The Military Orders, the Muslim World, and the Dilemmas of Conviviality: Connected Histories as a Critical Approach to the History of the Crusades

As Ordens militares, o mundo muçulmano e os dilemas do convívio: Histórias Conectadas como uma abordagem crítica para a História das Cruzadas

Abstract

This article explores the potentialities of the Connected Histories method for the study of the Crusades, and more specifically of the Military Orders. The corpus initially takes shape in a papal document of 1179 that listed the disputes between the Templars and the Hospitallers. In it, we find itinerant Islamic communities under the care of the Temple. We also turn to the agreement between Baybars and the Hospitallers, dated 1267, which established a co-dominium between the Sultan and the Order. Included in this agreement was the control over Bedouins and Turkmen. Both documents can serve as a laboratory for the application of the assumptions concerning the Connected Histories method. In addition, the paper goes on to outline the recent historiographical positions about the relationships between the Military Orders, the Muslim communities, and the established powers in the Levant. The central idea is to analyze both forced and consensual movements within a play of scales that brings together the displacement of captives, the itinerancy of Bedouins, and the Mongol advance. Then the paper explains how the intensification of movements would put the historical subjects before the dilemmas of conviviality, whose answers made the interactions relentless to mere fierce opposition or to the idea contained in the Geography of Fear hypothesis.

Keywords:
Connected Histories; Crusades; Dilemmas of Conviviality

Resumo

Este artigo explora as potencialidades do método das Histórias Conectadas para o estudo das Cruzadas e, mais especificamente, das Ordens Militares. O corpus tomou forma, inicialmente, em um documento papal de 1179, que listava as disputas entre os Templários e os Hospitalários. Nele, encontramos comunidades itinerantes sob o cuidado do Templo. Também nos voltamos para o compromisso entre Baybars e os Hospitalários, datado de 1267, no qual era estabelecido um co-dominium entre o Sultão e a Ordem. Nesse acordo, estava incluído o controle sobre Beduínos e Turcomanos. Ambos os documentos serviriam como um laboratório para a aplicação dos pressupostos concernentes ao método das Histórias Conectadas. Além disso, artigo se propõe a apontar as recentes posições historiográficas sobre as relações das Ordens Militares com as comunidades e os poderes muçulmanos. A ideia principal indica pensar os movimentos forçados ou consensuais em um jogo de escalas que coloca em interseção o deslocamento de cativos, a itinerância de Beduínos e o avanço Mongol. Assim, o artigo explica como a intensificação dos movimentos colocaria os sujeitos históricos diante dos dilemas do convívio, cujas respostas tornariam as interações irredutíveis à simples oposição acirrada ou à ideia contida na hipótese da Geografia do Medo.

Palavras-chave:
Histórias Conectadas; Cruzadas; Dilemas do Convívio

As a starting point, we would like to introduce a question: what is Global History? This initial inquiry is interesting for discussing the relevance of Global History as a research method for the study of the Crusades. Authors such as Sebastian Conrad (2016, p. 82), Robert Moore (2016, p. 83-84), Sanjay Subrahmanyam (2017, p. 222), Jerôme Baschet (2017, p. 15), and Marcelo Cândido da Silva (2020, p. 5-6) associate Global History with efforts to consider Medieval Studies beyond the narrow confines of national histories and their identity demands that situate the Middle Ages as a component of modern European nations. In other words, according to Baschet (2017, p. 17), we need to highlight Global History’s following characteristics: a. consideration of circulations and contacts outside limited geographical boundaries; b. caution against a Eurocentric perspective of History; c. refusal of European exclusivism as to what could be called integration tendencies on an extended geographical level or global level.

If, for Jerôme Baschet (2017, p. 16), the concept of Connected Histories refers to a French strand of Global History, for Conrad (2016, p. 64), “connections” constitute a component of this method. Indeed, “connections” would be its key word. Thus, in the present article, we prefer the term Connected Histories to Global History, because the first one brings a specific focus that allows us to circumscribe, more precisely, our topic of discussion: the forms of integration between Military Orders, Muslim communities, and Muslim powers in Syria. Without the framework of Eurocentric thinking, when we underline Conrad’s key word, “connections”, we want exactly to emphasize the integration to which the documentation refers. Moreover, the term “global” could intuitively lead to some confusion with Modern Globalization and produce a distorted analysis on our topic. Therefore, another key word is integration.

When we speak of integration, we assume that such contacts are more than ornamental, that they impact societies in important ways. We also expect that interactions are not ephemeral and accidental, but recurrent and thus able to shape trajectories in a sustained and sometimes patterned way (CONRAD, 2016, p. 101).

The examples presented here will allow us to point out how the Latins in the Military Orders were a component within a connected and integrated Levant. This integration was broader than the European landscape, stretching as far as the Kipchak steppes, and older than the formation of the Latin kingdoms, going as far back as the centuries-old movement of Bedouin itinerant communities.

Movement, connection, and integration must be analyzed in a game of scales. In this sense, we place Syria, from the 12th and 13th centuries, in the context of connection with Egypt and, in an extended way, of integration with the Black Sea, Caspian Sea or Mesopotamian regions. In fact, “this means that a historical unit - civilization, a nation, a family - does not develop in isolation, but can only be understood through its interactions with others” (CONRAD, 2016, p. 65). We have taken the contacts between the Levant and the West as non-exclusive, in an approach that refuses the idea of a center of influence, thus taking the Latins as only one component of an intricate scenario.

Elsewhere, highlighting connectivity is not enough. Paying attention to structures is a precondition for studying the impact of integration. In fact, integration is not a natural process. It leads us to think about competition and dispute around circulation (CONRAD, 2016, p. 108). Both Baschet (2017, p. 19-20) and Conrad (2016, p. 68) are unanimous in pointing out that outlining connections is not enough. It is necessary to consider their diverse natures, the power relations within which they develop, and the structures that allowed, to a certain extent, the integration to happen. This leads us to another, more specific question: what is the relevance of the Connected Histories method for the study of the Crusades? The answer concerns the effort to discuss the conditions and implications of integration. That is, what made them possible and how did they affect those involved? These two questions are relevant because not all interactions have the same meaning for those who take part in them, and not all connections are relevant enough to affect such actors.

Given these introductory ideas, we support the hypothesis that the transit of the mamālīk, the experience of the Turcopoles, the displacement of itinerant Muslim communities, and the diplomatic movements in which the Military Orders were involved, taken together, affected Syria in the 12th and 13th centuries in a way that justifies the application of the method. To all this plurality, we must add the panorama of the Mongol advance, felt most acutely by the Latins and the Mamluk Sultans in the second half of the 13th century (SUBRAHMANYAM, 2017, p. 228; CONRAD, 2016, p. 111-114; FAVEREAU, 2018). These modes of integration would situate Syria and Egypt as precisely two of the most important centers of the Middle Ages, marked by a flow of people that demonstrates a remarkable dynamism.

We outline the method in view of how it allows us to develop a History of the Crusades outside the exclusive scope of their formation in the West. We cannot reduce the connections between Latins and Muslims to a kind of reflex.¹ Discussing the methods of Global History and, in the present text, specifically Connected Histories allows us to think about integration in a broader way, without a European determinism. This perspective is in accordance with the ideas of authors such as Ronnie Ellenblum (2007), Jochen Schenk (2010), and Nicholas Morton (2015; 2020). They are concerned with presenting the contacts of the Military Orders outside an oppositional or dualist panorama, paying attention to the various forms of interaction and integration.

The corpus initially takes shape in a papal document of 1179 that lists the disputes between the Templars and the Hospitallers. In it, we find itinerant Islamic communities under the care of the Temple. We also turn to the agreement between Baybars and the Hospitallers, dated 1267, which established a co-dominium, between the Sultan and the Order, in certain regions in the Levant. Included in this agreement was the control over Bedouins and Turkmen passing through those regions. Both documents can serve as a laboratory for the application of the assumptions concerning the Connected Histories method. The central idea is to analyze both forced and consensual movements within a play of scales that brings together the displacement of captives, the itinerancy of Bedouins, and the Mongol advance. The Military Orders become an additional component of this intersection.

The complexity and dilemmas of the connections are irreducible to perceptions oriented either by the praise and foresight of nineteenth-century European colonialism or to the model of separated societies, whose spatial presence would materialize in a Geography of Fear. By contrast, the complexity and dilemmas of an ever-growing contact - seen in the Levant - revealed several ways through which people answered to their need of living together or interacting. In face of this demand, they expressed resilience or reacted to effective, unexpected, and unwelcome interactions.

Figure 1
Western Fertile Crescent - Southern Region

Itinerant communities and the Military Orders

Alexander III’s document from February 1179 discusses some resolved conflicts between the Templars and the Hospitallers in the Levant. One dispute stands out for it concerns the hostilities between the Bedouins of the Temple and the Turcopoles of the Hospitallers’ castrum located at Bethgibelin,² southwest of Jerusalem (Figure 01).³ During their service to the village, the Turcopoles attacked the Bedouins.⁴ Alan Forey (2012, p. 46) states about this event: ‘the Bedouins were presumably paying tribute to the Templars’. Jean Richard (1992) and Nicholas Morton (2015) confirm the tax nature of this obligation.⁵

The dispute between the Templars and the Hospitallers allows us to suggest an explanation for the Orders under the Connected Histories method. The commitments established in Syria and the tributary ties with the Bedouins also point to the suitability of this method. The arrival of Latins at the Levant, their settlement and the consequent formation of the Temple and Hospital tightened the bonds between Syrian and Egyptian communities and the authorities.

We can verify that the provisions for the collection of tributes, such as the one handed over by the Assassins in 1227, were part of the relationship between the Orders and the Muslim powers. That is particularly true when it comes to “the payment of the tribute owed to the Hospitallers of Crac by the ruler of Haman” (FOREY, 2012, p. 47). These examples of taxation evoke the plurality of exchanges and agreements, avoiding excessive emphasis on conflicts and violence between the Latins and the Muslim communities and powers.

Morton (2015) also mentions mamluk diplomacy, where we can find treaties that allowed Bedouin and Turkmen tribes to exploit the Hospital pasturelands under certain conditions. Morton refers to the treaty established between Al-Zāhir Baybars (1223-1277) and the Hospitallers in 1267, following negotiations that began in the previous year. The conclusion of the agreement is noteworthy because it shows a co-dominium - a shared lordship - between the Hospital and the Sultan over the provinces of Hims, Shayzar and Hamāh in the Orontes River valley.⁶ The document that established this co-dominium states:

both parties shall strive and be zealous for the prosperity of the said condominia with their utmost endeavours. Any peasants entering with their beasts, or Turcomans, Arabs, Kurds or others, or the proprietors, shall be liable to herd-tax at the current rate; half shall go to the Sultan, half to the Order of the Hospital (HOLT, 1995, p. 34).

References to the nomads - Turcomans, Arabs and Kurds - appear elsewhere in the treaty, preventing any hostility against the Hospital or the Sultan. By using Syria’s natural resources, the desert nomads - breeders and herdsmen - had created contact opportunities and possibly favored interdependence with the Frankish lords and the Mamluk Sultan. They paid taxes for grazing rights to the Templars and Hospitallers, and their grazing dependence could, strategically, allow the lords relative control over them. As these nomads travelled through the Levant, the need for amendments arose, such as those indirectly confirmed by the resolution of the conflict between the Military Orders and the truce declared between the Hospitallers and Sultan Baybars.

Mamluk diplomacy’s activities must be analyzed in broader terms. For example, the friendly embassy exchanges between Baybars and the Jochida Mongol Khan, Berke (1209-1266), in the 1260s must be considered. These embassies are key to understanding where arrangements such as the ones established in 1267 took place, and how they were tied to a broader picture, not restricted to the Syrian coast. In this sense, Marie Favereau’s (2018, p. 18) study is unequivocal when it seeks “to demonstrate that it is possible to disentangle the self-centered discourse of the mamluk sources, and even - thanks to the identification of narrative logics - to understand what is at stake for the Jochides, Byzantines, Genoese and others”.⁷ Mamluk diplomatic contacts with the Hospitallers and the Templars were part of a wide network of power, influence, and uncertainty. In the face of Mongol pressure from Ilkhan, in Persia, that had been most strongly felt since Hülegu’s (1217-1265) takeover of Baghdad in 1258, dealing with the itinerant communities of Syria and the Latins was only one component of an expanded and diverse mamluk diplomatic landscape.

Schenk (2010) and Morton (2015) specifically referred to the diversity of contacts as evidence of the ‘different interaction areas’ between the Latins, particularly the ones linked to the Military Orders, and the populations of Syria. In these areas the nomad communities that were under the jurisdiction of the crown stood out. The rights of taxing these nomads were a royal concession. For instance, Queen Melisende, just before 1161, endowed the viscounts of Nablus with a Bedouin community. The collection of such taxes entailed some degree of control on the part of the lord who owned them. Under particular circumstances, itinerant communities were placed in the care and lordship of the Orders. On the other hand, Templars and Hospitallers should keep records of the number of families that composed the nomad taxable group - tents - and, evidently, gather potentially valuable information.

Moreover, as Morton (2015, p.320) pointed out, the Orders controlled vast territories where sedentary Muslim families worked. These communities appointed a ra’is who was an official responsible for organizing community administration and the relations with its lords. Schenk (2010) emphasizes that, alongside the Levant kings, the Military Orders had a supralocal perspective seen in various settlements of the Levant.⁸ Resources coming from their Overseas commanderies could also help increase the lordship power of the Military Orders. Some studies highlight the importance of considering the commanderies of Military Orders in the West and their connections with the different environments of the Mediterranean.⁹ This includes the Levant, which is one of their fundamental axes.¹⁰ Ample resources and supralocal presence in the Latin Kingdoms were key elements for the lordship framework of the itinerant and sedentary communities in Syria.

Relations with itinerant and sedentary Islamic communities in the Levant explain, for example, the need to keep interpreters fluent in Arabic at the service of Templar and Hospitaller officers.¹¹ We can conclude that the Military Orders were well informed of the Levantine situation and balances. Moreover, Forey (2012) and Morton (2015) understand how the intersecting zones provided the Orders with a favorable position to lead negotiations in the rescue of captives and to engage in discussions regarding the making or breaking of truces.

The main idea of Schenk’s article (2010) is to point out how the creation of the Military Orders, specifically that of the Templars, would respond to the need to deal with nomad people - Bedouins and Turkmen. Due to their mobility, they were at the same time a cause for suspicion, uncertain allies, source of income through grazing taxes and useful informants. Their presence in Syria was attested by the 1179 document and the 1267 deal. However, their transit through the Levant is much older. The term “Bedouin” would refer to the Arabic-speaking groups who “had migrated to Palestine and Syria since the 6th century” (SCHENK, 2010, p. 41). Among them, we can identify the Banū Kilab in the north, the Banū Tayy in the south, and the Banū Kalb in the central area of Syria. The Banū Kalb inhabited the areas near Damascus. The Turkmen, who since the 11th century came to Northern Syria from Persia, were part of this context in the 12th and 13th centuries, as seen in the deal between Baybars and the Hospital.

The itinerancy of Bedouin and Turkmen groups was apparently a problem for Latins, Fatimids, Zengids, Ayyubids and Mamluks. Even though they employed nomadic groups, Damascus rulers were suspicious of them (SCHENK, 2010). That was the case with Baybars, who, as noted, would express mistrust in the co-dominium with the Hospital.¹² Their itinerancy and the flexibility of their loyalty, strongly linked to this mobility, were elements that brought up the sensitive issue of living with them and placing them, as strictly as possible, under the influence of the local authorities.

Schenk (2012) and Ellenblum’s (1998; 2007) propositions are convincing when they explain the importance of nomad groups to the building of certain fortresses and towers. These buildings were not linked to an acute external danger that could come from Fatimids from Egypt or the Seljukids, but to the double purpose of guarding a pilgrim site and protecting the road leading to, from or through it (SCHENK, 2010). We can add the need to ensure the lordship framework of the natural and social space. The fortifications were also meant to provide a way of fitting these itinerant communities into the Frankish lordships. The notion of centers that organize themselves to structure a certain space is more coherent for conceiving of these spaces as the materialization of social relations and not as indices of the modern coordinates of borders and sovereignty (ELLENBLUM, 2007). In this organization process Bedouins and Turkmen groups would have an important place, such as in the East of the Galiley (SCHENK, 2010). We can add to this scenario the dislocations provided by the military slavery (the main structure for the Egyptian Caliphs and Sultans). When these dislocations are considered, the result is a dynamic panorama and a perception of the Levant and Egypt as points of lively intersections.

Some coordinates to analyze the intensification of movements and contacts

Ronnie Ellenblum (1998; 2007) - an Israeli geographer - presents in his studies a slightly different point of view from that of Schenk (2010) and Morton (2015). Schenk and Morton show us the relations between Templars, Hospitallers and Muslims. Nevertheless, Ellenblum makes us question the historiographical accounts of Latin occupation in the Levant. This inquiry stems from the examination of certain expressions of modern and contemporary interests in the experiences of historical subjects - such as colonialism and nationalism in the 19th century or anticolonialism and Zionism in the second half of the 20th century. Patrick Geary (2001) also discussed the contribution of History and Philology to the affirmation of European nationalisms. Ellenblum agrees with Geary’s aim to demonstrate how nineteenth- and twentieth-­century intellectuals built their perspectives on the Crusades. He develops a critical study of Art History and Archaeology works produced in the environment of colonial competition during the 19th century, which would have established a position of superiority for European countries, especially over the Orient and Africa. The critique of the projections of the 19th century, developed in the first two parts of his book, demonstrates how plausible the Connected Histories method can be (ELLENBLUM, 2007). History, in fact, is not a neutral exercise, and it is inevitably produced from the point of view of the present. The Crusades and the contacts between the Latins, established powers, and the communities in Syria constitute no exception.¹³

In fact, the central stake is escaping from a “self-centered History” (SUBRAHMANYAM, 2017, p. 225). This intent refers to working with expanded horizons, taking the precaution of “undoing a Eurocentric vision, that counted the ignorance of extra-European societies among its conditions, and thus developing a more balanced, if not entirely symmetrical, treatment of European and non-European universes”¹⁴ (BASCHET, 2017, p. 17). Even if Ellenblum does not specifically seek to write a Connected History, his research emphasizes the important idea that it is impossible to reflect upon connectivity, movement, integration, their impacts, and their conditions without undertaking a critique of the epistemological limits imposed by nationalism and eurocentrism (CONRAD, 2016). Notably, we are concerned with breaking through these limits in the study of Military Orders.

Ellenblum’s (1998; 2007) arguments are even more remarkable because his historiographical critique allows us to sustain exactly that the Military Orders were components of a Connected History. This is also suggested by Schenk (2010). At first, we expect an analysis based only or exclusively on archaeology, but Ellenblum’s books present coherent and well-developed historical criticism. The author’s propositions start from an evaluation of the Eurocentric colonialist model of the 19th century and the model of the segregated society emerging from the anti-colonial debates from post-Second World War and Zionism. The latter perspective will culminate in the translation of the Frankish settlements of the 12th and 13th centuries into the principle of a generalized feeling of insecurity and hostility - the Geography of Fear.

Pierre-Vincent Claverie (2015) dedicated a few lines Ronnie Ellenblum’s work in his text on new trends in the historiography of the Latin East, which focuses on studies that appeared between 2005 and 2014. Claverie (2015, p. 732) considered that, “Although the structure of the book [published in 2007] is somewhat disconcerting, its approach aims to problematize the origin of the concentric castles and cities occupied by Latins in the 12th and 13th centuries”.¹⁵ However, Claverie did not specify what this disconcerting character would be. He also emphasized the intersection between the efforts of Ellenblum’s archaeological work and his historiographical critique of previous perspectives about the Latin occupation of Syria. As we have noted throughout this paper, Jochen Schenk has highlighted the relevance of Ellenblum’s work. In particular, this author reconsidered the modalities of occupation of the Latins in Syria, as well as reviewed the functions of their fortifications. Finally, and most important for our paper, his discussion on the idea of Geography of Fear stands out as an essential contribution (SCHENK, 2010).

Ellenblum noted a shift in the European intelligentsia’s attitudes toward the Crusades between the 18th and 19th centuries. The view of the Crusades as moral errors gave way to a certain valorization. They thus appeared as pan-European phenomena, aligned with nationalist and colonial efforts, especially in France. The idea of coexistence and integration between Franks and Muslims was articulated with a positive view of the Crusades as an appropriate experience for Europeans. This appreciation was made possible by the understanding that such journeys brought their participants into contact with diverse peoples. As proposed by W. Robertson in 1769, the Crusades, along with the economic benefits of the conquest of new settlements in the Levant, provided Europeans with “contacts with higher Eastern Cultures” (ROBERTSON, cited by ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 15). Further evidence of this change in European perspectives on the Crusades is provided by the announcement made by the French Academy on April 11, 1806. For its annual historical competition, the Academy asked that contestants “Examine the effects which the Crusades had on the civil liberties of the peoples of Europe, on their civilization, and on their progress towards enlighten­ment, commerce, and industry” (cited by ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 3).

The 19th century perspective refers to the idea that the Europeans, especially the French, would be good colonizers, establishing a harmonious and paternal relationship with the people under their domain. In this perspective, “the Franks were ‘Frenchmen’ or ‘Christians’ who knew how to create a modus vivendi with the local inhabitants, and glorification of these relations was necessary for glorification of French colonialist rule” (ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 45). At this point, the author refers specifically to Rey (1866).

The benevolent view of the Crusade as a harbinger of nineteenth-century French colonial genius or a positive moment in European history was challenged by another explanatory model of contacts between Latins and Muslims. The progressive dissolution of the colonial blocs in the mid-20th century exposed the problems and inequalities of colonization, causing a reevaluation of the previous vision. The collective volume France in the World: a New Global History, edited by Patrick Boucheron (2019) and first published in French in 2017, contains several examples of critical analyses of French colonial domination and its end. The texts by Topçu (2017), Loyer (2017) and Lemire (2017), for instance, cover topics that range from French nuclear tests in the Algerian desert in the early 1960s, Frantz Fanon’s critique of colonialism, and the end of the French mandate over Syria and Lebanon. Vincent Lemire builds his discussion of the latter subject around the end of the French administration of the Maghreb neighborhood of Jerusalem. Works such as these suggest interesting approaches to contexts in which anti-colonial thought took shape, signaling a change in the way we assess European presence in Africa and the Levant, whether in the contemporary world or in the Middle Ages. The postcolonial critique, legitimate and coherent, pressured the colonialist perspective linked to the history of the Frankish presence in the Levant and encouraged us to consider the relations between the Latins of the Military Orders, the communities, and the Islamic powers under the method of Connected Histories.

On the other hand, the anticolonial prism could focus on the conflict and compromise the perception of the diversity of contact. The revision that took place starting from the 1950s guided what Ellenblum (2007) called the Geography of Fear. This point of view emphasizes that Latins had always been a minority and that, by refusing to occupy rural areas of Syria because of their insecurity, they isolated themselves in cities and fortifications. This model is based on the idea of a deep Arabization of the Christian communities in Syria, willing to collaborate with Fatimids, Seljukids, and other Islamic powers, rather than to join or support the Frankish. Furthermore, the Turks themselves would exhibit a remarkable degree of Arabization and Islamization.

In other words: “The segregation model maintains that the Frankish conquest of the Levant was accompanied by a radical social metamorphosis which transformed a largely [Frankish] rural society into an urban one”¹⁶ (ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 54). Nevertheless, this model presents flawed or questionable points, for reliable data on the process of Islamization and Arabization is only available starting from the end of the 13th century and cannot be taken as a consensual point for earlier periods (ELLENBLUM, 1998; 2007). Therefore, doubts were raised about the pertinence of taking it as a starting point to draw conclusions about the Frankish settlements or their contacts with the local populations.

It is noticeable how European colonialism served as the central reference in both models. The first considered the positive side of the contacts as a form of praise for the domination that was emerging in the 19th century in North Africa, especially in Algeria. The second, in its turn, accentuated the negative points, exposing, simultaneously, the damages inherent to colonial domination and the failure of the Latin presence in the Levant. In addition, the segregationist model also criticized European projections of Muslim diversity in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Syria. These projections would reduce or downgrade diversity according to nineteenth-century European standards. A consensual point in research regarding the contacts between Latins and Muslims is the importance of Edward Said’s work - Orientalism, first published in 1978. As Ellenblum (2007, p. 81) pointed out, “Said and his followers criticised the [colonialist] model for being stereotypical, for attempting to define all the features of the city as being by-products of all-embracing Islam or the ever-existing ‘tribal society’”. The core of the critique conveyed in Orientalism, therefore, was that the exponents of such views proposed a comparison between the elements of Muslim and European cities. Since the former did not provide the same characteristics or correspondents as the latter, they concluded that the Muslim cities were imperfect or that they were not true cities.

On the other hand, even if the intention was legitimate, the post-colonial critique led, in turn, to an effort to weigh the failure of the Latin settlements according to a modern geopolitical model, where the Frankish would be a dominating minority that refused, due to insecurity, to effectively occupy the rural space (ELLENBLUM, 2007). The failure of the Latin occupation of the Levant would culminate in their expulsion in 1291. Especially for Zionists, it would be up to posterity to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

This model serves Israeli scholars’ purpose of assessing Israel’s relationship with its neighbors and the Muslim population within the territory it claimed. The reading of the past was once more subjected to the concerns of the present. Ellenblum provides an insightful account of the appropriation of the Crusades by Israeli scholars of the second half of the 20th century. The author pointed out the change in perspective and, in the wake of Israel’s political issues, how the History of the Latin presence became part of Israel’s National History:

For me and for my generation of Israeli historians, the study of the Crusades is the study of the history of our country. This in itself is another transformation of the reading of Crusader history: from the “Jewish” reading of its history, focusing on slaughter of the Rhineland Jewish communities in 1096, to a Zionist reading of the Crusades, focusing on seeing them as an inverse prefiguration of the future Zionist movement, and finally to the reading of the Crusades as part of my own country, and to a certain degree, as part of my own history (ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 61).

This quotation supports our hypothesis that writing the History of the Crusades and studying contacts between Latins and Muslims are not neutral exercises. Even considering, like Ellenblum, the legitimacy of the historiographical critique of the 1950s, it is still an endeavor linked to the present. This is a crucial question, as it concerns the possibility or impossibility of constituting a perspective on the contacts of the Military Orders, the Muslim powers, and the Syrian communities, nomadic or sedentary, by the principle of a Connected History guided by the premises of intensification, integration, and resilience.

The Turcopoles as evidence of intensification and resilience

Aside from the nomadic communities’ taxation, the co-dominium, and the effort of lordship framing of the nomadic and sedentary communities, another point of connection helps us reflect on past historiographic models about the contacts between Latins and the populations of Syria and Egypt: the Turcopoles. These different intersections allow us to discuss either the praise of colonialism or the premise of the Geography of Fear.

In the beginning of 1990s, Jean Richard (1992) developed a discussion on the problem of who these people were. In the same way as the Biduini Templi, the Turcopoli Templi et Hospitalis proved representative of the Military Orders’ condition as contact spheres. Considering Ellenblum’s criticism of both colonialism and the Geography of Fear, the reflection about the Orders invites us, “through the incessant coming and going between several levels (temporal and spatial), to identify analogies, parallelisms, as well as connections that could not be identified in a closed and static approach”¹⁷ (SILVA, 2020, p. 6). In other words, the relationships that were either reduced to an idyllic conviviality or rejected by a total partition parameter gained more convincing and interesting nuances. These possibilities become possible within broad spatial analyses, through the scales game mentioned by Sebastian Conrad (2016) and Marcelo Cândido da Silva (2020). Specifically, the study of the agreement between Baybars and the Hospitallers must necessarily include an extension to the panorama of other relationships in which Latins of the Military Orders and Mamluks were involved - itinerant communities, Mongols, Byzantines, etc.

The presence of Turcopoles in the composition of Latin forces, i.e., in the Military Orders, referred to a Byzantine practice, whose main exponent was one of emperor Alexius I Comnenus’s (1056-1118) generals. His name was Tatikios and he was the son of a Turkish captive warrior and a Greek woman. Although the word literally means “son of a Turkish”, the complexity of the Turcopoles’ identity is emphasized by Richard (1992; 2009b). Were they Christians of Turkish origin? Turkish armed men? Turkish traitors of the Caliphs and Sultans’ armies?

The experience of these Turcopoles should be considered in the scope of multiethnic military composition practices within opposing forces in Syria. The mobilization of Nubian, Sudanese and Armenian people in Cairo’s Fatimid army was contrasted with Turkish and Kurdish composition from the Zengid, Ayyubid and Mamluk forces. We should also mention the Mongolian individuals and the frequency with which they appeared from the second half of the 13th century on, alongside Mamluks from Egypt. As Zouache (2013, p. 22) observed:

In Egypt, the Fatimid army was just as composite, before the conquest of the country by Saladin, who put an end to the Shia Caliphate in 567/1171. It was made up of several specialized corps, which were apparently ethnically homogeneous, and where diverse statuses existed. Free men and slaves were mixed. The Sūdān (“blacks”, mostly slaves) and Arab nomads played an important role, especially during the collapse of the Fatimid regime in the first half of the 6th/12th century. As in Syria, the heavy horsemen, Turks, Kurds, or Armenians constituted the elite of the fighters, especially after the reform of the army led by the vizier al-Afḍal (d. 515/1121), at the very beginning of the 6^th/12^th century, and even more so after the conquest of Egypt by Saladin.¹⁸

The author presents an overview of the diversity of the military composition in Muslim powers of Syria and Egypt. This military variety reinforced the idea of plural interactions between Latins and Muslims at Levant in the 12th and 13th centuries; and through this perspective the Turcopoles ought to be analyzed. We should remember the presence of warriors or fawāris of Arab origin - Usāma Ibn Munqid (1095-1188), for instance. “Over time, they were more expressively identified as free or slave Turks called gilmām (singular: gulām) or mamālīk (singular: mamlūk)”¹⁹ (ZOUACHE, 2013, p. 22).

Another aspect to be considered is the impact of the composition of Caliphs and Sultans’ armies during the 11th century, starting from the rise of captive trafficking. That is, is it possible to identify a relation between the Turcopoles and the personified military slavery in the mamlūk? A viable answer is that “This was the way in which the Ayyubid sultans recruited their mamālīk - buying slaves, mostly Turkish, that were raised in Islam and formed their permanent army when were released. But these mamālīk also provided recruits to Turcopoles”²⁰ (RICHARD, 1992, p. 264).

Referring back to the overview of diplomatic exchanges between the Baybars Sultan and Khan Berke, in 1260, Favereau (2018, p. 6) observed that:

On the one hand, the Golden Horde was one of the most important warrior slave trafficking associates (the mamlūk system was, in principle, integrative, because it allowed non-Muslim peoples to enter Islam), and its nomadic court embraced ulemas and literates.²¹

The observation regarding the integrative character of this mamlūk system is an important question. One relevant hypothesis states that a relationship existed between the expansion of captives’ movement from the Steppe of Kipchaks, located east of Black Sea and north of Caspian Sea (Figure 2), towards Egypt, and the composition of Turcopole lines on the Byzantines and Latins’ behalf. This displacement became more intense due to the progress and the wars undertaken by the Mongols in the second half of the 13th century. The increase in traffic and movement of people stimulated modalities of intersection, such as those developed by the Turcopoles present in the Military Orders, i.e., mamālīk dissidents could become Turcopoles. The locomotion of people, such as Baybars, from the Steppe of Kipchaks to Cairo’s barracks was an example of how Egypt and Syria, in the 12th and 13th centuries, used to be seen as spaces of strong exchange and diverse - forced, unusual or consensual - connections. The scale game is clearly visible in the conditions of forced displacement.

On the other hand, the analysis of the diversity of Turcopoles’ origins is suggestive of their proximity to the mamlūk or other multiethnic warrior expressions from Levant. This conclusion is achieved through the consideration of the recruiting in the Christian Syrian population - which had already offered administrative and military services to Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid lords ‒ or among the converts from Islam.

Here, we consider the scale games that the Connected Histories method propose. The increase in movement of itinerant peoples, of Arab or Turkish origin, provided the contact base that allowed experiences such as those of Tatikios or Turcopoles on behalf of Latins from Military Orders. Child entrapment also happened among steppe peoples, who were brought to Cairo’s barracks and converted to Islam. The relationships between these phenomena enable us to ask how much the intensification of displacements of people ‒ compulsory or spontaneous ‒ were bounded to the composition of Turcopoles lines working at the Latin Kingdoms, specifically in Military Orders.

Figure 2
The Mamlūk Circulation: Constantinople superseded Sivas at the end of 1261

The suggestion of this relation leads to a more incisive question: what, in military slavery logic, provided a clear approximation between mamālīk and Turcopoles? As Zouache (2013, p. 25) highlighted:

Family values harmoniously join military values here, since, in any army, the fundamental question facing high-ranking management is that of the loyalty and fidelity of the men destined to fight and die for it. It is to compensate for a deficiency in this matter that between the third and ninth centuries “the Mamluk system” (David Ayalon) would have been put in place. The Abbasid caliphs would have wanted to create an army that was sufficiently loyal to enable them to withstand the growing tensions that weakened their power. This “system” would have had the advantage of cutting young slaves off from all original ties (tribal and especially family; the paradigm is pushed to the extreme with the eunuchs).²²

In accordance with the evidence presented by Richard (1992), Morton (2015) and Zouache (2013), we can underline the modalities of association between these people and Latin lords. The minutes of Mont-Thabor’s monasteries comprise lists of witnesses who were, probably, Turcopoles. This suggests that:

These Turcopoles, mentioned after the knights, carried names with a more Latin than Eastern consonance. That was quite convenient to converted people who had been baptized according to the Latin ritual and (…) took the name of those who led to the baptismal fonts²³ (RICHARD, 1992, p. 263).

Still regarding the plurality of the Turcopoles’ origins, Richard (1992, p. 264) argues that:

It is likely excessive to assume that the Turcopoles, whose numerical importance was huge in Eastern Latin armies, were all converted from the Turkish race. But the “sons of Turkish” were responsible for the model for the Turcopoles’ image.²⁴

In this sense, it is possible to bring the mamālīk and the Turcopoles closer together, since this link does not restrict the range of possibilities for the diversity of the Turcopoles’ origins. In doing so, the reference to an order of Saladin was not anodyne. His rule included the execution of apostates and archers after a victory, assigning the apostates and archers with Muslim warriors converted to Christianism and active in the Latin forces (RICHARD, 1992).

As we confirmed previously, the intensification of human trafficking in the 11th, 12h and 13h centuries enabled and supported, to a certain extent, the use of Turcopoles by Byzantines and Latins. The mamālīk served as a military model in this practice. Starting from this observation, we can consider the proximity of the artificial family relationship between the Turcopole - probably a convert - and his god­father, colleagues, and superior officials, on one side; and the mamlūk’s relation with his lord and captivity and training comrades, on the other side (ZOUACHE, 2013). The solidarity moved from family or blood group to other bonds, either with the godfather or the lord who assisted and trained them and whom they served along with the other mamālīk.

As Zouache (2013) pointed out previously, regarding the original bonds and those created in the military context, we can appoint the relation between the mamlūk military model, in a wide context of displacement of people, and the use of Turcopoles by Byzantines and Latins from Military Orders. Besides, we emphasize that Military Orders’ Rules used to bring determinations for the Turcopoles on their behalf, assigning a specific officer, the Turcopolier, to lead them (BURGTORF, 2009). Richard (2009b, p. 938) noticed that the Rule of the Templars dedicated many clauses to its individuals:

Their statute was intermediary between the brothers and the sergeants; similarly for their ration of food, wine, olive oil; they ate apart from each other, on the ground, following the Eastern style, and one of the penances inflicted to friars who commit mistakes was having their meals without towels and “with the Turcopoles”.²⁵

On the other hand, considering the number of dead knights and Turcopoles in the Battle of La Forbie, in 1244, and their tasks at the garrison of certain fortresses, Richard (2009b) also noted that the Turcopoles’ role exceeded the simple auxiliar model in the Military Orders’ activities.

The aim is to ponder the possibilities of action and reaction available for people taken away from their original family nucleus and confronted with the necessity of starting a new life and creating new bonds. As Burgtorf (2008, p. 37) suggested, “The Turcopoles are one of the remarkable intercultural phenomena of the crusader states”. These intercession modalities in Syria and Egypt’s inland enabled contact among people of distant origin and distinct backgrounds. Their dilemmas and problems, inherent to an unexpected, unusual or unwelcomed conviviality, fostered demands, answers and experiences of resilience. One of the manifestations of conviviality happened exactly in the modality of artificial bond and family relation, as the godfather or the dependence on the officer Turcopolier.

Therefore, this topic becomes relevant to the development of a Connected History of the Military Orders. In the interchangeable character of the analysis, ranging from a wide scale of circulation to one restricted to contacts, we can problematize the place of Templars and Hospitallers in the intensification of movement and in the experience of resilience.

Dealing with the dilemmas of conviviality

There is an important difference between the following questions: What were the Crusades? How was the contact among Latin, Fatimid, Seljuk, Zengid, Ayyubid and Mamluk dynasties in the Eastern Mediterranean between the 12th and 13th centuries? If the first question focuses on the idea that the Crusades formed in the West and developed in the Levant, the second one, because of its comprehensiveness, tends to present a certain complexity. Their resonance affects not only the choice of topics, but also that of approaches. Therefore, we can add a third question: how much do current research practices, especially in Brazil, cause the first question to relegate the second one to a place of near oblivion? In conclusion, it is about claiming, from an ever-closer dialogue between medieval studies and the proposals of Global and Connected Histories, other ways of discussing contacts and interactions. It is not possible to talk about connections without thinking, in a fair way, about all the parties involved. Neither should we reduce their analysis to the strictly conflictual component.

The political uses of the Crusades in the contemporary world, either to justify a xenophobic and reductionist view of Islam or to mobilize various extremisms, bring about the need to fight xenophobia and, specifically, how the Crusades are mobilized to justify prejudice. An interesting direction, as pointed out by Burgtorf (2018), is to remember that the relations between Christians and Muslims were guided by ideological, personal, and pragmatic considerations. This pragmatism is evident in the Military Orders, such as the Templars and the Hospitallers. Dedicated to the fight against Muslim people, they dealt with, as we saw, truces and commitments with enemies as fierce as Sultan Baybars. Moreover, even attitudes as hostile as the execution of Templars after the battle of Hattin, in July 1187, would indicate not the mere fear of a particular enemy, but opposition to possible points of intersection or syncretism.

Muslim learned men would know the Templars and Hospitallers’ purpose of forming Military and Religious Orders (LEWIS, 2017) that could represent not only a military threat, but a risk to Islamic principles. The existence of a shrine dedicated to Mary in Saydnāyā, Syria, marked by the presence of the Templar Knights, where Christians and Muslims prayed together, is significant. In the time of Nūr-al-Dīn (1118-1174), it was a custom for the Sultan to give an amount of oil for Saydnāyā to enlighten the church. Therefore, the Templars in Saydnāyā would personify intersection and syncretism. As Benjamin Kedar pointed out in his study of Saydnāyā, the Templars’ attachment to that locality and the spread of the miraculous oil of their icon in the West would highlight an egalitarian convergence on a shared place of religious ceremony (KEDAR, 2001, p. 61). The monastery was in a dangerous region, in Muslim territory, accessible only in times of peace. The Templars most likely earned income from trafficking oil to the West (KEDAR, 2001, p. 66-68). According to Kedar (2001, p. 63):

Against this background, it is worthwhile to dwell on an instance of spatial convergence of Oriental Christians, Muslims, and Franks, where - as at al-Matariyya - all worshippers shared a common cultic practice. This convergence (which has been largely neglected by crusade historians) occurred in a locality that had never come under Frankish rule: the Greek convent of Our Lady of Saydnāyā about twenty-five kilometers northeast of Damascus, that is, deep in Muslim territory. The objective of the worshippers was a miracle-working icon of the Virgin, Saydnāyā’s most treasured possession. The icon was said to date from Byzantine times, or from the ninth century; possibly Saydnāyā had already been a holy site in pre-Christian times.

That place made possible a shared devotion between Christians and Muslims that should not be congenial to certain Islamic surroundings of a strict or rigid Sunni observance, such as Saladin’s circle. This Ayyubid Sultan, as pointed out before, regarding the Islamic diversity in the 12th century, was not a consensual figure. It is not useless to emphasize that, among the Shiites and the supporters of the bloodline of Nūr-al-Dīn, to whom he presented himself as successor, Saladin could be seen as a Kurdish adventurer or usurper who, because of family interests, fought against the Muslims themselves (IRWIN, 1995; HILLEBRAND, 2018). Moreover, he had granted truces to the Latins after the conquest of Jerusalem, in 1187, which wouldn’t be well seen. These divergences among Muslims are suggestive of their diversity. They could be explained, among other possibilities, by the distinction between Shiites and Sunnis. Elsewhere, they help us to understand the reluctance of certain Shiite people, like Usāmah Ibin Munqid, as described by Irwin (1995, p. 233), to recognize the legitimacy of the jihad undertaken by a Turkish or Kurdish Sunni leader like Saladin, since such leadership could only be properly claimed by a legitimately recognized Caliph or his legitimate representative.²⁶ These distinctions suggest coherence in the divergences within the Muslim world. In addition, we can consider the weight of the Bedouin communities and shrines as Saydnāyā in the delicate balances of the Levant.

It was observed previously that Shiites might be suspicious of Saladin’s claims and his drive for jihad and even Sunnis would distrust his claims and conceive of them as a mere desire to strengthen his family’s position. Carole Hillebrand revealed the previous perspective by suggesting that the efforts around jihad and the laudatory tone of certain chroniclers, such as Ibn Shaddad, who worked in service of Saladin in 1188, were linked to the need of legitimizing his position before his contemporaries, particularly in the Baghdad circles. It was necessary to mitigate or make everyone forget the truces that the Kurdish Sultan had offered to the Frankish and his hostilities towards the Nūr-al-Dīn family, from whom he strove to take land and position (HILLEBRAND, 2018, p. 171-195).

Considering that Lewis is correct and that the Muslim scholars knew and distinguished Templars and Hospitallers from other Latins, because of their status as warriors and religious men, the subject of the contact and proximity stands out. Possible Muslim disagreements regarding Saladin are equally suggestive. Proximity and contact were facilitated by diplomatic missions and by the establishment of treaties and truces in which, as emphasized, members of the Military Orders took part. The twelfth-century Latin and Arab chroniclers pointed out the Templars’ participation in the establishment of deals between the realm of Jerusalem and the Fatimid Caliphate of Cairo City. Moreover, the chroniclers from the 13th century also mention these exchanges of which the co-dominium with Baybars, in 1267, would be just an example.

Nevertheless, it is fair to take seriously the evidence that appears in the trial that led to the Temple Order’s extinction in 1312. This trial was filed against the Templars in the early 14th century. According to statements from people who lived with the Templars in the Levant, some of them were esteemed by the Sultan and the mamluk emirs. Among them was Guillaume de Beaujeu (c. 1230-1291), Master of the Order, killed during the siege of the city of Acre in 1291, and his officer Mathieu Sauvage. Although the efforts of the French King to gain a wide support against the Order explain these statements, Latin and Arabic chronicles mention the potential friendship between those Templars and Mamluks. This possible friendship would be perceived even when the relationship between the Sultan and the Order reached a critical point, in the late sixties and early seventies of the 13th century (BURGTORF, 2018).

Demurger (2009) was another author that, in the biography of Jacques de Molay (c.1244-1314), referred to the complex exchange and relations between the Templars and the Mamluks. Quoting the Great Chronicles of France:

Molay was utterly astounded by this, and declared that he had never heard it said, but he knew, however, that, being overseas at the time when the Master of the said Order was Brother Guillaume de Beaujeu, he himself, Jacques, and many other brethren of the convent of the above-mentioned Templars, young and eager to make war, as is customary with young knights who want to take part in feats of arms, and even others who were not of their convent, had murmured against the said Master because, during the truce that the deceased king of England had made between Christians and Saracens, the said Master had shown himself submissive to the sultan and kept his favor; but that in the end the said brother Jacques and others of the said convent of the Templars had been content, seeing that the said Master could not have acted otherwise, since at that time their Order supervised and guarded many towns and fortresses along the frontiers of the said sultan in places that he named, and could not have kept otherwise, and which could even then have been lost had the said king of England not sent them supplies (DEMURGER, 2009, p. 27).

That is, the Templars that were younger or newcomers to the Levant might find the truce and engagements with the powers of Egypt strange. However, they would soon realize that to maintain the Order’s position and control over certain sites, agreements were necessary and unavoidable. Alain Demurger presents other examples of perceived complexity and even ambiguity of contacts such as the statement of Pierre de Nobiliac from 10 May 1311. He was a sergeant from the diocese of Limoges and “also stated that the said Guillaume was very friendly with the sultan and the Saracens, for otherwise it would have been impossible for him to survive with his Order in Outremer” (cited by DEMURGER, 2009, p. 49).

Conviviality was necessary. The transit of Mathieu Sauvage, as a mediator and negotiator with Baybars, constitutes a more specific example of what historiography has called the Realpolitik of the Latin realms and the powers that ruled Cairo or the pragmatic game that should be on the horizon of historical figures such as Saladin, Baybars and the Templars. The first one, after 1174, found active Muslim competitors in Aleppo, Mosul and the caliphal circle of Baghdad. The second one engaged with the Latins in the Levant, although he was busy with the advance of the Mongol Khan Hülegu and the power legitimacy problems that might occur when the progressive mamluks took over the power from Ayyubid’s hands after 1250, and due to his own ascension to the sultanate in 1260. Therefore, both were pragmatic in taking their initiatives and concluding their agreements.

Still according to Hillebrand (2018), Baybars needed to legitimize his claims, because he had been a slave, then he became a mamlūk elevated to the status of sultan. He would consolidate Mamluk power in Cairo. Favereau (2018, p. 36) presents a similar perception:

Moreover, the fact that they had undergone military slavery, which the Mamluk sultans did not hide - on the contrary, it was a matter of pride for them, associated with a martial culture in which combativeness was erected as a fundamental quality. For Baybars, all that mattered was that he had dedicated his life to the defense of Islam and the protection of the family of the Prophet.²⁷

The same author notes that Hülegu from Ilkhan took Baghdad in 1258, forcing the transfer of the Abbasid Caliphate to the city of Cairo. That way, the Caliphs were tutored by the Mamluk Sultans. This authority and the efforts to present themselves as Islam Champions would be important to the initiatives of Baybars and the formation of an alliance with Khan Berke against the Khan Hülegu. We note, in a more incisive way, how the deals and treaties involving Latins in Syria in the 12th and 13th century must be analyzed in a broad perspective.

Saladins’ worries about the Mosul and Aleppo oppositions and the diplomatic and peaceful exchange between Baybars and the Khan Mongol Berke - both were Hülegu’s opponents - emphasize the relative place of the Latin Realms in what we could call the Ayyubid agenda in the 12h century and Mamluk agenda in the 13th century. The world was obviously wider. This relative place, when acknowledged alongside several other kinds of non-bellicose contact, helps us to consider the dilemmas of conviviality and the complex interplay of fragile balances, delicate compromises, flexible friendships, and concrete but not exclusive oppositions. As noted, the non-hostile contacts have received increasing attention in historiography, for instance in Benjamin Kedar’s work (2001). As in the West, the Military Orders participated in this intricate game, uncertain then, within an environment of circulation and interdependence.

Conclusions: connected histories as a method to overcome the geography of fear

The central commitment of this study has been to highlight how the Connected Histories method constitute a fundamental condition for performing analyses on the Military Orders’ contacts with Muslim communities and powers in the Levant. . Therefore, “analyzing connected spaces or worlds implies paying attention to the specific modes of operation of the circulations and ties concerned and without exaggerating their scope, which implies measuring their amplitude and effective impact, to articulate them to the logics of local inscription…”²⁸ (BASCHET, 2017, p. 35). This is also pointed out by Conrad (2016, p. 71) when he warns that “failure to note power structures confers agency on everyone who is involved in exchange and interactions, and by celebrating mobility runs the danger of ignoring the structures that control it”. Specifically, discussing the integration between Military Orders and sedentary or itinerant communities and Islamic powers concerns, precisely, investigating their integration and the relevance of its impact.

Ellenblum’s (1998; 2007) suspicion of the Franks’ refusal to establish settlements in rural areas due to a sense of insecurity becomes more solid in light of the archaeological evidence obtained from the village of Mi’ilya. Considering this example, he concluded that the Franks established a new settlement that did not infringe the farming rights or overtake the fields of the local inhabitants (ELLENBLUM, 1998). In other words, the Latins had an interest in the affairs of the rural communities in Syria and knew their ways of occupying and framing rural space. There was an effort to accommodate and not disturb previous modalities of land division and occupation. Therefore, it is plausible to identify a Frank presence in the environment outside the cities and their interactions could not be reduced to mere collaboration or simple opposition.

The critique of European colonialism of the 18th and 19th centuries and the nuance presented about mid-20th century anticolonial studies allowed Ellenblum to build his argument about Latin settlements and the construction of their fortresses. Therefore, the conclusion about Mi’ilya study is significant. It combines historiographical critique with archaeological study, through which Ellenblum (2007) evidenced an awareness of the place from which he spoke. As we noted earlier, he problematized the issue of the Crusades, keeping in mind how they became “part of my own country, and to a certain degree, as part of my own history” (ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 61). As an Israeli professor and researcher, who had grown up in the formative years of the State of Israel, the fortifications and Latin constructions of the Crusade period became part of his life. Explaining the scholar’s standpoint serves as an impulse to highlight the place of the Brazilian professor that reads his books. The Brazilian professor deals with the proposals of Global History and Connected Histories methods to study the Middle Ages. While dealing with it, he seeks to examine the experience of the Military Orders, specifically the Templars, as a space of connection and circulation in a remarkable context of intensified circulation and contact.

Evidently, analyses of circulations and contacts in the history of Military Orders are new. Publications on the international circulation of officers of the Orders, Templar families, and the relationship between Military Orders and the Sea are some of the areas of expertise that approach such orders from a prism that interconnects the local and the supra­local (BURGTORF; NICHOLSON, 2006; SCHENK, 2012; BALARD, 2009). For a researcher who studies the social uses of pragmatic literacy in the Templar commanderies from Provence, moving to a connected or extended - and global - perspective means embracing a challenge. This is expressed in the consideration of the interplay of scales that leads to a different understanding of the experiences of the historical subjects, whether the Templars themselves or the people linked to them and distant from the Levant - notaries, neighboring lords, workers of various specializations, etc.

“Circulation” and “connection” are the keywords that, as much in Ellenblum (1998; 2007) as in Silva (2020) and other historians, allow us, from our place of study, to consider “movement” and “contact”. We note that movement includes connections in time and space through people, objects, and ideas. “It is important to investigate how the circulation, movements, and mobility of people, habits, goods, and ideas influence the construction of the communities themselves and their spaces”²⁹ (SILVA, 2020, p. 10). Therefore, highlighting the impact of circulation and connection, through the examples mentioned in this article was a fundamental task. “Integration, then, is not an issue of scale (the entire planet) and quantity (the amount of trade), but of quality: the commodification of things and social relations creates a systematic coherence, as it enables compatibility and exchangeability across geographical, cultural and ethnic borders” (CONRAD, 2016, p. 105). Following the above reasoning in a more restricted manner, we considered the dilemmas that Templars and Hospitallers, as well as Bedouins, Turcomans, Kurds, Turks, mamālīk, Turcopoles, Fatimids, Zengids, Ayyubids and Mamluks, needed to answer in their various contacts. In turn, the contacts are linked to structural issues, for example the mamlūk system or the secular displacement of the nomadic communities.

Consequently, the need to coexist with Syriac Christian communities, nomadic or sedentary Muslims, as well as with established powers, led to a search for answers according to the possibilities available at the time. There is a willingness to think of these challenges and dilemmas of conviviality as an acute moment of intensifying contact, of making explicit and exercising resilience (MOORE, 2016). We need to evaluate this in the broader movements of the arrival of Latins in Syria, the secular displacement of Arab and Turkish itinerant communities, and the forced movement of captives who would become mamālīk in the city of Cairo - this diasporic movement would become more intense in the 13th century after the Mongol advance. On the other hand, it is possible to move to another, narrower level by looking at the Turcopoles’ experience and the diverse modes or varied efforts of accommodation between Templars and Hospitallers with Bedouins and Muslim leaders such as Nūr-al-Dīn, Saladin or Baybars.

The contacts become more significant, not only in the sense of the Military Orders with the Mamluk Sultanate, for example, but through the latter’s coetaneous interactions with the Mongols. These movements of differing scope and dimension influence the modalities of response to what the interaction entails. In other words, “the notion of resilience replaces the catastrophist approach with interest in the ways in which societies deal with their vulnerabilities and respond to crises”³⁰ (CURTIS, cited by SILVA, 2020, p. 16). The impact of the intensification of conviviality and the responses to it - resilience - are expressed by Silva and Moore as a general possibility of analysis and in the delimitation of a method that proves fruitful for analyzing the Middle Ages and the Crusades. Ellenblum, Schenk, Morton, and Forey, on the other hand, highlight intensification, integration, and resilience by studying a universe more restricted in time and space, but that can be productively submitted to the prism of Connected Histories. Contact and conviviality are conceived in their different range and in the spaces where they can have substantial impact on the constitution of communities.

To conclude, in the face of contacts between Biduini Templi and Turcopoli Hospitalis and the interactions of Templars and Hospitallers with Nūr-al-Dīn, Saladin, and Baybars, we suggest that this study should be continued on chronicles, pragmatic documents, and other corpora, both Arabic and Latin. Once the method is presented, the corpora should serve as material for further discussion of the dilemmas and complexity of coexistence and integration. From the perspective of the intensification of exchanges or connections and the manifestations of resilience, in their respective conditions of propulsion and possible response to the mentioned dilemmas, we will be able to ponder - or contribute to delineate - coherent alternatives either to the praise of colonialism or to the affirmation of the Geography of Fear.

• 1
  We consider that this approach to the History of the Crusades, which starts from Europe as the primary center, is present, to some extent, in the works of Alain Demurger (2005; 2010) and Jean Flori (2009).
• 2
  According to Ellenblum (1998; 2007), Beit Guvrin or Bethgibelin - adjacent to the Bayt Jibril burgus - was known as castrum by C. R. Conder, J. Prawer, M. Benvenisti, and D. Pringle. The same applies to Latin and Arab corpora of the 12th century.
• 3
  Bethgibelin’s castle was located between Hebron and Ascalon and, “At the early stages of the Frank occupation, the castle’s role was to protect the southern border of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was threatened by the Fatimid enclave of Ascalon” (CLAVERIE, 2009, p. 156). Our translation of: “À l’origine de la présence franque, le château de Bethgibelin avait pour vocation de protéger la frontière méridionale du royaume de Jérusalem, menacée par l’enclave fatimide d’Ascalon”. The conquest of this castle happened in 1134 and it was given to the Hospital in 1136, with the aim of establishing a garrison. In 1187, the place was taken by Saladin (1138-1193) and, between 1240 and 1244, the Hospitallers returned briefly (CLAVERIE, 2009).
• 4
  Querela de quadam predacione Biduinorum Templi facta a Turcopolis Gibilini (HIESTAND, 1984, p. 237-239).
• 5
  Forey (2012) also uses Alexander III’s document to support the discussion about the independence of the Military Orders - with respect to breaking truces and negotiations with Islamic leaders and communities in Syria. Forey believes that the Levantine Templars and Hospitallers had more freedom in their actions when compared to their coreligionists in the Iberian Peninsula. In the Peninsula, the strict control by the crown prevented the free celebration of agreements and deals among institutions. One of the reasons for the restrictions was the limited income of Military Orders in the Peninsula, since they only depended on local resources. However, in the Latin Kingdoms, the Orders were widely supported by regions such as Provence and Languedoc (FOREY, 2012).
• 6
  About co-dominium, the shared or collective lordship in the West, see Verdon (2010) and Débax (2012).
• 7
  Our translation of: “de montrer que l’on peut dénouer le discours autocentré des sources mameloukes, et même, grâce à l’identification des logiques narratives, comprendre ce qui est en jeu pour les Jochides, les Byzantins, les Génois et les autres”.
• 8
  See also Forey (2012).
• 9
  Regarding specifically the Templar and Hospitaller commanderies in Provence, we can mention the works of Damien Carraz. His dissertation, first published in 2005 and reprinted in 2020, notably presents an overview of the establishment and the dynamics of the lordships of the Order of the Temple in Provence (CARRAZ, 2020b). Elsewhere, his most recent book discusses the life of the Hospitaller commandeur Béranger Monge (CARRAZ, 2020a). Finally, we emphasize his article on the practice of writing and the care of property of the Military Orders (CARRAZ, 2017).
• 10
  Regarding the supply and the shipment of resources from the commanderies of the Military Orders to Syria, see Luttrell; Pressouyre (2002), Burgtorf (2008), Balard (2009).
• 11
  This is an important issue that Burgtorf (2008) discusses while addressing the composition of the staff of the Central Templar and Hospitaller convents.
• 12
  As pointed out by Richard (2009a, p. 150): the Muslim authors regularly exposed the collusion between Franks and Bedouins. The Bedouins guided and informed the Franks.
• 13
  Similarly to Ronnie Ellenblum (2007), Abbès Zouache (2015, p. 77) considers the limits of colonialist historiography and emphasizes how a post-1950s anticolonial perspective used to run counter to the idea of the Crusader as a type of medieval harbinger of nineteenth-century European colonial empires: “For medieval Arabists, the question was the rupture of an ideologized history written in a context of European colonial expansion, aiming to assert its superiority over the East. This rupture was made under the impetus of scholars such as Claude Cahen, whose work (rightly) impacted new generations of historians”. Our translation of: “L’enjeu, pour les médiévistes arabisants, était donc de rompre avec une histoire idéologisée, écrite dans un contexte d’expansion coloniale de l’Europe, et visant peu ou prou à affirmer sa supériorité sur l’Orient. Cette rupture fut réalisée sous l’impulsion de savants tels que Claude Cahen, dont l’œuvre marqua (à juste titre) des générations d’historiens”.
• 14
  Our translation of: “défaire une vision eurocentrique dont l’une des conditions a longtemps été l’ignorance des sociétés extra-européennes, ce qui invite à un traitement plus équilibré, sinon entièrement symétrique, des univers européens et non européens”.
• 15
  Our translation of: “Bien que la structure de l’ouvrage soit quelque peu déconcertante, sa démarche vise à problématiser l’origine des châteaux concentriques et des cités occupées par les Latins aux XII^e et XIII^e siècles”.
• 16
  “Raymond Smail of Cambridge and Joshua Prawer of Jerusalem were the first to develop the basic principles of the new approach, describing Frankish society as set aside both spatially and economically from the local subjects” (ELLENBLUM, 2007, p. 49).
• 17
  Our translation of: “por meio do vaivém incessante entre os diversos níveis (temporais e especiais), identificar analogias, paralelismos, bem como as conexões que não se poderiam identificar em uma abordagem mais fechada e estática”.
• 18
  Our translation of: “En Égypte, l’armée fatimide est tout aussi composite, avant la conquête du pays par Saladin, qui met fin au califat chiite en 567/1171. Elle est constituée de plusieurs corps spécialisés, semble-t-il ethniquement homogènes, et où les statuts sont divers. Hommes libres et esclaves s’y mêlent. Les Sūdān (‘Noirs’, pour la plupart esclaves) et les nomades arabes y jouent un rôle important, en particulier lors de la déliquescence du régime fatimide, dans la première moitié du VI^e /XII^e siècle. Comme en Syrie, les cavaliers lourds, turcs, kurdes ou arméniens, constituent l’élite des combattants, notamment à partir de la réforme de l’armée menée par le vizir al-Afḍal (m. 515/1121), au tout début du VI^e /XII^e siècle, et plus encore après la conquête de l’Égypte par Saladin”.
• 19
  Our translation of: “Ce sont pour l’essentiel des Turcs, nés libres ou esclaves et dès lors dits ġilmān (sg. ġulām) et de plus en plus souvent, au fil du temps, mamālīk (sg. mamlūk)”.
• 20
  Our translation of: “C’est par ce moyen que les sultans aiyûbides recrutaient leurs mamelûks, en achetant des esclaves, surtout turcs, qu’ils faisaient élever dans l’Islam et qui, affranchis, formaient leur armée permanente. Mais ces memelûks eux-mêmes ont fourni des recrues aus turcoples”.
• 21
  Our translation of: “D’une part, la Horde d’Or était l’un des plus importants partenaires de la traite des esclaves-guerriers (or le système mamelouk était, par principe, intégrateur, puisqu’il permettait aux peuples non musulmans d’entrer dans l’Islam) et sa cour nomade fut accueillante aux oulémas et aux lettrés”.
• 22
  Our translation of: “Les valeurs familiales rejoignent ici harmonieusement les valeurs militaires, puisque, dans toute armée, la question fondamentale qui se pose à l’encadrement de haut rang est celle de la fidélité et de la loyauté des hommes destinés à se battre et à mourir pour lui. C’est pour pallier une déficience en la matière qu’au III^e/IX^e siècle ‘le système mamelouk’ (David Ayalon) aurait été mis en place. Les califes abbassides auraient voulu façonner une armée suffisamment loyale pour leur permettre de résister aux tensions de plus en plus vives affaiblissant leur pouvoir. Ce ‘système’ aurait eu l’avantage de couper les jeunes esclaves de tous liens originels (tribaux et surtout familiaux; le paradigme est poussé à l’extrême avec les eunuques)”.
• 23
  Our translation of: “Ces turcoples, cites à la suite des chevaliers, portent des noms à consonance plus latine qu’orientale. Ceci conviendrait assez bien à des convertis qui auraient été baptisés selon le rite latin et qui (...) auraient pris le nom de ceux qui les auraient levés des fonts”.
• 24
  Our translation of: “Il serait certainement excessif de penser que les turcoples, dont l’importance numérique est grande dans les armées des Latins d’Orient, ont tous été des convertis et, qui plus est, des convertis de race turque. Mais ce sont ces ‘fils de Turcs’ qui ont donné le modèle sur lequel s’est formée l’image du turcople”.
• 25
  Our translation of: “Leur statut était intermédiaire entre celui des frères et celui des sergents ; il en était de même pour leurs rations de pain, de vin, d’huile ; ils mangeaient à part, sur le sol, à la mode orientale, et l’une des pénitences infligées aux frères fautifs les obligeait à prendre ainsi leur repas, sans nappe, ‘avec les turcoples’”.
• 26
  About the differences between Sunni and Shiite people, see El Fasi; Hrbek (2010, p. 39-68) and Robert Irwin (1995, p. 219).
• 27
  Our translation of: “Par ailleurs, le fait d’être passé par l’esclavage militaire, ce que les sultans mamelouks ne dissimulaient pas, au contraire, était pour eux un sujet de fierté, associé à une culture martiale où la combativité était érigée en qualité maîtresse. Pour Baybrs, ce qui importait n’était pas d’être né ‘fils de’, mais d’avoir dédié sa vie à la défense de l’Islam et à la protection de la famille du Prophète”.
• 28
  Our translation of: “Analyser des espaces ou des mondes connectés implique de prêter attention aux modes de fonctionnement spécifiques des circulations et des liens concernés, et cela sans en exagérer la protée, ce qui implique d’en mesurer l’ampleur et l’impact effectif, de les articuler aux logiques d’inscription locale...”.
• 29
  Our translation of: “É importante investigar como a circulação, os movimentos e a mobilidade das pessoas, dos hábitos, das mercadorias e das ideias influenciam a construção das próprias comunidades e de seus espaços”.
• 30
  Our translation of: “a noção de resiliência substitui a abordagem catastrofista pelo interesse nas formas pelas quais as sociedades lidam com as suas vulnerabilidades e reagem às crises”.

Bibliographic references

• BALARD, Michel (Dir.). Les Ordres militaires et la mer 130e CONGRÈS NATIONAL DES SOCIÉTÉS HISTORIQUES ET SCIENTIFIQUES, 2005, La Rochelle. Actes… La Rochelle: Éditions du CTHS, 2009.
• BASCHET, Jerôme. Faut-il mondialiser l’Histoire Médiévale? In: SOCIÉTÉ DES HISTORIENS MÉDIÉVISTES DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT SUPÉRIEUR PUBLIC. Histoire Monde: jeux d’Échelles et Espaces Connectés. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2017. p. 13-36.
• BOUCHERON, Patrick (Ed.). France in the World: a New Global History. Nova York: Other Press, 2019.
• BOUCHERON, Patrick (Dir.). Histoire Mondiale de la France Paris: Seuil, 2017.
• BURGTORF, Jochen. The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organization, and Personnel (1099/1120-1310). Leiden: Brill, 2008.
• BURGTORF, Jochen. Turcoplier. In: BÉRIOU, Nicole; JOSSERAND, Philippe (Dir.). Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge. Paris: Fayard, 2009. p. 938-939.
• BURGTORF, Jochen. “Blood-Brothers” in the Thirteenth-Century Latin East? The Mamluk Sultan Baybars and the Templar Matthew Sauvage. In: SHAGRIR, Iris; KEDAR, Benjamin; BALARD, Michel (Ed.). Communicating the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Sophia Menache. London: Routledge, 2018. p. 3-14.
• BURGTORF, Jochen; NICHOLSON, Helen (Ed.). International Mobility in the Military Orders: Twelfth to Fifteenth Centuries. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006.
• CARRAZ, Damien. ‘Segnoria’, ‘Memoria’, ‘Controversia’: Pragmatic Literacy, Archival Memory, and Conflicts in Provence (Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries). In: SCHENK, Jochen; CARR, Mike (Ed.). The Military Orders V. 6.2: Culture and Conflict in Western and Northern Europe. New York: Routledge, 2017. p. 57-75.
• CARRAZ, Damien. Un Commandeur ordinaire? Bérenger Monge et le gouvernement des hospitaliers provençaux au XIII^e siècle. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020a.
• CARRAZ, Damien. L’Ordre du Temple dans la basse vallée du Rhône Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 2020b.
• CLAVERIE, Pierre-Vincent. Bethgibelin, auj. Beit Guvrin (Israël, district du Sud). In: BÉRIOU, Nicole; JOSSERAND, Philippe (Dir.). Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge. Paris: Fayard, 2009. p. 156.
• CLAVERIE, Pierre-Vincent. Les Nouvelles tendances de l’historiographie de l’Orient Latin (2005-2014). Le Moyen Age, v. CXXI, n. 3-4, p. 703-741, 2015.
• CONRAD, Sebastian. What is Global History? Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2016.
• DÉBAX, Hélène. La Seigneurie collective Pairs, pariers, paratge: les coseigneurs du XI^e au XIII^e siècle. Rennes: PUR, 2012.
• DEMURGER, Alain. Les Templiers: une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Âge. Paris: Seuil, 2005.
• DEMURGER, Alain. The Last Templar London: Profile Books, 2009.
• DEMURGER, Alain. Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge Paris: Flammarion, 2010.
• EL FASI, Mohammed; HRBEK, Ivan. O Advento do Islã e a ascensão do Império Muçulmano. In: EL FASI, Mohammed (Ed.). História geral da África. V. 3: África do século VII ao XI. Brasília: UNESCO, 2010. p. 39-68.
• ELLENBLUM, Ronnie. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• ELLENBLUM, Ronnie. Crusader Castles and Modern Histories Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• FAVEREAU, Marie. La Horde d’or et le sultanat Mamelouk: naissance d’une alliance. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2018.
• FLORI, Jean. La Guerre Sainte: la formation de l’idée de Croisade dans l’Occident Chrétien. Paris: Aubier, 2009.
• FOREY, Alan. The Participation of the Military Orders in Truces with Muslims in the Holy Land and Spain during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. In: ORDINES MILITARES. COLLOQUIA TORUNENSIA HISTORICA. YEARBOOK FOR THE STUDY OF THE MILITARY ORDERS, v. XVII, 2012, Torun. Proceedings… Torun: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, 2012. p. 41-52.
• GEARY, Patrick. The Myth of Nations: the Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
• HIESTAND, Rudolf. Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter V. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
• HILLEBRAND, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018.
• HOLT, Peter Malcolm. Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260-1290): Treaties of Baybars & Qalawun with Christian Rulers. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
• IRWIN, Robert. Islam and the Crusades (1096-1699). In: RILEY-SMITH, Jonathan (Ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. p. 217-259.
• KEDAR, Benjamin Z.. Convergences of Oriental Christian, Muslim, and Frankish Worshippers: the case of Saydnāyā. In: HEN, Yitzhak (Ed.). De Sion Exibit Lex et Verbum Domini de Hierusalem: Essays on Medieval Law, Liturgy, and Literature in Honour of Amnon Linder. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. p. 59-69.
• LEMIRE, Vincent. 1962: Le Crépuscule de l’Algérie française à Jérusalem. In: BOUCHERON, Patrick (Dir.). Histoire Mondiale de la France Paris: Seuil, 2017. p. 683-687.
• LEWIS, Kevin. Friend or Foe: Islamic Views of the Military Orders in the Latin East as Drawn from Arabic Sources. In: SCHENK, Jochen; CARR, Mike (Ed.). The Military Orders V. 6.1; Culture and Conflict in the Mediterranean World. London: Routledge, 2017. p. 20-29.
• LOYER, Emmanuelle. 1961: Les Damnés de la Terre pleurent Frantz Fanon. In: BOUCHERON, Patrick (Dir.). Histoire Mondiale de la France Paris: Seuil, 2017. p. 678-682.
• LUTTRELL, Anthony; PRESSOUYRE, Léon (Dir.). La Commanderie: institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval. Paris: CTHS, 2002.
• MOORE, Robert. A Global Middle Ages? In: BELICH, James et al (Org.). The Prospect of Global History Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 80-92.
• MORTON, Nicholas. Templar and Hospitaller Attitudes Towards Islam in the Holy Land During the 12th and 13th Centuries: Some Historiographical Reflections. Levant, v. 47, n. 3, p. 316-327, 2015.
• MORTON, Nicholas. The Crusader States & Their Neighbours: a Military History (1099-1187). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
• REY, Emmanuel Guillaume. Essai sur la domination française en Syrie durant le Moyen Âge Paris: E. Thunot et Cie, 1866.
• RICHARD, Jean. Les Turcopoles au service des royaumes de Jérusalem et de Chypre: musulmans convertis ou chrétiens orientaux? In: Croisades et États Latins d’Orient: points de vue et documents. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992. p. 259-270.
• RICHARD, Jean. Bédouins. In: BÉRIOU, Nicole; JOSSERAND, Philippe (Dir.). Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge. Paris: Fayard, 2009a. p. 149-150.
• RICHARD, Jean. Turcoples. In: BÉRIOU, Nicole; JOSSERAND, Philippe (Dir.). Prier et combattre: dictionnaire européen des ordres militaires au Moyen Âge. Paris: Fayard, 2009b. p. 937-938.
• SAID, Edward. Orientalism New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
• SCHENK, Jochen. Nomadic Violence in the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Military Orders. Reading Medieval Studies, n. 36, p. 39-55, 2010.
• SCHENK, Jochen. Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c. 1120-1307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• SILVA, Marcelo Cândido da. Uma História global antes da Globalização? Circulação e espaços conectados na Idade Média. Revista de História, n. 179, p. 1-19, 2020.
• SUBRAHMANYAM, Sanjay. Em Busca das origens da História global: aula inaugural proferida no Collège de France em 28 de novembro de 2013. Estudos Históricos, v. 30, n. 60, p. 219-240, 2017.
• TOPÇU, Sezin. 1960: La Gerboise tricolore et nucléaire du Sahara. In: BOUCHERON, Patrick (Dir.). Histoire Mondiale de la France Paris: Seuil, 2017. p. 673-677.
• VERDON, Laure. La Noblesse au miroir de la coseigneurie: l’exemple de la Provence au XIII^e Siècle. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome - Moyen Âge, n. 122 /1, p. 89-95, 2010.
• ZOUACHE, Abbès. La Famille du guerrier (Égypte, Bilād al-Šām, fin V^e/XI^e-VI^e/XII^e siècle). In: LOISEAU, Julien (Dir.). Annales Islamoglogiques: dossier histoires de famille. N. 47. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2013. p. 17-60.
• ZOUACHE, Abbès. Les Croisades en Orient. Histoire, mémoires. In: CRAHAM. Centre Michel de Boüard. Tabulaira: mémoires Normandes d’Italie et d’Orient. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 2015. p. 75-119.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 Apr 2022
• Date of issue
  Jan-Apr 2022

History

• Received
  27 June 2021
• Reviewed
  15 Sept 2021
• Accepted
  21 Sept 2021