passages are present separated by two sentences The first account describes an earthquake which struck Cilicia and Mamistra. It is not dated. The second account describes an earthquake which struck the suburbs of Antioch and it is dated to the Ides of November which was a Roman festival in honor of the Jupiter which took place on 13 November Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) suggest that Dandolo used Marino Sanudo the Elder for the 1st account and Anselm of Gembloux for the 2nd account as the wording is very similar (verbatim ?) and then mistakenly separated their accounts into two different earthquakes - when in fact both descriptions by Dandolo refer to the same 13 November 1114 CE earthquake. Ambraseys (2009) appears to date both passages to an earthquake on 13 November 1114 CE. He statesThe date of the earthquake is given in the annals Genetic Braves, in Andrea Dandul. Chron. 265 (Dandolo, 265; see also Alexander 1990, 146). It occurred on St Bricious’ day on the Ides of November (13 November 1114) .

Seismic Effects

the East was shaken by so tremendous an earthquake that it completely destroyed buildings especially in Cilicia, at Malmistra, and all the fortresses in the surrounding area, and in some places nothing was left standing
Men wandered through the fields fearing that they would be swallowed up by the earth.
During the night of the Ides of November [13 November], in the suburbs of Antioch, the earth swallowed up many towers and the houses beside them, together with their inhabitants".

Locations

The East
Cilicia
Mamistra and all the fortresses in the surrounding area
Antioch

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

The Beginning and the End by Ibn Kathir

Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya by ابن كثير

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Ibn Kathīr	ابن كثير
Abu al-Fiḍā ‘Imād Ad-Din Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Umar ibn Kathīr al-Qurashī Al-Damishqī	إسماعيل بن عمر بن كثير القرشي الدمشقي أبو الفداء عماد
Abū l-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar ibn Kaṯīr	أبو الفداء إسماعيل بن عمر بن كثير
Imād ad-Dīn	عماد الدين

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Sbeinati et al (2005)

from Sbeinati et al (2005)

In this year (508 A.H.) (1114 January 7-1115 May 26), there was a great earthquake in Al-Jazira, causing destruction of 13 towers and many houses in Al-Ruha and some houses in Khurasan (?) and many houses in many countries where many of its inhabitants were killed about 100000 victims, and half of Harran castle was collapsed, Samsat was swallowed up and many people were killed under debris.

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

In the Khurasan, a few houses were destroyed, and a good many dwellings were destroyed in many other villages. About 100,000 people died, and half the citadel at Harran collapsed, but the other half remained standing. The town of Sumaysat [present-day Samsat] also collapsed. Many people died in the ruins.

Arabic from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) and Gil (1992)

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	In this year [A.H. 508 ]	none	Calculated with CHRONOS Sbeinati et al (2005) has a typographic error the date range for A.H. 508. The correct time span is listed in this table.

Seismic Effects

there was a great earthquake in Al-Jazira, causing destruction of 13 towers and many houses in Al-Ruha and some houses in Khurasan (?)
many houses in many countries where many of its inhabitants were killed about 100,000 victims
half of Harran castle was collapsed
Samsat was swallowed up and many people were killed under debris

Locations

Al-Jazira
Al-Ruha
Khurasan (?) - seems unlikely - too far away
in many countries
Harran
Samsat

Sources

Sources and Dependants

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Clearing up the Description of Earthquakes by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti

كتاب كشف الصلصلة عن وصف الزلزلة by عبد الرحمن بن كمال الدين أبي بكر بن محمد سابق الدين خضر الخضيري الأسيوطي

Aliases

Aliases	Arabic
Al-Suyuti
As-Suyuti
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti
Abu 'l-Fadl 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad Djalal al_Din al-Khudayri

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English translation from a French translation by Nejjar (1973-1974)

from As-Suyuti

In A.H. 508 [July 7, 1114/May 26, 1115], an extremely violent earthquake occurred in the territory of al-Jazira²²² (199); it caused the collapse thirteen towers of ar-Ruhà, part of the enclosure [JW: i.e. City Walls] and many houses of H'arrân (200); in Balis (n)²²³ (201) one hundred houses were destroyed while half of its citadel fell over with the other half remaining intact; the city of Sumayaât'²²⁴ (202) disappeared underground; there was a deplorably large number of victims.

Footnotes

222) in the territory of al-Jazira; (B): in the territory of al-Madina.

223) from Balisn; (G): from Balis.

224) V.s.i. in (A and B); Samaysât': city located on the left bank of the Euphrates.

199) The variant of B : "in the territory of al_Madina" is rejected; it is indeed al-Jazira, the author citing, among the urban centers affected, the cities of ar-Ruha and Harran (see below).

200) An earthquake occurred in this city in 552 AH/1157 AD (not mentioned by as-Suyiit'i). Cf. G. Fehervari, E.I., 2nd ed., p. 235.

201) This is indeed Bâlis, (Cf. note 129); copy G gives the exact transcription.

202) This is ancient Samosata, located on the right bank of the Euphrates and currently known as Samsât' or Simsât'; it was one of the [front-line] Muslim towns (thaghr) against the Byzantines. Cf. Ettore Rossi, E.I., vol. IV, p. 576.

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

An extremely violent earthquake took place in the territory of al-Jazirah: it caused thirteen towers of Ruha to collapse, part of the girdle-wall of Harran and numerous houses. At Balis, 100 houses were destroyed, and whereas half of the citadel was overturned, the other half remained intact. The town of Sumaysat disappeared under the ground: a great number of victims were mourned. (al-Suyuti Kashf xxxvi/22)

English from Sprenger (1843)

from an abridged translation by Sprenger (1843:745)

A.H. 508. In Mesopotamia thirteen villages belonging to Roha were destroyed, and part of the walls of Harran; also in Elsun about 100 houses and one-half of the fortress were destroyed.

English from Sprenger (1843) - embedded

about halfway down page 745 starting with 508.
from an abridged translation by Sprenger (1843:745)
from archive.org

An Original Manuscript - Arabic

The Noor book courtesy of Najib Abou Karaki (personal correspondence, 2022)

Chronology

Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
7 June 1114 CE to 26 May 1115 CE	A.H. 508	none	Calculated with CHRONOS

Seismic Effects

An extremely violent earthquake took place in the territory of al-Jazirah
it caused thirteen towers of Ruha to collapse, part of the girdle-wall of Harran and numerous houses
At Balis, 100 houses were destroyed, and whereas half of the citadel was overturned, the other half remained intact
The town of Sumaysat disappeared under the ground: a great number of victims were mourned

Locations

Al-Jazira
Ruha
Harran
Balis
Sumaysat

Sources

Notes and Further Reading

References

Historia Gotefridi by Benedetto Accolti the Elder

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

In the year 1114 there was an earthquake in which the Syrians suffered such great calamity and ruin as had never previously been recorded in history ... In the same year as they handed over the dead bodies of Boamond, the prince of Antioch, and Tancred, there was a massive earthquake, the force of which caused destruction throughout the towns of Syria. (Ben. Accolt. xvii/617/914)

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

At that time, a comet with a great fiery mane appeared in the sky, and from the first to the third hour two suns could be seen in the sky with a rainbow in between. In this same year, in which we are told that Bohemond, Prince of Antioch, and Tancred died, a terrible earthquake reduced many towns throughout Syria to ruins.

English from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens Occidentaux (1895)

from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens occidentaux (1895) Volume 5 XI, p. 617

At these times, a comet was seen in the sky, having fiery hair and greatness, and from the first hour to the third two suns and the rainbow was seen in the middle. After these things, Baldwin forced Tripoli, a noble city in Phoenicia, to submit to him, having been subdued by arms; then he took Barutim, a city situated on the very shore of the sea; and not long after another also, called Saiete. In the same year, they report that Boamund, the prince of Antioch, and Tancred were dead, and that there was a great earthquake, by the force of which many towns fell throughout Syria.

Footnotes

7 sight b. -

8 on the shore of the sea a. -

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

His temporibus, cometes in coelo visa est, crines igneos magnosque habens, necnon ab hora prima usque ad tertiam duo soles, et iris in medio cernebantur. [...] Eodem anno, Boamundum, Antiochiae principem, et Tancredum mortuos tradunt, maximumque terraemotum fuisse, cuius vi multa oppida per Syriam totam corruerunt.

Latin from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens Occidentaux (1895)

from Recueil Des Historiens Des Croisades Historiens occidentaux (1895) Volume 5 XI, p. 617

His temporibus, cometes in coelo visa⁷ est, crines igneos magnosque habens, necnon ab hora prima usque ad tertiam duo soles, et iris in medio cernebantur. Post haec, Balduinus Tripolim, nobilem in Foenicia urbem, armis perdomitam, sibi parere demum coegit; deinde cepit Barutim, civitatem in ipso maris littore⁸ positam; nec multo post aliam quoque, Saietem dictam. Eodem anno, Boamundum, Antiochiae principem, et Tancredum mortuos tradunt, maximumque terrae motum fuisse,, cujus vi multa oppida per Syriam totam corruerunt.

Footnotes

7 visus b. —

8 littore maris a. —

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
1114 CE ?	In the same year they report that Boamund, the prince of Antioch, and Tancred were dead, and that there was a great earthquake	none	Prior to mentioning the earthquake, Accolti mentions a comet which could date to 1109 or 1110 CE (see Comet Catalogues below and/or Kronk, 1999 v.1:193-195), the capture of Tripoli (Tripolim) in 1109 CE, the capture of Beirut (Barutim) in 1110 CE, the capture of Sidon (Saietem) in 1111 CE, the death of Prince Bohemond (Boamundum) in 1111 CE, and the death of Prince Tancred (Tancredum) in 1112 CE (except for the comet, dates comes from Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005) Kronk (1999 v.1:193-196) reports comets in 1109, 1110, 1113, and 1114 CE. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) discussion about the chronological inconsistencies in this account follows: The report of the earthquake provided by Accolti (1415-1464), a historian and jurist from Arezzo, is also confused. He mentions the earthquake briefly in his Historia Gotefridi, together with other historical and natural events which occurred in various different years. Thus he firstly records a passing comet and what may have been aurora borealis (in May 1114, a comet with a long tail was indeed visible in Europe for a number of nights); then he mentions the capture of Tripoli (1109), Beirut (1110) and Sidon (1111) by king Baldwin of Jerusalem (1110-1118), and finally the death of princes Bohemond (1111) and Tancred (1112) For reasons unknown, Ambraseys (2009) seems to indicate that the Latin phrase "Eodem anno" (in the same year), which immediately precedes the report of the deaths of Princes Bohemond in 1111 CE, Tancred in 1112 CE, and the Syrian earthquake, refers to to the year 1114. I could not find earlier references in the text indicating that this section of Accolti's account was in a specific year and the entire passage is riddled with chronological inconsistencies. I suspect Ambraseys (2009) based his year on the testimony of other authors.

Comet

Comet Catalogues

Kronk (1999)

1109 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193)

Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Historia Novorum in Anglia (1177), p. 226
Chronicle of Melrose (1275), p. 142
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 389-90
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575.

1110 CE - C/1110 K1

from Kronk (1999 v.1:193-195)

T 1110 May 18 (UT)
ω 358
Ω (2000.0) 321
i 137
q 0.83
e 1.0

ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE: H_m=5.0 (Kronk)
FULL MOON: May 5, June 4, July 3

SOURCES:

Chronica (1111), p. 372
Chronicon ex Chronica (1118), p. 219
Annales Leodienses (1121), p. 29
Annales Beneventani (1130), p. 183
Annales Formoselenses (1136), p. 36
Annales Corbeienses (1148), p. 7
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 242
Chronicle of Henry of Huntington (1154), p. 244
Chronicon (1178), pp. 204-5
Mir'at al-zainan fi tarikh al- a'yan (1186), VIII, p. 32
Chronicle of Holyrood (1189), p. 114
Chronica (1201), p. 167
Chronicon S. Sergii Andegavensis (1215), p. 143
al-Kama fi al-ta'rikh (1233), X, p. 478
Annales Colonienses Maxinti (1238), p. 748
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, p. 138
Annales Monasterii de Win-tonia (1277), p. 43
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 214
Wen hsien Cling k'ao (1308), p. 187
Annales Eginundani (1315), p. 449
Annales Parchenses (1316), p. 604
Sung shih (1345), p. 187
Chronicae S. Albini Andegavensis (1357), p. 31
Chronicon Sancti Maxen-tii Pictavensis (14th century), p. 424
Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia (1433), p. 431
Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
Hsii Thung Chien Kang Mu (1476), p. 187
Dainihonshi (1715), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 390, 627
J. Williams (1871), pp. 60-1
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Early Sources of Scottish History: A.D. 500-1286, Volume 2, edited and translated by Alan Orr Anderson, London: Oliver and Boyd (1922), p. 142
Nihon Temmon Shiryo (1935), p. 505
EHD2 (1953), p. 181
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
R. R. Newton (1972), pp. 671, 673, 676, 680
I. Hasegawa (1979), pp. 260-1, 263-4.

1113 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:195)

Koryo-sa (1451), p. 187
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 575
Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 187
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93

1114 CE

from Kronk (1999 v.1:196)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1154), p. 244
Historia Auglorum (1154), p. 239
Annales de Margan (1232), p. 10
Chronica Majora (1247), part 2, pp. 140-1
Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (1291), p. 215
Annales Monasterii de Bernitindeseia (1433), p. 432
A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 391
G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 576
EHD2 (1953), p. 183
I. Hasegawa (1980), pp. 78, 93.

Seismic Effects

a terrible earthquake reduced many towns throughout Syria to ruins

Locations

Syria

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Liber Pontificalis

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Here are the prodigies which occurred at that time: an earthquake destroyed all the town walls and houses at Mamistra; and most of the inhabitants were caught up in the disaster. One knight, for example, who was trying to flee to Antioch, was swallowed up by the earth together with his horse when a fissure suddenly appeared, so that he was buried alive.

And on that same occasion, an ox was caught in another crack in the earth, and while its body disappeared into the abyss, its horns remained attached to the surface
(Liber Pontific., p.301)

English from Duchesne (1892)

from Duchesne (1892:301)
Footnotes not included. They refer to manuscript variations. See embedded text for footnotes
Machine translated (Google)

161 PASCHA II (1099-1118)

PASCHALIS, who was formerly also called Ranierius, a native of the province of Flamrain, in the country of Bled, from his father Crescentius, son of Alfatia, sat for 18 years, 5 days

... The wonders (prodigies) of these times. At Mamistra an earthquake overthrew all the walls and houses; A greater part of the people is involved in the fall than when a soldier tries to flee hurrying to Antioch, he was suddenly swallowed up by a gap in the earth with his horse, and was buried before he died. In the same place, the ox was intercepted by another gap in the earth, while the lower part of the body flowed, and the upper part of the horn was stuck. Rome, Lateran, in the Basilica of the Savior, the lightning struck the sacred tower, the partern of the summit and the bronze cock of Versailles he also threw down the bells, and by shaking the corner of the same basilica completely collapsed the tomb of the pope that was below. I will eat of St. Paul from Iribunal, a fire touched from heaven, so that the lead of the roof was blown and the pipes burned visibly; surely the whole would burn, unless the water and the water of the apostles confluenles the people of the city; show the evidence of the beam. Beneventi's two-headed calf was born without feet. At Rome, in the portico of Galla, I also saw that prodigy, the Glorious Name and that the young man Bonumfilius, a most daring young man, who was then carrying a sword and a spear, took him with his right arm, and took him up. "Are you," said he, "that wicked man who killed my husband?" Those who wanted revenge on their mother: "Why, she said, did he kill my husband?" Thus he remained gloriously glorious as a punishment.

In the 17th year of the pontificate of P. Pope II, in the tenth year of peace, in the first month, on the 31st day of the month, the day of the passing of the Lord, wrath went up from the earth out of the hand of his cup. ...

Latin from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

Huius temporibus prodigia. Apud Mamistram terremotus muros omnes domosque subvertit; maiorem hominum partem ruina involvit, quam dum miles quidam fugere nititur ad Antiochiam properans, subito hiatu terrae cum equo absorptus, prius est sepultus quam mortuus.

Ibidem, alio hiatu terrae bos interceptus, dum corpore inferius fluxit cornibus superius hesit.
(Liber Pontific., p.301)

Latin from Duchesne (1892)

from Duchesne (1892:301)
Footnotes not included. They refer to manuscript variations. See embedded text for footnotes

CLXI. PASCHAUS II (1099-1118)

PASCHALIS, qui et Ranierius antea vocabatur, natione Flamraineae provintiae, Blede patrie, ex pâtre Crescentio, roatre Alfatia, sedit annos XVIII menses V dies

... Huius temporibus prodigia. Apud Mamistram terremotus muros omnes domosque subvertit; maiorem hominum partem ruina involvit, quam dum miles quidam fugere nititur ad Antiochiam properans, subito hiatu terrae cum equo absorptus, prius est sepultus quam mortuus. Ibidem, alio hiatu terrae bos interceptus, dum corpore inferius fluxit cornibus superius hesit. Rome, Lateranis, in basilica Salvatoris, fulmen turrim sacram percussit, partern culminis et gallum aeneum vento versalilem campanasque deiecit, et quassato angulo eiusdem basilicae sepulchrum papae quod erat inferius omnino deslruxit. Edem sancti Pauli ex Iribunali igné de caelo tactara, ut et tecti plumbum conflaretur et tvabes visibililer ardèrent; profecto arderet tota, nisi aqua et auiilio aposlolorum confluenles populi Urbis obslarenl; monstrant indicia trabes. Beneventi bicipitem vitulum sine pedibus natum. Rome, ïn porticu Gallae, vidi id quoque prodigium, Gloriosam nomme et virlule Bonumfîlium, iuvenem audacissimum, gladium tune ferentem et hastam, armo dexlro cepisse, suscipiensque eum: "Tune es, ait, ille nequam qui virum meum interfecisti?"" Et abstracto cultello de supparo, quem tenuit evisceravit. Volentibus su mère vindictam: "Ut quid, illa inquit, virum meum interfecit?" Sic pro pena gloriose Gloriosa mansit.

Anno XVII ponticatus domni P. papae II, anno pacis decimo, mense primo, XXXI die mensis, die transitus Domini, ira de manu calicis eius de terra ascendit. ...

Latin from Duchesne (1892) - embedded

See 4th paragraph down on Page 301 starting with Huius temporibus prodigia
from Duchesne (1892:301)
from archive.org

Chronology


Date	Reference	Corrections	Notes
13 Aug. 1114 to 12 Aug. 1115 CE	16th year of Pope Pashal II	none	The sentence immediately after the paragraph describing the earthquakes(s) refers to the 17th year of Pope Pashal II which suggests that the earthquake(s) struck during the 16th year of the reign of Pope Pashal II. According to wikipedia, Paschal II ruled from 13 August 1099 until 21 January 1118 CE. If these regnal dates are correct, The 16th year of Pope Pashal II would have spanned from 13 Aug. 1114 to 12 Aug. 1115 CE (Calculated using CHRONOS). Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) attribute the damage in Mamistra to an earthquake on 13 November 1114 CE, which fits into the 16th year of Pope Pashal II, however they take the story of the Knight fleeing to Antioch as a report of a fissure in Antioch which they say amalgamates in an earthquake which they date to 29 November 1115 CE and Ambraseys (2009) dates to 29 November 1114 CE. It must be pointed out, however, that the Knight was reported to be *fleeing* to Antioch. It does not say he was in Antioch. The location where the Knight got swallowed up by the earth is unspecified and may be somewhere between Mamistra and Antioch. Guidoboni and Comastri (2005) state that The Liber Pontificalis similarly attributes some of the damage caused by the earthquake of 13 November 1114 to that of 1115. For while the complete collapse of Mamistra did indeed occur on 29 November 1115, the surface faulting at Antioch was in fact caused by the previous earthquake .

Seismic Effects

an earthquake destroyed all the town walls and houses at Mamistra; and most of the inhabitants were caught up in the disaster
One knight, for example, who was trying to flee to Antioch, was swallowed up by the earth together with his horse when a fissure suddenly appeared, so that he was buried alive
on that same occasion, an ox was caught in another crack in the earth, and while its body disappeared into the abyss, its horns remained attached to the surface

Locations

Mamistra
an unknown distance from Antioch (incident occurred to a Knight fleeing to Antioch, not necessarily in Antioch)

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Rasa’il, MS Dar al-Kutub, at Cairo, f. 11

Excerpts

English from Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Al-Wahrani was a comrade of Nur ad-Din. He made full use of his talent for satire and another judge took his place. The matter was that of the qadi Mahmud ibn Yahla ibn Aflah al-Lakhami: It is because of his bad character that God sent the eclipse and terrorised us with the earthquake which obliged us to flee our homes. (Rasa’il, MS Dar al-Kutub, at Cairo, f. 11)

Chronology


Year	Reference	Corrections	Notes
?	God sent the eclipse and terrorised us with the earthquake	none	NASA has a partial solar eclipse on 13 May 1113 CE, a penumbral solar eclipse on 6 November 1113 CE, and a total solar eclipse on 23 May 1114 CE imcee has a total solar eclipse on 26 March 1113 CE and an annular solar eclipse on 18 September 1113 CE. These dates are Gregorian and convert to Julian dates of 6 May 1113 CE and 30 Oct. 1113 CE (calculated using CHRONOS) imcee has a one partial solar eclipse on 9 Aug. 1114 that was visible in the Levant. This date is Gregorian and convert to a Julian date of 2 August 1114 CE (calculated using CHRONOS)

Seismic Effects

God sent the eclipse and terrorised us with the earthquake which obliged us to flee our homes

Locations

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Gesta Dei per Francos by Jacques de Bongars

Background and Biography

Excerpts

English from Bongars (1611)

Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane is included in Bongar's (1611) compilation. Pages 610-611 contain reports of earthquakes reported between 1113 and 1115 CE
from Bongars (1611:610-611)
Machine translated (Google)

A.D. 1113 ... The sea is more turbulent than usual; and denying the ability to fish in the seas: the earth is shaken twice, a horrible earthquake; and the overthrow of the building(s), he threatens mortals with fear of dying. ...

A.D. 1114 before an infinite number of locusts swarmed from parts of Arabia, the territory of the Jerusalemites, was violently devastated for several days: in the month of April and May and following a horrible earthquake concussed; Some parts of the city of Mamistria were overthrown; in the country where Antioch had a great number of towns, some in the middle, some in the whole; They call it the sea, the people of the whole world are overwhelmed by the sudden collapse of the buildings, alas for grief! terribly & miserably extinguished: in the Euphrates also the town, which they call Trihalec, is thoroughly euerlum (overthrown ?).

A.D. 1115 ... In the same year, an earthquake overthrew Mamistria, a city once illustrious by fate; and most other places in the territory of Antioch, shaking with horror. ...

Latin from Bongars (1611)

Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane is included in Bongar's (1611) compilation. Pages 610-611 contain reports of earthquakes reported between 1113 and 1115 CE
from Bongars (1611:610-611)

M.C.XIII ... Turbatur & mare plus solito; & vel piscandi maritimis denegat facultate: concutitur & terra bis, tcrraemotu horrifono; & aedificiorue euersionem, arescentibus prae timore minatur mortalibus....

M.C.XIV prius locustarum multitudine infinita ex Arabiae partibus convolante, territorium Hierosolimitanum, per dies aliquot vehementer vastatum est: mense Aprili vel Maio & sequenti terramotu horribiliter cocusliuum; Mamistria urbis pars nonnulla subversa; in regione quoq; Antiochia plurima oppida, quaedam media, quaedam ex integro, folotenus cum parte plebis fubruta: itemque in urbe quam Mariscum nuncupant , populus vniuersus repentinis aedificiorum ruinis praefocatus, heu pro dolor! terribiliter & miserabiliter extinctus: in Eufrarefia etiam opidu, quod Trihalec nuncupant, funditus euerlum.

M.C.XV ... Eodem anno & Mamistriam terraemotu subvertens, urbem olim fatis illustrem; & pleraque alia in territorio Antiocheno loca, horrore fimili concutiens. ...

Latin from Bongars (1611) - embedded

Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane is included in Bongar's (1611) compilation. Pages 610-611 contain reports of earthquakes reported between 1113 and 1115 CE
from Bongars (1611:610-611)
from archive.org

Sources

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Other Authors

Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Ajami Kunuz. 19a/12
Bustan or the Garden of History,508(RHC)(1196/7)
Rey (1896,343;1901,123)
Enlart (1925, 21, 39, 137, 138, 141, 208)
Cahen (1940, 271)

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

1114 November 13 Maresia [southern Turkey]

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

sources 2

Sam. An., Comp., p.122
Vard. Ar., Hist., p.67
Vine. Beauv., Spec. hist. p.1063a
Sicard, Cron., co1.591
Milioli, Liber, p.634
Sanudo, Vitae, co1.484

historiography

Rohricht (1898)
Kostaneanc` (1902)
Segal (1970)
Ducellier (1980)
Yeomans (1991)

literature

Abich (1882)
Taher (1979)

catalogues d.

von Hoff (1840)
Perrey (1850)
Mallet (1853)
Sieberg (1932a)
Grumel (1958)
Step`anyan (1964)
Zeyt'unyan (1991)

catalogues p.

Ergin et al. (1967)
Poirier and Taher (1980)
al-Hakeem (1988)

1115 November 29 Mamistra [southern Turkey]

from Guidoboni and Comastri (2005)

sources 2

Milioli, Liber, p.634

literature

Ambraseys and Jackson (1998)

catalogues

Bonito (1691)
von Hoff (1840)
Perrey (1850)
Mallet (1853)
Grumel (1958)
Amiran et al. (1994)

Historiography

Excerpts

A History Of The Crusades, Vol. 1 by Baldwin and Setton (1969)

XII - THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATIN STATES, 1099-1118

from Fink in Baldwin and Setton (1969:372-409)

1098 - 1100 - The First States until the death of King Godfrey of Jerusalem

Antioch was at first clearly the strongest of the Frankish states. It extended northward into Cilicia, eastward to the frontiers of Edessa and Aleppo, and southward a vague distance into the no man's land of central Syria. The population was largely Christian — Jacobite, Nestorian, Armenian, and Greek Orthodox. In fact this area had been nominally Byzantine territory as late as 1085. The city of Antioch still retained some of its ancient commercial importance. It was also powerfully fortified. A major source of the new state's strength lay in its ruler, Bohemond, one of the ablest of the crusader princes. Many of the Franks had remained there with him. But Bohemond was also a source of weakness. He was the son of the Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard, who had wrested much of south Italy from the Byzantines. Robert and his son had been bold enough to make, in Albania, a major attack upon the Byzantine empire itself in 1081-1085. Bohemond was like his father ambitious and crafty. Like most of the Latin princes he had sworn an oath at Constantinople in 1097 to return Antioch, when captured, to the emperor Alexius Comnenus. But, as we already know, he had seized possession of Antioch for himself in 1098-1099 after it had been captured.⁵ Very plainly Bohemond had embarked upon the crusade in order to secure a dominion for himself rather than to recover the Holy Sepulcher for the church.

Bohemond's usurpation naturally made Alexius an enemy of the Franks in Antioch. It also prevented Alexius from aiding in the capture of Jerusalem and ruined whatever chance there may have been for a rapprochement of the Latin and Greek churches based upon a common crusade to the Holy Sepulcher, as seems to have been a part of pope Urban's plan in starting the First Crusade. Bohemond's ambition had also offended Raymond of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse, whom Urban had consulted before preaching the crusade in 1095, and who had hoped to be regarded as its secular leader under the papal legate, bishop Adhemar of Le Puy.⁶

Let us now examine Bohemond's problem after he had seized possession of Antioch. He was faced by a hostile Byzantium. Three of his logical maritime outlets, Latakia, Valania, and Maraclea, had been turned over to Byzantine officers by count Raymond of Toulouse when the latter continued with the crusade to Jerusalem in 1099. Byzantium now controlled Bohemond's coastal waters, as well as the island of Cyprus to the west. The emperor Alexius, learning of Bohemond's usurpation of Antioch and violation of the oath made at Constantinople, protested at once, and was rebuffed. Alexius dispatched an army to seize Cilicia and from there to operate against Antioch. It took only Marash, the Cilician Armenians preferring the Franks to the Greeks. But in 1099 a Byzantine fleet occupied the ports of Corycus (Korgos) and Seleucia (Silifke) on the Cilician coast, basing a squadron at Seleucia to harry Bohemond's sea communications⁷ Possession of Cyprus and these ports gave the Byzantines several strategically located naval bases.

During this time Bohemond had begun the siege of the important port of Latakia. Suddenly, late in the summer of 1099, a great Pisan fleet of one hundred and twenty ships arrived. Though sent to take part in the crusade against the Moslems and very probably to get commercial concessions in captured Syrian and Palestinian ports, this fleet, on the way out, had engaged in hostilities against the Byzantines. It had seized Corfu and wintered there, and had fought a punitive Byzantine naval squadron near Rhodes in the spring of 1099.⁸ The dominating personality in this fleet, archbishop Daimbert of Pisa, was accordingly in a receptive frame of mind when Bohemond accused the Greeks in Latakia of being enemies of the crusaders, although Bohemond was more properly an enemy of the Greeks. The upshot was that Daimbert joined Bohemond in the siege of Latakia. At this juncture, in September, there arrived three of the principal chieftains of the First Crusade, Raymond of St. Gilles, Robert, duke of Normandy, and Robert, count of Flanders, leading their troops home from the conquest of Jerusalem. The three princes vigorously protested against this attack upon fellow Christians. This is excellent evidence that they were still strongly motivated by pope Urban's original plans for reconciliation with the Greek church, as well as by their oaths to Alexius. They won over Daimbert and forced Bohemond to desist. Raymond must have had another motive; he must have also desired to embarrass his old rival Bohemond. Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and most of Raymond's Provençal army now returned home, by way of Constantinople, in ships furnished by the Byzantines. Raymond himself wintered at Latakia among the Greeks, and went on to visit Alexius at Constantinople the next year.

Bohemond meanwhile was in an uneasy position. He realized that he did not have the support of the other Latins in his war with the Byzantines. He had violated his oath to Alexius and the intent of Urban's crusade, and had not even fulfilled his vow to go to Jerusalem. But Bohemond was resourceful. He invited Baldwin of Edessa, who likewise had not fulfilled his vow, and archbishop Daimbert to accompany him to Jerusalem to celebrate Christmas at the Holy Sepulcher. As a result the three leaders arrived with a lrge force, principally Bohemond's, at Jerusalem, December 21, 1099.

Now let us examine the situation at Jerusalem when Bohemond, Baldwin, and Daimbert arrived. The dominating influence there was Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lorraine, who now held the title of Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher. Godfrey's greatest immediate problem was the safety of the city and the surrounding area. After the battle of Ascalon, disagreements between Godfrey and the other leaders and his unwillingness to permit any advantage to Raymond of St. Gilles prevented further cooperation. There were two unfortunate consequences. First, Ascalon did not surrender and, indeed, was only captured with great labor a half century later. Second, there followed an almost wholesale exodus of crusaders led, as we have seen, by count Raymond and the two Roberts. The chronicler Albert of Aix writes that about twenty thousand left with them. Of the leaders only Godfrey and Tancred, a nephew of Bohemond, remained. Godfrey begged the departing princes to send him aid when they returned home. Albert reports that Godfrey had about three thousand men that fall (1099). Next spring it was estimated that Godfrey had only two hundred knights and a thousand footmen. William of Tyre writes that men who had originally decided to stay deserted their holdings and went back to Europe.⁹

The little state of Jerusalem was thus left an island in the sea of Islam. It consisted of Godfrey's own domain in southern Palestine and of a semi-independent barony begun by Tancred around Tiberias. Godfrey's domain chiefly comprised the port of Jaffa and the inland towns of Lydda, Ramla, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. At first it consisted of little more than these towns. The peasants of the countryside, largely Arabs, were hostile and given to ambushing the unwary on the highways. The towns were depopulated, short of food, and subject to plundering by the Arabs at night. The nearest possible source of help was Tancred, seventy-five miles to the north, and Tancred's resources were even more insignificant than those of Godfrey. Godfrey had no sea power. Saracen squadrons from Sidon, Tyre, Acre, Caesarea, Ascalon, and Egypt scoured his coast and threatened traffic into Jaffa. What saved the tiny state was al-Aklal's failure to renew a prompt and vigorous offensive.

Godfrey's first step in providing for the defense of the country was to attempt to gain control of the Palestinian seaports. Thus he could make safe the entry of pilgrims and supplies from Europe, could deprive the Saracens of bases for raids by sea and land, and could gain control of the commerce of the hinterland. An attempt to gain the surrender of Ascalon after the battle near there, August 12, was foiled by the rivalry of Raymond, who disliked the selection of Godfrey as Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and who wanted the surrender of Ascalon for himself. Albert of Aix relates that a few days later an attempt to gain Arsuf, forty miles to the north, was spoiled by the obstinacy of Raymond.¹⁰ Godfrey was so infuriated that he wanted to attack St. Gilles, and was only dissuaded by Robert of Flanders. Godfrey tried again to take Arsuf that fall, but failed because of approaching winter and the lack of men and ships. The next spring he succeeded, with the aid of Daimbert's Pisan fleet, in compelling Arsuf to pay tribute. Meanwhile in January he strongly fortified Jaffa with the help of Daimbert's men. This, and the presence of the Pisan fleet, so alarmed the Saracen governors of Ascalon, Caesarea, and Acre that they also agreed to pay tribute. Soon after, the shaikhs of the Transjordan, seeing that the new state might prove to be more than transitory, made treaties with Godfrey. Their merchants gained the right to come to Jerusalem and Jaffa. Likewise the merchants of Ascalon could come to Jerusalem, and those of Jerusalem to Ascalon. This is interesting evidence of how soon commercial activity brought the two sides together. But Godfrey ordered the death penalty for any Moslem who came in by sea. He wanted the Saracens of Palestine and the Transjordan to be economically and politically dependent upon him, and not upon Egypt.

Godfrey set up a feudal system on the western European model to defend Palestine. Albert of Aix writes that on the fourth day after the arrival of Godfrey's brother and successor, Baldwin I, every knight and important man was called in to account for his arms, revenues, and fiefs (beneficia), including his fief in money revenues from the cities. Then the oath of fealty was exacted. The principal fiefs were in land. The greatest territorial vassal was Tancred. This prince, immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, had taken about eighty knights and had begun to carve out a domain in northern Palestine, the future principality of Tiberias. Within a year Tancred controlled Nablus, Tiberias, Baisan, and Haifa. His domain served as a march over against Damascus. In the west Godfrey promised Arsuf as a fief to Robert of Apulia. In the south, according to Albert of Aix, he gave a large fief called St. Abraham, centering around Hebron, to Gerard of Avesnes. This all agrees with the statement in one manuscript of the chronicle of Baldric of Dol that Godfrey's own domain extended north to Nablus, south to St. Abraham, and eastward to the Jordan and Dead Sea. It included the city of Jerusalem and the port of Jaffa. Stevenson has remarked that the countryside lent itself to the establishment of manorial holdings, that the natives, accustomed to foreign masters, lived in small villages whose headmen were easy to coerce.¹¹

Godfrey's position in the realm was therefore seriously challenged when Bohemond of Antioch, Baldwin of Edessa, and archbishop Daimbert of Pisa came to Jerusalem. Bohemond had a considerable army and Daimbert a badly needed fleet at his disposal. Godfrey was very weak by land and sea, and had just given up a heartbreaking siege of Arsuf when these guests arrived.

Daimbert and Bohemond immediately reopened the question of the patriarchate of Jerusalem. Arnulf of Chocques, chaplain of duke Robert of Normandy, had been chosen patriarch on August by the influence of the princes favorable to Godfrey. This was over the objections of those of the clergy who felt that the patriarch should be the ranking official in a state dedicated to the Holy Sepulcher, and that there should be a lay advocate or defender as his assistant. Arnulf was instead willing to be the assistant of the lay advocate, Godfrey. Daimbert and Bohemond now insisted that Arnulf, as yet unconfirmed by the pope, step down and that Daimbert be chosen in his place. Daimbert apparently acted on his own responsibility, for Krey has shown that he does not seem to have been sent out by the pope either as a legate or as a prospective patriarch. Behind Daimbert were two compelling arguments, the Pisan fleet and the military forces of Bohemond. As a result Arnulf was ousted and Daimbert installed. Bohemond and Godfrey became vassals of the new patriarch. As Yewdale has pointed out, Bohemond in doing homage to the patriarch of Jerusalem hoped that he had secured a title to Antioch which would be acceptable to the Latin world.¹² Up to this time he had felt his position compromised by his violation of his oath to restore Antioch to the emperor Alexius. Having secured a title at the price of acquiring an absentee sovereign who would trouble him not at all, Bohemond departed for Antioch after Christmas. Baldwin of Edessa left at the same time. There is no record that he defended Godfrey's position against Bohemond and Daimbert. Probably he was not strong enough to oppose Bohemond. Nor is there any record that he did homage to Daimbert. He had nothing to gain by doing so. Arnulf was given what consolation he could find in the important position of archdeacon of the Holy Sepulcher.

Godfrey was left to deal with his new suzerain. Daimbert was an able and ambitious man. He had dominated the affairs of Pisa as if it were, in the words of Moeller, "a sort of episcopal republic,"¹³ and at a time when Pisa was extending its influence in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and even Valencia. He stood high in the counsels of pope Urban, who had elevated him to the rank of archbishop in 1092, and had used him as a legate in Castile and Sardinia. Daimbert had accompanied Urban to the Council of Clermont in 1095 and on the great speaking tour that followed the next winter and spring. They were both supporters of the Cluniac reform movement in the church, which sought to free the latter from domination by the feudal princes. Such a man, though he seems, as we have noticed, to have been neither papal legate nor patriarch-designate, would play no modest role in Jerusalem. He at once demanded possession of the city of Jerusalem with its citadel, of the Tower of David, and of the port of Jaffa, the essential link with Europe. Godfrey, weak in resources and probably conscious of the need of church support from the west, reluctantly made formal cession of a fourth part of the port of Jaffa, February 2, 1100, and of the city of Jerusalem itself on Easter Sunday, April 1. Title was vested in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, to which as well as to the patriarch the Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher swore homage. But on the latter occasion Godfrey inserted the provision that he would retain physical possession of Jaffa and Jerusalem until such time as he could conquer one or two other cities, Babylon (the Frankish term for Cairo or, more precisely, its suburb Fustat) being suggested according to William of Tyre.¹⁴

We may conclude that Daimbert, confident that he represented official church views but lacking direct papal authority, on his own initiative took the position that the crusade had been an ecclesiastical enterprise, that its conquests were church conquests, and that the patriarch of Jerusalem was the trustee and ruler for the church of the Holy Sepulcher, in which title to Jerusalem was vested. He considered that Bohemond and Godfrey were merely lay vassals and defenders. Bohemond was out of the way in the outer province of Antioch, and Godfrey might be got out of the way elsewhere, in Cairo, for example. Such were the ambitious views of Daimbert. In his letter to the Christians of Germany in April 1100, the patriarch spoke of his difficulties in defending the Holy Land, and did not even mention Godfrey.¹⁵ But Daimbert's whole position, at first so favorable, changed rapidly with the homeward departure of the Pisan fleet after Easter, the death of Godfrey, and the arrival of Godfrey's brother Baldwin of Edessa in the fall of 1100.

Godfrey died July 18, 1100, after falling ill while helping Tancred in the region east of Tiberias. What this famous but little understood man would have accomplished, had he lived, no one can say. He faced appalling difficulties in his one year as advocate, and he faced them with singular courage and pertinacity. His followers, huddling in the ruins of Jerusalem, were few, their communications with the outside world precarious, and their morale at the breaking point. The imperious Daimbert presented a special problem. He had to be humored because he represented both naval strength and prevailing ecclesiastical opinion. But Godfrey had enough of both personal ambition and practical military common sense not to yield actual control of Jerusalem. Tenacious, shrewd, and tactful, rather than the pious zealot of later legend, he managed to avoid a break with the patriarch. He held together the tiny state. His reputation rests upon a solid foundation of achievement.

Footnotes

5 Chapter X, pp. 324, 326-327. It is even held by B. Kugler, Boemund und Tankred (Tubingen, 186z), p. 2, and E. Kiihne, Zur Geschichte des Furstentums Antiochia (Berlin, 597), pp. 2., 11, that Bohemond's seizure of Antioch was evidence of an ambition to found a great military power in the east.

6 Raymond, the most powerful of the crusader princes, apparently felt a special obligation to Urban II, since he had been involved in the initial plans for the crusade. He had also been close to Urban's legate, Adhemar of Le Puy, whose death made it easier for Bohemond to mature his plans for the seizure of Antioch. Raymond undoubtedly felt that if Antioch fell to Bohemond, Alexius' good will would be permanently forfeited and Urban's great plan for a Greek-Latin concord would be ruined beyond repair. Hence Raymond mast have been a prime mover in the resolution of the princes (July 5, 1098) to invite the emperor to come to Antioch and join them. For Urban's plan for the First Crusade see above, chapters VII and VIII.

7 Anna Comnena, Alexiad (ed. Leib, II), pp. 34, 39-41, 45-46

8 The fact that the Pisan fleet wintered in Corfu is among the reasons why A. C. Krey, "Urban's Crusade, Success or Failure?" AHR, LIII (1948), 241, note 21, and his student J. Bohnstedt, to both of whom I am indebted, believe that Daimbert and the Pisan fleet left Italy before the news of the death, August 1, 1098, of the papal legate, bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, could have been brought back to Italy from Syria. Hence Daimbert could not have been sent out from Italy as legate in succession to Adhemar, as has been widely assumed.

9 Albert of Aix (RHC, 0cc., IV), pp. 503, 507, 517; William of Tyre, IX, t9. For discussion of conditions in Jerusalem see J. Prawer, "The Settlement of the Latins in Jerusalem," Speculum, XXVII (1952), 491-495.

10 Albert of Aix, p. 498. For the rivalry of Godfrey and Raymond see J. C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington, 1947), pp. 109-111

11 Albert of Aix, pp. 532, 516; Baldric of Dol (RHO, OCC., IV), p. 111, MS. G.; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge, 1907), p. 37. The best study of the manorial organization of the kingdom is H. G. Preston, Rural Conditions in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Philadelphia, 1903), pp. 5-17. A subsequent volume in this work will contain a chapter on agricultural conditions in the kingdom by Jean Richard. See now also Richard, Le Royaume latin de Jerusalem (Paris, 1953), pp. 80 ff., 113 ff.

12 Krey, "Urban's Crusade," AHR, LIII (1940, 245, n. 32; R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), p. 91.

13 C. Moeller, "Godefroy de Bouillon et l'avouerie du saint-sepulchre," Mélanges Godefroid Kurth (Liege and Paris, 1908), p. 79. See also W. Heywood, History of Pisa (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 12-13.

14 William of Tyre, IX, 16; letter of Daimbert to Bohemond, quoted by William (X, 4). E. Hampel, Untersuchungen uber das lateinische Patriarchat von Jerusalem (Breslau, 1899), p. 25, accepts the naming of Babylon (Cairo). Babcock and Krey, William of Tyre, I, 418, n. 11, are doubtful.

15 Hagenmeyer, Epistulae a chartae, no. XXI, pp. 176-177. Daimbert seems to have desired, without evidence of papal authority, to make Jerusalem an ecclesiastical state ruled by the patriarch. Jerusalem does not seem to have been claimed as a papal fief until 1128, and not afterwards. Cf. M. W. Baldwin, "The Papacy and the Levant during the Twelfth Century," Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, III (1945), 281-283.

1100 - 1102 - Count Baldwin I of Edessa becomes King Baldwin I of Jerusalem and secures his new position

When Godfrey died the patriarch Daimbert had his great opportunity to make Jerusalem a church-state. He should have gone to Jerusalem at once. But suspecting no danger he remained with Tancred, who was undertaking the siege of Haifa, until about July 25.¹⁶ Meanwhile a group of Lotharingian knights, hitherto obscure, seized the Tower of David, the citadel of Jerusalem, and summoned Godfrey's brother, count Baldwin I of Edessa. Their leader was Warner of Gray, a cousin of Baldwin. High in their counsels was archdeacon Arnulf, bitter against Daimbert and from this time on the firm ally of Baldwin. Daimbert, when he realized his peril, sent an appeal to Bohemond of Antioch, his nominal vassal; to stop Baldwin, by force if necessary. The message never reached Bohemond. That redoubtable prince was captured in the middle of August by the Turkish chieftain, Malik-Ghazi ibn Danishmend of Sebastia, in an ambush on the road to Melitene (Malatya).¹⁷ Meanwhile Daimbert remained with Tancred. He promised the latter the fief of Haifa when Tancred became suspicious that Godfrey had promised it to another, Galdemar Carpinel. Daimbert and Tancred, both ambitious men, must each have had hopes of becoming the dominant figure in Jerusalem. Certainly victory would have made them rivals. But for the time they cooperated. Meanwhile Tancred was tied down by the siege of Haifa, where he had the indispensable but temporary help of a Venetian blockading squadron. At the same time the little group of Lorrainers remained in control in Jerusalem.

When Haifa was taken in August Tancred delayed a little, establishing himself there. During the next month he was suddenly called to Latakia by cardinal Maurice of Porto, newly arrived as papal legate. Maurice, and the commanders of the Genoese fleet that had brought him, invited Tancred, about September 25, to assume the regency of Antioch in the emergency created by the capture of Bohemond.¹⁸ But Tancred, rather than trying to seize Antioch, whose authorities after all had not invited him, hurried back to Palestine where he had more pressing business. This time he went to the gates of Jerusalem and demanded entrance. He was refused because he would not swear allegiance to Baldwin. Tancred considered Baldwin a dangerous enemy, for Baldwin had once quarreled with Tancred over possession of Tarsus, in Cilicia, in 1097, and had compelled the latter to yield. Enraged, Tancred now withdrew to Jaffa where he besieged the small Lotharingian garrison. He was so engaged when Baldwin appeared in Palestine. Count Baldwin of Edessa, upon being informed of his brother's death, "grieved a little, but rejoiced more over the prospect of his inheritance," according to Fulcher of Chartres, his chaplain and biographer. He named as his successor in Edessa his kinsman, Baldwin of Le Bourg. He then levied heavily upon Edessa for his expenses, and departed on October 2 with nearly two hundred knights and seven hundred footmen. He went by way of Antioch. Here, according to Albert of Aix, he was offered the regency, but declined.¹⁹ No doubt he felt that Jerusalem would offer him more possibilities of prestige and of material support from Europe than would either Antioch or Edessa. He turned south, and after fighting his way through a dangerous ambush at Dog river near Beirut, reached his new dominion, in the vicinity of Haifa; about October 30.

Baldwin, who had the qualities of statesmanship, arrived determined to conciliate Tancred if possible. He did not try to enter Haifa, wishing to avoid trouble with Tancred, whose garrison held the place. Tancred, hearing of Baldwin's approach, dropped the siege of Jaffa, fifty-four miles to the south, and hastened by a circuitous route to the security of his own domains around Tiberias. Baldwin reached Jerusalem about November 9, and was welcomed by his Lotharingian friends. Patriarch Daimbert, who had come back to the city late in August, too late to take advantage of Godfrey's death, remained in seclusion. Baldwin did not bother him. Instead, as we have seen, he called in Godfrey's vassals to an accounting on the fourth day, and received from them an oath of loyalty. Then on November 15, before the week was out, feeling it necessary to overawe the Arabs of the south and east who might be tempted to harass the tiny state, he took one hundred and fifty knights and five hundred footmen and departed on a campaign to the south. He first made a demonstration before Ascalon and then, boldly marching east into the region of the Dead Sea, terrorized the natives of that area. He returned to Jerusalem on December 21. Baldwin then constrained patriarch Daimbert, who had had time for reflection, to crown him king four days later, December 25, 1100. But Daimbert succeeded in salvaging some of his prestige. He crowned Baldwin in Bethlehem, not in the capital, Jerusalem. This was because Baldwin was to be regarded not as king of Jerusalem but of something else, as king of Asia, or king of Babylon (Cairo) and Asia, for example. Daimbert clung to his technical position as suzerain-lord of Jerusalem. As Kuhn says, Daimbert regarded Baldwin as a resident of the patriarch's domain, and expected him like Godfrey to go out and conquer one of his own.²⁰

All during the winter of 1100-1101 Tancred remained sullenly aloof in his fief around Tiberias. He did not intend to recognize Baldwin. The latter gently but persistently sought to bring Tancred to terms. Twice Baldwin sent Tancred a formal summons to his court, but was ignored. The third time Tancred, who had sworn no oath to Baldwin, agreed to meet the latter on opposite banks of an-Nahr al-'Auja', a little stream between Jaffa and Arsuf. At this meeting, February 22, nothing was decided except that Baldwin and Tancred were to meet again in fifteen days. By then, early in March, Tancred had been offered the regency of Antioch by a delegation from that city. Antioch needed a strong leader during the captivity of Bohemond in the hands of Malik-Ghazi. The Franks of Antioch were unable to get any help from Bohemond's princeps militiae, Baldwin of Le Bourg. The latter, now count of Edessa, was himself then obtaining help from Antioch following a defeat by Sokman ihn-Artuk of Mardin at Saruj early in 1101. Tancred decided to accept the offer. He agreed with king Baldwin on March 8 to give up his fiefs in northern Palestine, with the right of resuming them in fifteen months. This was obviously based upon the calculation that Bohemond might be ransomed within that time. The next day Tancred left for Antioch with all his knights and about five hundred footmen. He never came back to recover these lands.

Baldwin, having settled with Tancred, now turned upon his other rival, the patriarch Daimbert. By this time, in the spring of 1101, Baldwin had captured two cities, Arsuf and Caesarea, putting Daimbert in a logical position to demand that Baldwin vacate the patriarch's domain, the area of Jerusalem and Jaffa. Baldwin forestalled this by a vicious attack upon Daimbert, accusing the latter of attempting a conspiracy with Bohemond against his life, and of high living while the state needed money for defense. Baldwin, aided by archdeacon Arnulf, made Daimbert's life so miserable that the latter retired to Jaffa in the fall of that year, and to the protection of Tancred at Antioch the next spring.

But Daimbert clung tenaciously to the plan of making Jerusalem a church-state. He returned in the fall of 1102 with Tancred and Baldwin II of Edessa who brought military support to Baldwin of Jerusalem following a defeat of the latter by the Egyptians earlier in that year. As a result Daimbert was briefly restored to his office. Possibly, as Hansen says, they felt that the quarrel at Jerusalem would impair the necessary good relations with the church in the west. Tancred, as far as he was concerned, had private reasons for resentment against king Baldwin. But Daimbert's restoration was subject, at Baldwin's insistence, to an immediate inquiry by a local synod. This court, presided over by cardinal Robert of Paris, a new papal legate, and packed by the king's friends, promptly decreed Daimbert's removal, October 8, 1102. It thereupon elected Evremar of Chocques, a fellow townsman of Arnulf, and Tancred had to accept this situation.²¹

Daimbert returned to Antioch with Tancred, and in 1104 to Italy with Bohemond. In 1107 he was declared the official holder of the patriarchal office by pope Paschal II, but he died that year at Messina on the way back. There is no evidence that Paschal restored or indeed had ever recognized Daimbert as feudal suzerain of the Holy Land. Hansen, indicating that Paschal was heavily involved with the emperor Henry V in the celebrated contest over the lay investiture of bishops, believes that the pope told Daimbert to return and arrange a modus vivendi with Baldwin. La Monte, speaking of subsequent papal policy, goes so far as to suggest that the papacy accepted the situation at Jerusalem, not wishing to exalt a potential rival in the strategic patriarchate of Jerusalem. Certainly after Daimbert's death the papacy allowed king Baldwin a free hand with the patriarchate. It permitted Evremar to be locally deposed in 1108, a victim of Arnulf's intrigues. It thereafter recognized the patriarchs of Jerusalem who were Baldwin's nominees — Gibelin of Arles (1108-1112) and Arnulf himself (1112-1118). With Daimbert's eviction in 1102 died any chance to make Jerusalem a church-state ruled by the patriarch as suzerain-lord and defended by a lay advocate. Feudal monarchy had won. Yet there was deference for ecclesiastical feeling for a long time. Baldwin usually used some oblique formula such as "Ego Balduinus, regnum Ierosolimitanorum dispositione Dei optinens" in his official documents, as in 1114, rather than the "Dei gratia Latinorum rex" of his successors.²²

Footnotes

16 For an excellent discussion of Daimbert's position upon arrival see J. Hansen, Das Problem eines Kircbenstaates in Jerusalem (Luxemburg, 5928), pp. 29—77.

17 See above, chapter V, p. 164.

18 Caffaro, Liberatio cioitatum orientis (RHC,Occ.,V),p.59, and Annales Ianuenses (MOH, SS., XVIII), pp. 11-12

19 Fulcher of Chartres (ed. Hagetimeyer), pp. 352-354; Albert of Aix, p. 527. Albert states that Edessa was granted as a beneficium fief) to Le Bourg. Cf. R. Rohricht, Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem, p. 10, and J. L. LaMonte, Feudal Monarchy irithe Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 190.

20 F. Kuhn, Geschichte der ersten lateinischen Patriarchen von Jerusalem (Leipzig, 1886), pp. 33-34. See also Hampel, Untersuchungen uber das lateinische Patriarchat, p. 33, n. 3, and Munro, Kingdom of the Crusaders, pp. 74-75

21 See Hansen, Das Problem eines Kirchenstaates:, pp. 102—108. Albert of Aix, pp. 538-541, 545-542, 598-600, gives a long account of Baldwin's persecution of Daimbert. The sources do not indicate what attitude Robert took regarding Daimbert. Hansen suggests that Robert was won over to Baldwin's view of the need for a strong secular government, but says that opinion must be reserved for lack of evidence (p. 106, note 1). For the rule of Tancred see R. L. Nicholson, Tancred (Chicago, 1940), pp. 132-134.

22 Hansen, op. cit., pp. 108-111 ; La Monte, Feudal Monarchy, p. 205. For Baldwin's royal formula see E. de Ruzicre, Cartulaire de l'eglise du saint-sepulchre (Paris, 5849), nos. 10—12, 25, 29, 36, 42, 122; R. Rohricht, Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (Innsbruck, 1893), pp. 5^ff.; Kuhn, Geschichte des ersten latienischen Patriarchen, pp. 33-34.

1100 - 1112 - King Baldwin I expands and secures Crusader holdings

While Baldwin was contending with Tancred and Daimbert for the domination of the Holy Land, he was facing a precarious military situation. This was especially true during his first winter, 1100-1101, until the arrival of a Genoese squadron at Jaffa in April relieved the situation. Baldwin's chaplain, Fulcher of Chartres, says that in the beginning the king had scarcely three hundred knights and as many footmen to garrison Jerusalem, Ramla, Jaffa, and Haifa. There were so few men that they dared not lay ambushes for enemy marauders. The contemporary writer of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium reports that Baldwin's power extended scarcely twelve miles from the capital city. Land communication with Antioch was through hostile territory. Sea communication was also precarious. Fulcher also states that the Saracen corsairs were so numerous that pilgrim ships could only slip into Jaffa, the port of Jerusalem, by ones, twos, threes, or fours. He adds that while a few of the new arrivals would stay in the Holy Land the others would return home, and that for that reason the kingdom was always weak in manpower. A typical instance of this occurred in the spring of 1102, and was described in the preceding chapter. A number of the knights of the Crusade of 1101 joined the king against an Egyptian attack at Ramla. Many were killed in the ensuing disaster and almost all the survivors returned to Europe. Thus the hope of permanent reinforcements offered by the Crusade of 1101 proved vain.²³

One of Baldwin's most pressing problems, therefore, was the organization of a military system. His first step was to swear in Godfrey's vassals, holders of fiefs in money and in land. An indication of the nature of the first is given by Albert of Aix who states that Gerard, a knight of the king's household, held a part of the revenues of Jaffa for his services. The great land fiefs were: Tiberias, given to Hugh of Falkenberg when Tancred left for Antioch in 1101; Haifa, given to Galdemar Carpinel at the same time; St. Abraham, given to Hugh of Robecque; and Caesarea and Sidon, given after capture to Eustace Gamier. There is no record that Baldwin granted out Montreal (ash-Shaubak) as a fief when it was established in 1115. In general he held more of the land in his own domain than did the later kings of Jerusalem.

King Baldwin had other resources. He had paid garrisons in Jerusalem and Jaffa, his capital and chief port. To pay these men he demanded a share of the patriarch's Easter pilgrim receipts in 1101. Albert of Aix relates that in 1108 two hundred knights and five hundred footmen of the garrison of Jerusalem captured a large caravan beyond the Jordan to provide money for their pay. The annual influx of pilgrims provided a welcome though temporary source of manpower. La Monte sees in Baldwin's appeal to patriarch Evremar in 1102 a request for sergeanty service. He adds that on unusual occasions, such as the determined attack upon Acre in 1104, Baldwin called for a levy en masse (arriere-ban) from the kingdom. There is no record that Baldwin used Moslem troops in his own service although Albert of Aix writes that queen Adelaide brought some over from Sicily in 1113. Baldwin never had a navy. He had to depend upon naval agreements with squadrons from Europe, usually Genoese, Pisan, or Venetian, in return for commercial concessions.²⁴ The famed military orders of the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar came after his time. On occasion, we shall find, Baldwin campaigned in alliance with Moslems.

The king's greatest problem, after consolidating his power at home, was to conquer the seaports along his coast. He started with two, Jaffa and Haifa. Ascalon, Arsuf, Caesarea, Acre, Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut were all in the hands of Saracen emirs dependent upon al-Aklal, vizir of Egypt, for support. In Saracen hands these cities could serve as bases for hostile operations on sea or land, and choke both communications with Europe and the export trade of the hinterland. Therefore it was vital for Baldwin to capture these ports. Godfrey had tried to make a start, as we have seen, but failed, partly owing to the rivalry with count Raymond and partly owing to lack of sea power.

Arsuf and Caesarea were the first to fall to Baldwin. He took them in the spring of 1101 with the help of a Genoese fleet. By agreement he gave the Genoese a third of the spoils, and perpetual rights to a street (as a market place) in each town. Acre was besieged in 1103, but not taken until 1104 when Baldwin had the aid of another Genoese fleet.

The offensive against the coast towns was halted during the years 1105-1108. In 1104 Shams-al-Muluk Dukak, ruler of Damascus, died. Zahir-ad-Din Tughtigin, a very able man who as atabeg (regent or tutor) for Dukak had been the power behind the scenes, now assumed full control as atabeg for Dukak's infant son Tutush. King Baldwin interfered by sheltering a disappointed heir, Ertash (Bektash). As a result the government of Damascus, hitherto unfriendly to the Fatimid regime in Cairo, now became a partner in opposition to Baldwin. The effect of this new alignment was soon apparent. Al-Afdal, vizir in Cairo, made a last serious effort to overthrow the Latin state of Jerusalem in 1105. He gathered a large army, to which Tughtigin contributed thirteen hundred cavalry, and sent it to the plain of Ramla. Here Baldwin met and defeated it, August 27, but otherwise only held his own in that year. During the next three years pressure by Tughtigin in the north and al-Aftjal in the south prevented Baldwin from making any conquests, although he attacked Sidon in 1106 and 1108 when he had the necessary help of fleets from the west. Soon after the latter event Baldwin and Tughtigin made a truce that lasted four years. Apparently it applied strictly to their own territories, for they fought elsewhere, around Tripoli in 1109 and Edessa in 1100.²⁵

King Baldwin played a leading role in the capture of Tripoli in 1109. But since Tripoli became the capital of one of the four Latin states in the east, this event will be discussed later. Baldwin continued his offensive. He took Beirut in May 1110, with the help of a Genoese squadron. He secured Sidon at last, in December of that year, with the aid of a fleet of Norwegian crusaders and adventurers under the youthful king Sigurd (1103-1130), "Jorsalfar" or Jerusalem-farer, son of Magnus Barefoot.²⁶ This force had been four years in preparation and three years en route, wintering in England, Spain, and Sicily, fighting Moors and being entertained by friends as it went along. King Baldwin made an attempt to obtain Ascalon by conspiracy in 1111. He plotted with Shams-al-Khilafah, a governor traitorous to al-Afdal of Cairo, and even succeeded in introducing three hundred men into the city as guards for Shams-al-Khilafah. But at that juncture Baldwin was called north to help Tancred against the Selchukids of Iraq, and when he returned found that his confederate had been overthrown and his men killed. It would have been a very great advantage to the state of Jerusalem if this intrigue had succeeded for Ascalon remained an Egyptian advanced base until it fell in 1153. King Baldwin I made a most determined effort to take Tyre by siege in the winter of 1111-1112. But a skillful and bitter defense, aided by operations by Tughtigin of Damascus in the rear, forced Baldwin to desist in April 1112. Tyre was not to be taken until 1124, by Baldwin II.

By 1112 the efforts of Baldwin I to reduce the coast towns were over. He had all but Ascalon and Tyre, and although they were important he could get along without them. In the remaining years of his life he was busy in the larger cause of the defense and unity of all the Frankish states, and later in extending his own domains in the south.

Footnotes

23 Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 387-394; Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantuium (RHC, Occ., III), p. 523. The latter chronicle, probably anonymous, has been ascribed to Bartolf of Nangis, otherwise unknown. On the Crusade of 1101 see above, chapter XI.

24 Albert of Aix, pp. 636, 653, 697; LaMonte, Feudal Monarchy. pp. 138-165, especially p. 159. For commercial concessions to Italian cities consult W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce au moyen age (tr. F. Raynaud, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1885-1886), E. H. Byrne, "The Genoese Colonies in Syria," Munro Essays (New York, 1928), pp. 139-148; and LaMonte, op. cit., pp. 261-275. Baldwin tended to favor the Genoese over the Pisans, compatriots of Daimbert.

25 For Turkish and Egyptian policies at this time see above chapter III, p. 988, and chapter V, pp. 172-173.

26 See Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla: Norges Kongesagaer (eds. J. V. Jensen and H. Kyrre, 3 vols., Copenhagen, l948), III, 184-185; English tr. Erling Monsen and A. H. Smith (New York, 1932), p. 612.

1099 - 1112 - History of the Northern Crusader States until Tripoli is taken in 1109

Let us now examine the history of the Latin states in the north, starting with Antioch. We have observed that this principality was founded by Bohemond early in 1099, and that it came into the hands of Tancred as regent in March 1101, after Bohemond's capture by Malik-Ghazi of Sebastia the summer before. Tancred's first act was to expel the partisans of Baldwin of Le Bourg, Bohemond's princeps militiae. Le Bourg, kinsman of Baldwin of Jerusalem, had been the latter's successor as count of Edessa since October 1100. Tancred thus made himself more secure in Antioch but he embittered relations with a powerful neighbor whom he should have had as a friend and ally. Nevertheless, he did have a friend and ally in the new Latin patriarch, Bernard of Valence, whom Bohemond had appointed to replace the Greek, John the Oxite.

Tancred immediately began to extend his power. First, by the end of 1101 he recovered the Cilician cities of Mamistra (Misis), Adana, and Tarsus which he had helped to conquer for Bohemond in 1097 and which the latter had let slip to the Byzantines. Second, he took Latakia from the Greeks in the spring of 1103, after a siege of a year and a half. Third, he intervened in the affairs of Baldwin of Jerusalem. As a result of a disastrous defeat administered to king Baldwin near Ramla by the Egyptians in the spring of 1102 Tancred and Baldwin of Le Bourg appeared in the southern realm with large supporting forces in September. Tancred used this occasion to insist upon the restoration of patriarch Daimbert, but with only momentary success, as we have seen.

One project which the regent Tancred did not push was the ransoming of his uncle, Bohemond. Albert of Aix relates that Bohemond was released from Turkish captivity in the following way. Tancred's pressure upon the Byzantines led the emperor Alexius to desire Bohemond as a hostage and to make a bid for his possession. This led to jealousies between Bohemond's captor, Malik Ghazi, and Kilij Arslan, sultan of Iconium. The wily Bohemond offered Malik-Ghaii favorable terms, including an alliance against Kilij Arslan and Alexius in return for freedom. Bohemond's friends then raised the necessary funds for his ransom. They included the Latin patriarch, Bernard of Antioch, the Armenian lord, Kogh Vasil of Kesoun, and Baldwin of Le Bourg of Edessa, Tancred's rival. Tancred contributed nothing although he did not hinder collections. Bohemond, freed, promptly went to Antioch and assumed complete authority, in May 1103. Radulf of Caen says that Bohemond left Tancred with scarcely two small towns (oppidula).²⁷ It was a bitter humiliation for the proud and ambitious young Norman.

Bohemond was in an excellent position after his release. His territory had been strengthened by Tancred's conquests of the valuable port of Latakia and of the Cilician cities. Baldwin of Edessa and the Armenian Kogh Vasil were his friends. Bohemond had embroiled his enemies, the emperor Alexius and Kilij Arslan, with Malik-Ghazi. In Iraq the Sekchukid Turks were weak at the center of their power. Berkyaruk and Muhammad, sons of the late great sultan Malik-Shah (d. 1092), were still quarreling over their vast inheritance. Bohemond's immediate neighbor Ridvan, lord of Aleppo, was jealous of his independence and suspicious of the Selchukids of Iraq. Ridvan cared nothing for Moslem solidarity, but instead had a leaning toward the Assassins.²⁸

Ridvan's peculiar attitude did not prevent the Franks from seriously threatening him. Successes by Bohemond and Baldwin of Le Bourg in 1103 apparently alarmed Ridvan's nominal overlord, the Selchukid sultan Muhammad. In January 1104, the latter had been allotted Syria and northern Iraq as a share in a division of his paternal inheritance. Certainly two powerful Mesopotamian emirs, Shams-ad-Daulah Chokurmish of Mosul and Sokman ibn-Artuk of Mardin, were moved to act. They composed their differences, gathered a large force, and advanced upon Edessa in the spring of 1104. Baldwin of Le Bourg called for help. Bohemond, accompanied by Tancred, united with Le Bourg's chief vassal, Joscelin of Tell Bashir, and marched to the aid of Baldwin. The four leaders then moved to attack Harran, a strategic stronghold twenty-three miles south of Edessa. This move created a diversion in favor of Edessa, for it brought down the Turkish army.

Chokurmish and Sokman employed the old ruse of pretended flight which the Parthians had used against Crassus and the Romans at the same place in 53 B.C., and with the same decisive result. The Turks retreated south for three days, causing the Franks to separate into two bodies, which were successively annihilated May 7, 1104. Baldwin of Le Bourg and Joscelin were captured. Bohemond and Tancred escaped with difficulty to Edessa with a handful of followers.

The Frankish defeat at Harran had far-reaching results. As in the time of Crassus it put a limit to Latin conquests eastward. It ended forever any chance the Franks might have had to penetrate Iraq. It ruined Bohemond's hope of building up a major power around Antioch. It saved Aleppo and the Moslem position in north Syria by preventing Antioch and Edessa from using the strategic location of Harran to cut off contact with the east.

The immediate results of the battle of Harran were several. Tancred became regent of Edessa. Bohemond, his uncle and patron, though shaken was now without question the dominant Latin prince in the north. Thus out of general disaster the two Normans snatched some personal gain. The return of Baldwin of Le Bourg would have disturbed this situation. Consequently Bohemond and Tancred seem to have neglected the matter of Baldwin's ransom, although the subject was broached both by the Turks and by king Baldwin in Jerusalem. As a result Le Bourg endured a captivity of four years. On the other hand Chokurmish and Sokman profited little from their victory. They conquered nothing although the former tried to take Edessa. Their by Sokman and Le Bourg who was kidnapped from Sokman's tent by ChOkurmish. Ridvan of Aleppo, who had done nothing, profited greatly. With almost no fighting he won back from Antioch the barrier fortresses of al-Fu'ah, Sarmin, Macarrat-Misrin, and Arta, whose people admitted his men, and Latmin, Kafarta, Ma'arrat-an-Nu'man, and Albara, whose garrisons fled. Of these Artah, the gateway to Antioch, was particularly valuable. Likewise, according to Anna Comnena, the Byzantine admiral Cantacuzenus seized Latakia, though not the citadel, and al-Ullaiqah, al-Marqab, and Jabala to the south. The Greek general Monastras occupied Tarsus, the adjacent port of Longiniada (not now extant), and Adana and Mamistra, being welcomed by the Armenian population.²⁹ The Byzantines already held the island of Cyprus with its naval bases off the Syrian coast, and from them were helping Bohemond's enemy, Raymond of St. Gilles, establish himself around Tripoli to the south of Antioch, as we shall see.

Bohcmond's position was therefore rendered desperate by pressure on all sides from the Byzantines and Aleppo. With many of his troops lost at Harran, his home garrisons demoralized, Edessa weak, and now himself in debt for his ransom of 1103 and unable to secure more men, Bohemond was at the end of his resources. He might remain and face defeat or decay, or he might return to Europe and embark upon a bold new venture. He chose the latter course. He appointed Tancred his regent in the east, and sailed for Italy, arriving in January 1105.

Bohemond's plan was nothing less than to make a frontal attack on the Byzantine empire through Albania, as his father, Robert Guiscard, with Bohemond as second-in-command, had done in 1081-1085. Bohemond's experience convinced him that he might succeed, particularly if he could channel the mounting anti-Byzantine prejudices of the west into support of his venture. These prejudices were born of the friction and misunderstanding engendered by the passage of the hungry and ill-disciplined forces of the First Crusade through the Byzantine empire, and by the disaster of the Crusade of 1101, which Alexius was widely suspected of sabotaging. The wily Norman, therefore, decided to promote a new "crusade", directed not against the Moslems but against the Byzantines. Its real purpose was not to protect the Holy Sepulcher, but to increase the power of Bohemond. To start a crusade he would have to have the sanction of pope Paschal II. He saw the pope in 1105. As a result Paschal appointed bishop Bruno of Segni as legate to preach a new crusade.

Although the reports of the Council of Poitiers where the crusade was formally launched in 1106 mention the "way to Jerusalem" rather than Byzantium, it seems likely that Paschal succumbed to the anti-Byzantinism of the day and fell in with Bohemond's plans. At any rate there is no record that the pope denounced Bohemond's purpose when it became publicly apparent. Indeed, in his relations with the Norman, Paschal does not emerge as a strong character.

The prince of Antioch made a triumphal tour of Italy and France in 1105-1106, everywhere greeted as a hero of the First Crusade, and everywhere calling for volunteers for his new venture. As bases for propaganda against Alexius he carried in his train a pretender to the Byzantine throne, and circulated copies of the anonymous Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, a pro Norman chronicle of the First Crusade, which Bohemond had brought over from Antioch and into which he seems to have had inserted a passage saying that Alexius had promised Antioch to him.

By the fall of 1107 Bohemond was able to sail from Apulia to Albania with 34,000 men. He took Avlona and laid siege to Dyrrachium (Durazzo). Alexius however was ready for Bohemond. He blockaded him by land and sea and forced the proud Norman to ask for terms in September 1108. The treaty required Bohemond to take an oath of vassalage for Antioch in western style, and to return to Italy. Bohemond, a broken and discredited man, never went back to Antioch. He spent the few remaining years of his life in Apulia, dying there in 1111.³⁰

Bohemond's death ended the career of one of the boldest and most ambitious men of the time. He saw in the First Crusade an opportunity to establish himself as a powerful prince. He did succeed in founding a principality at Antioch, but it was much less than he had expected. His seizure of this city in 1098, his denunciations of the Byzantines, and his wars against them wrecked whatever chance the crusading movement may have had to realize the apparent hope of pope Urban, a new understanding between Latin and Greek Christendom.

Let us now return to Tancred when Bohemond left him as regent of Antioch in 1104. He had now to rebuild his power. He appointed as his governor at Edessa his kinsman, Richard of Salerno (also known as Richard of the Principate). Thus Edessa became for a time a dependency of Antioch although king Baldwin in Jerusalem had originally given it to Baldwin of Le Bourg. Tancred attacked Ridvan of Aleppo in the spring of 1105. He took the key fortress of Artah, completely shattering an army Ridvan led to its relief, and then scoured the country, capturing Tall Aghdi and Sarmin, and threatening Aleppo itself. Ridvan was dismayed. He seems to have made a submission to Tancred for he gave no more trouble for five years. In 1106 Tancred took the powerful fortress of Apamea. He could now threaten the important emirate of Hamah, to the south of Aleppo. He also gained prestige by marrying Cecilia, a natural daughter of king Philip I of France, a bride sent him by Bohemond.

The young regent of Antioch set out to regain what had been lost to the Byzantines in 1104. He attacked Mamistra, the key to Cilicia, in the year 1107, when Bohemond was attacking Dyrrachium. Apparently he took it late in 1107 or early in 1108, and then moved south to recapture Latakia, the chief port of his principality. By the spring of 1108 Tancrcd had regained nearly all that Bohemond had lost, and he was overlord of Edessa in addition. It is true that Bohemond in the treaty of Deabolis in 11088 had recognized Alexius as suzerain lord of Antioch, but Tancred treated the emperor's claims with contempt. Bohemond was partly responsible for Tancred's success, as his attack in Albania drew off Byzantine troops toward the west.

If Tancred, regent of Antioch and overlord of Edessa, felt in 1108 that he was at the height of good fortune after his Cilician victories, he was due to be rudely disillusioned by the loss of Edessa. It is at this point necessary to review the history of Edessa up to 1108. We have seen that Baldwin of Boulogne became its ruler in 1098. When he took over Jerusalem in 1100 he gave Edessa to his kinsman, Baldwin of Le Bourg. The latter immediately strengthened his position in Edessa in several ways. He married an Armenian princess, Morfia, daughter of the wealthy Gabriel (Armenian, Khoril) of Melitene. He received Basil, patriarch of the Armenian Church, with great honor, probably in 1103. Thus he sought the favor of his Armenian subjects. He chose as his chief vassal his kinsman Joscelin of Courtenay, recently arrived from France. He gave Joscelin the great fief of Tell Bashir, lying between the Euphrates and the borders of Antioch. Finally, in 1103 he helped procure the ransom of Bohemond of Antioch, with whom he could cooperate, in place of Tancred, with whom he could not. We have seen that the immediate results were the attacks upon Ridvan of Aleppo in 1103, and the Harran campaign of 1104, which led to the capture of Baldwin and Joscelin by the Turks. Then followed the short regency of Tancred in Edessa, the departure of Bohemond for Europe, the second regency of Tancred in Antioch, and Tancred's bestowal of Edessa upon his cousin, Richard of Salerno, all in the year 1104.

Richard lacked ability. He did not hold in check the tyranny and greed of his Frankish followers. He rapidly lost the loyalty of his Armenian subjects. Stevenson is doubtless correct in saying that the authority of the Franks was confined to the garrison towns. As a result the territory of Edessa was open to invasion. Chokurmish of Mosul raided the countryside in 1105 and Kilij Arslan of Iconium did the same in 1106 and 1107. Therefore Richard's rule of Edessa (1104-1108) was a period of great weakness for this exposed northern state.

While Richard governed Edessa, Baldwin of Le Bourg experienced changing fortunes in captivity. Shortly after his capture in 1104 by Sokman of Mardin he was kidnapped by Chokurmish of Mosul. He fell into the hands of Chavli Saqaveh when the latter conquered Mosul, probably late in 1107. The growth of Chavli's power soon aroused the jealousy of the Selchukid sultan Muhammad, son of the great conqueror Malik-Shah. Muhammad commissioned Sharaf-ad-Din Maudud, of whom we shall hear later, to take Mosul from Chavli. Chavli now did an astonishing thing. He offered Le Bourg liberty in return for an alliance against Maudud, in addition to a ransom. Baldwin accepted, and was released, probably in the summer of 1108. He went to Antioch and demanded of Tancred the return of Edessa. According to Matthew of Edessa, Baldwin was refused because he would not accept it as a fief from Tancred. Tancred's selfishness blinded him to the fact that he and Baldwin of Le Bourg, by taking the side of the rebel Chavli, could deal the Selchukid power a dangerous blow. Le Bourg at once turned for support to the Armenian prince Kogh Vasil of Kesoun, who feared Tancred, and to Chavli. Border fighting developed, with Tancred holding his own. Shortly afterwards Tancred and Le Bourg were reconciled, largely through ecclesiastical intervention according to Ibn-al-Athir. Edessa was then restored to count Baldwin, September 18, 1108.³¹ Thus Tancred, earlier in the year at the pinnacle of power, not only lost the suzerainty of Edessa but embittered its rightful lord, Baldwin of Le Bourg.

Then began a strange double civil war between Tancred and Ridvan of Aleppo on one side and Le Bourg and Chavli on the other. Chavli, who had left the defense of Mosul in the hands of his wife, appeared in the district of Rahba, east of Aleppo, in order to recruit allies. His capture of the stronghold of Balis alarmed Ridvan, lord of Aleppo. Ridvan called upon Tancred, with whom he apparently had had a truce since 1105, for aid. He pictured the plight of the Franks in Syria if Chavli should seize Aleppo. Tancred came, perhaps moved in part by resentment against Chavli for freeing Baldwin of Le Bourg. Chavli now became alarmed. He called upon Le Bourg and Joscelin for help. They responded, bitter against Tancred. In the battle which ensued Tancred scattered his enemies near Tell Bashir in the early fall of 1108. He besieged Le Bourg in Duluk for a short while, but was driven off by threatening moves made by Chavli.

Thus ended the civil war of 1108. The Franks might have destroyed the power of the Turks in the region around Edessa while the latter were fighting among themselves. They could even have had the help of one of the Turkish factions. Such an opportunity was not to come again soon, for Maudud, a very able man, established himself in Mosul in September and the renegade Chavli succeeded in making his peace with the sultan Muhammad. On the other hand the Turks had lost an opportunity. If they had been united, they could have attacked the Franks when the latter were divided. The whole episode is illuminating because it shows how quickly the Frankish and Moslem princes could forget rivalries and become allies when private diplomatic and military considerations so warranted.

The capture of the city of Tripoli by the Franks, one of the key events of the period, occurred during the next year, 1109. This became the capital of the Latin county of the same name. The origin of this state is intimately connected with the name of Raymond of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse. Raymond, it will be recalled, had, come out on the First Crusade having sworn to devote his life to the cause. But the establishment of his rival Godfrey as ruler of Jerusalem and the homesickness of his Provençal troops had forced Raymond to leave Jerusalem in August 1099. He marched his men to Latakia where most of them embarked for Europe, as we have seen. Raymond, now a leader without an army, went on to Constantinople the next year to seek whatever aid he could get from the emperor Alexius. The bond between them was dislike of Bohemond of Antioch, who had thwarted them both.

About the beginning of 1102 Raymond returned by sea to Syria. In the year 1101 he had assumed the leadership, with the approval of the emperor Alexius, of a host of crusaders, principally Lombards, who had reached Constantinople fired by enthusiasm generated by the success of the First Crusade. It was now Raymond's hope that he might appear in Syria and Palestine with this new army at his back and dictate a settlement more in accord with his conception of the original purposes of the crusade. It was Alexius's hope that Raymond would reopen Anatolia to Byzantine occupation, and would reduce Antioch to a dependency of Byzantium.

As we saw in the preceding chapter, however, the crusaders of 1101 were virtually exterminated by Kilij Arslan of Iconium and Malik-Ghazi of Sebastia (Sivas). If Raymond of St. Gilles had arrived in Syria in 1101 with a large and victorious army, it is presumable that the Byzantines would have recovered the Anatolian provinces in his wake, that he might have been able to restore Antioch to them, and that the Greeks would thereafter have played a much more important and friendly role in the history of the Latin states. It is also presumable that Raymond, who had been consulted by pope Urban in 1095 in planning the First Crusade, and who thought that he more truly represented its original purposes than did the other princes, would have had a large influence upon the disposition of affairs in general in Syria and Palestine. Grousset goes further and suggests that Raymond and his large army might have conquered Aleppo and Damascus and made possible the establishment of a Latin power much stronger and more stable than Edessa and the three coastal states that did result from the efforts of the Franks.³² However in the Crusade of 1101 not only were the hopes of Alexius and Raymond defeated, but when Raymond returned to Syria in 1102 he was virtually without a following. The old count endured the humiliation of arrest and delivery into the hands of the youthful Tancred, regent of Antioch for Bohemond, then a prisoner of Malik-Ghazi. Tancred compelled Raymond to swear to make no conquests between Antioch and Acre, and released him. Observance of this oath would have virtually excluded St. Gilles from any acquisitions on the coast of Syria and Palestine.

The count of Toulouse now proceeded to do just what Tancred had feared. He started the conquest of an area south of Antioch in Tancred's natural sphere of expansion. By now his hopes had to be reduced to the immediate business of getting a foothold in Syria. Raymond had passed through this area twice in 1099, and had become familiar with it. Grousset suggests that it reminded him of his native Midi.³³ Raymond began by capturing the port of Tortosa in 1102, and used it as a base for further operations. Then he laid siege to Hisn al-Akrad (Castle of the Kurds, later Krak des Chevaliers), which he had taken and abandoned in 1099. He gave up this siege when the assassination of Janah-ad-Daulah of Homs in May 1103 seemed to offer an excellent opportunity to seize that rich and powerful emirate. However; Homs delivered itself to Dukak of Damascus and Raymond retired. Then in 1103 the count of Toulouse found his objective at last. He established a permanent camp on a hill outside the important port of Tripoli, living off the hinterland with a few hundred followers and blockading the city by land. Gradually he transformed this camp into a fortress, Mons Peregrinus (Pilgrim Mountain), with the help of workmen and materials sent by Alexius's officials in Cyprus. In 1104 Raymond with Genoese naval aid captured the port of Jubail, twenty miles to the south. The Genoese admiral, Hugh Embriaco, received Jubail and established a hereditary fief around it. But on February 28, 1105, count Raymond died, his ambition to conquer Tripoli still unrealized. Disappointed in his hopes to carry through the plans of pope Urban, Raymond had remained to play out the role of a petty conqueror. His monument was to be the county of Tripoli, the smallest of the four Latin states.

Raymond's successor in Syria was his cousin, William Jordan, count of Cerdagne. For four more years William, with slender resources, kept up the land blockade of Tripoli from Pilgrim Mountain. Then in the beginning of March 1109, there arrived from France Raymond's son, Bertram of St. Gilles, to claim his paternal inheritance. Bertram had left France with an army of four thousand men convoyed in a fleet largely Genoese. On the way out he had come to an understanding with the emperor Alexius, a step consistent with the policy of his father. On the other hand he incurred the enmity of Tancred by stopping at St. Simeon and laying claim to that part of Antioch originally held by his father in 1098. Tancred stiffly ordered Bertram to leave the principality of Antioch.

Bertram then sailed with his forces to Tortosa, a port controlled by William Jordan. He immediately claimed a part of his father's estate. William, the defender and possessor for four years, rebuffed him. But William, fearing his cousin's large forces, appealed to Bertram's enemy, Tancred, offering to become a vassal in return for protection. Tancred, eager for power and desirous of checking St. Gilles, accepted the proposal and prepared to join William Jordan.

Count Bertram, fearing Tancred's intervention, hastened to Tripoli and laid siege to it by land and sea. He hoped to settle the matter by seizing the great prize before William and Tancred could act. William's small garrison in the stronghold of Pilgrim Mountain looked on helplessly.

The young count of St. Gilles had another resource. He sent word to king Baldwin of Jerusalem, Tancred's rival of other days, offering to become a vassal in return for help. Baldwin accepted. He welcomed the opportunity to extend his power northwards and to forestall Tancred. He was glad to help reduce another Saracen port and he could hope for an alliance with the Genoese fleet for further attacks upon coastal towns. But to Baldwin, who had the qualities of statesmanship, there was still a greater opportunity. He saw then the possibility of ironing out differences among all the Franks and of uniting their energies as crusaders under the leadership of the regime at Jerusalem.

For these reasons king Baldwin formally summoned Tancred to meet him at Tripoli to give satisfaction to the complaints of Bertram, and also to those of Baldwin of Edessa and Joscelin of Tell Bashir. But Tancred owed no allegiance to king Baldwin. Therefore Baldwin summoned him in the high name of the church of Jerusalem,³⁴ a formula which reminds us of the stand originally taken by the ecclesiastics and others regarding the proper regime to be established in the holy city. Soon two coalitions faced each other outside Tripoli. On one side were king Baldwin, Bertram, Baldwin of Le Bourg, and Joscelin. On the other were Tancred and William Jordan with a smaller following. Under the circumstances Tancred proved conciliatory. King Baldwin achieved the great personal triumph of sitting in judgment and hearing the complaints of Le Bourg versus Tancred and of Bertram versus William Jordan.

A number of compromises were worked out. First, Tancred gave up his claims in Edessa and recognized the restoration of Baldwin of Le Bourg, kinsman of king Baldwin. In return king Baldwin granted Tancred the fiefs of Tiberias, Nazareth, Haifa, and the Templum Domini (now the shrine Qubbat as-Sakhrah) in Jerusalem. Tancred formally became Baldwin's vassal for these fiefs. This meant that, if Bohemond returned to Antioch, Tancred could expect to resume the place in the state of Jerusalem that he had left in 1101. It was provided that meanwhile he could enjoy the revenues from these fiefs. Tancred did not become Baldwin's vassal for Antioch. Second, it was agreed that William Jordan should keep 'Arqah and apparently Tortosa. William became a vassal of Tancred. Thus the northern part of the territory of Tripoli was to be under Tancred's influence. Third, Bertram was to get the remainder of his father's inheritance, that is, the area around Tripoli and Tripoli itself when it should fall. He became a vassal of king Baldwin. It was a great day for Baldwin I. Edessa and Tripoli were thereafter dependent upon him, while Tancred of Antioch could expect to control only the northern part of Tripoli. The prestige of king Baldwin had never been so high. Tancred, thwarted and disappointed, marched off, and besieged and captured the ports of Valania and Jabala in May and July, 1109. He thus forestalled Baldwin I and Bertram by extending his rule about a third of the way south from Latakia toward Tripoli.

The city of Tripoli surrendered July 12, 1109. It was divided between Bertram, who received two-thirds, and the Genoese, who received one-third in return for their naval help. In addition Bertram inherited the holdings of William Jordan, who was killed a little before the fall of Tripoli. Thus Bertram extended his possessions as far north as Tancred's territory. This deprived Tancred of the influence he had expected to have as the suzerain of William Jordan. A year or two later Tancred seized Tortosa from Bertram. Beyond this, king Baldwin was the beneficiary of the Tripolitan campaign, for the county of Tripoli remained a fief of the southern kingdom.³⁵ Its history may be treated with that of the latter.

Footnotes

27 Albert of Aix, pp. 611-613; Radulf of Caen (RHC,Occ.,III), p. 709.

28 On Selchukid politics at this period see above chapter V, pp. 167, 172-173; for the Assassins, see chapter IV, pp. 110-111.

29 For the gains of Ridvan see Kamal-ad-Din (RHO, Or., III), p. 592, and for those of the Byzantines, Anna Comnena, Alexiad, III, 47-49; Radulf of Caen, p. 712.

30 For Bohemond's war with Alexius, see F. Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d'Alexis I Comnene (1081-1118) (Paris, 1900), pp. 242-250 R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), pp. 106-133; S. Runciman, Crusades, II, 47-51. For Bohemond's use of the Gesta Francorum, see A. C. Krey, "A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its Bearing on the Literature of the First Crusade," Munro Essays, pp. 57-78. For the view that Bohemond deceived Paschal II as to his real intentions, see M. W. Baldwin, in Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences, III (1945), 283-284. See also J. L. LaMonte, "To What Extent was the Byzantine Empire the Suzerain of the Latin Crusading States ?" Byzantion, VII (1932), 253-264.

31 Matthew of Edessa, pp. 85-46; Ibn-al-Athir, pp. 257-263; Michael the Syrian, Cbronigue (ed. J. B. Chabot, 4. vols., Paris, 1899-1910), III, ii, 195.

32 Histoire des croisades, I, 332-333. For details of the Crusade of 1101 see above, chapter XI.

33 Grousset, Histoire des croisades, I, 335

34 Albert of Aix, p. 667, "universae eccleaiae Iherusalem."

35 J. Richard, Le Comte de Tripoli sous la dynasties Toulousaine, 1102-1187 (Paris, 1945), pp. 26-43, presents some evidence that, while the counts of Tripoli owed liege homage to Alexius for Maraclea and Tortosa, they also owed liege homage for these cities to Tancred of Antioch. After Pons of Tripoli became friendly with Antioch in 1112 (see below) this connection with Byzantium became increasingly nominal. Tripoli thereafter depended more heavily upon her feudal relationship to Jerusalem for protection, however, although retaining a very real independence.

Regarding the relation between Jerusalem and Antioch, Cahen, La Syrie du tnord, p. 246, and Nicholson, Tancred, p. 186, respectively write that Baldwin had only a moral not a feudal ascendancy over Antioch.

1108 - 1115 - The Turks unite and then fall apart after the death of Maudud in 1113 and are defeated at the Battle of Danith in 1115

For a number of years after the Franks took Tripoli the history of all four Latin states tended to run in the same channel. This was because the Turks of Iraq, aroused by the fall of Tripoli, were now disposed to unite and take the offensive. Therefore, the Latin states had to stand together. The jihad of the Turks was authorized by the Selchukid sultan Muhammad. There soon emerged as its moving spirit a devoted Moslem, Sharaf-ad-Din Maudud, lord of Mosul since 1108, and a worthy forerunner of 'Imad-ad-Din Zengi, Nur ad-Din, and Saladin (Salah-ad-Din). Maudud acted as Muhammad's commander-in-thief. It was his mission to lead the Selchukids of Iraq in a series of dangerous attacks upon the Franks.³⁶

Maudud's first campaign was in 1110. He ravaged the lands of Edessa in the spring. Baldwin of Le Bourg called for help. Baldwin of Jerusalem, after finishing the siege of Beirut, May 13, appeared in the north in the early summer. Bertram of Tripoli and two Armenian princes, Kogh Vasil of Kesoun and abu-l-Gharib (West Armenian, Ablgharib) of Bira (Birejik), also came. Tancred did not respond. He resented Le Bourg's possession of Edessa. King Baldwin, wishing to preserve the unity attained the year before at Tripoli, summoned Tancred to join the rest of the Franks, and if he had grievances, to present them. It was apparently a direct appeal, not a feudal summons, for Antioch was not a fief of Jerusalem. Its sanction was both crusader sentiment and the power of the coalition, which Albert of Aix says disposed of twenty-five thousand men. Tancred came, reluctantly, went through the forms of reconciliation with Le Bourg, and soon withdrew. The other allies, not daring to remain long absent from their lands, prepared to go home also. They provisioned and garrisoned the city of Edessa, evacuated the agrarian population, and crossed the Euphrates. Maudud, now joined by Tughtigin of Damascus, appeared and killed five thousand Armenians before they could cross. He then devastated the whole countryside of Edessa on his way back to Iraq. The county of Edessa, especially the part east of the Euphrates, never recovered from this blow. Nor was this all. The Franks of Edessa now in their weakness became suspicious, vengeful, and cruelly extortionate, and were hated by the people they had originally been welcomed to defend.

The Turks made a second effort in 1111. An offensive by Tancred caused individuals from Aleppo, rather than the weak and suspicious Ridvan, to clamor for aid from both the sultan and the caliph in Baghdad. As a result Maudud assembled a new coalition of Iraqian princes, invaded the county of Edessa, and then in August marched south to join Ridvan in a war against Tancred. But Ridvan shut the gates of Aleppo. He feared the greed of the Mesopotamian emirs more than that of Tancred. He cared nothing for the holy war or Moslem unity, for as we have said he sympathized with the esoteric and heretical sect of Assassins. Accordingly Ridvan's would-be deliverers ravaged his lands for seventeen days, doubtless confirming him in his suspicions of them.

Maudud and his Iraqian allies marched farrier south, early in September, to join Tughtigin of Damascus, who desired an attack upon Tripoli. Tripoli was the natural maritime outlet for Damascus. But Maudud's Mesopotamian allies, tired of the long campaign, balked at this and went home. Only the zealous Maudud remained with Tughtigin.

Meantime Tancred had taken alarm. He called for help, although he had been unwilling to help others the year before. Baldwin of Jerusalem came, abandoning the promising intrigue to gain Ascalon. Count Baldwin of Edessa and his vassal Joscelin of Tell Bashir, Bertram of Tripoli, and a number of Armenian princes also gathered at the meeting place, Chastel-Rouge, thirty miles south of Antioch up the Orontes valley. There was a little skirmishing near Shaizar, and then both sides warily withdrew and went home.

One may conclude in regard to the whole campaign of 1111 that the splendid prospects of the Turks were ruined by internal dissensions, and that the policy of unity and cooperation sponsored by king Baldwin in 1109 and 1110 was brilliantly justified. However it is a matter of irony that the selfish Tancred was the principal beneficiary of this solidarity, and that king Baldwin, who was re sponsible for it, lost a promising opportunity to gain Ascalon.

In the years 1111-1112 Bertram and especially king Baldwin made another contribution to the cause of Latin unity. The emperor Alexius, following the death of Bohemond in Italy in 1111, again demanded Antioch of Tancred, in accordance with Bohemond's treaty of 1108. Tancred rebuffed him. Alexius then sent an envoy, Butumites, to bribe Bertram and king Baldwin into an alliance against Tancred. Bertram dallied with the idea but Baldwin's refusal was decisive for them both. Such a scheme was hardly consistent with Baldwin's policy of Frankish unity and cooperation. For Bertram it meant dropping his father's historic quarrel with the Normans of Antioch and ceasing the intrigues with Alexius.

As a result the courts of Antioch and Tripoli became friendly. Ibn-al-Qalanisi writes that when Bertram died, probably a little before February 3, 1112, the guardians of his young son Pons sent the latter to Antioch for training as a knight. He also states that Pons was given four fiefs by Tancred — Tortosa, Safitha (later Chastel-Blanc), Hisn al-Akrad, and Maraclea. After Tancred died (probably December 12, 1112), Pons was also given Tancred's young wife, Cecilia of France. This was by wish of Tancred, according to William of Tyre³⁷ Thus ended the old quarrel begun at Antioch in 1098 by Raymond of St. Gilles and Bohemond. This policy of friendship was continued by Tancred's successor in the regency of Antioch, Roger of Salerno, son of Richard of the Principate, former regent of Edessa.

Tancred's death ended the career of the youngest of the leaders of the original crusading expedition. He was certainly one of the ablest, ranking immediately below Bohemond and Baldwin I. The young Norman was perhaps more than Bohemond the real founder of the principality of Antioch. He rather than his uncle, who was usually an absentee, established the state upon a permanent foundation. A restless fighter, Tancred extended his conquests as long as he lived. Usually he fought Moslems but he was unscrupulous enough to fight fellow Christians, whether Byzantines, Armenians, or even the Franks of Edessa, if he saw a chance to gain an advantage. He was more concerned with the immediate expansion of his own power than with the larger interests of the Latin states. Yet on the whole the career of Tancred belongs on the credit side of the Latin ledger. He built up the principality of Antioch into a powerful military state that considerably outlasted the southern kingdom of Jerusalem.

Maudud's third campaign against the Franks was in 1112. This time he came alone. He harassed the city of Edessa from April to June, and nearly captured it by corrupting some of the Armenian guards. When this failed he returned home. The pro-Turkish plots of some Armenians inside Edessa, notably in 1108 and 1112, led Baldwin to take vigorous counter-measures, including a mass deportation to Samosata in 1113, rescinded in 1114. Baldwin's poverty after the constant Turkish devastations east of the Euphrates, contrasted with the prosperity of Joscelin at Tell Bashir, led him in 1113 to imprison his chief vassal briefly, strip him of his fief, and expel him. Joscelin was welcomed at Jerusalem by Baldwin I and given the fief of Galilee.

The Selchukids attacked the Franks again in 1113. This time Maudud passed by Edessa and straightway joined Tughtigin of Damascus, who had been suffering from raids from the Franks of Jerusalem. The combined Turkish army boldly took position south of Lake Tiberias, east of the Jordan, across from the village of as-Sinnabrah. King Baldwin summoned what was probably his maximum strength, seven hundred knights and four thousand footmen according to Albert of Aix, and marched north. At the same time he called upon Roger of Antioch and Pons of Tripoli for help. Baldwin, always aggressive and usually shrewd, this time blundered into the enemy at as-Sinnabrah, June 28. He lost twelve hundred infantry and thirty knights, and himself barely escaped. The next day Roger and Pons arrived at Tiberias, and reproached their senior colleague for his rashness.

But the end was not yet. The Frankish force, inferior in numbers, took refuge on a hill west of Tiberias where though safe they suffered from lack of sufficient water. Ibn-al-Athir writes that the Franks were immobilized here for twenty-six days. For two months Turkish raiding parties roamed the kingdom to the environs of Jaffa and Jerusalem itself. The Arab peasantry assisted the Turks in the plundering and devastation. However the towns, except Nablus and Baisan, held out behind their walls. As the summer wore on the Frankish army, which stayed around Tiberias, grew by accretion of pilgrims from Europe until it numbered about sixteen thousand men according to Albert of Aix. At the same time Maudud's Iraqian allies became more and more insistent upon returning home, and eventually did so. Maudud dismissed his own men, and himself went to Damascus with Tughtigin, September 5.³⁸ He intended to prepare for a campaign the next year.

Maudud's invasion of the kingdom in 1113 was strikingly like that of Saladin in 1187. In each case the Moslems entered via the Tiberias gateway, and caused the kingdom to muster its full strength which the invaders then disastrously defeated. Both times the Franks were marooned on a hill short of water. But there were three differences. King Baldwin's troops were not entirely without water, he received reinforcements, and he was astute and had the respect of his colleagues in spite of his error. King Guy in 1187 would enjoy none of these advantages.

The danger to the Franks implicit in the existence of the able and energetic Maudud ended with the murder of that prince, October 2, 1113. He was struck down in the presence of Tughtigin, probably by a member of the fanatical sect of Assassins. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Tughtigin, jealous of his autonomy and annoyed at the continued presence in his capital of the sultan's generalissimo, was involved. For the Franks the results were wholly fortunate. First, the murder removed a most powerful, persistent, and capable adversary. Second, Tughtigin, though he posed as innocent, became suspect in the court of sultan Muhammad at Baghdad. As a result Tughtigin was driven to making a permanent truce with king Baldwin in 1114, and even to an alliance with the Frankish princes in 1115. Thus the circumstances of Maudud's death bred suspicions among the Turks and destroyed much of the unity it had been his life work to create.³⁹

Maudud's death did not, however, cause sultan Muhammad to abandon the holy war. He named Aksungur al-Bursuki to be Maudud's successor as governor of Mosul and leader in the war. Aksungur made a futile attack upon Edessa, in May of 1114. A more positive achievement was the acceptance of an offer of loyalty from the widow of the Armenian prince Kogh Vasil (d. 1112). Her husband had suffered from aggression by Tancred in 1112. By her action Marash, Kesoun, and Raban, all northwest of Edessa, were included in the Turkish sphere of influence.

However, Aksungur permitted himself to be badly defeated by a Mesopotamian rival, Il-Ghazi ibn-Artuk of Mardin, probably late in 1114. As a result Il-Ghazi, fearing the vengeance of the sultan, made an alliance with Tughtigin of Damascus. According to Ibn al-Athir the two princes even made an agreement with Roger of Antioch.⁴⁰ A wide breach was opened in the ranks of the Turks. A second result of Aksungur's defeat was his replacement as Muhammad's generalissimo by Bursuk ibn-Bursuk of Hamadan. Bursuk was ordered to punish Il-Ghazi and Tughtigin as well as carry on the holy war against the Franks.

In the spring of 1115 Bursuk gathered a large army of Iraqian contingents, threatened Edessa briefly, and then moved on, in tending to make Aleppo his base of operations. But the eunuch Lu'lu', atabeg in that city for the child Alp Arslan, son of Ridvan (d. 1113), was as unwilling to open his gates to the army of the sultan as had been Ridvan in 1113. Lu'lu' called upon Il-Ghazi and Tughtigin for aid, and they in turn called upon Roger of Antioch. As a result the troops of these strange allies took position in two camps, one Turkish and one Frankish, near Apamea, to watch Bursuk. Roger in turn called upon the other Frankish princes for support. King Baldwin, Pons of Tripoli, and Baldwin II of Edessa all gathered at Apamea by August. The stage was now set for a great battle between the sultan's army under the command of Bursuk, and the coalition of Latin princes and Turkish rebels. But there was no battle, the Latin-Turkish allies being very cautious. After eight days Bursuk slyly retreated into the desert and his enemies scattered to their homes. The whole affair is excellent evidence that the Franks and Syrian Turks though given to fighting each other could close ranks against others from outside Syria.

Bursuk's withdrawal was a ruse, however. He slipped back to capture Kafartab, a mountain fortress of Roger's, and to menace the lands of Antioch and Aleppo. Roger took the field and succeeded in ambushing Bursuk at Danith half way between Apamea and Aleppo, September 14. The rout was complete and appalling. Bursuk himself escaped but the Franks slaughtered three thousand male camp followers, enslaved the women, and committed the children and old men to the flames. The prisoners who remained, other than those held for ransom, were sent to Tughtigin, Il-Ghazi, and Lu'lu'. It took the Franks two or three days to divide the spoils, which were worth three hundred thousand bezants according to Fulcher of Chartres.

The battle of Danith made a deep impression upon the Moslems. According to Grousset, Roger, as "Sirojal" (Sire Roger), became a legendary figure among them something like Richard the Lionhearted after the Third Crusade.⁴¹ Tughtigin of Damascus broke with his dangerous ally at once and made his peace with sultan Mukiammad the next spring. Nor do we hear more of Il-Ghazi as an ally of Roger. This catastrophe broke the offensive spirit of the Selchukids for some time. Maudud was dead and there was none to take his place. The Frankish states now, until Roger's defeat by Il-Ghazi at Darb Sarmada in 1119, enjoyed more security than they had ever known before.

Footnotes

36 For Maudad's career see H. S. Fink, "Mawdad of Mosul, Precursor of Saladin," The Muslin: World, XLIII (1953), 18-27.

37 Ibn-al-Qalanisi, p. 127; William of Tyre, XI, 18. For Tancred's death see Nicholson, Tancred, p. 224, note 3. Grousset believes that Bertram died at the beginning of the year 1113 shortly after the death of Tancred (Hist. des crois., II, 889).

388 The best sources for the history of this remarkable invasion are Ibn-al-Qalanisi, pp. 133-139; Albert of Aix, pp. 694-696; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 565-572; and William of Tyre, XI, 19. See also Ibn-al-Athir (RHC, Or., I), p. 289.

39 On Maudud's assassination see above, chapter IV, p. 113. For a discussion of Moslem politics at this period see above, chapter V, pp. 169—170.

40 Ibn-al-Athir, p.294.

41 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 589; Grousset, Histoire des croisades, I, 510. In addition to the usual chronicle sources see Walter the Chancellor, Bella Antiochena (ed. Hagenmeyer, Inns bruck, 1896), pp. 65-76. For a discussion of the importance of this battle see Cahen. La Syrie du nord, p. 274

1115 - 1118 - After the Battle of Danith in 1115 until the death of King Baldwin I of Jerusalem in 1118

The safety enjoyed by the Latin states permitted them to go their separate ways. They could unite in danger but not in victory. Pons of Tripoli, possibly in the summer of 1116, began to plunder the Biqa' valley, the country around Baalbek. As a result he was badly defeated by Tughtigin of Damascus and Aksungur al-Bursuki of Rahba. The latter, probably to regain the laurels lost in 1114, had come down to cooperate with Tughtigin in a holy war of their own. The two years following Danith were spent by Baldwin II of Edessa in a war upon the neighboring Armenian principalities. It will be remembered that one at least, Kesoun, antagonized by Tancred's brutality, had sympathized with Aksungur in 1114. Baldwin acquired the territory of Dgha Vasil, son of Kogh Vasil, by torturing Dgha Vasil; that of abu-l-Gharib of Bira after a year long siege of the latter's capital; and that of Pakrad of Cyrrhus and Constantine of Gargar also by violence. Baldwin of Le Bourg thus rounded out his territories in the Euphrates valley to the west and north, and in a measure recovered the strength he had lost in 1110. His county was secure when he left it in 1118 to become king of Jerusalem.

Roger of Antioch, strange as it may seem, apparently was not actively aggressive for two years after his great victory. Probably his chief concern was Aleppo. As long as the weak and incompetent Lu'lu' was alive Roger seems to have been satisfied. But when Lu'lu was murdered in 1117 there began a confused struggle for the control of the city. It was Roger's role to combine with each successive faction dominant in Aleppo to keep out powerful candidates such as Il-Ghazi of Mardin, active probably in 1118 or early 1119. This able prince purchased an expensive truce from Roger, made plans with Tughtigin, went home, proclaimed a holy war, and raised a large army. He then returned to defeat and kill Roger at Darb Sarmada near al-Atharib, west of Aleppo, June 28, 1119. This disaster, called the "field of blood" (ager sanguinis), will be discussed more fully in the following chapter. But the Franks of the north lost in 1119 much of the security that they had gained in 1115. They now faced a powerful and active prince in Aleppo, where there had always been a weak ruler. But this is beyond the limits of our story. In 1118 the results of Danith still stood. Roger's brief rule of Antioch was, states Cahen, "the moment of greatest prestige in its history."⁴²

Let us now turn and see what king Baldwin of Jerusalem was able to do with his own dominions after the lapse of the Turkish peril in 1115. In the fall of that year he built in the Transjordan the castle of ash-Shaubak, or Krak de Montreal, as it was called in his honor. This was on a commanding height south of the Dead Sea eighty five miles from Jerusalem and eighty miles north of the Red Sea. Its fine strategic position enabled the Franks not only to protect the kingdom in that quarter, but to levy tribute upon the Moslem caravans passing between Damascus and Egypt and also between Damascus and the holy cities of Medina and Mecca.

The next year Baldwin extended his influence still farther south by leading a military force to Ailah at the head of the gulf now called Aqaba, on the Red Sea. This town, one hundred and fifty miles south of Jerusalem, became the southernmost point in his kingdom. According to Albert of Aix, Baldwin now visited the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai, which is ninety miles to the southwest, but made no claim upon the territory in this area.⁴³

Late in 1116 Baldwin put away his queen, Adelaide of Sicily. He had put aside Arda, his Armenian queen, in 1113, in order to marry Adelaide. He wanted to secure a rich dowry and the friendship of Adelaide's son, count Roger II of Sicily. It was agreed that Roger should inherit the kingdom if the royal pair should be childless. It is presumable that this political marriage had the approval of Baldwin's close friend and adviser, patriarch Arnulf. Arnulf, a royal partisan during the patriarchates of Daimbert (1099-1102), Evremar (1102-1108), and Gibelin (1108-1112), and privy to the removal of the first two, became patriarch in 1112. But there was enough of clerical opposition to his policy of subordinating the church to the interests of a strong monarchy, and of personal opposition to Arnulf himself, to secure his deposition in a papal legatine court in 1115. Arnulf promptly went to Rome and was reinstated in 1116. At this time he agreed to urge Baldwin to give up his bigamous union with Adelaide. King Baldwin, becoming very sick late in 1116, and still childless, fell in with this idea. It is probable, as Kuhn suggests, that both Baldwin and Arnulf felt that the little kingdom could not be safely left to an absentee king, for Roger's most important interests would be in Sicily. Therefore with Arnulf's connivance the marriage with Adelaide was annulled. Although Baldwin, when he died two years later, left the kingdom to a resident sovereign, he had forfeited permanently the friendship of the wealthy Sicilian court.⁴⁴ The affair of Adelaide is also significant because it shows the close support given the throne, even the strong influence upon royal policy, by the patriarchate under Arnulf. But it was an influence exerted for a strong monarchy, not an independent church.

In the spring of 1118 Baldwin led a small reconnoitering expedition into Egypt for the first time. He plundered Pelusium (al-Farama'), southeast of modern Port Said, late in March. He then pushed on to Tinnis on one of the mouths of the Nile. Here he became fatally ill. He attempted to return to Jerusalem but died at al-'Arish, sixty miles southwest of Ascalon, April 2, 1118. He was succeeded by Baldwin of Le Bourg, whose formal consecration as king of Jerusalem took place on April 14 of that year. As a result another Latin state, the county of Edessa, also changed hands, for Baldwin of Le Bourg gave it to Joscelin of Courtenay in 1119. In the year 1118 there died several others identified with the early history of the Latin states, namely pope Paschal II, Adelaide of Sicily, patriarch Arnulf, and emperor Alexius Comnenus.

The reign of Alexius Comnenus, whose death occurred in August, four months after that of Baldwin I, had been advantageous to his empire and not inimical to the Franks.⁴⁵ He had reorganized and strengthened the administration and had restored the security and prosperity of his people, while protecting his frontiers against the usual attacks in the Balkans, the pseudo-crusade of the avaricious and vindictive Norman, Bohemond, and the menacing raids of the Turks in Anatolia. He had preserved his realm against the threat implicit in the presence of large western armies, too often composed of ambitious and unprincipled leaders with bigoted and undisciplined followers, only too willing to blame all their hardships and misfortunes on the Greeks, whom they regarded as wily profiteers, as schismatics, and eventually as treacherous renegades. However accurate these accusations might be against certain of Alexius' successors, they had no basis in his own conduct, but originated chiefly in the shrewd propaganda attempt of his enemy Bohemond to cast a cloak of justification over his own marauding.

Alexius had profited from the First Crusade and from his maritime strength by recovering the Anatolian littoral, but this territorial gain was partially offset by the loss of Cilicia — acquired only in 1099, lost in 1101, and retaken in 1104 — definitively in 1108 to Tancred, and by the suppression of his nominal Armenian vassals by the counts of Edessa between 1097 (Tell Bashir) and 1117 (Gargar and Cyrrhus), with Gabriel of Melitene overwhelmed by the Turks in 1103. By 1118 no portion of the crusading arena was under Greek control, and none under that of Armenians except in the Taurus mountains north of Cilicia, where Toros (1100-1129) — son of Constantine, son of Roupen — still held Partzapert and Vahka, and Hetoum, son of Oshin, ruled at Lampron. The population of Cilicia, and of that part of the county of Edessa which lay west of the Euphrates, remained largely Armenian, with a mutually antagonistic admixture of Orthodox Greeks and Syrian Jacobites, all of whom had quickly learned to detest their Frankish overlords.

The year 1118 therefore marks the end of an era. This is particularly true because of the death of Baldwin I of Jerusalem. He was the last of the original leaders of the First Crusade, with the exception of Robert of Normandy, who died in 1134, after many years as a prisoner of king Henry I of England. Godfrey, Raymond, Bohemond, and Tancred, all of whom had elected to stay in the east as builders of states, had passed. Of these Baldwin was probably the ablest. He was certainly the most successful as a prince. He founded the first Latin state in the east, the county of Edessa. He was virtually the founder and was for eighteen years the ruler of another, Jerusalem, which he transformed from an ecclesiastical state into a monarchy. He even had a hand in the capture of the city of Tripoli and in the establishment of the fourth and last state, the county of Tripoli.

With small means Baldwin accomplished much. He founded the county of Edessa with a mere handful of knights. As Godfrey's successor at Jerusalem he took over a weak state torn by factionalism and surrounded by enemies. He left it united and powerful. He found it in economic ruin. He revived and maintained commerce with the people he had come to fight, the Moslems. When he arrived he controlled but one port, Jaffa. When he died he ruled all but two along his coast, Tyre and Ascalon. He never had a fleet, yet he found Italian naval help for coastal conquests and for the protection of the vital sea routes to the west. Baldwin rarely had more troops than a modern battalion or regiment. Yet he was able to protect his small state, leave it secure and aggressive, aid the Latin states in the north, and extend his own dominions. He was a conqueror to the day of his death. His powerful enemies al-Afdal of Egypt and Tughtigin of Damascus early gave up any notion of conquering him. As a king he had very scanty revenues. He relied upon customs duties, upon contributions from pilgrims, upon raids and tribute, and upon the economic prosperity he revived in his kingdom. He fostered this prosperity by conciliating and protecting the natives, both Christian and Moslem, who formed the bulk of the wealth-producing population of his "Latin" kingdom. He induced the Christian peasants of the Transjordan and adjacent districts to migrate to his kingdom and replace the hostile Arabs, in lieu of the potential colonists lost in the disastrous crusade of 1101.

King Baldwin had become the leader of the Franks in the Levant although he had no real means with which to coerce the three other Latin princes. It is true that he was suzerain of Tripoli, and had granted Edessa to its lord, yet their feudal rulers could have defied him if they had wished. Baldwin was statesman enough to know that the Franks would stand or fall together. He had sufficient moral authority to unite and lead them, even the reluctant Tancred, against the Turkish peril in the north. When Baldwin died his kingdom was first in dignity, power, and leader ship among the Latin states in the east. All, even the exposed county of Edessa, were secure. King Baldwin's passing marks the end of the formative period of these states. It was now the turn of others to maintain what had been won.

Footnotes

42 Cahen, op cit., p. 266. For the events around Aleppo see especially Kamal-ad-Din (RHC, Or., III), pp. 611-618. For Roger's death and the ager sanguinis see below, chapter XIII, p. 413.

43 Albert of Aix, p. 703.

44 William of Tyre, XI, 21, 26, 29; letter of Paschal II in de Roziere. Cartulaire, no 11; Kuhn, Geschichte der ersten lateinischen Patriarchen, pp. 55-57.

45 The whole period of the Comneni and the Angeli of Byzantium (1081-1204) will be examined in a chapter of volume II, where another chapter will consider the complex history of the Selchukids of Rum and their Moslem neighbors, chief among whom in the twelfth century were the Danishmendids.

The Career of Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi

The Career of Il-Ghazi - 3rd Phase

from Hillenbrand (2021:10-11)

... The murder of Mawdud in 507/1113–14⁵⁰ removed one powerful rival from İl-Ghazi’s path but in the event its consequences were to fan still further his resentment against Muhammad. İl-Ghazi had already been ignored once by the sultan when the latter had appointed Mawdud as governor of Mosul. Now, in 508/1114–15, the sultan replaced Mawdud with Aq Sunqur al- Bursuqi, the man who had taken over İl-Ghazi’s position as shihna in Baghdad.⁵¹ İl-Ghazi’s short- lived attempt at conformity with the sultan’s wishes had proved fruitless, and he refused to answer the next call to arms from the sultan.

In 508/1114–15 Aq Sunqur al-Bursuqi went to Mardin and forced the reluctant amir to submit to the sultan’s authority. The most İl-Ghazi would concede was to hand over a body of troops under his son, Ayaz. Aq Sunqur did not accept this insult lightly. He subsequently arrested Ayaz and plundered the countryside around Mardin.⁵² İl-Ghazi enlisted help from his nephew, Da’ud of Hisn Kayfa, fought and defeated Aq Sunqur and freed Ayaz.⁵³ By this defeat of Aq Sunqur al- Bursuqi, İl-Ghazi’s transparently half-hearted support of the sultan had given way to open defiance.

At this juncture, İl-Ghazi apparently began to fear the wrath of the sultan, even in the security of his fortress at Mardin, especially after he had received threatening letters from Muhammad. Seeking an ally with a similar outlook, he fled to Tughtegin in Damascus and joined forces with him.⁵⁴ Tughtegin had just cause to believe that he had incurred the sultan’s displeasure after Mawdud had been murdered in the previous year whilst in his company at Damascus. Although the blame for the assassination had been placed as usual on the Isma‘ilis, some of the chroniclers suggest Tughtegin’s own complicity in the deed.⁵⁵

The alliance formed by İl-Ghazi and Tughtegin in 508/1114–15 was of long duration and mutually beneficial. Together they made a treaty that same year with Roger of Antioch⁵⁶ and awaited the arrival of the combined forces of the sultan sent out under a new general, Bursuq. The twin objectives of this campaign were to quell the pride of İl-Ghazi and to prosecute the jihad against the Franks.⁵⁷ The order of priorities is significant here. After İl-Ghazi, Tughtegin and Roger of Antioch had assembled their troops and Bursuq’s army had arrived near Aleppo, no battle actually took place. After eight days, Bursuq retreated, fell into an ambush set by Roger at a place called Danith, and was defeated. The battle took place in Rabi‘ II 509/September 1115.⁵⁸

This serious defeat of an army sent out under the auspices of the sultan appears to have aroused feelings of guilt and fear in Tughtegin and perhaps in İl-Ghazi too. Tughtegin in Damascus was closer to Frankish territories and had more to lose from a complete break with the Seljuqs. He therefore broke off his alliance with Roger and made his peace with Sultan Muhammad.⁵⁹ It seems that Tughtegin was not asked to break off relations with İl-Ghazi as the price of peace; he may even have spoken up for İl-Ghazi at Baghdad. İl-Ghazi did not feel the same pressures as his ally, although he did not fight again on the same side as the Franks. He apparently saw no need to seek pardon from the sultan since he had no cause to fear any more reprisals.⁶⁰ Nevertheless he did not provoke the sultan further by continued defiance. He waited until the sultan’s death at the end of 511 and then sent his son, Temürtash, to Muhammad’s successor, Mahmud, with whom no doubt he hoped to have more friendly but indirect relations.⁶¹

Footnotes

51. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 350–1; Sibt b. al- Jawzi, 52.

52. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 351.

53. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 352; Michael the Syrian, 216–17; Matthew of Edessa, 287; Ibn al- Azraq, ed. ‘Awad, 284.

54. Michael the Syrian, 217; Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 352.

55. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 352; Matthew of Edessa, 285. Sibt b. al- Jawzi mentions the rumour but rejects it as untrue (op. cit., 51). Ibn al- Qalanisi, as the Damascus chronicler and from a viewpoint of warm enthusiasm for Tughtegin, places the blame squarely on the Isma‘ilis and emphasises Tughtegin’s profound grief at Mawdud’s death (op. cit., 187).

56. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 352; Matthew of Edessa, 292.

57. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 356–7.

58. Matthew of Edessa, 292; Usama, tr. Hitti, 102–6.

59. Ibn al- Qalanisi, 193; Sibt b. al- Jawzi, 55–6; Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 360.

60. Runciman mentions only Tughtegin’s reconciliation with Sultan Muhammad (op. cit., 133). Stevenson, on the other hand, states that ‘Ilgazi and Tugtakin both effected their reconciliation with the sultan’ (op. cit., 100). There would appear to be no evidence of this rapprochement in the chronicles. Indeed, it would have been more consistent if İl- Ghazi had made no move towards the sultan.

61. Ibn al- Athir, al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh X, ed. C. J. Tornberg (Leiden and Uppsala, 1864)., 418.

The Battle of Tell Danith, 14 September 1115

from Tibble (2018:261-271)

There were many battles between the Franks and Turkic- Syrian armies. We are extremely fortunate that detailed accounts of two of the most important encounters have survived, written by someone who was not only a participant but who had taken an active role in the planning of each battle. His accounts show just how dangerous Turkic bands could be. These were armies of extraordinary violence, elemental and ferocious even by the standards of the time, but by no means easy to wield as an instrument of policy: armies with huge tactical strengths if used well, but with equally profound strategic limitations.²⁷

In 1115 the sultan of Baghdad was trying to create a unified Muslim front against the Franks. He was faced with the usual problems. The major Muslim states in the region, such as Aleppo and Damascus, tended (entirely correctly) to see Baghdad as just as much of a threat to their independence as the Franks. In February 1115, Bursuq, the lord of Hamadhan, was chosen to lead Baghdad’s expeditionary force into the region, with a thankless brief: to try to kick the local Muslims into line and lead them in a war to destroy the Christian states.²⁸

The local Muslims, and particularly the Damascenes under their Turkic overlord, Tughtigin, had other ideas, and did not greet this call to arms with enthusiasm. On the contrary, when Bursuq led his army into the region, the Damascenes formed an alliance with Prince Roger of Antioch to work against the sultan’s general. The armies of the other Frankish states also mustered together in the north to form an uneasy alliance with Damascus against the invaders.²⁹

Bursuq withdrew in the face of this formidable force and waited long enough for the allied troops to disperse. Then, when it was difficult for them to reassemble quickly, he invaded the Principality of Antioch in strength. This presented Prince Roger with the traditional problem facing Frankish commanders: whether to act or to wait. A large Muslim force was loose within his lands, capable of inflicting massive damage on towns and castles that had already been devastated by earthquakes the previous year. Ma’arrat- an- Nu’man was captured. The important Christian castle of Kafartab was put under siege and eventually fell on 5 September 1115. Roger could ask for help from his allies again, and await their arrival, with Bursuq destroying large swathes of the frontier. Or he could move on his own to try to stem the invasion.

He chose the latter course. Strategy and caution suggested the prudence of waiting for reinforcements, but the emotional cost of doing so, and the loss of prestige it entailed, was immense. Roger and his nobles preferred to meet Bursuq on the field of battle, rather than suffer the humiliation of seeing their lands ravaged and their people killed.

We know the size of the Christian forces with some degree of certainty. They consisted of the field army of Antioch, together with the smaller allied army of the County of Edessa, commanded by Baldwin of Bourcq. Walter the Chancellor, who was present at the muster, wrote that the Antiochene and Edessan component of the allied forces that had gathered at Apamea earlier in the summer to face Bursuq’s initial invasion were good- quality troops, but had numbered no more than 2,000 men.³⁰

Other sources, both Muslim and Christian, suggest that greater efforts had been taken to boost the numbers of the second muster in September, and that it eventually consisted of some 500–700 cavalry and 2,000 infantry ‘of all kinds, Franks and Armenians alike’. Much of the cavalry seem to have been Turcopoles, so the local Christians would have formed a very large part of the army as a whole.³¹

Descriptions of the Muslim army are vaguer. Bursuq had sufficient subsidies from Baghdad to make him a popular employer and, as well as the mercenaries that this allowed him to employ, he had brought large contingents from the Jazira and Mosul. A significant Turkic contingent from Sinjar was present, under their Emir Tamirek, whom Bursuq seems to have placed in charge of most of the Muslim cavalry on the day of the battle. Under duress, the city state of Mardin had also provided a company of soldiers, led by their emir’s son, acting in the uncomfortable dual capacity of sub- commander and hostage.³² Shaizar was another more or less willing ally. They certainly provided troops for the expedition, with separate detachments from Shaizar being present at both the siege of Kafartab and at the battle of Tell Danith.³³ But even they were wary. Although Bursuq was allowed to camp nearby, he and his men were not allowed into Shaizar itself.

Altogether, Ibn al- Athir suggests that Bursuq had an army of some 15,000 men available for his invasion, although we know that the separation of various detachments, for instance to Kafartab and Buza’a, had reduced their numbers by the time the battle took place.³⁴ One Christian source suggested that Bursuq had a total of 8,000 men with him at Tell Danith, perhaps excluding the usual ‘volunteers’ and non- combatants: this sounds plausible, given the casualties that the army took on the day, and is not necessarily at odds with Ibn al- Athir’s assessment.³⁵

The Christians had mustered at Rugia, just east of the Orontes river. Panic- stricken reports were coming in from the local communities that Turkic troops were back in the region. On 13 September the army of Antioch and Edessa set off in column of march along the road to Hab, where Bursuq and his army were thought to be. There was inevitably some nervousness in the ranks. The expectation was that they would encounter the Turkic army later that day. They had not waited for reinforcements from Tripoli or Jerusalem, and they knew that they would be heavily outnumbered. The column moved quickly, to try to keep the initiative. Light cavalry detachments were flung out in front of the army and on the flanks, to ensure that maximum warning was received of the enemy’s presence.³⁶

It was an anticlimax. The reports of the immediate whereabouts of the Muslim army had proved false. Perhaps it was Turkic raiding or foraging parties that had caused the local villagers to panic. Either way, the march to battle proved fruitless, and once the army reached Hab, they camped for an uncomfortable night’s sleep outside the small Frankish fortified settlement there.³⁷

The army rose early on the morning of 14 September. The scouts had been on patrol throughout the night. We know that most of the light cavalry, certainly among the rank and file, were local Christians, Syrians or Armenians, but there were probably also some Turkic mercenaries, as translators were needed to verify their intelligence reports. A few months earlier, for instance, Antiochene scouts had returned from Muslim territory to report on Bursuq’s plans and preparations for war. Roger wanted to inter view them in person, but could only do so with the aid of an interpreter.³⁸

The reconnaissance detachments that had headed north were commanded by a Frank, however, Theoderic of Barneville, a Norman knight whose family had settled in Sicily and had joined in the First Crusade.³⁹ When Theoderic returned he could barely contain his excite ment. He and his men had scouted up into the Sarmin valley, a fertile area with good water supplies and well known to the Franks, to ensure that it was a safe position for the army to make camp later in the day. When they got there, however, the Antiochene scouts found that the Muslims were already starting to camp around the springs. Crucially, Bursuq’s army were not only unaware of the proximity of the Franks, but they had not yet fully mustered in the valley: part of the army was there, but other detachments were arriving piecemeal. Some tents were already pitched, but others were yet to be set up. Roger was elated but knew that he needed to act quickly. He jumped on his horse and rode to each of the army’s sub-commanders for discussions, urging the men to get their weapons ready and prepare for battle as soon as possible.⁴⁰

The army, like all armies of this period, was deeply religious. Spiritual preparations were just as important as the sharpening of swords or the adjustment of battle lines. The troops had received mass earlier in the morning, with William, bishop of Jabala, conducting the service and delivering what seems to have been an appropriately militaristic sermon. ‘In that very place’, we are told, ‘the renowned bishop, bearing in a spirit of humility the Cross of holy wood in his reverend hands, circled the whole army; and while he showed it to all of them he affirmed that they would claim victory in the coming battle through its virtue, if they charged the enemy with resolute heart and fought trusting Lord Jesus.’⁴¹<

With the religious inspiration completed, it was time for more secular morale boosting. It was always going to be difficult to compete with the True Cross, or even a fragment of it, but Roger made a good, soldierly attempt. His speech in the approach to the battle of Tell Danith was recorded in some detail. The army was small and the speech could have been heard by most of the men. It was not flowery or particularly clever, but its simplicity makes it all the more credible. This was a young leader talking to a group of hardened veterans, each potentially looking death in the face. He started by reminding them how important it was that their actions as men should be remembered with honour. He then followed up with the comfort that any who died in the battle ahead would have been fighting for a just cause and would be well received by the Lord. More practically, and probably in much more comfortable territory, he ended up by telling them to charge in with the lance but then to get stuck into hand- to- hand combat with swords. He could give them no certainties, but he could talk of honour, consolation and, most importantly, instructions for battle.⁴²<

Before the army set off, there were still things to do. Stronger detach ments of light cavalry were sent out along the road to the Sarmin valley, to ensure that the situation had not changed and that the Franks would not be entering a trap. Once they had been sent off, the order of march was decided. This was more than just a formality, because the order of march would determine the order of deployment on the field. The army of Edessa, commanded by Count Baldwin of Bourcq, was given the honour of the vanguard. Although smaller than the Antiochene forces, the Edessans were veterans of numerous campaigns against Turkic raiders, and were trusted to launch the initial attack.⁴³

Finally, Roger personally rode up and down the army to emphasise the need for discipline with regard to plunder. If anyone paused to start collecting booty in the middle of the battle, he promised that the punishments would be severe. The customary sentence for disobedience in the Antiochene army at this time seems to have been blinding, something picked up from their frequent interactions with the Byzantine army to the north of the principality.⁴⁴ As if that was not enough, Bishop William also went to each unit to reinforce Roger’s edict: he emphasised the threats of physical punishment which would accompany disobedience by plundering, but culprits would also be condemned, ‘he assured them, to suffer eternal damnation’.⁴⁵<

This was not as excessive as it might seem. Plunder was an essential part of any medieval campaign, and a great motivator for the men. In this instance, however, the scouts were reporting that much of the enemy camp was at the end of the valley closest to the Franks, and that Bursuq’s troops were gradually filtering into the valley from the other end. Plundering normally took place towards the end of a battle, as a routing enemy fled to the rear through their baggage train and camp. In this case, with the Muslim camp in front of their main army, the Franks were going to be offered plenty of plundering opportunities before the battle had been decided. If discipline broke down at that point, disaster would be inevitable. The Franks would hopefully have surprise on their side, but were also heavily outnumbered: once battle began, Bursuq’s troops could be given no opportunity to regroup and rally.

As the Franks entered the valley, the Muslim forces were entirely unpre pared. Foraging parties were still out. The camp was only half set up, with further troops and supplies gradually filtering through. And a significant body of Turkic troops had left the army to occupy Buza’a.⁴⁶ To make matters worse, Bursuq misinterpreted what he saw taking place in front of the camp, and instead of pulling his troops back to form a defensive line, began to send men forward to capture what he thought were Frankish scouts. It was only when the Antiochene banners came into sight that Bursuq real ised that he was facing the field army of the northern Franks. Perhaps convinced that Prince Roger would wait for reinforcements before trying to intercept him, as he had done before, Bursuq had split his forces, marched his troops without proper discipline, and, above all, had failed to grasp even an approximate sense of the location of the Frankish army.⁴⁷

He withdrew his main line back through the camp, trying to use his heavier troops to form an impromptu defensive position on the hill of Tell Danith. The main body of Turkic horse archers, who would need mobility if they were to be used to best effect, were pulled back behind the hill under the command of the Emir Tamirek of Sinjar, with orders to outflank and surround the Franks once they were fully committed to their front.⁴⁸

The Franks deployed across the valley floor, facing the Muslim camp, with Tell Danith behind it. The Edessan army was the vanguard division, holding the left of the Frankish line, and split into three main units. The Turcopole light cavalry archers were deployed on the far left. A unit of knights and other troops, including a Cilician contingent led by Guy Le Chevreuil, one of Antioch’s leading noblemen, was posted on the left with orders to move up to attack Tell Danith from its flank. The core of the Edessan army, led by Count Baldwin himself, were positioned to charge frontally to the left of the hill.⁴⁹

The main Antiochene army was split into two divisions, in the centre and right of the line, each echeloned behind the other, and with the central division commanded by Prince Roger himself. Having the divisions drawn back had the advantage of providing a reserve and rearguard if needed (always important when facing large numbers of nomadic horse archers) while at the same time positioning them to launch a direct attack on Bursuq’s troops on Tell Danith when the moment was right.

The first Frankish attacks were launched in a staggered way, across the Muslim front and progressing from left to right. The Turcopoles moved forward on the far left, to try to prevent the Christian army being outflanked. The Cilicians and Baldwin of Bourcq’s Edessans moved through the wreckage of the hastily abandoned camp and tore on up into the left of Tell Danith. The initial charge inflicted some damage on Bursuq’s defence lines on the hill, but once the first shock of impact was over, lances were shattered or discarded, and the fighting settled down to the close combat of sword and shield. The Franks began to carve their way through the Muslim lines: ‘recovering their strength . . . they put the enemy to flight, hacked them to pieces and killed them’.⁵⁰

Once the Frankish heavy cavalry were fully committed on the left, the Turkic cavalry to the rear of Tell Danith launched their attack. This was well timed. With the Frankish troops on the left already occupied, they attacked the Frankish light cavalry and ‘at a swifter pace they caused the Turcopoles, who were shooting arrows at them, to be swallowed up among our men’.⁵¹ The Turcopoles fled before Tamirek’s men could connect with them, retreating back towards the army’s centre and the relative safety of the Christian infantry. In fact, there was little else they could do. Heavily outnumbered, and probably outclassed as well, their position on the left could only hope at best to slow down the Turkic advance, and buy additional time for the Frankish heavy troops in the centre to do their work.

Tamirek’s troops then began to sweep round behind the Christian main lines, bypassing the Cilician and Edessan units. The Christian chronicles were correct in suggesting that the Turkic cavalry had diverted around the Frankish divisions on the left for sound military reasons, as ‘they did not dare to attack it, and they could not use a constant bombardment of arrows to disrupt the charge’.⁵² Charging unbroken Frankish knights at close quarters was never going to play to their strengths.

Indeed, probably as was always intended, they continued to move towards the rear of the Christian centre, attempting to disrupt their all important heavy cavalry charge in other parts of the line. They were gradually engaged by men from the Antiochene divisions. The first troops they faced were those of Robert fitz- Fulk, probably in Prince Roger’s central division, who turned to face them with his men. The Turkic cavalry met them as the Frankish troops were ‘advancing from the right, head on’.⁵³

Robert, known to his more literally minded friends as ‘Robert the Leper’, led a powerful contingent from his frontier lands in Zardana, the major castle of Saone and the nearby town of Balatanos.⁵⁴ The fighting in the centre was fierce. One of the casualties was Robert Sourdeval, from a Sicilian Norman family, who had had a distinguished career working with Prince Roger. He and his men charged into the oncoming Turkic troops and were surrounded. The reins of his horse were cut during the fighting and he was brought down by Turkic archers. His men were completely routed.⁵⁵

Robert fitz- Fulk survived, helped by the swift arrival of reinforcements from the Frankish right. The tough frontier contingent from al- Atharib, led by their lord Alan, and troops from Harim, commanded by Guy Fresnel, rushed to contain the Muslim light cavalry and succeeded in neutralising the threat they posed to the rear of the Christian army.⁵⁶

Tamirek’s men had done the best they could under the circumstances. But as long as the Franks held their nerve they could do little more than distract. Prince Roger committed his reserves to cope with the light cavalry to his rear and remained focused on the tactical priority: the destruction of the core of Bursuq’s army on Tell Danith in front of his battle line. He gave the order to charge, and the central division crashed into the Muslim troops on the hill in front of them. The Frankish division on the right flank followed almost immediately. The charge was particularly aimed at Bursuq and his retainers, as Roger’s men ‘assailed the enemy in wondrous manner wherever they saw the mass was densest’. Desperate attempts were made to try to stop the Frankish cavalry charge with archery, but with no success. The knights carried on through the hail of arrows and hurled themselves onto the centre of Bursuq’s forces. The Muslim army, already reeling from Baldwin of Bourcq’s assault on the left, collapsed almost immediately. The rout began and Bursuq’s troops ‘at first resisted for a little while, then suddenly fled’.⁵⁷

As the Muslim forces broke and ran, the detritus of their baggage train slowed down their pursuers for a short while. As Walter the Chancellor later wrote, the ground was ‘partly covered by dead bodies, partly crammed by a mass of camels and other animals laden with riches, which were a hindrance to killing for our men, and a help to escape for those fleeing’. The Turcopoles, having been humiliated by the Turkic cavalry earlier in the day, were now unleashed to maximise the damage to the retreating army. The initial pursuit continued beyond the town of Sarmin, with the Christian cavalry ‘running them through, wounding them and killing them’.⁵⁸

Some of the fleeing Muslim troops spread out across the countryside, and tried to hide in nearby villages, only to find themselves attacked by the local farmers. The villagers, who had been terrorised by the Turkic raiders over the previous days, took their revenge in full. An additional operation by the Frankish cavalry and light troops was put in place over the next couple of days to round up the Muslim stragglers dispersed in the area.⁵⁹

Muslim casualties were high, reflecting the scale of the defeat in their centre and the punishing nature of the pursuit. One Frankish chronicle estimated that ‘three thousand Turks were killed, and many captured. Those who escaped death saved themselves by flight. They lost their tents in which were found much money and property. The value of the money was estimated at 300,000 bezants. The Turks abandoned there our people whom they had captured, Franks as well as Syrians, and their own wives and maid- servants.’⁶⁰

Roger remained on the field of victory for two or three days after the battle, so the army could regroup and tend to its wounded. Discipline about the distribution of booty was vitally important at this stage, in order to ensure the continued motivation of the cavalry detachments which were still in pursuit of enemy stragglers. Pursuit after defeat was the most important opportunity to inflict casualties on an enemy army. If the pursuing troops, and particularly the cavalry, thought that their share of the plunder would be gone before they returned, this chance would be lost. He delayed the division of spoils for three days to ensure a fair distribution of the plunder and as suitable encouragement for the mopping- up operation, and he ‘personally directed the wealth which was brought to him to be kept for him . . . the rest was to be shared out, as his sovereignty and the custom of that same court demanded’.⁶¹

Usama was part of the Muslim garrison at the recently captured castle of Kafartab when the battle took place, but left an account of the personal loss his family had sustained on the field. His father, who had been with Bursuq at Tell Danith, came back having ‘had all his tents, camels, mules, baggage and furniture taken from him’.⁶² Hearing of Bursuq’s defeat, Usama and his comrades killed the Christian prisoners they had taken ten days earlier and set off back to Shaizar.⁶³

The leaders of the Muslim army seem to have left the battlefield with embarrassing speed, leaving their men behind. Despite the large number of casualties, ‘the army lost no commander nor even any well- known personage’.⁶⁴ Bursuq’s personal performance on the day was so poor that elaborate excuses were made for him. Ibn al- Athir suggested, implausibly, that he wanted to take part in the fighting but was prevented by the ‘camp- followers and pages’ who surrounded him. Bursuq died the following year ‘full of remorse for this defeat’.⁶⁵ He had commanded a polyglot force, some of whom were there more or less unwillingly. But he had also split his forces in the face of the enemy and, despite the large numbers of light cavalry at his disposal, had remained ignorant of his enemy’s intentions or location. The element of surprise was reflected in the casualties his men suffered, and in the large number of prisoners taken.

The young Prince Roger had much to be pleased with. His men had been heavily outnumbered but the cohesiveness of the army in attack and the heavy weight of a Frankish charge had won the day and inflicted massive damage on the Muslim force. There were lessons to be learned, however, and lessons are taught more compellingly by defeat than by victory.

Too much had been asked of the Turcopoles. They were extremely useful light cavalry, important for a wide range of tasks. They made a major contribution to the Frankish success through their role as scouts in the run- up to the battle and in the pursuit that took place afterwards. But although they were horse archers, it was too risky to expect them to face large numbers of Turkic troops on their own. The nomads were the experts, living the role in a way that more regular troops could never achieve. And there were always more of them. Outnumbered and outclassed, the Turcopoles could not be expected to hold a flank on their own.

The other lesson was far more important but also more counterintui tive. Roger and his nobles could logically deduce from their victory that a well- led Franco- Armenian army, even when outnumbered, could face an enemy invasion on its own: it did not need to wait for reinforcements. Instead of holding back, and watching its people being slaughtered and its towns destroyed, such an army could see off an invading force on its own. The beguiling quality of this ‘lesson’ was, of course, that it was partially true. On a good day, in good circumstances, and with the enemy commanded by someone who was more of a diplomat than a battlefield general, this could all be true.

The risks, however, were far less apparent. And the risks of open combat under less than ideal conditions were always greater for the Franks than the potential benefits. At best, victory would inflict some casualties on the enemy and bring an invasion to a halt. But the casualties never amounted to very much. Muslim commanders were rarely killed or captured: they had good horses and tended not to fight in the front line. There was an almost limitless number of Turkic tribesmen, waiting to be tempted off the steppes by the lure of the plunder. A major victory might gain respite for a year, possibly two, but little more than that.

The consequences of defeat in battle against nomadic armies, on the other hand, were huge. The Christians were always outnumbered, and their ability to replace highly skilled and heavily armoured warriors was extremely limited. Frankish commanders often needed to fight in the front line, in order to maximise their chances of success. In the event of defeat, casualties among the infantry, harried remorselessly by Muslim light cavalry, could be catastrophic. Vital garrisons would already have been stripped back to create the field army and give it a chance of victory: if the field army was lost, then town after town, castle after castle, would fall. Where a Muslim defeat might be a temporary setback, a similar defeat for the Franks, if fully exploited, could lead to virtual annihilation.

Victory felt good, but for Roger and his men, the battle of Tell Danith was the medieval equivalent of a schoolboy placing winning bets on his first day at the races: satisfying but dangerously deceptive

Footnotes

27. We are also lucky in having a wonderful translation and commentary on this work by Susan Edgington and Tom Asbridge, which brings it so vividly to life: Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999.

28. Barber 2012, pp. 102–4. This is either Barber, M. and K. Bate tr. (2002) The Templars, Manchester Medieval Sources, Manchester. or Barber, M. and K. Bate tr. (2010) Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries, Crusade Texts in Translation 18, Farnham.

29. Barber 2012, p. 104. This is either Barber, M. and K. Bate tr. (2002) The Templars, Manchester Medieval Sources, Manchester. or Barber, M. and K. Bate tr. (2010) Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries, Crusade Texts in Translation 18, Farnham.

30. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 89–90.

31. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, ed. and tr. S.B. Edgington, Oxford, 2007., pp. 854–5; IA I, p. 173; ME, p. 219.

32. Ibn al- Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al- Athīr for the Crusading Period from al- Kāmil fī’l- Ta’rīkh, parts 1 and 2, tr. D.S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 13 and 15, Aldershot, 2006, 2007. I, p. 166.

33. Usama ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, tr. P.M. Cobb, London, 2008., p. 88.

34. Ibn al- Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al- Athīr for the Crusading Period from al- Kāmil fī’l- Ta’rīkh, parts 1 and 2, tr. D.S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 13 and 15, Aldershot, 2006, 2007. I, p. 166; KD RHCr Or. III, p. 609.

35. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, ed. and tr. S.B. Edgington, Oxford, 2007., pp. 856–7.

36. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 98.

37. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 98.

38. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 87.

39. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 99 n. 136.

40. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 99.

41. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 98–9 and n. 132.

42. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 99–101.

43. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 99–100.

44. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 92.

45. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 101.

46. Kamal al- Din. Extraits de la Chronique d’Alep par Kemal ed- Din, in RHCr Or., vol. 3, Paris, 1872, pp. 571–690. III, pp. 609–10.

47. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 101.

48. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 101–2.v

49. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 102.

50. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., pp. 103–4.

51. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 103.

52. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 103.

53. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 103.

54. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 103 n. 166.

55. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 104.

56. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 105.

57. Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095–1127, tr. F. Ryan, ed. H. Fink, Knoxville, 1969., pp. 213–14.

58. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 106.

59. William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea, tr. E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, 2 vols, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 35, New York, 1943. I, p. 505; Kamal al- Din. Extraits de la Chronique d’Alep par Kemal ed- Din, in RHCr Or., vol. 3, Paris, 1872, pp. 571–690. III, pp. 609–10.

60. Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095–1127, tr. F. Ryan, ed. H. Fink, Knoxville, 1969., p. 214.

61. Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, tr. T.S. Asbridge and S.B. Edgington, Crusade Texts in Translation 4, Aldershot, 1999., p. 106; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds done beyond the Sea, tr. E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, 2 vols, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 35, New York, 1943. I, p. 505.

62. Usama ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation, tr. P.M. Cobb, London, 2008., p. 88.

63. Ibn al- Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al- Athīr for the Crusading Period from al- Kāmil fī’l- Ta’rīkh, parts 1 and 2, tr. D.S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 13 and 15, Aldershot, 2006, 2007. I, p. 173.

64. Kamal al- Din. Extraits de la Chronique d’Alep par Kemal ed- Din, in RHCr Or., vol. 3, Paris, 1872, pp. 571–690. III, p. 610.

65. Ibn al- Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al- Athīr for the Crusading Period from al- Kāmil fī’l- Ta’rīkh, parts 1 and 2, tr. D.S. Richards, Crusade Texts in Translation 13 and 15, Aldershot, 2006, 2007. I, p. 173.

Was the The Battle of Tell Danith before or after the 29 November earthquake ?

After

Walter the Chancellor dates the Battle of Tell Danith to after the 29 November Earthquake (Asbridge and Eddington - 80-84, 100-104
Ibn al-Athir dates the Battle of Tell Danith to after the 29 November Earthquake - the earthquake was in A.H. 508 and the Battle of Tell Fanisth was in A.H. 509 (Richards, 2006:253, 255-257
Matthew of Edessa dates the Battle of Tell Danith to after the 29 November Earthquake (Dostourian (1993:215-219)
William of Tyre dates the Battle of Tell Danith to after the 29 November Earthquake (Babcokk and Krey (1943:500, 503-505)
Bar Hebraeus dates the Battle of Tell Danith to apparently after the 29 November Earthquake (Budge, 1932:247-248) but the reference of the battle is muddled and Bar Hebraeus has wrong years in his chronology

Before

Fulcher of Chartres dates the Battle of Tell Danith to before the 29 November Earthquake (Ryan (1969:213-214)

Still working on it

Kemal ad-Din dates the Battle of Tell Danith to the 29 November Earthquake
Albert of Aachen dates the Battle of Tell Danith to the 29 November Earthquake
Michael the Syrian dates the Battle of Tell Danith to the 29 November Earthquake
Chronicon Ad Annum 1234 dates the Battle of Tell Danith to the 29 November Earthquake
The Chronicle of Sembat dates the Battle of Tell Danith to the 29 November Earthquake

Not finding it

Ibn al-Qalinisi dates a quake to AH 508 (7 June 1114-26 May 1115) doesnt seem to mention the Battle of Tell Danith (Gibb, 1932:148-149)
Abbot Anselm mentions the earthquake on 13 Nov. in Bethmann (1848:375-376) but I don't see the Battle of Tell Danith. Its in Latin
Ibn al-Jawzi mentions 29 Nov. quake but unsure about battle of Tell Danith I can only find texts in arabic
Usama Ibn Muniq mentions the Battle of Tell Danith but no earthquake from around this time (Cobb, 2008)

Northern Syria in the Time of the Crusades - Cahen (1940)

Part 2 Chapter 2 Territorial Development of the Frankish states

IV 1113-1115 The Muslim Counteroffensive at the Beginning of the Principate of Roger

from Cahen (1940:266-275)

The death of Tancred, immediately replaced by his nephew Roger, son of Richard of the Principate, who had died shortly before, did not change the situation (1). If Roger, with the same pride as Tancred, had less of a sense of difficulties than him, if he was more given to the pleasures of this world and less generous, he was nonetheless an energetic man, a magnificent and skillful knight, who, in circumstances quite similar to those that Tancred had known at the end of his life, would lead the same policy as him. The day after Tancred's death, a raid on Aleppo advised, it is said, by the dying man showed that the Muslims had no reason to expect a weakening of the Frankish force, and Ridwan hastened to renew to Roger the tribute promised to Tancred. The Sultan of Shaizar did the same (2). On the other hand, Roger had married a sister of Baldwin du Bourg, Cécile, which made the relations between the two princes particularly close (3). He was no less faithful ally of the king of Jerusalem. It was under Roger's reign that the principality would reach its greatest power and this fact, combined with the personality of the prince, made it the most prestigious moment in its history..

From 1113, Roger had to render to the kingdom the service rendered by Baldwin I of Jerusalem to Tancred in 1111. Mawdud, in fact, returned again with help from Il-Ghazi (April), and this time, at the call of his ally Toghtekin who, when he was alone, did not fear him, marched straight towards central Syria: all the Franks in turn were to be struck. Baldwin I called on Pons and Roger, who arrived as quickly as possible; Baldwin had not had the prudence of Tancred and, seeing his country devastated, had allowed himself to go as on the Ballkh in 1104, to engage in a battle, which ended for him in defeat (end of June). But the arrival of Pons and Roger made it possible to limit the damage and finally Mawdud and Toghtekin, after several weeks spent under observation near Tiberias, as in 1111 near Shaizar, returned to Damascus (September (4). Baldwin was able to quietly celebrate his remarriage with the rich widow of Roger of Sicily, Adelaide, in the presence of Roger of Antioch who, related to the house of Sicily, received from her for the occasion particularly important gifts (5).

Events soon turned in favor of the Franks.

First Mawdud with Toghtekin had requested Ridwan's help in application of the recent treaty; Ridwan made his contingent wait until after the Muslim victory and still sent only a minimal troop; Toghtekin then denounced the treaty and repudiated the khotba in Ridwan's name (6). Ridwan's conduct did not prevent the Aleppo territory from being mistreated, on their return, by Roger's men (7). Then in October 1113, Mawdud was assassinated in the great mosque of Damascus; it is probable that the murderers were Assassins, who reproached him for his hostility towards them in the East; but in the general atmosphere of distrust, public rumor accused Toghtekîn, who now suspected of the sultanate party, would find himself led to approach the Franks (8). Finally in December 1113 Ridwan died, leaving as his successor a young man, Alp Arslân (9).

Aleppo then entered a period of disorder and extreme weakness. The death of Rodwan was the occasion of an explosion of popular hatred against the Assassins, which despite some decautious statements (10) the deceased prince had protected until the end, whatever Sultan Mohammad had done to detach him from them (11); they, moreover, took advantage of his benevolence for anything other than to serve him, since it was only due to a last-minute blunder that they did not succeed in seizing, towards the end of his reign, the citadel of Aleppo (12); the day after his death again, they would get their hands on Qolai'a, near Bàlis, and in Aleppo itself, they had a large militia, commanded by the Turk Ibn Dimlàdj. Already during Ridwan's lifetime, a failed attack against a rich Persian merchant (505) had led to a popular uprising against the Assassins (13). Ridwan died (14), the rais Ibn BadV, son of a Persian astrologer brought to Aleppo by Aqsonqor, and the Shiite qadi Ibn al-Khachchàb extracted from Alp Arslàn the order to put to death Abu Tàhir and the missionary Ismâ'il (15); this was done, and the populace, running against their followers, massacred them for a few weeks (16). At the same time, the Assassins failed in an attempt made by them to seize the citadel of Shaizar; the vigorous reaction of the population led by the Banou Mounqidh allowed it to be retaken from them; all were executed (17). Their followers remained numerous in Northern Syria and we will find them there:. Nevertheless, it is elsewhere that in the years to come we will see them carry out their political attempts.

No longer having the free police of the Batenians on his side, Alp Arslan had to think about obtaining other protection. He went to Damascus to obtain that of Toghtekin, who accompanied him back to Aleppo (March 1114). But the official exercise of the Shiite cult in Aleppo displeased Toghtekin, accustomed to acting in Damascus with inhabitants who were mostly Sunnis. So the agreement did not last (18). Roger of Antioch then came in arms to demand the advance payment of the tribute (19). Then Alp Arslan, of a cruel temperament, made enemies and was finally assassinated, with almost his entire family, by the head of his government, Lu'Lu, who took power, with as army leader Chams al-Khawâçç, the lord of Rafànya, recently dispossessed by Toghtekin (autumn 1114); then Roger came to demand a new tribute, the collection of which displeased the population and provoked riots (20). The armed force at the disposal of Alp Arslan, Lu'Lu and their successors, just sufficient to ensure their domination, is not sufficient to safeguard the security of the territory. Having neither the strong army of soldiers that only princes whose country is not ruined can afford, nor the personal military clientele of the Bedouin or Turkoman chiefs, they tremble before the Franks, the Orientals, all of them, and even more than ItoçlwAn spend their time trying to play one against the other. To tell the truth, hoping that each of the armies, of which they tremble, will not suppress them, they are less and less the real leaders of Aleppo: they are just the military commanders of a citadel. The real leaders are the leaders of the people, rais in particular, who last while the princes pass, who have, themselves, a large clientele, who negotiate directly with foreign sovereigns, who, sometimes, suppress the princes. Aleppo is a republic of notables. However, they too do not have an army sufficient for external defense, and their policy which constantly seeks to engage a military leader, while avoiding at all costs days of paying for it with no concession of power, is a seesaw game parallel to that of the masters of the citadel, although often discordant.

Outside Aleppo, Mawdud's death did not stop, but dissociated the sultan's holy war effort. He replaced the dead leader in Mosul with Aqsonqor al-Boursouqî, with the same holy war mission.

But from the outset Il-Ghazi, who had only borne the suzerainty of Mawdud out of necessity, from which he had gained nothing, showed himself recalcitrant, and a demonstration of force was necessary under the walls of Mardin to compel him to send his son Ayaz again with reinforcements to the Sultan's army. Even then his submission was not perhaps not very deep, because when Bursukl arrived under Harran, which belonged to Il-Ghazi, the governor refused for a long time to let him pass and even intrigued with the Franks. He then went to attack Edessa, but came up against a resolute defense, and was content to pillage the regions of Sarouj, Blra, QaPat as-Sinn, Samosata. In the meantime a rupture broke out between him and Ayaz, whom he had arrested, at the same time as he sent the emir of Sinjar, Tamirak, to attack Mardin. Il-Ghazi called on his nephews Daoud of Izfi Kaïfa and Balak, gathered together all the Turkomans he could and finally inflicted a resounding defeat on Bursukl, in which Tandrak was taken prisoner (21).

However, the campaign of Bursouqî had had a dangerous indirect consequence for the Franks; the widow of Kogh Vâsil, whether she was worried about their intentions or wanted to protect the future in the event of a Turkish victory, sent to offer Bursouqî her homage and ask for reinforcements. He sent her the governor of Khâbour, Sonqor the Long (22). In vain, the Franks of Edessa, warned, tried to surprise them at the crossing of the Euphrates; informed by the Armenian princess, the Muslims were victorious. Sonqor did not remain with her, however, and limited herself to taking the presents that she sent to Bursouqî. She had with her Frankish soldiers from Antioch, who left her (23). For the moment, the episode was therefore not serious. But, added to the intrigues of the Armenians of Edessa with the Turks in 1112 and 1113 (24), it was a serious symptom of disaffection, which would force the Franks to a policy of mistrust, mistrust which would further develop disaffection.

Nevertheless, for the moment, if the Sultan's army was not victorious, it remained too constantly threatening for Baldwin to be able to engage in an open struggle against the Limanians. These threats were all the stronger because, at the end of November 1114, a violent earthquake occurred which destroyed a multitude of fortifications; on the Muslim side, Aleppo, 'Azâz, Bàlis were quite tested; but in Frankish or Armenian territory Antioch, Attirib, Zerdana. Tell Itliàlid, Edessa, Samosate, Ra'bàn, lçaïçoùn, Hiçu Mançoùr, Mar'ach, Sis, Misis are reported as having suffered more or less considerable damage (25).

Now, a new sultanal expedition, the sixth since 1110, was being prepared, as powerful as that of 1111, because this time it was a question of both holy war and reprisals against the unruly emirs, such as Il-Ghazi. Boursourii, relegated to his personal fief of Rahba because of his defeat, had been replaced in Mosul by Djouyouchbeg i'atabek of the sultan's son; but the direction of the holy war had been given to the governor of the province of Hamadhân, Bursuq ibn Bursuq, augmented by part of the troops of the Inini. The army marched directly on Syria via Raqqa (May 1115). Indeed, Ilghàzl, worried about the consequences of his escapade, had gone to Syria to ask for the support of Toghtekin, treated as a rebel by the sultan since the death of Maudoùd, which he attributed to him. Not yet judging themselves sufficiently sure if they stuck to their own forces, the heavenly emirs decided to resort to the Frankish alliance and to negotiate with Roger of Antioch.

An interview took place between the Frankish prince and them near Hornç, in the last days of 1114. The coalition, it is true, almost got hit from the start by the intervention of the lord of Homç, Khîrkhân, who had for three years replaced his father, Qa. radja, the successor of Djenâh ad-daula, under the suzerainty of Toghtekin. Unlike Qaradja, Khîrkhân submitted impatiently to this suzerainty; the passage of Ilghâzl gave him an unexpected opportunity: one day when the latter, after the withdrawal of Toghte kin and Roger, did not park, he surprised him and took him prisoner; then he appealed to Sultan Mobammad. Nevertheless, threatened by Toghtekin before the arrival of the sultanic troops, he was content to keep Ayâz, the son of Ilghâzî, as a hostage, and the latter was able to go to Diyâr Bakr to raise his Turcomans (26).

Aleppo remained. The conditions of his seizure of power did not give Lu'Lu much confidence in Toghtekin and, feeling the need for legitimation, he had written to the Sultan, hoping to receive, in exchange for verbal submission, a formal consecration. In reality, everything happened as in 1111 between Mawdud and Ridwan.

Bursuq, approaching Aleppo, invited Lu'Lu to effectively surrender the city to him. Then Lu'Lu called Toghtekin and Il-Ghazi, who rushed to Aleppo. For his part, Roger, who had concentrated his troops at the Iron Bridge, came to post himself at Athârib, thus cutting short the attempts at negotiations of his Muslim allies with Bursuq against him. Moreover, Bour-souq himself had not believed in it and went to take Hamâh, where Toghtekin had left his baggage (27); Toghtekin, Il-Ghazi and Lu'Lu then threw themselves unconditionally into the arms of Roger of Antioch. This time there was indeed the Franco-Muslim Syrian coalition against the Eastern intervention of which 1108 and 1111 had shown the first symptoms.

Unable to take Aleppo as a base of operations, Bursuk had in fact turned away towards Hamâh, in order to operate his liaison with Khîrkhân, who received the city in exchange for Ayâz. He could still count further north on the Munqidhites of Shaizar, always threatened both by the Franks and the sovereigns of Aleppo, and too compromised in 1111 with the sultanal party not to have remained attached to it. In these conditions, Bursuk's plan of It was worth first subduing Northern Syria and relying on Chaizar, the allies were led to come face to face with him and occupy near Apamea a position similar to that of the Franks in 1111 (28). Instructed by the defeat of Baldwin Ior in 1113 near Tiberias, Roger had also called on Baldwin of Edessa, Pons and the King of Jerusalem. In vain did Bursuq, by attacks on Kafartâb, then on the camp of the allies itself, try to draw them into a battle before he had lost his numerical superiority: Roger knew how to tame his impatience and that of his own and Toghtekin, who did not want a clear victory for either party, could only encourage this tactic. Pons and Baldwin having arrived, Bursuq now withdrew. 1111 seemed to repeat itself (29).

But this time it was only a ruse. If some emirs were dissatisfied with the sultan's order to give Khirkhân the conquests made in Syria, Bursuq nevertheless had his army more in hand than Mawdud had had it. The allies, believing him to have left, had dispersed. He then returned. With the help of the Munqidhites he again furiously attacked Kafare , who had to capitulate (30).

Then, taking advantage of a break between Lu'Lu and the leader of his army, he sent Djouyouchbeg to occupy Bouzâ'a and worry Aleppo. But Roger was watching. If he could not recall the Franks of Tripoli and Jerusalem quickly enough, he had at least 1- help from Baldwin of Edessa and came to post himself at Chastel-Ruge. The Turks, believing themselves to be at peace, dispersed and moved without precaution (31). Now, Lu'Lu informed Roger about their movements. Knowing the Turks in the - region of Sarmin he came, sheltered by the western edge of Djabal Bani 'Ulaim, to post himself at Hab, on September 14, 1115. A reconnaissance revealed that Bursuq was at Tell Dânfili, between Hab and Sarmîn. Without losing a moment, Roger gave the haranle to his armies. The Turkish camp, prepared in front of the approaching army, was swept away in a hurricane. Then, putting off the pillage until later, the Franks went to surprise Bursuq who, after a fine defense on Tell Dânith, barely managed to flee. In vain, Tamfrak of Sinjâr, having gathered men under the shelter of the tell, managed for a moment to drive back the Turkoples of the Frankish army; the situation was restored and Tamfrak in turn reduced to flight. The Turkish army was annihilated in the pursuit. In the camp, the victors gathered an enormous buffalo. The corps of Bouzâ'a, informed of the disaster, hastily left for Djéziré. Another, fleeing towards the South, was destroyed by Toghtekin (32).

The victory at Dânîth was perhaps the most important that the Franks had won since the crusade. It put an end to the sultanal reaction that had been a constant threat to them for six years. Bursuq wanted to prepare a revenge, but he died the following year and the affair was not taken up again. In 1118, Sultan Mohammed in turn died and in the troubles that broke out over his succession and all that remained of Seljuk strength (33) disappeared. The consequences of the French victory which in fact go far beyond the circle of frank interests. As a result, it had broken the authority of the Sultan over the emirs of the external provinces. Il-Ghazi, for example, despite the loss of his son Ayaz killed by the vanquished in their defeat, became practically independent, as well as the other Artouqids, and was soon to take Mayafari from his sultanal lieutenants (84). As for Syria, the Frankish power had wanted the victory to be the work not of the Franco-Muslim coalition, but of the Franks alone. They therefore received the benefit alone, to the point that Toghtekin, frightened, had no other choice but to go and obtain his pardon from Sultan Mobammad, who, obliged to be henceforth conciliatory, granted him the official investiture of Syria (1116)

Footnotes

English

French

The Field of Blood: The Battle for Aleppo and the Remaking of the Medieval Middle East - Morton (2018)

Chapter 2 - Riding The Storm: Seljuk Turks And Arab Emirs 1111–1118

from Morton (2018:62-70)

... The Munqidhs had won this round in their family’s long game of survival, but their security would not last forever. The Arab position across the Near East was in long-term decline. The Turks were steadily driving most Arab dynasties, particularly those whose lands lay further to the east, out of the handful of towns that remained under their control. Shaizar itself would eventually be claimed by the Turks after an earthquake in 1157. The First Crusaders had arrived in a world where Turkish supremacy was in the process of entrenching itself across the region and native rulers had, for the most part, already submitted or been crushed. The Christian victories of 1097–1099 disrupted that dominance, creating a window of opportunity for those who wished to resist the Turks, and it was several decades before the Turks fully regained their grip. During this time, the remaining Arab emirs were still very much in play in the bitter arena of the Near East, and their leaders would help shape the events of the following years.

For the Turkish leaders of northern Syria, the 1111 campaign was something of a nonevent. Yet Ridwan’s refusal to cooperate with Mawdud’s forces underlined the distrust and dissension that plagued the Turkish sultanate. There had always been some infighting within their ranks, but prior to the First Crusade it had rarely prevented the Seljuk Turks from expanding their authority across the Near East. Now, however, far from advancing, the Turks were struggling even to hold on to their existing lands. The Frankish threat to Aleppo was especially hazardous. The next few years would be decisive in determining whether the Turks would resume their former position of supremacy or be driven back. Their dominance across the Near East was deceptively frail. Like the crusaders, they were conquerors who had arrived in the region only recently, and their supremacy was not fully entrenched.

The Turks’ earliest incursions into the Muslim world had begun in the years before the turn of the first millennium, far to the east. At this time, tens of thousands of nomadic warriors and their families had suddenly poured out of the steppe country of central Asia and into the cultivated agricultural lands of the Islamic world to the south. Exactly why this migration took place is unclear. One suggestion is that they were driven south by climate change: cooling temperatures forced these nomadic tribes south into warmer climates. Another hypothesis is that the movement was driven by the implosion of several tribal confederations. ²⁵

Whatever the underlying cause, multiple Turkic peoples along with other nomadic groups penetrated the Islamic world’s frontiers and swiftly took control across Persia (modern-day Iran) before moving west into Iraq. Their arrival caused widespread devastation as Turkish commanders battled against their rivals, and nomadic Turkmen tribes spread out to pillage the landscape. The Turks’ main leaders were the descendants of a mighty warrior named Seljuk (d. 1002). During the wars for the Islamic world, the Seljuk family managed to secure a position of supremacy over both their native Arab and Kurdish opponents and their Turkish rivals, and, following their capture of Baghdad in 1055, Seljuk’s grandson Tughril took the title of Seljuk sultan. In the following years, the Seljuks conquered province after province, drawing them into their newly founded empire. Some local Arab and Kurdish rulers submitted to Turkish rule, others managed to negotiate a form of quasi-independence, and still others chose to resist and were destroyed. Either way, Seljuk power grew steadily during this time and much of southern and central Asia and the Near East came under their control. By the 1060s their territories spanned from the Himalayas to the marches of Anatolia.

During the 1070s and 1080s, the Turkish advance across Syria and Anatolia was almost uninterrupted. In 1071 the great sultan Alp Arslan moved into Syria, forcing Aleppo’s Arab ruler Mahmud to acknowledge him as overlord, before continuing on into Byzantine lands. At the Battle of Manzikert, he crushed the main Byzantine field army, led by Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, breaking open the Greeks’ frontier defenses and allowing the nomadic Turkmen tribes to spread far into Anatolia, causing havoc. Alp Arslan had already laid waste to Christian Georgia only a few years previously. To the south, in Syria, the Turkmen commander Atsiz conquered Jerusalem in 1073 and Damascus in 1075. With these towns in his grasp, he was able to advance on Egypt, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that the Fatimids drove him out of the Nile delta. The Turkish sultan’s authority reached its apogee in the 1080s under the leadership of Sultan Malik Shah and his great vizier Nizam al-Mulk. This high point did not last. Malik Shah’s death in 1092 caused a ruinous civil war that fragmented Seljuk power across much of their empire and ultimately opened the door to external invaders, including the crusaders. At the heart of the infighting was a major struggle over the sultanate in Iraq between Malik Shah’s sons Berkyaruq and Mohammed. This war, coupled with a slew of rebellions and invasions that broke out across the empire, kept the eyes of the Turkish world focused squarely on its central territories until Berkyaruq’s death in 1105.

The arrival of the First Crusade on the empire’s western margins was initially not a priority for the combatants waging war over the sultanate. The coastal regions of Syria and the Holy Land were peripheral to the empire and had never been satisfactorily brought under Seljuk control. Karbugha, Berkyaruq’s commander in Mosul, did set out to engage the First Crusaders in battle, but this was an isolated case. There were far more pressing concerns for the contenders for the sultanate—in fact, some Arabic historians of the Seljuk dynasty recorded the events of this period without even mentioning the Franks.

Viewed from the sultanate’s perspective, the Syrian region was of secondary importance, merely one among a large number of frontier provinces. After Malik Shah’s death, rule in the area was claimed by his brother Tutush. He too had pretentions to become the new sultan but in 1095—on the eve of the crusade—he led his army against Berkyaruq, only to be defeated and killed at the Battle of Dashlu. Tutush’s power was split between his young sons, with Ridwan receiving Aleppo and Duqaq taking power in Damascus. Overall, Turkish authority in Syria on the eve of the First Crusade was in chaos. The civil war engulfing the central lands of the sultanate to the east drew the bulk of their attention (and troops). To make matters more complicated, Ridwan and Duqaq immediately began to fight one another and continued to do so even as the crusaders advanced from the north.

As the crusade progressed, the Turkish position crumbled still further. Both Ridwan and Duqaq suffered major defeats at the crusaders’ hands in their separate attempts to break the siege of Antioch, and these losses encouraged dissent and rebellions from the region’s native Arabs and Armenians. The Fatimids also scented blood and took advantage of the chaos to invade from the south, retaking Jerusalem in 1098 (the year before the crusaders conquered the city). It was for these reasons that Turkish resistance to the Franks was so limited in the years following the First Crusade. Their authority was tenuous, and the Franks were merely one enemy among many.

Confronting such hazardous regional politics, Ridwan of Aleppo had often judged it wiser to pay tribute to the Franks than to risk facing them in battle. He had tried to wage campaigns against them in 1097, 1100, and 1105 but had been defeated on each occasion. The city itself was riddled with dissent and imperiled by raiding from the local Arab tribes. Even some of his own Turkish officers had defected to the Franks. Moreover, the ongoing civil war for control over the sultanate both threatened his position and occupied warriors who might otherwise have marched to his aid.

The events of 1106–1107 provide a classic example of the kind of political knots that entangled the competing Turkish warlords of the region and prevented them from offering serious resistance to the Franks. In 1106, the Seljuk sultan sent a commander named Jawuli to Syria to assert the sultan’s authority and to fight the Franks. Jawuli was promised control of the town of Rahba to serve as his base. He proceeded to Mosul to seek military support for this venture from its ruler. The ruler of Mosul, no doubt concerned about maintaining his own power, was reluctant to render aid, so Jawuli first raided his lands and then soundly defeated Mosul’s army in battle. The ruler of Mosul’s sons then appealed to the Turks of Anatolia, who came to their assistance against Jawuli but were also beaten off. Jawuli then traveled to Rahba, which he tried to seize, only to find himself vigorously resisted by the inhabitants (members of the Arab Banu Shayban tribe) and their overlord, the Turkish ruler of Damascus. At this point Jawuli summoned Ridwan of Aleppo and some Turkmen forces to his side. With their help, he captured Rahba, only to be almost immediately confronted again by the Anatolian Turks, who had arrived in force. He was forced to defeat this new challenger before heading east to take his revenge against Mosul, which he captured soon afterward. During this eastward journey to Mosul he alienated his former allies, Ridwan and the Turkmen²⁶.

This rather unedifying series of events played into Frankish hands. Jawuli may have been dispatched with the intention of striking a blow against the Crusader States, but his actions had the reverse effect. Rather than facing a new enemy, Frankish forces from Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch were all free to expand their territories, safe in the knowledge that the Turks were warring among themselves. The fractured political landscape of the Turkish world meant that suspicion, treachery, and conflicted loyalties prevented the many Turkish warlords in the region from forming a united front against any enemy, and the Syrian Turks distrusted forces led by the sultan’s commanders, fearing that they might try to force them to submit.

All these problems manifested themselves in a new campaign instigated by the Turkish sultan in 1115. Two years earlier, Ridwan of Aleppo had died of illness, and Aleppo became engulfed in factional infighting. Ridwan’s eldest son and heir, Alp Arslan, attempted to take control, but he was assassinated by one of his eunuchs, a man named Lou Lou, in 1114. Lou Lou then called on the Turkish sultan Mohammed for aid, offering him the city in exchange for his protection. Sultan Mohammed saw an opportunity to solidify his power and launched another major campaign to the north. The resulting campaign revealed, yet again, the fracture lines in the Turkish world. ²⁷

The army set out in February 1115 under the command of Bursuq of Hamadhan. It mustered additional forces in the Jazira and then marched west, crossing the Euphrates at Raqqa. As Bursuq approached Aleppo he asked Lou Lou to fulfill his promise to yield control of Aleppo, proffering letters from the sultan to confirm his authority. Lou Lou seems to have panicked and to have decided that it was too dangerous to give up power. Consequently, he called on the Damascenes (under their current ruler Tughtakin; Duqaq had died some years before) and the Turkmen commander Ilghazi to rescue him from this predicament. ²⁸

This request placed Tughtakin and Ilghazi, two leading Turkish warlords in Syria and the Jazira, respectively, in a dangerous position. On the one hand, if they defied the sultan’s army, they were in effect declaring themselves to be rebels. This was not necessarily a major problem because both Tughtakin and Ilghazi were out of favor at this time anyway (and allied to the Franks), though purposely obstructing the sultan’s army would be an unnecessarily overt statement of their defiance. On the other hand, if they simply allowed Sultan Mohammed to acquire a strong foothold in Syria by taking Aleppo, it would only be a matter of time before all the local rulers were brought to heel—themselves included. The region’s Turkish chieftains might have been prepared to acknowledge the sultan’s theoretical supremacy, but that authority was generally far away, and the chieftains prized their independence. Eventually both men made their choice: they converged to defend Aleppo, in direct opposition to the sultan’s army.

With armies massing to the east, the Antiochenes, under their new ruler Roger of Salerno (Tancred having died in 1112), grew alarmed at these troop movements and feared that the Turks were uniting to attack Antioch. So they too assembled their army, at their frontier stronghold of al-Atharib. They do not seem to have immediately appreciated the deep divisions hindering the Turkish army, but the fracture lines soon became apparent when Ilghazi and Tughtakin made contact with the Franks, offering to make common cause with them against the sultan’s army. The Franks accepted their offer and sought further aid from their allies in Tripoli and Jerusalem, who set out for the principality shortly afterward. These cascading events must have both surprised and alarmed Bursuq. He had been told to expect the willing compliance of the Aleppan leaders but was instead confronted by a major alliance of Syrian Turks and Franks. He was more enraged with his fellow Turks than with the Franks because, after taking a brief swipe at Edessa, he moved south to punish the Damascene ruler Tughtakin by attacking his town of Hama. This siege was swiftly and successfully concluded, and Bursuq moved on to Shaizar to confront the Frankish and Damascene armies, which were then encamped outside the Antiochene town of Apamea.

For the Munqidhs in Shaizar, these events created yet another awkward dilemma: Should they support the sultan’s army as they had in 1111 (and risk angering all their neighbors, both Frankish and Turkish)? Or should they jettison the sultan’s goodwill and treat his approaching army as an invading force? In the event, they sided with the sultan. Unfortunately, this time they made a bad choice. The sultan’s army, under Bursuq, remained inactive outside Shaizar’s walls, and rumors abounded that the Turks were drinking heavily. It was only when news came that Baldwin I’s army would soon arrive to join forces with the existing Frankish-Turkish coalition that Bursuq’s forces stirred themselves to action. ²⁹

Bursuq launched a frontal assault on the Antiochene camp before it could join forces with Baldwin I’s army but he achieved nothing. Roger of Salerno was a capable warrior who understood that the Turks’ strengths lay in their archers and in their mobility. Consequently, he formed his army into a tight array and harshly ordered his men to remain in line. He marched along their ranks, sword unsheathed, instructing them that under no circumstances were they to charge against the Turks. This was frustrating to many impetuous knights—eager for a chance at glory—but it was also sensible.³⁰

The Turks wanted to provoke a reaction. If the Christians could be stung into making an ill-timed charge, the Turks would simply veer away and stay out of reach until the Christians exhausted their horses. Then the Turks could descend upon them. Roger understood this danger. He was also determined to wait for Baldwin’s arrival before he risked battle. Bursuq, seeing that the usual strategy would not work, adopted a different approach. He pretended to withdraw, giving the impression that he had accepted defeat. His enemies fell for the deception and split up their forces, assuming the threat had passed. Tughtakin and Ilghazi returned to their homelands, Roger headed back to Antioch, and the other Frankish forces returned to Tripoli and Jerusalem. Once the main army had disbanded, Bursuq suddenly wheeled around and, in early September 1115, launched a new and vicious assault on the Antiochene frontier at Kafartab. ³¹

The siege of Kafartab was executed with the utmost speed. Whereas Frankish lords tended to carry out slow, grinding sieges supported by towers and catapults, seeking to climb over or destroy enemy walls, Turkish commanders preferred to tunnel under them. They employed specialists to carry out this dangerous work, most famously miners from the region of Khurasan, far to the east. Starting in Kafartab’s dry moat, the miners excavated under the walls. This was skilled work. First they cleared a large space under the ramparts, propping up the walls’ foundations with large wooden beams so the masonry would not fall on the diggers. When they had burrowed far enough under the wall, they filled the whole space with firewood and set it alight. The fire burned the supporting beams, causing the wall to collapse and creating a breach that the troops could assault.³²

Learning of the attack, Roger hurriedly regathered his troops, marshaling them, along with supporting Edessan contingents, at Rugia in preparation for meeting the sultan’s army. By this time, having taken Kafartab, Bursuq was besieging Zardana (another frontier stronghold). As Roger’s army moved against the Turks, his scouts reported that the enemy was unaware of their approach; Roger had the element of surprise. With this advantage, early on the morning of September 14, he led his army against the sultan’s forces. The Frankish horsemen were divided into different squadrons, and each formation was instructed to attack the enemy army at a different point with their lances couched (held under the arm, rather than raised above the head like a javelin). The cavalry launched themselves at their enemy, breaking their lances on first impact and then drawing their swords to engage in hand-to-hand combat. The Turks did not have time to form into squadrons and consequently were stampeded by the oncoming cavalry. The Turkish army panicked, and Bursuq himself only managed to survive his army’s rout by climbing a hill with his bodyguard, from which he was able to escape. ³³

This battle, which came to be known as the Battle of Tell Danith, was a classic cavalry victory, of the kind that had made the Christian knights so feared during the First Crusade. Their strategy was to ensure that the full energy of their charge broke directly on an enemy formation, without giving enemy troops any opportunity to take evasive action. The knights could then plow through their foes, producing shock and disorder that would spread virally throughout the enemy ranks and rout any resistance before the opposing army could swamp the Franks with their overwhelming numbers.

For the Franks, the Tell Danith campaign was a major victory, and their army returned to Antioch laden with their enemy’s riches; they were met at the city’s gates by a triumphal procession led by the patriarch. For Bursuq, it was a humiliation, and he felt deeply shamed by his defeat. He died the following year. For Syria’s Turkish warlords—Tughtakin and Ilghazi—the campaign had forced them to show their true colors. They had made it clear that they would side with the Franks if the sultan attempted to take control in Syria. The Turkish world was as divided as ever, and as Bursuq’s remaining forces fled back east, Tughtakin’s own troops harried the survivors.

For Tughtakin of Damascus, this campaign had been a triumph of sorts, yet his opposition to the sultan had been too visible, and he worried about how his Turkish peers would respond. Rumors reached him that he had made many enemies in the sultan’s court, so in 1116 he set out for Iraq, sending magnificent gifts in advance of his arrival, and seeking to be reconciled to Sultan Mohammed. In the event, Mohammed proved tractable to Tughtakin’s overtures. Perhaps the Turkish sultan concluded that Syria was too distant and too complex to be subdued and that it was better to accept Tughtakin’s shallow display of loyalty than to reject him and drive him into permanent opposition. ...

Footnotes

25. For a review of the possible reasons for the Turks’ migration, see A. C. S. Peacock, The Great Seljuk Empire, Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires (Edinburgh, 2015), 25.

26. Ibn al-Athir. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh. Translated by D. S. Richards. 3 vols. Crusade Texts in Translation 13, 15, and 17. Aldershot, UK, 2006–2008., 1: 111–117.

27. Kemal al-Din. “Extraits de la Chronique d’Alep.” Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux. Vol. 3. Paris, 1884, 606–608.

28. Ibid., 608.

29. Walter the Chancellor. The Antiochene Wars: A Translation and Commentary. Translated by T. Asbridge and S. B. Edgington. Crusade Texts in Translation 4. Aldershot, UK, 1999., 90, 92.

30. Ibid., 92–93.

31. Ibid., 95.

32. Usama ibn Munqidh. The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades. Penguin Classics. London, 2008, 85.

33. Walter the Chancellor. The Antiochene Wars: A Translation and Commentary. Translated by T. Asbridge and S. B. Edgington. Crusade Texts in Translation 4. Aldershot, UK, 1999., 96–104; Ibn al-Athir. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh. Translated by D. S. Richards. 3 vols. Crusade Texts in Translation 13, 15, and 17. Aldershot, UK, 2006–2008., 1: 172–173; Anonymous. “Syriac Chronicle.” Translated by A. Tritton. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 65 (1933): 69–101, 86.

Online Versions and Further Reading

References

Baldwin, M. W. and K. M. Setton (2016). A History of the Crusades, Volume 1: The First Hundred Years , University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated. - open access at archive.org

Cahen, C. (1940), La Syrie du nord a l’´epoque des croisades et la principaut´e franque d’Antioche , Paris: Institut Francais de Damas, Gauthner. - fully open access at Foundation Institut kurde de Paris

Hillenbrand, Carole (2021) The Career of Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi in: Hillenbrand, The Medieval Turks p. 1-49

Morton, N. (2018). The Field of Blood: The Battle for Aleppo and the Remaking of the Medieval Middle East, Basic Books.

Tibble, Steve (2018). The Crusader Armies 1099-1187 . New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Jerusalem - Introduction

Jerusalem - City Walls

Crak des Chevaliers (aka Hisn al-Akrad)

Tiberias - Introduction

Tiberias - Mount Berineke

Tiberias - House of the Bronzes

Tiberias - Gane Hammat

Landslide Evidence

Tsunamogenic Evidence

Sürgü–Misis Trenches

Duman et al. (2020) reports that Event E3 in the Elbeyli Trench (T6) approximately dates to between 1035 and 1215 CE (2σ Calibrated Age) and indicate that this Event could be related the 1114/5 Mamistra and Marash Quakes. Event E3 was dated via radiocarbon inside a wedge or fissure fill that formed between fault splays F3 and F5. Duman et al. (2020) reports that two samples of this fissure fill material were dated and yielded ages of AD 775 to 975, and AD 1035–1215. They assumed that the ~ 250–year difference in the age of material within the wedge reflects different ages of organic materials that had been reworked prior to deposition in the wedge. They inferred the timing of the last event (E3) based on the [supposedly minimally reworked] AD 1035–1215 age of the wedge, or fissure fill. Motion on the fault splays was described as normal dip slip. They do not report seeing this event in any of the other Sürgü–Misis Trenches.

Kartal Trenches

Kondo and Ozalp (2025) report that preliminary ¹⁴C dating results from the re-excavated Kartal Trench indicate that the last event before the 2023 earthquake occurred at least after 1054 AD and that the average recurrence interval for the last 5 events [in the Trenches] including the 2023 event is 650-690 years. Such a recurrence interval is slightly longer but comparable with the most recent two historical earthquakes, previously reported as in 1513 AD and 1114 AD.

Demirkopru Trenches and Tell Sıçantarla

Altunel et al. (2009) dated Event E2 in Demirkopru Trench 2 to before 1424 CE primarily based on two radiocarbon samples which were found immediately above the E2 event horizon and about 25 cm below the E1 horizon. This seems to have led to the conclusion that Event E2 struck soon before 1424 CE. Altunel et al. (2009) suggested that the most likely candidate for Event E2 was the 1408 Shugr-Bekas Earthquake.

Lake Amik

Hubert-Ferrari et al. (?) reports that a a trench and cores uncovered large earthquake related structural disturbances and smaller siliciclastic sedimentary events [JW: presumed landslides].

Kazzab Trench

Daeron et al (2007) dated Event S1 to between 926 and 1381 CE (2σ) and assigned it to the 1202 CE earthquake. Daëron et al (2005:529-530) presented surface faulting evidence that suggested younger less weathered fault scarplets on the Rachaıya-Serghaya faults and fresh mole-tracks on the Rachaıya fault were associated with one of the 1759 CE fault breaks while older more weathered faults scarplets on the Yammouneh fault were associated with one of the the 1202 CE earthquakes.

Jarmaq Trench

Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Z to after 84-239 CE. They suggested the Safed Earthquake of 1837 CE as the most likely candidate.

Displaced Aqueduct at al Harif, Syria

Sbeinati et al (2010) dated Event Z to between 1010 and 1210 CE (2σ) and suggested that it was probably caused by the 1170 CE earthquake.

Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls

Kanari et al (2019) assigned the 1033 CE earthquake to sample QS-4 although Kanari (2008) assigned the same sample to the 1202 CE earthquake. Either are possible.

Bet Zayda (aka Beteiha)

Marco et al (2005) dated Event E.H. 1 to between 1020 to 1280 CE (ages were unmodeled) and assigned this event to the 1202 CE earthquake. They observed 2.2 m of offset which results in a 7.1-7.3 estimate of Moment Magnitude when using a relationship from Wells and Coppersmith (1994).

Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed Trenches

Ferry et al (2011) detected 12 surface rupturing seismic events in 4 trenches (T1-T4) in Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed; 10 of which were prehistoric. The tightest chronology came from the Ghor Kabed trenches (T1 and T2) where Events Y and Z were constrained to between 560 and 1800 CE.

Note: Although Ferry et al (2011) combined archaeoseismic interpretations, their paleoseismic evidence, and entries from earthquake catalogs to produce earthquake dates and some overly optimistic probabilities, only the paleoseismic data is presented here. Ferry et al (2011)'s archaeoseismic data was researched and is treated separately.

Notes

Ambraseys (2009)

AD 1114 Aug 10 Alexandretta

AD 1114 Aug 10 Alexandretta

The large earthquake of 29 November 1114 (see below) was preceded by two strong shocks. The first, which occurred on the Feast of St Laurence on 10 August 1114 (Fulch. Gest. Franc. 431) was probably felt in Antioch, and allegedly ‘caused damage to maritime cities and fortified towns with loss of life’, which, since these cities are not named, may be pure rhetoric (Estoire, 645; Walt. Chan. i. 442; Rob. Tor. i. 146).

It is possible that this was an earthquake with an epicentre offshore in the Bay of Iskenderun (Alexandretta). Aftershocks continued for two months (Fulch. Hist. Hier., 573, dates in 1113)

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009:282). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

AD 1114 Nov 13 Misis

AD 1114 Nov 13 Misis

The second shock for which there is information occurred on the southeastern part of the plain of Adana, in the Principality of Antioch.

The earthquake destroyed a part of Misis (Mamistra) and allegedly all the towns in the surrounding area, causing great loss of life. The neighbourhood of Antioch and the city itself suffered less, but in the suburbs of Antioch the ground opened up and a number of towers and houses nearby settled into the ground. Many other towns in Caelo-Syria, Isauria and Cilicia, the names of which are not given, were also affected.

The large earthquake that followed a few weeks later overshadowed this event, rendering it impossible to extract more details about this earthquake.

The date of the earthquake is given in the annals Genetic Braves, in Andrea Dandul. Chron. 265 (Dan dolo, 265; see also Alexander 1990, 146) it occurred on St Bricious’ day on the Ides of November (13 November 1114).

Of the sources that mention the event, Flor. Hist. ii. 43, Rob. Tor. 14, Will. Tyr. xi. 23/i. 529–530 and Rom. Sal. 207 add the effects of the earthquake of 29 November. Other sources are Fulch. Gest. Franc. liv. 7/214, Walt. Chanc. I. i–II. i/83–85, Sigeb. (cont.) 241/376, Estoire,6 45 and Fulch. Hist. Hier., ii.571–572.

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009:282-283). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

AD 1114 Nov 29 Antioch, Maras

Isoseismal Map

Figure 3.10 - An isoseismal map of the earthquake of 29 November 1114 produced by kriging of
21 groups of intensity points. Estimated location: 37.5◦ N, 37.2◦ E, M_S = 6.9 (±0.3) - Ambraseys (2009:282)

Catalog Entry

AD 1114 Nov 29 Antioch, Maras

The earthquake of 29 November 1114 occurred at night and affected the Christian County of Edessa and Principality of Antioch, which lie around the present borders of southern Turkey and northern Syria. The shock occurred at a time of almost continuous conflict between Christian and Muslim states. It was strongly felt to the east and southeast in neighbouring Muslim territory, as well as to the north in Armenian and Turkish states. An isoseismal map is given in Figure 3.10.

The earthquake occurred at night on the Sunday of the vigil of St Andrew’s day (29 November 1114). Although there are not many contradictions among the sources, they vary about the date of the event. Of 25 authors who mention the event, 3 give the year as 1113, 16 agree on 1114, and 5 put it in 1115, all of them providing details that are clearly those of the earthquake of 29 November 1114. A few of the wrong dates must be copyists’ errors adopted by later writers; and some must be due to the amalgamation of the main shock with its foreshocks and aftershocks, a habit typical of later sources, particularly Syriac writers who drew heavily on earlier material. This would also account for the few references to an earthquake in 1115. In fact, there is strong agreement about the date of the main shock between contemporary and near-contemporary occidental sources that all give the night of 29 November.

The earthquake affected almost all of the territory occupied by the Franks. It was felt also in Mesopotamia, Syria and other regions. In those areas occupied by Muslims nothing unfortunate occurred.

Maras, a fortified town in the Principality of Antioch, and its suburbs were almost totally destroyed, resulting in great loss of life. The city walls, which were not in good condition, the fort, its ramparts and some houses were all completely demolished. The Church of Mar John of Kaysun collapsed, as did the Church of the Forty Martyrs. Among those killed in the town were the Constable, the Bishop, members of the clergy and many important people. Large parts of the villages belonging to Maras, which are not named, were also destroyed.

It is said that Maras was a very populous city and that between 24000 and 40000 individuals lost their lives, besides strangers, and that more than 100 priests and deacons died. The casualty figures are naturally suspect because they are comparable to, if not larger than, the population of Maras. They sound like a biblical formula for a multitude.

The monastery of Mashchgavor (Mashkur), which must be sought near the northern part of the Amanus Mountain (Giaur Dag), also fell, killing, amongst others, the Armenian doctor Gregory.

The same happened to Shoughr, the monastery of the Basilians on the Black Mountains (Ler-sar), which is located between Maras and Sis (Missis, Kozan), about 50 km from the former, which was also ruined, its church collapsing and killing thirty monks and two officiating priests.

A similar incident is reported from the monastery of Hiesuvank near Maras. It fell, crushing all the religious under its ruins.

Raban was almost totally destroyed and the same happened to Kaysun. It seems that damage at Mansur (Hisn Mansur) was serious, but not excessive.

Samosata (Sumaisat), built on the left bank of the Euphrates, was badly damaged. Houses collapsed in some parts of the town and elsewhere sank into their foundations. According to a chronicler, they disappeared under the ground, taking with them a number of people, among them Constantine, the lord of Gargar, but not his jailers or other Franks. It is possible that much of the destruction was due to ground failures worsened by the Euphrates overflowing and flooding the town, which happened shortly before, or after, the earthquake in Samosata.

Little is known about Elbistan (Ablastha, Zeitun) where damage could not have been very serious. It is also stated that Tell Khalid (Trialeth), a fortified site at the head of Sadjour Suyu, a tributary of the Euphrates River, was also destroyed.

The earthquake was strongly felt in the district of Aleppo. In the city itself there was no damage to speak of, but nearby Azaz, a fort already in ruins, was badly damaged, and its governor fled to Aleppo.

Damage in Aleppo was minimal, but the fortified site of Athareb about 25km southwest of the city was almost completely ruined, which is not surprising because two years earlier the siege engines of the Franks had pounded its walls to pieces, leaving little standing to be shaken down by the earthquake. Zerdana, 10km south of al Athareb, shared the same fate.

The earthquake caused great concern in the Principality of Antioch, but otherwise only sporadic damage. In the city itself people fled their homes in panic, but, since the walls remained intact, no one managed to escape and many fled to the church of the Apostle Peter, seeking his protection. It seems that damage was confined to the collapse of the tower of the north gate and damage to a few houses in the city centre and some in the new, upper district (al akaba) of the city, where a few people lost their lives.

In the suburbs of Antioch, the earth opened up, presumably as a result of incipient sliding or liquefaction of the ground, causing some damage.

The patriarch proclaimed three days of fasting, but the authorities did not appear to worry about swift repairs or the condition of the city. They organised repairs by asking inhabitants to contribute according to their means and toured chief fortresses in the district to assess the need for repairs. Contrary to what many near-contemporary sources imply, there is no mention of extensive damage or that the city collapsed; for one thing, churches in which people took refuge were left standing.

Repairs carried out after the earthquake suggest that it was rather strong in Latakia.

The site of Balis (Balas) a former town in Syria and a port on the western bank of the Euphrates, 5 km from modern Meskene, suffered some damage. Almost all writers say that the earthquake ruined 100 houses, burying many people in the debris, and caused the collapse of half of the citadel while the rest of the town stayed secure. They also state that soon before or after the earthquake, which must have been felt at Balis, the Euphrates overflowed, ruining 100 houses and sweeping away half of the citadel. It is hard to decide whether the earthquake or the flood caused the loss of 100 houses and part of the citadel.

In Edessa (Ruha, Urfa) the earthquake occurred almost immediately after the Muslims, who had been besieging the city for two months, had withdrawn. The shock was felt in the Edessan countryside, where the mountains and hills were shaken. Muslim sources say that 13 towers of the city wall collapsed, with some loss of life. Oddly, Frankish sources, which mention a flood shortly after the earthquake that demolished the nearby dam, do not mention any damage caused by the earthquake in Odessa (sic.).

The old walls of Harran were breached in places and houses were ruined, killing a number of people. Little is known about Sis, except that the town was again damaged and many villages and monasteries in the plains were destroyed, with casualties.

The earthquake was not felt in Damascus, where news of it arrived some days after the event. It is probable that the shock was perceptible in Jerusalem, but claims of damage extending that far should be dismissed as gross exaggeration. There is some evidence, however, that this or another earthquake at about the same time caused some concern.

It has not been possible to substantiate the statement that the sea was stirred up as a result of the earthquake. This should be regarded as spurious information, perhaps belonging to the earthquake of 10 August 1114.

Apparently only the Frankish-occupied provinces were badly damaged. Records of the repairs to damaged buildings in Muslim territory are mainly concerned with the mosques which were damaged by the earthquakes or by other causes. The silver which remained from the treasure of the waqf was allotted to the repairs.

The sources for this earthquake can be divided, broadly, between East and West, which is reflected in the very different geographical areas given for the event. The eleventh–twelfth-century occidental sources almost all mention the destruction of ‘Mamistria’ (Mopsuestia) and Marash and the damage to Antioch, but they mention nothing east of Marash and ‘Trihalet’ (Tell Halid).

Fulcher of Chartres, who was probably resident in Jerusalem when this event happened, gives details of three earthquakes. The first occurred in 1114 on the feast of St Lawrence (10 August), but he gives no location. A second, on the Ides of November (13 November 1114), destroyed part of Mamistra. A third, undated, but listed under events in 1114, shook ‘the area of Antioch [Antiochia?] and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls...They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash,...about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished...Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed’. Fulcher notes that there were many deaths in Antioch and Marash. He also locates a further earthquake at Mamistra (Mopsuestia) in 1115, which seems to have been just as serious, demolishing Mamistra, and ‘other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less’. Fink and Ryan claim that no other writer mentions this earthquake (Fulch. Gest. Franc. 214 n. 7), but in fact a second earthquake in Mopsuestia is given in the Chronicle of Robert of Torigny; thus it may indicate a destructive aftershock rather than a repeat (cf. Walter the Chancellor’s record of an ‘earthquake of five months’).

The Flores Historiarum, an anonymous chronicle used by William of Malmesbury, lists a single earthquake in 1113, ‘a little while’ after a comet in May, which flattened ‘part of Mamistra, not far from Antioch, together with two fortified towns, Triphalech and Mariscum. Note that no damage is recorded for Antioch itself.

Li Estoire de Jerusalemet d’Antioche has an earthquake in 1114 on St Lawrence’s day (10 August)– ‘all the maritime cities collapsed, and people died. The cities of Mareis [Marash] and Trichalet [Trihaleth] collapsed’. Once again Antioch is not mentioned. The reference to ‘all the maritime cities’ may be pure rhetoric, but, since the Dead Sea fault runs through Jerusalem as far as Antioch, it is possible that damage extended for some distance.

William of Tyre was born in Frankish Syria in 1130, spent his youth abroad, and returned in 1160. He must thus have worked from earlier accounts, which probably explains the wider geographical extent which he accords to the earthquake. He places it in 1114 and says that it ‘struck the whole of Syria’, destroying ‘many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Caelo-Syria’, noting that the Cilician city of Mopsuestia was ‘completely prostrated’. William describes the collapse of buildings and the ensuing human suffering in graphic detail, although most of this is in standard disaster language, so it adds nothing new. He does, however, say that this was ‘not just a great peril in one region, but a plague which spread widely, to the furthest bounds of the East’.

Benedict of Accolti records two earthquakes, but gives no details of either. The first he places in 1114 – ‘the Syrians suffered such great calamity and ruin as had never previously been recorded in history’. Benedict lists what was apparently another earthquake, which was destructive throughout Syria, in ‘the same year as they handed over the dead bodies of Boamond, the prince of Antioch, and Tancred’. Boamond (Bohemond I) died in 1111 and Tancred on 12 December 1112 according to Runciman (1952 ii, 51 n. 2, 125 n. 2), who, however, says nothing about the handing over of their bodies at a later date.

The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny reports the collapse of Mopsuestia, Marash and Triphalech (Tell Halid) brought about by an earthquake in 1114, and adds in a separate entry that in 1115 ‘Mamistria was ruined by quite a great (or a greater) earthquake’. This may refer to a destructive aftershock, and is possibly the same as Benedict of Accolti’s second earthquake.

The Continuation of Sigbert of Gembloux (Anselm of Gembloux; ending in 1148) records that in 1115 ‘the earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch on the day of the Ides of November [13 November], during the night, and it swallowed up a number of towers and houses nearby together with their inhabitants’. Anselm notes that people fled Antioch when the earthquake happened, but returned to find that their homes had been swallowed up. Note, however, that there is no evidence that Anselm (N.B. Sigbert died in 1112) ever visited Outremer, so this story may come from returning crusaders. Alexandre remarks that ‘Anselme a place l’´evenement en 1115 et l’a confondu, semble-t-il, avec le seisme de Cilicie survenu deux semaines plus tot, le 13/11/1114.’ (Alexandre 1990, 147).

Walter the Chancellor, who was probably chancellor to Prince Roger of Antioch, gives an apocalyptic account of this earthquake’s effects in Antioch, where he was probably an eyewitness. Apparently it struck ‘Antioch and the surrounding area’ in 1115 ‘on the vigil of the feast of the blessed Apostle Andrew [29 November]’ during the night. Part of the walls seems to have been damaged and some houses collapsed, with deaths inevitably ensuing, but some people were killed by jumping, in panic, from high structures. The people cried out to God, and were convinced that the earthquake was a result of their sins. In the morning they all went to the church of St Peter to attend the Office and hear an admonitory sermon. In all this there is no mention of extensive damage for one thing, the church was still standing. Then, Walter says, fresh concern was raised by refugees fleeing from the destruction of Marash, then by a report from Mopsuestia, which had apparently been partly destroyed on the feast of St Bricius (13 November). To add to the terror, aftershocks ensued and continued for five months. Walter also notes Prince Roger’s work to rebuild the defences.

Strangely, Walter places this event in 1115, after the plague of locusts (presumably of 1114), but before the alliance between il-Ghazi and Tughtigin, which was made in 1114 (Grousset 1991, 484). This is not sufficient to throw his entire account in doubt, however, because he clearly refrains from exaggerating the structural damage in Antioch.

Romuald of Salerno records an earthquake in Syria in 1115, during the eighth indiction, in December and before Christmas. It razed Mamistra and Marash to the ground, and part of Antioch, ‘the damage extending to Jerusalem’. This might be dismissed as gross exaggeration, perhaps to implicate all the crusader states in the sins that brought on the earthquake. It is unlikely that the earthquake extended this far, however, since Fulcher was probably living in Jerusalem when the earthquake happened, but does not even say that it was felt there.

The first oriental author is Matthew of Edessa, who died in 1136. Runciman (1951 I, 334f.) describes him as ‘naive’, and remarks that ‘much of his information about the Crusade must have been derived from some ignorant Frankish soldier; but about events in his native city and its neighbourhood he was very fully informed’. Indeed, he was an eyewitness of this earthquake, and describes its effects in historical southwestern Armenia in detail. Matthew places it in a.Arm. 563, on the 12th of the month of Mareri (29 November 1114), a Sunday, and also places it on the feast of the Finding of the Cross. This is erroneous, since this movable feast did not fall on a Sunday in 1114 (Dulaurier 1861; Matth. Edess. 455 n.1).

Matthew says that the earthquake happened at night, and was followed by a loud aftershock about an hour later. Apparently only the Frankish-occupied provinces were harmed. Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kayˇsum and Raban were ‘ravaged’; at Marash it was ‘terrible’, causing the deaths of 40000 people, with similarly great destruction and casualties at Sis and in the surrounding villages and monasteries. He relates, in addition, the collapse of the Basilian monastery on the Black Mountain (Shughr) during the blessing of the church, which claimed 32 lives, and the Jesuian monastery at Esouanc’ near Marash, in which all the inhabitants died. Matthew also relates that ‘the illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Mashgevor, died in the same place’. This is ambiguous. It could be that this is a separate entry for a.Arm. 563, recording only Gregory’s death at Mashgevor, or does Matthew mean that Gregory died when Mashgevor was struck by this earthquake? In fact, since Mashgevor is between Marash and Antioch, about 40km south of the former, this earthquake must have affected it.

Michael the Syrian (1126–99) must have worked from earlier sources. He places this earthquake in A.S. 1426 on the 29th latter Tesrin (29 November 1114) at dawn. His account covers only Marash, Kayˇsum and Samosata, but he adds interesting details, notably the collapse of the church of Mar John at Kaysum and the death of Constantine of Gargar at Samosata.

Ibn al-Qalanisi (fl. 1140–60) says only that in A.H. 508 (AD 1114) there was ‘a great earthquake’ in Syria, which apparently made the people anxious – he does not mention any damage. This is probably because his work is a history of Damascus, and thus is not primarily concerned with other areas. His record may indicate that the earthquake was strongly felt in Syria, however.

Ibn al-Jauzi (1126–1200) has two separate records of this earthquake. The first, in al-Muntazam, cites al-Masaaf on Abu Bakr’s record of a letter, which was apparently received in Baghdad on Thursday 17 Rajab A.H. 508 (17 December 1114). According to the letter, on Sunday the 18th prior Jumada (actually Thursday 19 November) an earthquake struck Mesopotamia, causing 13 towers in the walls of Ruha (Edessa) to fall, together with the walls of Harran and many houses there, killing their inhabitants. ‘Sumaisat [Samosata] sank and its position was swallowed up. About 100 houses crashed down in Balis, where half the citadel was thrown down and half stayed secure.’

The Mirat al-Zeman by the same author (JW: Mirat is by Ibn al-Jauzi's grandson Sibt Ibn al-Jauzi) gives a rather briefer account, but includes the interesting detail that the Euphrates overflowed at Balis, swept away 100 houses and half of the citadel, and flooded Samosata.

The thirteenth-century sources are all oriental. The anonymous Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens places this event in A.S. 1422 (AD 1110) on 29 November, ‘the night of Sunday’. The chronology at this point in the text is very confused, however, insofar as the author places this earthquake immediately after Roger of Antioch took Azaz, which was in 1118 (Tritton 1933, 85) and in the same year as Joscelin of Courtenay was banished and Baldwin was made governor of Tiberias, which may have been either 1104 (Will. Tyr. xi. 22/493) or 1109 (Albert of Aix, xi. 12/668). It is not known how Runciman derived his date of 1113 (Runciman 1952, vol. 2, 96 and n.3). There is no doubt to which earthquake the Chronicle is referring, however, since it notes the total destruction of ‘Germanicia, which is Mar’as’, with the collapse of houses and ramparts’ and the deaths of ‘more than 100 priests and shammas [deacons]’, in addition to the ruin of Hisn Mansur and the total destruction of ‘several other places’ (Cosmas, 226). This is a typical description of the earthquake – note that no mention is made of Antioch or even Mopsuestia.

Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233) dates this event to A.H. 508, 28th of latter Jumada (27 November 1114), describing it as affecting al-Jazirah (not ‘Mesopotamia, Syria’ as in RHC) and other regions. Clearly Ibn al-Athir saw it as extending much further north, insofar as he notes in particular the collapse of ‘great parts’ of al-Ruha (Edessa), ‘Harran, Samosata, Balis and other cities’, with many deaths ensuing. Once again, no mention is made of the more western cities. Runciman (1952, vol. 2, 481) notes Ibn al-Athir’s chronological deficiencies and his tendency to transform his sources’ accounts after his own prejudices; but he praises him as ‘a real historian who tried to understand the broad significance of the event that he described’.

Kemal ad-Din (writing in the middle of the thirteenth century) records this event in his Chronicle of Aleppo, which was his hometown. He gives the same date as Ibn al-Athir, and in particular notes the severe damage in ‘the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders’. Apparently the tower of the north gate of Antioch and ‘a few houses in the high quarter (Akabah) collapsed and there were numerous victims’, which suggests that Antioch was not badly damaged overall. A’zaz, between Antioch and Tell Halid, was ruined, and al-Atharib and Zardanah, between Antioch and Aleppo, were reportedly destroyed, but Kemal notes that damage in Aleppo was ‘not very serious’. Kemal’s record is unusual among ‘eastern’ sources for its geographical spread, but by virtue of living in Aleppo he was much further west than most.

Gregory Abu’l Faraj (or Bar Hebraeus), a late thirteenth-century Syriac writer who drew heavily on Michael the Syrian, copies Michael the Syrian’s date of A.S. 1426, 29th latter Tesrin (29 November 1114). Budge (1928) incorrectly interprets this as 1115 and he records Samosata’s collapse and Constantine of Garagar’s death there, but adds numerous other details about the damage. Marash apparently ‘sank underground’, 13 towers fell at Edessa, part of the wall of Harran, 100 houses and half of the citadel at Balash, and the churches of Mar John and the Forty Martyrs at Khishum (Hisn-Mansur).

The account in the Chronicle of Sembat (c. 1275) is based in part on Matthew of Edessa’s record, from which it takes the date of the Finding of the Cross, a.Arm. 563. Sembat fails to mention the damage to Sis, however, but remarks on how ‘the sea got up’, and Antioch collapsed, together with ‘Mecis’ (Mopsuestia?) and Ablastha (Elbistan), as well as the locations mentioned by Matthew. Sembat says nothing about the death of Gregory of Mashgevor, in an earthquake or otherwise. Over half of the area affected by this earthquake is covered by Sembat’s account: he mentions most of the locations north of a line running between Antioch and Samosata. Al-Suyuti (1445–1505) mentions this earthquake under the year A.H. 508 (AD 1114–15) in his Kashf al-salsala ‘an wasf al-zalzala. Al-Suyuti’s perspective on the earthquake is characteristically ‘eastern’, being based mostly, it seems, on the account of Ibn al-Athir. He places the earthquake in the Jazirah, and notes the damage to Edessa, Harran, Balis and Samosata.

The Historia Hierosolomitana, one of the histories of the Crusades in the compilation of Jacques de Bongars (1554–1612) gives two, possibly three, earthquakes for this event. The first, which is questionable, is placed in 1113 – ‘the sea was rougher than usual, such that it was impossible to fish in the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake’, but he does not give a location. Christians were apparently terrified and ‘were afflicted in this way for two months’. More earthquakes are given for 1114. The first occurred in Jerusalem in April or May, before the plague of locusts from Arabia. Then, in either the same or a separate earthquake, the Historia does not make it clear, part of Mopsuestia, ‘part of the city centre as well as part of the new district’ of Antioch (cf. Anselm of Gembloux’s account of the damage in Antioch), Marash and ‘Thihalet’ (Tell Halid) were destroyed. A further earthquake is given for 1115, ‘which overthrew Mamistria [Mopsuestia], once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia’ – this may be based on Fulcher’s 1115 earthquake (liv. 7/214/428). The Historia seems to give a muddled picture, but does provide the interesting details about the rough sea (note Sembat’s remark that ‘the sea got up’) and the damage to the centre of Antioch.

These chronological problems are not too difficult to resolve, however. Firstly, it must be remembered that this earthquake was followed by five months of after shocks, and may have been preceded by foreshocks. A destructive foreshock might have done most of the earthquake’s damage in a given city, and, since this would be the most perceptible effect, a local source would naturally tend to use this to date the earthquake. This would also account for the few references to an earthquake in 1115 (Fulcher, Rob. Tor, Bongars), which was probably a damaging aftershock.

In fact, there is strong agreement between the two eyewitnesses, Walter the Chancellor and Matthew of Edessa, about the date of the main shock. Both give the night of 29 November. Walter’s year of 1115 was shown above to be an anomaly, and was probably due to a scribal error. It should be 1114, thus agreeing with Matthew’s a.Arm. 563. The problem of the latter’s incorrectly placing the earthquake on the day of the Finding of the Cross may be due to a scribe’s misunderstanding his source. Dulaurier observes that the dominical letter of a.Arm. 563, which was D, was sent out on 29 November 1114, the very day of the earthquake (Dulaurier 1861, n. 65).

Walter also gives an earlier earthquake in Mopsuestia, on 13 November 1114, the same date as given by Fulcher (lii/210) and the Continuation of Sigbert (241). It is thus likely that a strong foreshock destroyed Mopsuestia and parts of Cilicia, the destruction extending over a much wider area on 29 November, which must therefore have been the main shocks.

The slight variation of dates among the ‘eastern’ sources, all of whom place the earthquake in November 1114, is probably explained by the occurrence of variably destructive foreshocks and aftershocks. Ibn al Jauzi’s record of the letter to Baghdad gives 19 November, as has been seen. At Aleppo the earthquake may well have done the most damage on 27 November, hence Kemal’s date. Other later writers, such as Abu’l Faraj, seem to have chosen one date from their sources. It is thus likely that the earthquake, with its foreshocks and aftershocks, had damaging effects from November 1114 until some time in the first quarter of 1115.

It is hard to justify Runciman’s date of 1117, which is given by none of the sources, and indeed would require systematic errors in all the early sources (Runciman 1952, vol. 2, 130).

A final factual difficulty is the number of deaths at Mopsuestia given by Matthew of Edessa and the Chronicon ad annum 1234. The former gives 40000 and the latter 24000. The former sounds like a biblical formula for a multitude, but the violence of this earthquake, and the fact that it happened at night when people were indoors, does not rule out such a number. Also it is not impossible that the Chronicon ad annum 1234 is referring to the destructive aftershock in Mopsuestia in 1115.

Guidoboni and Comastri (2005, 74) split this earthquake into two events, one on 13 November 1114 and another on 29 November 1115; the reasons for this do not seem clear.

Notes

For more details, see also

Anselme sub ann.
Abu Shama, Rawad, 1/229
Ajami Kunuz. 19a/12
Bustan or the Garden of History,508(RHC)(1196/7)
Rey (1896,343;1901,123)
Enlart (1925, 21, 39, 137, 138, 141, 208)
Cahen (1940, 271)

The earthquake that was felt in many places...In the year 1114 an infinite multitude of locusts swarmed out of a part of Arabia...Later, on the Feast of St Lawrence, there was an earthquake. Still later, on the Ides of November, an earthquake at Mamistra destroyed a part of the city...Likewise a great quake, the worst ever heard of, shook the area of Antioch and destroyed a great many towns in whole or in part, including houses as well as walls. Some of the common people perished of suffocation in the ruins...They say that this quake destroyed the city of Marash, which I think is about sixty miles north of Antioch. The houses and walls were completely demolished and the people living there were killed...Another town called Trialeth, near the Euphrates River, was also destroyed. (Fulch. Gest. Franc. lii/210)

In that year [1115] the city of Mamistra was demolished by an earthquake. Other places in the area of Antioch suffered no less.’ (Fulch. Gest. Franc. liv. 7/214/428)

1113: in the month of May a huge comet appeared and after a little while an earthquake flattened part of the city of Mamistra, not far from Antioch, together with two fortified towns, Triphalech and Mariscum.’ (Flor. Hist. ii. 43)

(1114) On the Feast of St Lawrence we were visited by an earthquake: all the maritime cities and fortified towns collapsed, and people died. The cities of Mareis [Marash] and Trichalet [Trihaleth] collapsed. The Turks passed the Euphrates, and came between the Euphrates and Antioch. (Estoire, 645C)

A huge earthquake struck part of Antiochia ... In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1114 an earthquake struck the whole of Syria which was so great that it destroyed many cities and countless towns, most of all around Cilicia, Isauria and Caelo-Syria. For in Cilicia it completely prostrated Mamistra and many other towns; it also threw down Maresia together with its suburbs, so that scarcely any traces remained. Towers shook and the larger buildings fell down causing countless deaths, and cities, like stone ramparts, formed great mounds, and crushing their penitent citizens entombed them. In consternation people fled their homes in the cities, fearing the ruin of their houses, and while they hoped to find rest under the open sky, they were struck with a fear which interrupted their sleep, suffering, as the watch men had feared, violent seizures in their sleep. For this was not just a great peril in one region, but a plague which spread widely, to the furthest bounds of the East.’ (Will. Tyr. xi. 23/i. 529–530))

‘In the year 1114 there was an earthquake in which the Syrians suffered such great calamity and ruin as had never previously been recorded in history ... In the same year as they handed over the dead bodies of Boamond, the prince of Antioch, and Tancred, there was a massive earthquake, the force of which caused destruction throughout the towns of Syria. (Ben. Accolt. xvii/617/914)

(1114) Part of the city of Mamistria collapsed in an earthquake, and two forts not far from Antioch, Mariscum and Triphalech. (Rob. Tor. 145–147)

‘(1115) Mamistria was ruined by quite a great (or a greater) (majori) earthquake. (Rob. Tor. 146))

1115. The earth opened in the suburbs of Antioch on the day of the Ides of November [13 November], during the night, and it swallowed up a number of towers and houses nearby together with their inhabitants. Certain men, as is human wont, left the place with their wives and children; but when they returned to the places where their homes had been, the earthquake had swallowed them up. (Sigeb. (cont.) 241)

Thus in the 1115th year after the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the vigil of the Feast of the blessed Apostle Andrew, in the silence of an untimely night...there was a massive and terrible earthquake in Antioch and the surrounding area. Men were agitated by this unexpected phenomenon, feeling, seeing and hearing the walls collapsing and other things leaning over acutely. Some thought to flee, some fell from the walls and some others hurled themselves headlong from high houses. Still others were torn limb from limb in their sleep by the [collapsing] ruins; and since part of the wall remained intact, no one [in that part] could escape. Some were struck by terror, and abandoning their homes and possessions, and leaving everything, they rushed through the open spaces and neighbouring towns like madmen. Stretching out their hands to heaven on account of diverse fears and needs, they did not cease to cry out in various tongues and piteous lamentation, “Spare, O Lord, spare Thy people”.

When morning came, since so vast a mass of wretchedly slaughtered men and beasts lay under the ruins, all the Latins, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, foreigners and pilgrims unanimously declared that this had happened because of their atrocious sins. And they did not delay: in obedience to saving counsel, they fled to the very church of the blessed Apostle Peter, seeking his advocacy in perpetual protection...

When the Divine Office had been celebrated and a sermon preached, and orders enjoined as to how they should behave and what they should do, they thought that nothing more serious had happened [than the events of the night], but were suddenly greeted with terrifying news. For certain men, who by God’s will had escaped the destruction of Miragium [Marash], claimed that their city, together with its seigneur and bishop, the clergy and all the people, had been razed to its foundations. Not long after, report came from the city of Mamistra, that the citizenry and the greater part of the city had previously been destroyed on the feast of St Bricius [13 November 1114], which only increased their fears: what about Cyprus? What about the rest of Antiochia? Other things equally tormented the people. Fear and terror made that wretched people groan, for in short they did not know where to stay or whither to flee. Each day and hour the earthquake oppressed them dreadfully. As God permitted them to know neither when to flee nor whither, they thought it easier to live with the beasts in the open, than inside in constant fear of the buildings’ collapse. And thus in the suburbs, on the plains, in gardens, thickets and deserts as well as other places, they dwelt in tents rather than houses. More of them, having left their cities and moving their huts from one place to another, remained on the plains. [The people do penance.] Corrected by the fruit of their penance, and adorned with good works, they were freed from the danger of the earthquake of five months and more, not by their own merits, but by the grace of God...Having visited the forts and other places, the prince [Roger] obtained what was needed as quickly as possible, then, noting the things which would be useful for the defence of his land and were closer to the enemy, he did not rush to do everything, but made whatever repairs and works were necessary for immediate safety. And thus, having dismissed his army, and returned to Antioch with a few of his men, he summoned the mayor (dux) of Antioch, Radulf of Acre, a man of sound judgment and discussed with him first what was to be done about repairs to and the condition of the whole city . . . (Walt. Chan. I. i–II. i/83–85/106)

In the same year [1115, indiction 8] in the month of December, before Christmas, there was an earthquake in Syria, so great that Mamistra and Marais [Mar’ash] were razed to the ground, and several other cities and fort-towns fell, their men crushed, as was part of the city of Antioch, the damage extending as far as Jerusalem.’ (Rom.Sal.207)

In that same year [563 in the Armenian calendar = 21 February 1114 to 20 February 1115], when the Persian sultan Daph’ar took Edessa and marched to the Euphrates], God visited his wrath on his creatures. On the 12th of the month of Mareri, a Sunday, the day of the Finding of the Cross, there was a terrible upheaval ... While we were deep in sleep, suddenly an awful noise was heard, echoed by the entire universe. An earthquake was felt; the plains and the mountains were cast up with a roar; the hardest rocks shattered and the hills broke open. The mountains and hills were shaken violently, echoed and, like living creatures, grew agitated and emitted a blast of air. To our ears this was like the sound made by a multitude of men ...Like a raging sea, creatures rushed from all sides, overcome with terror which the wrath of the Lord had inspired in them ... The earth was like a fugitive, at bay and trembling, in consternation like a condemned man who cries out in lamentations and tearful groans. Its sound was heard again after the earthquake for about an hour, on the same night. Faced with this disaster, everyone thought that he had reached the end of his life...That night saw the ruin of many towns and provinces, but this was only in the part occupied by the Franks; in the other parts and in those of the infidels nothing unfortunate occurred. Samosata, Hisn-Mansur, Kaysum and Raban were ravaged by this plague. At Marash it was terrible and 40000 persons lost their lives: it was a very populous city, and no one escaped. The same happened in the town of Sis where an innumerable multitude of the inhabitants perished; many villages and monasteries were destroyed and a multitude of men and women wiped out. On the famous Black Mountain, the holy monks and the Armenian doctors of the Basilian monastery were assembled for the blessing of the church. While they were celebrating the Divine Office, the building fell on them, and thirty monks as well as two doctors were swallowed up in the ruins: their bodies are still buried there. A similar incident occurred near Marash: the great monastery of the Jesuians [Icouanc] crushed all the religious under its ruins. When the shocks ceased, snow began to fall, and the country was buried under a thick blanket. The illustrious Armenian doctor Gregory, surnamed Mashgevor, died in the same place. (Matth. Edess. 217/287–290)

In the year 1426, on 29th tesrin II [November], at the dawn of Sunday, He Who looketh on the earth and it trembleth (Ps. 96.4) looked and there was a very violent earthquake in which the town of Mar’as was completely swallowed up. It was overturned, that is to say that its foundations were tossed up high and the buildings thrown down. It became the tomb of its inhabitants and a source of terror to all who saw it. In this earthquake the church of Mar John of Kaysum collapsed, along with that of the Forty Martyrs; they were rebuilt under the care of Mar Dionysius, bishop of Kayˇsum. Samosata also collapsed in this earthquake, and in that town Constantine, seigneur of the fortress of Gargar, was suffocated along with many other people. Large parts of all these towns and of villages collapsed. (Mich. Syr. xv. 11/iii. 200f.)

In this year also a great earthquake occurred in Syria. The earth shook with it and the people were anxious. (Ibn al-Qalanisi 191/133; C 149)

Al-Masaaf said: I saw in the handwriting of our Shaykh Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Bazaz the following: on Thursday 17th Rajab 508 [17 December 1114] there arrived in Baghdad a document which described how, in the night of Sunday 18th Jumada I akhira [19 November, a Thursday (!)] of this year an earthquake had occurred in which thirteen towers in the walls of Ruha [Edessa] fell down. Some of the walls of Harran fell down and many houses came down on top of people, who perished. Sumaisat sank and its position was swallowed up. About 100 houses crashed down in Balis, where half the citadel was thrown down and half stayed secure (Ibn al-Jauzi, Munt. 9/180, 181; Seth 139b))

Terrible earthquake in Mesopotamia– the greater part of the ramparts of Edessa and Haran were overturned, with a great number of houses. The Euphrates overflowed and ruined 100 houses at Bales and swept away half of the citadel, flooding Samosata as well as other places.’ (Sibt ibn al-Jauzi, Mirat. 551-554))

(After Roger had taken Azaz)In the year 1422 of the Greeks, on the 29th November, the night of Sunday, there was a strong earthquake, and Germanicia, which is Mar’aˇs, was destroyed and completely lost; its houses collapsed and its ram parts fell. 24000 people died there, besides strangers, and more than 100 priests and shammas [deacons]. Hisn Mansur was also ruined; several other places were totally destroyed. (That year Baldwin, seigneur of Edessa, took ill against Joscelyn, governor of Tell Basir.) (Chron. 1234, 274/ii.58)

(a.H. 508) In the same year, in the month of latter Jumada [November 1114], a violent earthquake was felt in Mesopotamia, Syria [al-Jazirah] and other regions. Great parts of Edessa, Harran, Samosata, Balis and other cities collapsed on their foundations; many people were buried in the debris. (Ibn al-Athir RHC,295)

During the night of Sunday 28th of latter Jumada of 508 [27 November 1114], a terrible earthquake laid waste the districts of Aleppo, Harran, Antioch, Mar’ash and the Syrian borders. The tower of the north gate of Antioch and a few houses in the high quarter [Akabah] collapsed and there were numerous victims. As the fort of A’zaz was no more than a ruin, the governor went to seek asylum at Aleppo, but when he arrived he was put to death by order of Lulu, with whom he was at logger heads; Lulu charged another governor to re-populate and repair the fort. The damage was not very serious in Aleppo, but other places, like el-Athareb and Zerdanah, were almost completely destroyed. (Kemal al-Din C Chron. Ale, ad ann. 508/RHC 607)

In the year which is 1426 of the Greeks [AD1114] on the 29th day of the month of the Later Teshrin [November], which is the 29th day of the 6th month of the Arabs, a terribly violent earthquake took place, and the whole city of Marash sank under ground and became the tomb of the inhabitants thereof. And very many houses fell down in Samosata. Constantine the lord of Gargar together with many others was suffocated in the ruins. And there fell down thirteen towers of the wall of Edessa; and a portion of the wall of Harran; and a hundred houses and one-half of the Citadel of Balash; and two churches of Khishum, viz. the church of Mar-John and the church of the Forty Martyrs. (Abu’l-Faraj 247/280)

a.Arm. 563 [21 February 1114 to 20 February 1115]. The earth trembled, because God was wrathful. This was in the month of Mareri, for the Feast of the Finding of the Cross. In the middle of the night, the shocks were felt. A rumble and terrible roars came from the depths of the earth. The sea got up, and the mountains and hills made terrifying sounds. A great number of cities were ruined: Antioch collapsed, as well as Mecis, Hisn-Mansur, Kayˇsum, Ablastha, R’aban and Samosata. Marash was completely overturned, and 40000 people were found dead.

On the Black Mountain, at the monastery of the Basilians, some doctors (vartabeds) and monks had assembled to celebrate the blessing of the church; this building collapsed around them, and thirty monks and two doctors were killed. In that year the doctor Geoge Megh’rig, author of the rule established at Trazarg, died in Jesus Christ; he was buried in that monastery. (Sembat, ad ann. 563/RHC 614)

An extremely violent earthquake took place in the territory of al-Jazirah: it caused thirteen towers of Ruha to collapse, part of the girdle-wall of Harran and numerous houses. At Balis, 100 houses were destroyed, and whereas half of the citadel was overturned, the other half remained intact. The town of Sumaysat disappeared under the ground: a great number of victims were mourned. (al-Suyuti Kashf xxxvi/22)

(1113) The sea was rougher than usual, such that it was impossible to fish in the sea; and the earth was struck twice by a terrible earthquake, and the parched (?) peoples were threatened with the terror of collapsing buildings. All Christian places were besieged with deep silence: a certain image of death touched the Christians, leaving them stupefied, and, in their terror, as white as sheets. For they all understood something which they knew to be true, that this was the vindication of God’s anger at them. They were afflicted in this way for two months, and then at last God had mercy and turned His anger into grace, and the Christians revived . . . (Bongars ii. 571–573)

In the year 1114, before the infinite swarm of locusts came from parts of Arabia, the territory of Jerusalem was laid waste for some days; in the month of April or May and following it Jerusalem was shaken terribly by an earthquake. A part of the city of Mamistria was overturned, and in the region of the great city of Antioch too, part of the city centre as well as part of the new district was overthrown together with some of the population. Likewise in a city called Mariscum – alas, what a tragedy! the people, sitting at their hearths, were wiped out, in a terrible and pitiful way, under the ruins of the buildings. In Euphratesia too the town which they call Thihalet was razed to its foundations. (Bongars ii. 572)

. . . in the same year [1115] [God] overthrew Mamistria, once a quite illustrious city, also striking in the same terror many other places in the territory of Antiochia. (Bongars ii. 573))

Al-Wahrani was a comrade of Nur ad-Din. He made full use of his talent for satire and another judge took his place. The matter was that of the qadi Mahmud ibn Yahla ibn Aflah al-Lakhami: It is because of his bad character that God sent the eclipse and terrorised us with the earthquake which obliged us to flee our homes. (Rasa’il, MS Dar al-Kutub, at Cairo, f. 11)

According to Abu Shama, Nur ad-Din repaired the damage to the mosques which was caused by the earthquakes or by other causes. He delegated his powers to the qadi Kamal ad Din ash-Shahrzawri (the successor of ‘Asrun) for the business of the waqfs, with the mandate of applying the law, doing good and combating evil, and the authorisations to allot to the repairs the silver which remained from the treasure of the waqfs, with the agreement of the . . . (Abu Shama, Rawdat 1/229)

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009:283-291). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

Location (with hotlink)	Status	Intensity	Notes
Sürgü–Misis Trenches	possible to probable	≥ 7	Duman et al. (2020) reports that Event E3 in the Elbeyli Trench (T6) approximately dates to between 1035 and 1215 CE (2σ Calibrated Age) and indicate that this Event could be related the 1114/5 Mamistra and Marash Quakes. Event E3 was dated via radiocarbon inside a wedge or fissure fill that formed between fault splays F3 and F5. Duman et al. (2020) reports that two samples of this fissure fill material were dated and yielded ages of AD 775 to 975, and AD 1035–1215. They assumed that the ~ 250–year difference in the age of material within the wedge reflects different ages of organic materials that had been reworked prior to deposition in the wedge. They inferred the timing of the last event (E3) based on the [supposedly minimally reworked] AD 1035–1215 age of the wedge, or fissure fill. Motion on the fault splays was described as normal dip slip. They do not report seeing this event in any of the other Sürgü–Misis Trenches.
Kartal Trenches	possible	≥ 7	Kondo and Ozalp (2025) report that preliminary ¹⁴C dating results from the re-excavated Kartal Trench indicate that the last event before the 2023 earthquake occurred at least after 1054 AD and that the average recurrence interval for the last 5 events [in the Trenches] including the 2023 event is 650-690 years. Such a recurrence interval is slightly longer but comparable with the most recent two historical earthquakes, previously reported as in 1513 AD and 1114 AD
Demirkopru Trenches and Tell Sıçantarla	possible to unlikely	≥ 7	Altunel et al. (2009) dated Event E2 in Demirkopru Trench 2 to before 1424 CE primarily based on two radiocarbon samples which were found immediately above the E2 event horizon and about 25 cm below the E1 horizon. This seems to have led to the conclusion that Event E2 struck soon before 1424 CE. Altunel et al. (2009) suggested that the most likely candidate for Event E2 was the 1408 Shugr-Bekas Earthquake.
Lake Amik			Hubert-Ferrari et al. (?) reports that a a trench and cores uncovered large earthquake related structural disturbances and smaller siliciclastic sedimentary events [JW: presumed landslides].
Kazzab Trench	possible to unlikely	≥ 7	Daeron et al (2007) dated Event S1 to between 926 and 1381 CE (2σ) and assigned it to the 1202 CE earthquake. Daëron et al (2005:529-530) presented surface faulting evidence that suggested younger less weathered fault scarplets on the Rachaıya-Serghaya faults and fresh mole-tracks on the Rachaıya fault were associated with one of the 1759 CE fault breaks while older more weathered faults scarplets on the Yammouneh fault were associated with one of the the 1202 CE earthquakes.
Jarmaq Trench	possible to unlikely	≥ 7	Nemer and Meghraoui (2006) date Event Z to after 84-239 CE. They suggested the Safed Earthquake of 1837 CE as the most likely candidate.
al-Harif Aqueduct	possible	≥ 7	Sbeinati et al (2010) dated Event Z to between 1010 and 1210 CE (2σ) and suggested that it was probably caused by the 1170 CE earthquake.
Qiryat-Shemona Rockfalls	possible to unlikely		Kanari et al (2019) assigned the 1033 CE earthquake to sample QS-4 although Kanari (2008) assigned the same sample to the 1202 CE earthquake. Either are possible.
Bet Zayda	possible to unlikely	≥ 7	Marco et al (2005) dated Event E.H. 1 to between 1020 to 1280 CE (ages were unmodeled) and assigned this event to the 1202 CE earthquake. They observed 2.2 m of offset which results in a 7.1-7.3 estimate of Moment Magnitude when using a relationship from Wells and Coppersmith (1994).
Jordan Valley - Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed Trenches	possible to unlikely	≥ 7	Ferry et al (2011) detected 12 surface rupturing seismic events in 4 trenches (T1-T4) in Tell Saidiyeh and Ghor Kabed; 10 of which were prehistoric. The tightest chronology came from the Ghor Kabed trenches (T1 and T2) where Events Y and Z were constrained to between 560 and 1800 CE.
Location (with hotlink)	Status	Intensity	Notes

1114/5 CE Mamistra and Marash Quakes

13 and 29 November 1114 CE and/or 1115 CE

by Jefferson Williams

Introduction & Summary

Textual Evidence

Archaeoseismic Evidence

Landslide Evidence

Tsunamogenic Evidence

Paleoseismic Evidence

Notes

Paleoclimate - Droughts

References

Location (with hotlink)	Status	Intensity	Notes
Antioch	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Aleppo	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Atarib	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Hab	possible		There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Saône	possible		There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Bourzey Castle	possible		There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Shaizar Citadel	no evidence	n/a	Although excavation reports indicate evidence for 1157 and 1170 CE earthquakes, there is no archaeoseismic evidence for the 1114/1115 events that I am aware of
Apamea	possible		Jean Ch. Balty in Meyers et al (1997) attributes the ultimate demise of Apamea to one of the 1156-1159 CE Syrian Quakes The severe earthquake of 1157 struck Apamea off the map. It is mentioned in Arabic sources in the list of the cities destroyed then but does not appear as one of the cities destroyed in 1170.
Marash	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Edessa	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Harran	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Mamistra	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Samosata	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Kaysun	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Azaz	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Balis	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Zardana	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Raban	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Ablasta	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Atarib	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Adana	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Kafartab	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Hisn-Mansur	no evidence	n/a	There is no archaeoseismic evidence that I am aware of
Jerusalem - Introduction	n/a	n/a	n/a
Jerusalem's City Walls	possible		Weksler-Bdolah in Galor and Avni (2011:421-423) presented historical evidence and limited archaeological evidence which indicates that Jerusalem's city walls were reconstructed in the late 10th - early 11th century CE - possibly partly in response to seismic damage.
Crak des Chevaliers (aka Hisn al-Akrad)	possible	≥8	Guidoboni et. al. (2004) suggested that a change in the brickwork which can be observed in Crak des Chevaliers could be due to reconstruction after the 1170 CE earthquake(s). Damage was also reported at Crak des Chevaliers due to the August to September 1157 CE Hama and Shaizar Quake(s).
Chastel Blanc	possible	≥8 Kázmér and Major (2015:188) estimated a minimum intensity of IX (9).	Kázmér and Major (2015) examined and dated seismic effects on the donjon of Chastel Blanc (Safita) along with fallen architecture and rockfall evidence from the nearby villages of Khirbat al-Qurshiyya and ‘Ayn-Qadıb. While they suggested that all three locations were affected by the 1202 CE earthquake, Chastel Blanc provided the most reliable date. Their intensity estimate however came from all three sites. The dropdown panel below summarizes their chronological reasons for assigning archaeoseismic damage at the donjon of Chastel Blanc (Safita) to the 1202 CE earthquake. See the full Chastel Blanc entry for additional discussions on Khirbat al-Qurshiyya and ‘Ayn-Qadıb. Kázmér and Major (2015) reports that the Castle was certainly in Templar possession by 1155 (Piana, 2008: 295). 1202 CE Earthquake at the donjon of Chastel Blanc Kázmér and Major (2015:187) assigned the major damage of the donjon to the 1202 earthquake based on indirect reasoning arguments related to the history of art place the construction of the donjon into the 12th century (early Gothic architecture) there was a great tower standing in 1202, which has been seriously damaged by the earthquake of the same year, as the letter of the Phillipe de Plessis reported (Mayer, 1972, p. 309)¹ the tower was in good and strong condition in 1212 (Wilbrand of Oldenbourg, Itinerarium Terrae Sanctae, 210). This means two things: either the letter written and sent immediately after the earthquake by Phillipe de Plessis overestimated the damages, or these damages have been successfully restored by 1212 there are Crusader-style repairs and modifications of the Gothic hall and installation of a window for the church bell there was no major earthquake reported until 1271, when the Muslim forces occupied Safıta. After the fortress changed hands, it lost its strategic importance. Probably no major repairs occurred until the 20th century no matter how scanty the written reports seem to be individually, together they allow us to suggest that the major damage to the Safita donjon occurred during the 1202 earthquake Footnotes 1 Relevant excerpt from the letter of Phillipe de Plessis English At Chastel Blanc [Safıta], most of the walls collapsed, and the main tower, which we thought to have been built with outstanding strength and solidity, was so badly cracked and damaged that it would have been better for us if it had completely collapsed instead of being left standing in such a state. (translation from Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005, p. 224) Latin Castri autem Albi maxima pars murorum cecidit, turris autem maior, qua nullam credimus fortuis vel firmius edificatam, in hoc rimis et quassaturis debilitata est, quod melius nobis esset, si funditus corueret, quam ita stans permaneret (Mayer, 1972, p. 309).
al-Marqab Citadel	no evidence	≥7 Kázmér and Major (2010) estimated an Intensity of 8-9 but did not consider the possibility of a slope or ridge effect	Kázmér and Major (2010) dated Earthquake 1 damage to after the donjon was constructed - which they surmised happened in 1187 CE. Thus, although there could be earlier archaeoseismic evidence at this site, it wasn't observed and published on during their work there.
Kedesh	possible to unlikely	≥ 8	The Roman Temple at Kedesh exhibits archaeoseismic effects and appears to have been abandoned in the 4th century CE; possibly due to the northern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Archaeoseismic evidence at the site could be due to 363 CE and/or other earthquakes in the ensuing ~1600 years. See Fischer et al (1984) and Schweppe et al (2017)
Umm el-Qanatir	possible to unlikely	≥ 8	2nd Earthquake - undated - Wechsler et al (2008) report a collapse layer in a makeshift house that was built inside an abandoned synagogue that was likely seismically damaged from one of the Sabbatical Year Quakes (the Holy Desert Quake). The collapse layer from the makeshift house is not dated.
Tiberias - Introduction	n/a	n/a	n/a
Tiberias - Mount Berineke	possible to unlikely		Archaeoseismic Evidence from the church on top of Mount Berineke is undated ( Ferrario et al, 2014)
Tiberias - Basilica	possible to unlikely	≥ 8	End of Phase II earthquake - 11th century CE - Hirschfeld and Meir (2004) noted that Stratum I was built above the collapse [of Stratum II] caused by an earthquake. Stratum I was dated to the 11th century CE while stratum II was dated to the 9th-10th centuries CE.
Tiberias - House of the Bronzes	possible to unlikely		End of Stratum II Earthquake - 11th-12th century CE - Hirschfeld Gutfeld (2008) proposed that debris on top of Stratum II indicates that Stratum II was terminated by an earthquake. Stratum II was dated from the 10th - 11th centuries CE. Overlying Stratum I was dated from the 12th-14th centuries CE.
Tiberias - Gane Hammat	possible to unlikely	≥ 8	End of Phase IIb destruction layer - ~11th century CE - Onn and Weksler-Bdolah (2016) wrote the following about the end of Phase IIb All of the buildings were destroyed at the end of Phase IIb, probably by the strong earthquake that struck the region in 1033/4 [i.e., the 11th century CE Palestine Quakes]; both historical sources and the remains in other cities attest to this event. Following the earthquake, some of the buildings were left in ruins, but others were rebuilt. The buildings in Area A, for example, was never restored: the columns that had collapsed in the earthquake were discovered toppled on the floors of the courtyards belonging to the Phase IIb building.
Beit-Ras/Capitolias	possible to unlikely		Later Earthquakes - Al-Tawalbeh et. al. (2020:14) discussed archaeoseismic evidence for later post abandonment earthquakes We believe that filling up the cavea and orchestra of the theater happened parallel with the construction of the enclosing wall that essentially put all of the remaining building underground. Underground facilities are significantly less vulnerable to seismic excitation than that above-ground buildings (Hashash et aL, 2001). Understandably, when each wall and arch are supported by embedding sediment (dump in Beit-Ras), the observed deformations of the excavated theater mostly cannot develop unless unsupported. Therefore, evidence of damage due to any subsequent events, such as A.D. 551, 634, 659, and 749, cannot be observed, because the possibility of collapse of buried structures is not plausible. However, potential collapse of other above-ground structures within the site of Beit-Ras cannot be ignored, such as the upper elements of the theater's structures, which were still exposed after the filling of the theater with debris. Several observations indicated that many collapsed elements of the upper parts of the theater were mixed with the debris, as documented in excavation reports by Al-Shami (2003, 2004). Another example suggesting the effect of the later events, such as that of A.D. 749. Mlynarczyk (2017) attributed the collapse of some sections of the city wall of Beit-Ras to this event, based on the concentration of collapsed ashlars and the age of collected pottery from two trenches excavated to the west of the theater structure. Al-Tawalbeh et. al. (2020:6) also noted the following about the eastern orchestra gate: The basalt masonry in the upper left suggests a later local collapse and repair phase, where the basalt courses are overlaying the marly-chalky limestone to the left of the walled arched eastern gate.
Tell Ya'amun	possible to unlikely	≥8	Savage et al (2003:457-458) report that the mosaic floor of the east room [of a 6th century CE Byzantine Church] is extensively dented by collapsed wall stones, which suggests that use ended with destruction caused by an earthquake. During the Ayyubid-Mamluk period, new walls were built directly on top of the mosaic floors. This results in a 6th century CE terminus post quem and an early 16th century terminus ante quem.
Location (with hotlink)	Status	Intensity	Notes