In late 1187, letters and envoys from the east alerted audiences in the west to the defeat
of Christian forces at Hattin in July, the subsequent capture of various major Christian
strongholds, and, finally, the siege of Jerusalem beginning in late September. However,
news of Jerusalem’s fall on 2 October does not seem to have ...
In late 1187, letters and envoys from the east alerted audiences in the west to the defeat
of Christian forces at Hattin in July, the subsequent capture of various major Christian
strongholds, and, finally, the siege of Jerusalem beginning in late September. However,
news of Jerusalem’s fall on 2 October does not seem to have reached Western Europe
until spring 1188. This extended delay is particularly surprising because chronicles tend
to treat the defeat at Hattin, the loss of Jerusalem, and the launch of the Third Crusade
in late October 1187 as a sequence of directly related events. It is easy to understand
why: this was the chronological order of events; in hindsight, the encyclical that
launched the crusade could be read in this way; and it made for a simpler, more
compelling historical account. However, it also represents a re-ordering and re-shaping
of the past. This article explores how contemporary writers tackled the chronology of
events in late 1187. It examines six late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century histories
and chronicles, dividing them into two main groups based on the “global” or “local”
perspective taken by each author. In theory, those writing from a “local” perspective
were more likely to structure their accounts according to when information was
received compared to those taking a “global” perspective, whose authors emphasised
the date of events. However, analysis shows that both groups chose to obscure the
complicated realities of communication and action in 1187 in favour of a more
streamlined narrative.