The Principality of Antioch (1097–1268) - Bearers of the Cross

On May 18, 1268, the Principality of Antioch, a crusader state, fell to the Mamluk Sultan Baibars in the Battle of Antioch. From the article:

"The Invasion of Saladin and the War of Succession
When Saladin invaded the principality in 1188, only a year after defeating the forces of Jerusalem at Hattin and capturing the Holy City, Bohemond III was thus largely without allies. As such, he proved unable to prevent the loss of all but Antioch. The principality never really recovered from Saladin’s invasion. Noble patterns of landholding were broken, which again altered the internal balance of power, and although Bohemond III used the distraction of Richard the Lionheart’s victories during the Third Crusade (1189–1192) to raid northern Syria and gain some concessions from Saladin, these were minor. Moreover, in 1193, Leon II of Armenia – angered at Bohemond III’s earlier treatment of his brother, Rupen III – conspired with the prince’s now seemingly estranged second wife, Sybil, to convince him to come to the castle of Baghras just to the north of Antioch. This fortress protected a route into Cilicia through the mountains, and had previously been under Templar control. Its loss to Saladin had been a big problem for Antioch, so Bohemond was easily led, especially since the Muslim sultan had died earlier that year. Yet, this was a ruse, and the prince was taken captive. Leon II then attempted to seize the capital, but was opposed by the Latins and the other Eastern Christians, who formed a commune to protect the city. In spite of this, it took two years to secure Bohemond III’s release, and this came only with the stipulation that he allow his son, Raymond II, to marry Leon II’s niece, Alice – thus placing the Armenians within the succession. Alice soon gave birth to a son, Raymond-Rupen, but as this came shortly after Raymond II’s death in 1197, they were both expelled from Antioch. Instead, Bohemond III’s other son, Bohemond IV (by this point count of Tripoli), was declared heir with the support of the commune. Yet, despite this apparent agreement, rival factions grew around the two claimants upon Bohemond III’s death in 1201, with those who had earlier been exiled to Cilicia seemingly forming the mainstay of support for Raymond-Rupen. When Bohemond IV was then quickest to Antioch to secure the commune’s recognition as prince, conflict was ignited.

The succession crisis this created lasted for nearly two decades. Conflict began almost immediately, with Leon II laying siege to Antioch. Bohemond IV thus called for help from nearby Aleppo (now under the control of Saladin’s son, az-Zahir) and the Seljuks. Leon II decried this as scandalous, and related this to Pope Innocent III in the hope that he would intervene in his favour, but the Armenian was nevertheless forced to withdraw. This set the tone for the future, with Leon II launching near-annual raids on Antiochene territory and Bohemond IV looking to use allies to force an Armenian retreat. This drew in not only the papacy and Antioch’s Muslim neighbours, but also the military orders, with the Templars supporting Bohemond IV and the Hospitallers offering aid to Leon II in protest at Antioch’s alliance with the Ayyubids (with whom they were in conflict further south). The troubles continued into the 1210s. In 1216 an Armenian insurrection placed Raymond-Rupen on the princely throne while Bohemond IV fled to Tripoli, but this was short-lived, and in 1219 Bohemond IV returned to Antioch, re-asserted his power and brought the succession crisis to an end. The Ayyubids, now avowed enemies of Bohemond IV because, as count of Tripoli and prince of Antioch, he was a potential threat they could not afford to support, invaded the principality from Aleppo. The situation in the Near East was further complicated towards the end of the 1220s by the arrival of Emperor Frederick II of Germany, known as stupor mundi, or ‘the wonder of the world’. Frederick II had come on crusade in an attempt to recover Jerusalem, but while he was in Cyprus in 1228 he tried to enforce Bohemond IV’s homage. The prince, who had come to the island without knowing these intentions, feigned illness and fled. When Frederick II secured Jerusalem (and with it the title of king), as well as a period of peace with the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, al-Kamil, in 1229, both Antioch and Tripoli were therefore left out of the agreement.



The End of the Principality of Antioch
From this point on, Antioch’s position within the crusader states, already diminished after 1188, became even weaker. Bohemond IV’s successor, Bohemond V, was to immediately prove his willingness to be a more pro-active general than his father, supporting the Templars and Hospitallers, as well as the forces of Jerusalem and Cyprus, in an attack against the Muslim city-state of Hama in October 1233, as well as a successful Templar-led assault on the Armenians at Baghras. However, this was not a sign of wider ventures. Likewise, the princes now spent the majority of their time at the more prosperous Tripoli, with control of Antioch left to the principality’s constable. This was true also of Bohemond V’s successor, Bohemond VI. The new prince was of little use to Antioch, spending most of his time either at Tripoli or embroiled in internal disputes. In short, the efforts of Antioch were now focused on internal political disputes, not external military engagement.

Meanwhile, two new powers had emerged in the region. The first, the Mamluks, established control over Egypt and Syria following the death of the Ayyubid sultan, al-Salih, in 1249, and their role in securing victory over Louis IX’s crusade in Egypt in 1250. While they were not an immediate threat to Antioch given the need to consolidate their power out of the embers of the Ayyubid Empire, the Mamluks were to later prove their danger. Another group also entered the scene at this time: the Mongols. Spreading from the Eurasian Steppes in the early thirteenth century under the leadership of the infamous Chinggis Khan, by the mid-1240s they had established control over Asia Minor and Cilicia, the Armenian ruler of which, King Hethoum I, submitted to them in 1246. They even threatened Antioch during a raiding expedition in 1244. In 1258, the Mongols crushed Baghdad and soon entered northern Syria, at which point Hethoum convinced Bohemond VI, now his son-in-law through the prince’s marriage to Isabella of Armenia, to swear homage to the Mongols. As such, when the Mongols captured Aleppo in January 1260, Bohemond VI sent forces to help them – and in return received control over fortified sites near to the Orontes, as well as the ports of Latakia and Jabala. This briefly brought some landed strength back to the principality, although it was to be short-lived: the Mamluks, now under the leadership of an indomitable leader by the name of Baybars, rode north that same year and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Mongols at Ayn Jalut. This victory, coupled with a succession crisis in the Mongol heartlands, allowed Baybars the chance to grow in strength, and when Bohemond VI called on his new overlords for help in 1263 following Mamluk aggression, the Mongols proved unable to triumph. To compound this, Bohemond VI was excommunicated in 1263 for having sworn homage to a group that, having demanded the submission of Rome to the khan, were deemed a threat to Latin Christendom. The noose was therefore tightening on Antioch, which was now as isolated as it ever had been, especially after an incursion against Hethoum I, led by the prince of Hama in 1266/7, had inflicted so heavy a defeat that the Armenian retired to a monastery soon after. Cilicia could no longer be called upon for aid. Yet, Bohemond VI remained in Tripoli. Matters came to a head on 15 May 1268, when Baybars laid siege to Antioch. The Mamluk assault was fierce, and after only three days, the city which had taken the First Crusade eight months to secure fell. Baybars had the gates to Antioch locked and everyone inside was killed. Such was the totality of the slaughter, Bohemond VI only found out about the city’s loss when a letter arrived from Baybars boasting of his victory. The principality of Antioch, which had lasted some 180 years, was at an end. Nevertheless, that it had lasted so long in the face of continued disaster is a sign of the successful adaptability of its rulers and ruling elites. Whether through alliances with external powers (such as the other crusader states, western forces, Byzantium, the Armenians, the Muslims, or the Mongols), or the nobility’s move to control the succession after 1130, annihilation had been staved off even when all hope appeared lost. The Antiochenes were no passive passengers, however, as they repeatedly opposed Jerusalemite hegemony during the twelfth century, fell into dispute with numerous rulers and polities, and even embroiled themselves in the political conflicts of their neighbours. With such a rich history, the principality of Antioch is thus worthy of much greater study and interest, and deserves to emerge out of the shadow of its more popular neighbour, the kingdom of Jerusalem."