Note II — The Capitulation of Acre
The terms on which Karakoush and El-Meshtoub agreed to surrender Acre are given, in various forms, by nine contemporary or almost contemporary authorities.
(1) King Richard, in a letter to the Abbot of Clairvaux, R. Howden, iii. 131.
(2) Bohadin, Rec. Hist. Orient., iii. 237; Schultens’s edition, 179.
(3) Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, ll. 5199-224, and Itin. Reg. Ric., 231, 232; these two are here practically identical and may be counted as one.
(4) Gesta Ric., 178, 179.
(5) R. Howden, iii. 120, 121.
(6) R. Diceto, ii. 94.
(7) R. Coggeshall, 32.
(8) R. Devizes (ed. Stevenson), 51, 52.
(9) Ibn Alathyr, Rec. Hist. Orient., II. 46.
All these writers mention, among the conditions promised by the Moslems, the restoration of the relic of the Cross; and all except one—R. Devizes—mention also the release of a number of Christian prisoners: the king and R. Diceto say fifteen hundred; R. Coggeshall says seven hundred, some of whom the kings were to select; Ambrose and the Itinerarium say two thousand prisoners of distinction and five hundred of lower rank; the Gesta say fifteen hundred ordinary prisoners and two hundred knights, these latter to be specially selected by the kings; R. Howden follows this latter account, but reduces the first number to a thousand; Ibn Alathyr mentions only the “selected” prisoners, whose number he gives as five hundred. The earlier of the two extant redactions of Bohadin (Recueil, iii. 237) has “five hundred prisoners of ordinary condition, and one hundred others of rank, whom the Franks might ask for by name”; but in the later redaction (represented by Schultens’s edition) the figures are fifteen hundred and one thousand. This later redaction, of which the only known MS. was written in the year after Bohadin’s death, is considered not to be his own work (Recueil, iii. 374); but its variations from the earlier recension seem entitled to some consideration, as they are so nearly contemporary and may have the force of corrections; this may be the case in the passage under consideration here.
Neither King Richard, R. Diceto, nor R. Devizes, mentions a money payment. The Estoire, Itinerarium, Gesta Ricardi, R. Howden, Bohadin, and Ibn Alathyr make the promised sum two hundred thousand “bezants” (Est.), “talentorum Saracenicorum” (Itin.), “dinars” (Bohadin and Ibn Alathyr). R. Coggeshall absurdly says seven hundred thousand bezants. The only authorities for the special payment promised to Conrad are the two Moslem ones, and as to its amount the two recensions of Bohadin again differ; the earlier says four thousand gold pieces, the later fourteen thousand, viz. ten thousand to Conrad himself and four thousand to his knights. Ibn Alathyr also says Conrad was to have fourteen thousand; and the later recension of Bohadin is followed by Abu Shama in his extract from that author (Recueil, v. 25, 26), as to both the number of prisoners and the amount of money.
The Estoire and Itinerarium say that “the chief men among the Turks in Acre” were to be held as hostages by the Franks till the conditions of the treaty were fulfilled. Richard and Bohadin say, and the Gesta, R. Howden, and R. Coggeshall imply, that the hostages were to comprise the whole garrison. The Estoire and Itinerarium assert that the conditions were offered by the Turks in Acre with Saladin’s knowledge and consent; and the Itinerarium adds that the term appointed for their fulfilment was that day month, i. e. August 12. The king says “Pactione etiam ex parte Saladini plenius firmata... diemque ad haec omnia persolvenda nobis constituit.” R. Diceto says “Qui” (i. e. the Saracens in Acre) “communicato cum suis consilio coeperunt tractare de pace talibus pactionibus quod Saladinus Sanctam Crucem certo die restitueret,” etc. The Gesta and R. Howden make the term forty days from the surrender, i. e. August 20. Bohadin (238) represents Saladin as ignorant of the whole matter till after the surrender, and Ibn Alathyr and R. Coggeshall do the same; the latter says that Saladin “nimium ex animo consternatus, facturum quod petebatur se esse spopondit,” while the two Arab writers represent the Sultan as at first refusing to confirm the treaty and afterwards accepting its conditions, but, according to Bohadin, with a modification as to the term for payment which brings the date for the first instalment practically to the time named in the Itinerarium, viz. a month after the surrender.