^{page 739 note 1} “Notes sur les Croisades” in Journal Asiatique, 1902, mai-juin.

^{page 739 note 2} Topographie historique de la Syrie (Paris, 1927).Google Scholar

^{page 739 note 3} Vie d'Ousama (Ousâama ibn Mounkidh, Ire Partie, Paris, 1889)Google Scholar

^{page 740 note 1} Is William of Tyre a good enough authority for the accusation that the Muslims “brutally eliminated” the indigenous Christian elements in Jerusalem on the arrival of the Crusaders (Grousset, 284–5)? The statement seems to be contradicted by numerous passages in which Fulcher and others speak of the native Christian population e.g. the jubilant passage on the reception of Baldwin I, quoted G. 213).

^{page 741 note 1} See Ibn Muyassar, ed. Masse, p. 7, and Laurent, E., Byzance et les Seljoucides, p. 22 The fact that the calculations of the Fātimid government were based upon the history of the earlier Byzantine invasions is noted by all historians; but there is tendency to over-emphasize in this connection the importance of Jerusalem to theGoogle Scholar Fatimids. At the time of the First Crusade the possession of Jerusalem was of little political importance, except as implying control of southern Palestine. It was the establishment of the seat of the Latin kingdom at Jerusalem that caused to acquire subsequently the symbolic significance which it had by the time of Saladin.

^{page 741 note 2} Although, of course, the disintegration of the local Syrian kingdom of Tutush was responsible for the absence of a united resistance within Syria.

^{page 741 note 3} Ibn al-Qalānis—, ed. Amedroz, 213 (Damascus Chronicle, 175).

^{page 742 note 1} Grousset, pp. 97, 107.

^{page 742 note 2} Cf. Encyc. of Islam, s.v. Kurbūka.

^{page 742 note 3} Ibn al-Athīr, ed. Tornberg, x, 256, 5–4 from foot; on the same expedition Sukmān had 7, 000 Turkmen horsemen with him. Cf. the army of Saif ad-Dīn, prince Mosul, early in 1176, when, with the aid of the Ortuqids of Hisn Kaifā and Mardīn, “numerous forces assembled to join him, reaching 6, 000 horsemen” (ibid., xi, 283, 5–7)

^{page 742 note 4} In the Damascus Chronicle, p. 99, n. 4, there is a serious error; Mawdūd was the son of a certain Altūntagīn, and was not the nephew of Karbūqā.

^{page 743 note 1} The episode of the emeute at Baghdād in 1111 (cf. Grousset, 460–1) shows the Caliph himself, so far from being moved by the Syrian appeal, furious at the affront to his personal dignity and only restrained from taking violent measures against the ringleaders by the tact of the Sultan; see the original and more detailed account in the Damascus Chronicle, pp. 110–12.

^{page 743 note 2} M. Grousset, for example, seeks to explain the refusal of Rudwān of Aleppo to co-operate with the other Syrian princes and with Mawdūd by his patronage of the Bātinīs, thereby inverting cause and effect. The true reason is more probably to be sought in his embitterment at the repeated disappointment of his ambitions.

^{page 743 note 3} As it was later on, in the sixteenth century; cf. Toynbee, A. J., A Study of History, vol. i (Oxford, 1934), pp. 347–400.Google Scholar

^{page 744 note 1} This is, notwithstanding its external conformity, the note sounded by Nizām al-mulk in the Siyāset-Nāmah, and is frankly acknowledged by no less an authority than al-Ghazālī (Ihyā 'Ulūm ad-Dīn, ii, 124).

^{page 744 note 2} The possible influence exerted in this and similar situations by a certain historic antagonism between the populations of Aleppo and Damascus may be suspected, as a supplementary factor, but the whole subject awaits investigation.

^{page 745 note 1} Ed. Massé, p. 63.

^{page 745 note 2} Damascus Chronicle, pp. 179, 280. According to Ibn Muyassar (p. 70) similar advances were made by the Fātimids also to Āqsunqur al-Bursuqī after his occupation Aleppo.

^{page 745 note 3} Idrīs 'Imād ad-Dīn: 'Uyun al-Akhbār, vol. vii (MS. of Dr. A. H. al-Hamdani); cf. as-Sairafī, al-Ishāra ilā man nāla'l-Wizāra, ed. A. Mukhlis, 57–60.

^{page 745 note 4} p. 164 (Ibn al-Qalānisī, 204, 16:

^{page 745 note 5} The point has already been observed by M. Grousset in a note to p. 510.

^{page 746 note 1} Somewhat similar conclusions were reached by the writer some years ago after comparing Ibn al-Athīr's narratives of the early history of the Arabs in Central Asia with his sources in Tabarī and Balādhurī.

^{page 746 note 2} Ed. Amedroz, , p. 138; Damas. Chr., p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 747 note 1} Ed. Tornberg, x, 222 (ef. Grousset, p. 63).

^{page 747 note 2} e.g. Egyptian capture of Jerusalem: I.A. 489 (wrong), I.Q. 491; Bātinī attack on Shaizar: I.A. 502, I.Q. 507 (i.e. after the expulsion of the Bātinīs from Aleppo, which is surely correct); Crusaders' raid on Damascus: I.A. 520 (wrong), I.Q. 519; and cf. section (5) below. There are many other instances.

^{page 747 note 3} Ed. Amedroz, , 163; Darnas. Chr., p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 748 note 1} The text is difficult, and I give this translation subject to correction. The reading of the passage in the Receuil (Hist. Or., i, 273) is: , , which in parts makes no sense at all and is rendered in the translation: “Depuis plus d'un an cette flotte était prête et pourvue de tout, et on ne s'accordait pas sur les instructions qu'on devait lui donner.”

^{page 748 note 2} Ed. Tornberg, x, 334.

^{page 748 note 3} Damas. Chr., 87; cf. Stevenson, 50; Grousset, 253–4.

^{page 748 note 4} Needless to say, the further reflections on this subject by the author of the Nujūm (Abu'l-Mahāsin, ed. Popper, ii, 335, 3–9; quoted by M. Grousset, p. 357, as confirmatory of I.A.'s statement) are equally to be rejected; the whole of Abu'l-Mahāsin's passage, in fact, deserves to become a classic example of reckless misstatement. It is noteworthy that Abu'1-Fidā (R.H.C. Or. i, 10) omits the passage entirely.

^{page 749 note 1} Cf. Damas. Chr., p. 105.

^{page 749 note 2} x, 338 (R.H.C. Or. i, 278–9); summarized by Röhricht, , p. 88, and Grousset, p. 459.Google Scholar

^{page 749 note 3} That this is an exaggerated view of Zanki's achievement has already been rightly demonstrated by Stevenson (p. 124).

^{page 749 note 4} Even here Ibn al-Athīr exaggerates the amount of the tribute, which both Ibn al-Qalānisī (Damas. Chr., 106) and Kamāl ad-Dīn put at 20, 000 dinars.

^{page 749 note 5} Damas. Chr., 82.

^{page 749 note 6} Ibid., 99.

^{page 750 note 1} Kāmil, x, 339; Damascus Chronicle, 111–13. In regard to the latter it is a little curious that Ibn al-Qalānisī does not explicitly mention either Baghdād or the Sultan.

^{page 750 note 2}

^{page 750 note 3} x, 347–8.

^{page 751 note 1} It is, in any case, impossible to attach to it the weight which it is given by M. Grousset: “A tort ou à raison, Tughtekîn se trouva des lors suspect aux yeux de tout I'Islam [which is in contradiction with Ibn al-Athîr's former statement quoted above], et une indication d'lbn al-Athîr prouve que cette déconsidération I'atteignit aussi aux yeux des Francs” (p. 276).

^{page 751 note 2} I.A. x, 461–2; Damas. Chr., 191–9; cf. Röhricht, 186–7; Grousset, 658–665.

^{page 752 note 1} It is difficult to see what good Tyre would have been to the Bātinīs; and, on the other side, what would the Venetians have said ?

^{page 752 note 2} The Crusaders in the, East, pp. 125 and 129. But he decisively rejects the alleged capture of al-Athārib in 1130 (p. 129, note 3).

^{page 752 note 3} Damascus Chronicle, 197.

^{page 752 note 4} Kamāl ad-Dīn, R.H.C. Or., iii, 661.

^{page 753 note 1} x, 466–7. Zankī did not, in fact, reappear in Syria until 1135.

^{page 753 note 2} R.H.C. Or., iii, 578; Ibn al-Q., 134 (Damascus Chron., 42–3).

^{page 753 note 3} R.H.C. Or., iii, 640; Ibn al-Q., 210 (Damas. Chron., 169–170); cf. Stevenson, 110; Grousset, 595–6.

^{page 754 note 1} Kamāl ad-Dīn, 636–7; Damas. Chron., 167–9. (Note that in the second last line p. 168 in the Damascus Chronicle “First Rabī'” is a copyist's error for “First Jumādā” [began 26th June].)

^{page 754 note 2} R.H.C. Or., iii, 651; Ibn al-Athīr, x, 443.

^{page 754 note 3} According to Ibn al-Athīr, x, 439.

^{page 754 note 4} Damas. Chron., p. 179.