From Slavic Territory to the Realm of the Germans

Arabic-Islamic documentation of central Europe, never a border region to the Islamic world, began rather late. Unlike emerging France, medieval central Europe did not carry a stable name. It figured as ‘Germania’ in the writings of Caesar and Tacitus, as ‘regnum Francorum’ in the Saxon History of Widukind, as ‘regnum Teutonicorum’ in the correspondence of pope Gregory VII, and as ‘(sacrum) Roman um imperium’ in the chancery records of the Staufen dynasty.W8 Faced with the difficulty of finding out who actually populated this region, Arabic- Islamic scholars produced rather muddled definitions of this area up to the twelfth century.

In the late ninth century, Ibn Khurdadhbah situated Franks (al-Ifranja) in the western, Slavs (al-Saqaliba) in the eastern part of Europe. Although his probable source of information, a group of Jews involved in long-distance trade, frequented the court of the Frankish king, they failed to inform Ibn Khurdadhbah of the fact that, more often than not, the Frankish realm consisted of several kingdoms.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Texts of the tenth century tend to characterize central Europe as Slavic, Roman, or Frankish. In an ethnographic chapter on the Slavs, al-Mas'udl (d. 345/956) mentions a people called ‘Namjin’ that was ruled by a man named ‘Gharand’. Charles Pellat supposed with good reasons that the term ‘Namjin’ represents the Arabic transcription of an early Slavic ethnonym for the eastern Franks and identified the ruler in question with Conrad I (ruled 911_18).no In line with al-Mas'udl, later works based on the travel account of the Andalusian Jew Ibrahim b. Ya'qub al-Isra’lll also allocate the eastern Frankish kingdom of the early tenth century to the Slavic sphere. The Andalusian geographer al-Bakri (d. 487/1094) defines the Rhine as the frontier between Franks and Slavs.m The Persian cosmog- rapher al-Qazwini (d. 682/1283) defines the towns Fulda and Mainz as ‘Frankish’, the towns Soest and Paderborn as ‘Slavic’.m

In other passages written by al-Mas'udl and al-Bakri, the eastern Frankish kingdom has a distinct Roman character. In his kitab al-tanbih, al-Mas'udl claimed that Rome ‘is and has always been the capital of the realm of great Francia’, thus providing a faint and distorted Arabic-Islamic echo of the concept of translatio imperii from the Roman Empire to the Franks. In this context, al-Mas'udi mentions Slavs, Bulgars, and a people called Armanjas’, arbitrarily identified by Bernard Carra de Vaux as ‘Germains’, among the peoples belonging to this polity.n3 Al-Mas'udl was not the only scholar to draw a connection between Rome and central Europe. Having recourse to Ibrahim b. Ya'qub, al-Bakri mentions a Roman/Byzantine ruler (malik al-Rum) called Otto (Hutuh), who received a Bulgarian delegation in Magdeburg and allegedly spoke personally with Ibrahim about a city exclusively populated by females. Unfortunately, al-Bakri fails to explain why a Roman/Byzantine ruler, never mentioned in his chapter on Roman and Byzantine emperors, should have reigned in the distant north. Apparently, he blindly adopted an ethnonym without understanding how Rome was connected to the Ottonian sphere.n4

This should not imply that Muslim elites were completely ignorant about central Europe. Ibn al-Nadim’s reference to the script of ‘Lombards and Saxons’, ‘a people between Rome and the Franks’, may be a faint reflection of the Ottonian ‘regnum Italiae’.n5 The Life of John of Gorze suggests that the Umayyads of al-Andalus were quite knowledgeable about events in the Ottonian realm. It dedicates some space to the diplomatic exchange between Otto I and 'Abd al-Rahm an III, describing John’s diplomatic mission to the caliphal court near Cordoba in 953—56.[8] Staging a conversation between John and the caliph, the Life purports that 'Abd al-Rahman was well aware not only of the Hungarian menace threatening the Ottonian realm, but also of internal dissent between Otto I and his son.11[9] [10] This does not seem improbable. According to Ibn Hayyan (d. 469/1076), 'Abd al-Rahman had received intelligence about the Ottonian realm in 330/942, when marauding Hungarians were caught in the Upper Marches of al-Andalus. They informed the Muslim authorities that they had come from a region north of Rome (Ruma) and east of the Saxons (al-Shakhshunsh) and Franks (al-Ifranja). They had reached al-Andalus via Lombardy (Lunbardiyya) and the Frankish realm (balad al-Ifranja), ‘after having overpowered everyone who crossed their path’.ns

Since the passages on the years 341—44/953—56 in Ibn H ayyan’s history of al-Andalus are lost, only later Arabic-Islamic scholars refer to this diplomatic exchange between Otto I and 'Abd al-Rahman III. Ibn 'Idhari (d. after 712/1312—13), who dates the envoys’ arrival to the year 342/953, claims that they had been sent by ‘Otto, the king of the Slavs’ (Hunu malik al-Saqaliba).U[11] More explicit, Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406) [IKh] and al-Maqqari (d. 1041/1632) [M] write in an almost identical passage:

Then arrived the envoys of the rulers of the Slavs, at that time Otto (Hutu), another one from the ruler of the Germans (malik al-Lamdn), another one from the ruler of the Franks behind the West (al-Faranja ward’ al-Maghrib [IKh]) / behind the Pyrenees (al-Faranja ward’al-bart [M]), at that time Afuh [IKh] / Awqah [M], as well as another ruler of the Franks in the east, at that time Kalda. The sultan celebrated their arrival and sent the bishop Rif'with the Slavic envoys back to their ruler Otto (Hutu) from where they returned two years later.[12]

Their ethno-political terminology suggests that Ibn Khaldun and al-Maqqari had difficulties to distinguish the various early medieval Frankish realms from one another. Their definition of Otto as ‘Slavic’ may imply that they reproduced the terminology also used by their tenth-century sources. This cannot definitely be proved: Ibn 'Idhari, Ibn Khaldun, and al-Maqqari frequently cite Ahmad al-Razi

(d. 344/955) and his son 'Is a, historiographers active in the direct environment of the caliphal court of tenth-century al-Andalus who must have figured as the primary source of information on this diplomatic exchange. Ibn Hayyan, however, who also bases much of what he says on Ahmad al-Razi and his son 'Is a, mentions another embassy sent by a Frankish king called Otto (Hutu, malik al-Ifranj) for the year 363/974. If we could clearly identify this ‘Hutu’ with Otto I (d. 973) or Otto II, Ibn H ayyan’s text would prove that the Ottonian realm was occasionally also regarded as Frankish by Andalusian historiographers.^1 However, this interpretation is refuted by 'Abd al-Rahman 'All al-Hajji who believes that ‘Hutu’ stands for the Western Frankish king Hugh Capet.m

Ibn Khaldun’s and al-Maqqari’s passage on the Ottonian embassy of 953 also contains the term ‘al-Laman’, an ethnonym phonetically similar to the French ‘Allemands’. It is conspicuous that this term is not assigned to Otto I, but to the only ruler in the passage who does not carry a name. Two arguments point in the direction that the term ‘al-Laman’ is anachronistic in this context. Latin sources from the tenth century do not yet use an equivalent term for the eastern Frankish realm.123 Moreover, the term ‘al-Laman’ (or one of its variants) does not feature in Arabic-Islamic sources of the tenth century and is frequently used only from the twelfth century onwards, as will be shown shortly. Thus, the term seems to have been introduced into the historical narrative in retrospect and in view of new knowledge about a region hitherto defined as Slavic or Frankish. This would explain why Ibn Khaldun and al-Maqqari failed to understand that another ‘German’ ruler could not have existed beside the ‘Slavic’ king Otto. Ibn Khaldun and al-Maqqari acknowledged the existence of a ‘German’ sphere in light of knowledge acquired after the lifetime of Otto I, i.e. after the late tenth century.

The Andalusian scholar Sa'id al-Andalusi (d. 462/1070) is among the earliest Arabic-Islamic scholars who used a variation of the term ‘al-Laman’. In his history of scientific achievements, he asserts that the great city of Rome is situated in ‘the German lands’ (bilada[l]maniyya).i24 It is not surprising that the term should have first been used in the Muslim West. Before the crusades, ‘German’ alias Eastern Frankish rulers seldom meddled with Middle Eastern Muslims, but were very active on the Italian and Burgundian front, where contact with ‘Saracens’ was pos- sible.125 Arabic-Islamic evidence is provided by the Andalusian historiographer Ibn al-Khatib (d. 776/1375) who addresses the fate of the petty kingdom (ta’ifa) of Denia in the early eleventh century. Around 1015_16, its ruler Mujahid, also mentioned by the Saxon chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg (d. 1018) as having been involved in diplomatic exchange with pope Benedict VIIITh6 was routed in [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Sardinia by Pisan troops, losing his son 'All to the victors.127 According to Ibn al-Khatlb, the latter became prisoner to the ‘king of the Germans’ (malik al-Alman), at that time Henry II (ruled 1002-24).128 It is not clear if Ibn al-Khati b reproduced the terminology employed by contemporary sources written in the eleventh century or used the term ‘Alman’ in retrospective.

Most information about central Europe was acquired in the twelfth century. Thanks to his access to various new sources at the Norman court of Sicily, al-Idrlsl (d. c.560/1165) was able to provide a detailed description of the ‘lands of the Germans’ (bilad al-Lamaniyyin) with its cities, and distinguishes between a ‘German’ and a ‘French’ part of Burgundy.129 The Andalusian traveler Abu Hamid from Granada, who sojourned in the lands of the Hungarians (al-Bashghurd) in 545/1150, provided an Eastern European perspective. In his tuhfat al-albab, he states that the people of Rome inhabited a land full of artisans and were called ‘Tamish’. This ethnonym is intelligible if one assumes that, due to a scribal error, the Arabic letter ‘nun’ (-i) was replaced with the letter ‘ta’’ (-j): the ethnonym ‘Namish’ seems clearly related to Magyar and Slavic forms of designating ‘German’ lands.130 In view of the imperial Roman guise adopted by the Carolingians, the Ottonians and their successors, it is not surprising that Abu Hamid attributes this ethnonym to the people of Rome. Hungary figured as an area of transmission on another occasion as well. Hungarian Muslims are documented in Aleppo at the beginning of the thirteenth centuryi3i and could have transmitted the information, recorded by the Syrian scholar Abu l-Fida’ (d. 732/1331), that the Hungarians (al-Hunqar) had adopted Christianity thanks to their neighbour the Germans (al-Lamaniyyin).ш

From the second crusade onwards, the crusading activities of various monarchs helped to diffuse information about the ‘Germans’ in the Arabic-Islamic world. The Aleppine historiographer Ibn al-'Adim (d. 660/1262) explains how a citizen of Damascus named 'All b. Sulayman calculated the birth date of his brother Isma'il. According to his mother, Isma'il had been ten months old when the ‘ruler of the Germans’ (malikal-Alman), i.e. Conrad III, laid siege to Damascus in 543/1148.133 The king’s activities during this siege were recorded meticulously by Ibn al-Athir (d. 630/1233).i34 More attention was spent on the third crusade. Various sources record the approach of Frederick Barbarossa as well as his death by drowning and describe how the ensuing chaos in the German camp was averted by delegating [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

leadership to Barbarossas son.135 Saladin’s biographer Ibn Shaddad (d. 632/1235) claims that spies (jawasis) reported regularly on the movements of the ‘ruler of the Germans’.i36 Abu Shama’s copy of a letter written by Saladin to the Almohad ruler Ya'qub b. Yusuf proves that information about this ‘German’ ruler was also transmitted to the Muslim West.i37 These crusading activities gave rise to several tentative definitions of the ‘Germans’ and their realm.i38

Accused of being the ‘best friend’ (amicissimus) of Muslim rulers at the council of Lyon in 1245,i39 Frederick II of Hohenstaufen is the ‘German’ ruler who received most attention in Arabic-Islamic sources. Citing Frederick’s letter to al-Malik al-Kamil and Fakhr al-Din b. Shaykh al-Shuyukh around 627/1230, Ibn Nazif al-Hamawi (d. after 631/1233) reproduces Frederick’s genealogy as ‘Frederick, son of the emperor Henry, son of the emperor Frederick’. 140 Ibn Khallikan (d. 681/1282) lists his Siculo-Norman ancestors Roger II, William II as well as his mother Constance, erroneously defined as William’s daughter instead of his sis- ter.i4i Several authors record his death in 648/1250.142

Ibn Khallikan and Ibn Wasil (d. 697/1298) both relate that Frederick assumed power at a very early age.i43 Ibn Wasil adds a ‘strange story’ (hikaya cajiba) concerning Frederick’s accession to the imperial throne, which he had heard when travelling in Sicily. He relates that the young Frederick faced several Frankish lords eager to acquire the imperial title. Claiming that he did not feel capable of assuming the office himself, Frederick fooled each Frankish lord into believing that he would endorse his candidature vis-a-vis the pope. Instead of keeping his promise, Frederick crowned himself and fled with a group of German support- ers.i44 Although modern scholarship describes Frederick’s youth and imperial [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

coronation in 1220 differently, this ‘strange story’ certainly recalls that Frederick’s accession to power was fraught with difficulties.1^

Various sources deal with Frederick’s efforts at winning Jerusalem for the Christians from the Ayyubid sultan al-Malik al-KamilTh6 The negotiations provided Frederick’s interlocutors with an insight into the emperor’s standing in the Latin-Christian world and the pressure he was under to conclude an agreement. According to al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348 or 753/1352), Frederick explained to the sultan in 625/1227 that, although he was the greatest ruler on the other side of the [Mediterranean] sea, his failure to win Jerusalem would cost him respect while an agreement would enhance his reputation.147 Many sources attest to Frederick’s severe difficulties with the papacy. Frederick is said to have denigrated the pope in front of Muslim interlocutors, 148 whereas the pope is accused of attempted murder of the emperorTh9 According to Ibn Wasi l, the pope hated the emperor and his sons Conrad (Kurra) and Manfred (Manfrid) because of their sympathy for the Muslims.150 He describes the fate of Frederick’s son Manfred, victim to the collaborative effort of the pope and the French king’s brother, who ousted him from Sicily in 663/1265.151 However, Frederick and his progeny were not only portrayed as victims. Although praised for their learning and friendly attitude towards Muslims,152 Muslim scholars knew very well that Frederick had deported the Muslims of Sicily to LuceraV3 The geographical encyclopaedia of al-H imyari (13th-14th cent.) records the end of this Muslim colony founded by ‘the tyrant of Sicily’ (taghiyat Siqilliya).154 [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

Frederick II’s and his progeny’s dealings with the Arabic-Islamic world contributed considerably to the transmission of information about inner-European phenomena. As rulers of a Muslim population in Sicily and Apulia, Frederick and his son Manfred drew on an Arabic chancery with a long tradition^ that probably drafted the two letters sent by Frederick II to the Ayyubid sultan al-Malik al-Kamil recorded by Ibn Nazif al-H amawl.^6 Others mention frequent correspondence and the exchange of gifts between both rulers.^7 Frederick may have corresponded with the Andalusian scholar Ibn Sab'In (d. 668-69/1270-71) who is said to have authored the reply to a range of philosophical questions in North Africa. ^ In Cairo, al-Qarafi (d. 684/1285) wrote a treatise on ophthalmology, which claims to respond to questions addressed to al-Malik al-Kamil by the emperor.^9 In Mosul, the scholar Kamal al-Din b. Yunus is said to have been visited by a ‘Frankish messenger’ who asked for answers to questions sent by the emperor. w° Ibn Wasil, envoy to king Manfred’s court in Sicily in 659/1261, composed a treatise on logic for the ruler, which he called ‘al-Anbaruziyya’.^1 Not only rulers and scholars had something to report about Frederick II and his progeny. Muslim refugees from Sicilyi62 and later from Lucera^3 also acted as informants.

Hans Gottschalk’s hypothesis that Frederick II acquainted the Arabic-Islamic world with the title and office of the ‘emperor’, transcribed as ‘al-inbaradhur’, ‘al-inbaramr’, ‘al-anbarur’, etc., has to be mitigated in light of research that is more recent. As Gottschalk and Mandala have shown, the Arabic title mostly designates Frederick II, occasionally his sons Conrad and Manfred as well as his grandson Conradin, often in connection with geographical attributes reflecting the extension [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

of their respective realm.[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] Notwithstanding, the earliest use of the Arabic title is attested for the eleventh century. The Andalusian scholar Ibn H azm (d. 456/1064) is quoted by the Middle Eastern historiographer al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348 or 753/1352) as having cited an Arabic letter written by Alfonso VI of Leon and Castile (ruled 1065-1109) to al-Mu'tamid b. 'Abbad (d. 488/1095), ruler of the petty kingdom of Seville. In this letter, Alfonso (al-Adfunsh b. Shanja) is quoted as having used the title ‘al-anbaramr dhi al-millatayn’, ‘emperor of the two religious groups’.i65 Since Alfonso VI styled himself ‘imperator totius Hispaniae’, i.e. ‘emperor of all Spain’, in Latin documents,^ it seems plausible that he also used this title vis-a-vis his Muslim correspondents.^7

Apart from the fact that Andalusian Muslims may have come to know the imperial title almost 200 years before their Middle Eastern coreligionists applied it to Frederick II, Arabic-Islamic scholars did not always draw a connection between the imperial title and Frederick II or his descendants. Ibn Sa'id (d. 685/1286) and Abu l-Fida’ (d. 732/1331), for example, do not mention Frederick II in their geographical works, but state that the emperor was the ‘ruler of the Germans’ (malik al-Laman) who ruled over forty princes and held the title ‘king of kings’ (malik al-muluk).i68 Al-'Umari (d. 749/1349) asserts that the emperor and master of the realm of the Germans (al-anbarur sahib mulk al-Laman) was the most powerful Frankish ruler. Defeated by Muslim forces in Syria in times past, the German people (tayifat [sic] al-Laman) lived in undefended cities, were as plentiful as the Tatars, and inhabited a country as vast as the Arabian Peninsula. The emperor had many more fighters at his disposal than the king of France and had even achieved a victory against the latter recently, to the effect that all French governors now paid homage to the German king.169 This description, based on the testimony of a Genoese Mamluk dependant, dates from the beginning of the fourteenth century, i.e. from a period after the death of the last ruling Staufen in 1268.17° It clearly fails to apply to the late Staufen dynasty whose members either maintained good relations with France or were victims of the collaborative action of France and the papacy. Rather, it seems reminiscent of the political measures against France taken by Roman-German rulers such as Adolf of Nassau (ruled 1292-98), Henry VII of Luxembourg (ruled 1308-13), or Louis IV (ruled 1314-47).m

In the late fourteenth century, Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406) regarded the emperor as a political institution dissociated from a specific officeholder and explained its function in a political sphere made up of the pope and various competing ‘Frankish’ rulers:

it is the custom of the pope (al-baba) with respect to the Franks to urge them to submit to one ruler and have recourse to him in their disagreements and agreements, in order to avoid the dissolution of concord and unity. By this he aims at calming factionalism (al-asabiyya) which is rampant among them, to the effect that [this ruler] has power over all of them. They call him inbaradhur, with the middle letter pronounced somehow between ‘dh’ and ‘z’. The person attending to him (mubashiruhu) places a crown upon his head to convey a blessing. Therefore, the emperor is called ‘the crowned one’. Perhaps that is the meaning of the word ‘emperor’.[64] [65] [66] [67]

With the demise of the Staufen dynasty, the title seems to have been dissociated from a specific royal family and acknowledged as part of a political landscape, in which the pope, several ‘Frankish’ rulers, and an emperor, repeatedly defined as ‘ruler of the Germans’ (malik al-Alman/al-Laman), played a dominant role. In this way, an area that had originally been defined as Slavic, Frankish, and—without much background knowledge—‘Roman’, was not only identified as ‘German’, but also recognized as an important player in Latin Christendom.

  • [1] Ibn Khurdadhbah, al-masalik, ed. de Goeje, pp. 153—4.
  • [2] al-Mas'udl, muruj, ed./trans. Pellat, § 906, p. 142 (AR), p. 341 (FR); cf. Clement, ‘Nommer’(2009), p. 89 n. 15.
  • [3] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 354, p. 240.
  • [4] al-Qazwini, athar, ed. Wustenfeld, pp. 387, 409, 413, 415—16.
  • [5] из al-Mas'udi, al-tanbih, ed. de Goeje, pp. 181—2, trans. Carra de Vaux, p. 246; see Chapters4.2.1. and 6.4.1.
  • [6] 114 al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 550, p. 334 § 552, p. 335; cf. al-Qazwini,athar, ed. Wustenfeld, p. 373, with a reference to a ‘malik al-Rum’ that may also apply to Otto I. SeeChapter 3.4.2.
  • [7] Ibn al-Nadim, al-fihrist, ed. Flugel, p. 16: ‘qalam Lunkubardah wa-Lasakisuh: haula5 ummabayna Rumiyya wa-l-Ifranja’.
  • [8] On the embassy and its context, see Walther, ‘Dialog’ (1985), pp. 21—44.
  • [9] Iohannis abbas, Vita lohannis, ed. Pertz (MGH SS in folio 4), § 136, pp. 376—7, trans. Parisse, p. 161.
  • [10] 118 Ibn Hayyan, al-muqtabis V, ed. Chalmeta and Corriente, fol. 324—25, pp. 481—2, 482: ‘ba daqahrihim bi-man marru bihi minhum’; cf. Schamiloglu, ‘Name’ (1984), p. 216. See Chapter 6.2.1.
  • [11] 119 Ibn ' Idhari, al-bayan, ed. Colin and Levi-Proven^al, vol. 2, p. 218: ‘wa-fi sanat 342 qadamatrusul Hunu malik al-Saqaliba ala l-Nasi r’.
  • [12] Ibn Khaldun, tarikh, ed. Zakkar and Shahada, vol. 4, p. 183: ‘thumma ja’a rusul malikal-Saqaliba wa-huwa yawma’idhin Hutu, wa-akhar min malik al-Laman, wa-akhar min malik al-Faranjawara’ al-Maghrib, wa-huwa yawma’idhin Afuh wa-akhar min malik al-Faranja bi-qasiyyat al-mashriq,wa-huwa yawma’idhin Kalda. wa-ihtafala al-sultan li-qudumihim wa-ba'atha ma'a rusul al-SaqalibaRifan al-usquf ila malikihim Hutu wa-rajau ba'da sanatayn.’ Except for the transformations of ‘wara’al-Maghrib’ to ‘wara’ al-bart’ as well as the transformation of the name ‘Afuh’ to ‘Awqah’, this passageis reproduced identically by al-Maqqari, nafh al-tib, ed. Abbas, vol. 1, p. 365.
  • [13] Ibn Hayyan, al-muqtabis VII, ed. al-Hajji, AH 363, p. 169.
  • [14] Ibid., p. 169 n. 6.
  • [15] Cf. Leroux, ‘Royaute’ (1892), pp. 241—88; Bruhl, Deutschland (1995); Kintzinger, Erben(2005), pp. 49-59.
  • [16] 124 Sa id al-Andalusi, tabaqat al-umam, ed. Bu Alwan, p. 98 with n. 9.
  • [17] Cf. Wenner, ‘Presence’ (1980), pp. 59-79; Versteegh, ‘Presence’ (1990), pp. 359-88.
  • [18] 126 Thietmar Merseburgensis, Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann (MGH SS rer. Germ. NS 9), lib. VII, cap. 45 (31), pp. 452-3.
  • [19] A Pisan perspective of events is given in the Liber Maiolichinus, ed. Calisse, v. 922—68,pp. 42—4, pp. li—lii; cf. Amari, Storia, vol. 3 (1868), pp. 6—10, with further references; Rubiera Mata,Taifa (1985), pp. 67-70, 95-8; Bruce, ‘Politics’ (2006), pp. 127-42.
  • [20] Ibn al-Khatib, a'mal al-a4am, ed. Levi-Proven^al, pp. 219-22, trans. Hoenerbach, Geschichte(1970), pp. 404-8. On All, see Konig, ‘Caught’ (2012), pp. 65-6.
  • [21] 129 al-Idrisi, Opus geographicum, ed. Bombaci et al., fasc. VIII, pp. 861, 871—4; cf. Hoenerbach,Deutschland (1938).
  • [22] Clement, ‘Nommer’ (2009), pp. 89-90 with n. 15; Dubler, Abu Hamid (1953), p. 245.
  • [23] Yaqut, mujam, ed. Wustenfeld, vol. 1, lemma ‘Bashghird’, pp. 469-70.
  • [24] Abu l-Fida’, taqwim, ed. Reinaud and de Slane, p. 206 (AR), p. 295 (FR).
  • [25] Ibn al-'Adim, bughya, ed. Zakkar, vol. 4, p. 1643.
  • [26] Ibn al-Athir, al-kamil, ed. Tornberg, vol. 11, AH 543, pp. 85-6 (Leiden), pp. 129-31 (Beirut).
  • [27] Ibid., vol. 12, AH 586, pp. 30—2 (Leiden), pp. 48—53 (Beirut); Ibn Shaddad, al-nawadir, ed.al-Shayyal, pp. 178, 190-2, 197, 201, 203, 207, 212-13, 227, 233-4.
  • [28] Ibid., p. 213.
  • [29] Abu Shama, al-rawdatayn, ed./trans. de Meynard (RHC hist. or. 4), p. 491 (addressee), 494(reference to the ‘ruler of the Germans’).
  • [30] Yaqut, mu'am, ed. Wustenfeld, vol. 2, lemma ‘Rumiya’ [sic], p. 867, writes that Rome is currently in the hands of the Franks and ruled by someone called the ‘ruler of the Germans’ (malikal-Alman). Ibn al-Athir, al-kamil, ed. Tornberg, vol. 11, AH 543, p. 86 (Leiden), p. 131 (Beirut),mentions that the ‘German Franks’ (al-Faranj al-almaniyya) returned to their lands behind Constantinople. In ibid., vol. 12, AH 586, p. 30 (Leiden), p. 48 (Beirut), he defines them as ‘a kind of Franks’(naw‘ min al-Faranj). In ibid., vol. 12, AH 593, p. 84 (Leiden), p. 126 (Beirut), he transcribes theword ‘chancellor’ as ‘al-khansalir’.
  • [31] Matthaeus Parisiensis, Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, vol. 1, ad 1238, p. 408; cf. MatthaeusParisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard, vol. 3, ad 1239, p. 602.
  • [32] Ibn Nazif, al-tarikh al-mansuri, ed. Dudu and Darwish, Beirut 1982, p. 190: ‘Fardarik b.al-ambaratur Hanrik b. al-ambaratur Fardarik’. Other references to Frederick pp. 100-1, 138-9,148-9, 151, 160, 162-4, 174, 176, 180, 189-90, 194-5, 248. On the text, see Hartmann, ‘Manuscript’ (2001), p. 89. On the title, see Mandala, ‘Prologo’ (2007), pp. 29-30.
  • [33] Ibn Khallikan, wafayat al-acyan, ed. Abbas, vol. 6, no. 805 ‘Yahya b. Tamim al-Sanhaji’,§ 322-4, p. 218.
  • [34] 142 Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabf and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, p. 248; Abu l-Fida, al-mukhtasar, ed.Zaynuhum 'Azab et al., vol. 4, AH 697, p. 50.
  • [35] Ibn Khallikan, wafayat al-a'yan, ed. Abbas, vol. 6, no. 805 ‘Yahya b. Tamim al-Sanhaji’,§ 322^, p. 218; Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabf and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, pp. 249-50.
  • [36] Ibid., vol. 4, AH 626, pp. 250-1; reproduced by Abu l-Fida, al-mukhtasar, ed. ZaynuhumAzab et al., vol. 4, AH 697, p. 51.
  • [37] Houben, Friedrich II (2008), pp. 28—35 (accession to power), pp. 37—8 (imperial coronation),pp. 51—2 (self-coronation in Jerusalem 1229).
  • [38] 146 Ibn al-Athir, al-kamil, ed. Tornberg, vol. 12, AH 626, pp. 314—15 (Leiden), pp. 482—3 (Beirut);Abu l-Fida, al-mukhtasar, ed. Zaynuhum Azab et al., vol. 3, AH 625—26, p. 175; al-Dhahabi, al-ibar,ed. Zaghlul, vol. 3, AH 626, p. 197; Ibn Taghribirdi, al-nujum al-zahira, ed. Shams al-Din, vol. 6, AH626, pp. 241—2. Cf. Richards, ‘Crusade’ (1993), pp. 183—200.
  • [39] al-Dhahabi, tarikh, ed. Tadmuri, vol. 45, AH 625, p. 30; cf. Leder, ‘Kaiser’ (2008), p. 88.
  • [40] Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabi‘ and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, p. 251; cf. Hillenbrand, Crusades(2000), p. 320; Leder, ‘Kaiser’ (2008), p. 88.
  • [41] Sibt b. al-Jawzi, mirat al-zaman, ed. facs. Jewett, AH 644, pp. 505—6; al-Dhahabi, tarikh, ed.Tadmuri, vol. 47, AH 644, p. 27; Ibn Kathir, al-bidaya, ed. al-Turki, vol. 14, AH 644, pp. 288—9; Ibnal-Furat, ed./trans. Lyons, vol. 1, AH 644, p. 11 (AR), vol. 2, p. 9 (EN). Cf. the version of this storyin Matthaeus Parisiensis, Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, vol. 3, pp. 11—12. See Chapter 7.3.3.
  • [42] Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabf and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, pp. 248—9. Cf. Abu l-Fida,al-mukhtasar, ed. Zaynuhum Azab et al., vol. 4, AH 697, pp. 50—1. On Ibn Wasil’s attitude towardsFrederick, see Leder, ‘Kaiser’ (2008), pp. 88—90.
  • [43] Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabi‘ and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, p. 251.
  • [44] 152 Ibn Nazif, al-tarikh al-mamuri, ed. Dudu and Darwish, p. 194, writes: ‘There has been noChristian king like him from the times of Alexander until today’ (fa-ma malik min al-nasraniyyamithlahu min zaman al-Iskandar wa-ila l-an); Ibn Khallikan, wafayat al-a'yan, ed. ‘Abbas, no. 805‘Yahya b. Tamim al-Sanhaji’, § 322^, p. 218, describes Frederick as an exceptional and intelligentman. Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabi‘ and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, p. 248, praises Manfreds interest inlearning.
  • [45] Ibn Nazif, al-tarikh al-mansuri, ed. Dudu and Darwish, pp. 194—5; Ibn Said, al-jughrafiya, ed.al- Arabi, p. 182; Ibn Wasil, mufarrij, ed. Rabi‘ and Ashur, vol. 4, AH 626, p. 248; Abu l-Fida ,al-mukhtasar, ed. Zaynuhum ‘Azab et al., vol. 4, AH 697, p. 50.
  • [46] al-Himyari, al-rawdal-mi'tar, ed. Abbas, lemma ‘Lujara’, p. 513. Cf. Taylor, Muslims (2005),on Lucera; Weltecke, ‘Emperor’ (2011), pp. 85—106, on Frederick’s disputed image.
  • [47] Cf. Johns, Administration (2002).
  • [48] Ibn Nazif (d. after 631/1233), al-tarikh al-mansuri, ed. Dudu and Darwish, pp. 189—94, reproduces the letter and summarizes the sultan’s reply. Gottschalk, ‘Anbaratur’ (1958), p. 31, regards theseletters as a translation, while Mandala, ‘Prologo’ (2007), p. 29, believes they were a product ofFrederick’s chancery.
  • [49] Ibn Khallikan, wafayat alayan, ed. ’Abbas, vol. 6, no. 805 ‘Yahya b. Tamim al-Sanhaji’,§ 322—4, p. 218; al-Dhahabi, tarikh, ed. Tadmuri, vol. 45, AH 625, p. 30. Ibn Kathir, al-bidaya,ed. al-Turkl, vol. 17, AH 631, p. 212, claims that Frederick sent a polar bear to the sultan al-Ashraf,an animal mentioned in Ibn Sa’id, al-jughrafiya, ed. al-’Arabi, p. 200.
  • [50] 158 Akasoy, Philosophie (2006), pp. 107—24, questions Frederick II’s authorship of the ‘Sicilianquestions’. Mandala, ‘Prologo’ (2007), pp. 25—94, defends the traditional view held by Amari, ‘Questions’ (1853), pp. 240-74.
  • [51] Jackson, ‘Shihab al-Din al-Karafi’ (1997), p. 435; Sayili, ‘Al-Qarafi’ (1940), pp. 17-18. See theedition, translation, and commentary of the kitab al-istbisar fi-ma tudrikuhu al-absar by Krotkoff,Schrift (1950).
  • [52] 16° Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, ’uyun al-anba, ed. Rida, pp. 410-11. Cf. Hasse, ‘Mosul’ (2000), pp. 145-63.The ruler of Mosul seems to have supported this intellectual activity, cf. Cahen, ‘Lu’lu” (1986), p. 820.
  • [53] Abu l-Fida’, al-mukhtasar, ed. Zaynuhum Azab et al., vol. 4, AH 697, p. 50.
  • [54] 162 Ibn Nazif al-Hamawi, al-tarikh al-mansuri, ed. Dudu and Darwish, pp. 194-5, on a refugeefrom the mountainous regions of Sicily called Ahmad b. Abi l-Qasim who reported on the Muslims’deportation to Apulia.
  • [55] According to al-Yunini, dhayl, s. ed., vol. 3, AH 676, pp. 254-5, the Mamluk sultan heard in1277 that a number of Sicilian Muslims in the service of the deceased emperor had been slaughtered,and offered survivors refuge in Egypt. Al-Himyari, al-rawd al-mitar, ed. ’Abbas, lemma ‘Lujara’,p. 513, reports that Muslims of Lucera fled to the Middle East (al-mashriq) and North Africa (Ijriqiya)when Lucera was destroyed in 1300.
  • [56] Gottschalk, al-anbaratur’ (1958), pp. 35-6; Mandala, ‘Prologo’ (2007), p. 29.
  • [57] al-Dhahabi, tarikh, ed. Tadmuri, vol. 32, AH 478, pp. 24-5. Ibn al-Khatib, a'malal-a'lam, ed.Levi-Proven^al, p. 330, also mentions the variant ‘inbiradur’.
  • [58] Menendez Pidal, Imperio (1950), pp. 86-94; Cullinan, Imperator (1975); Reilly, ‘Chancery’(1985), pp. 4-10; Sirantoine, Imperator (2012).
  • [59] See the discussion in Mackay and Benaboud, ‘Alfonso VI’ (1979), pp. 95-102; Roth, ‘AlfonsoVI’ (1984), pp. 165-8; Mackay and Benaboud, Alfonso VI’ (1984), pp. 171-81.
  • [60] 168 Ibn Sa'id, al-jughrafiya, ed. al-Arabi, p. 193; Abu l-Fida’, taqwim, ed. Reinaud and de Slane, p. 202.
  • [61] 169 al-'Umarl, Condizioni, ed./trans. Amari, pp. 1, 4-5 (AR).
  • [62] 17° On Conradin’s death, see Nitschke, ‘Prozefi’ (1956), pp. 25-55; Ullrich, Konradin (2004).
  • [63] See the overview by Kintzinger, ‘Kaiser’ (2002), pp. 113-36.
  • [64] Ibn Khaldun, tarikh, ed. Zakkar and Shahada, vol. 1, p. 292: ‘wa-min madhahib al-baba indal-Ifranja annahu yahudduhum ala l-inqiyad li-malik wahid yarjauna ilayhi f! ikhtilafihim wa-ijtima ihimtaharrujan min iftiraq al-kalima wa-yataharra bihi al-asabiyya allat! la fawqaha minhum li-takunyaduhu aliyyatan ala jamfihim wa-yusammunahu al-inbaradhur wa-harfuhu al-wasat bayna al-dhalwa-l-za al-mu jamatayn wa-mubashiruhu yada al-taj ala rasihi li-l-tabarruk fa-yusamma al-mutawwaj,wa-laallahu mana lafzat al-inbaradhur . . .’. The translation follows de Slane as opposed to Rosenthaland Monteil. See Ibn Khaldoun, Prolegomenes, trans. de Slane, pp. 476—7; Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddi-mah, trans. Rosenthal, vol. 1, ch. VI,18, p. 481; Ibn Khaldoun, Discours, trans. Monteil, vol. 1, p. 467.
  • [65] Jehel, Lltalie (2001), pp. 13—36; Metcalfe, Muslims (2009), pp. 4—69; Kreutz, Normans (1996),pp. 18—101. See Chapters 3.1.1., 7.1.1., and 7.1.2.
  • [66] See the collection of sources in Amari, Biblioteca (1857).
  • [67] Cf. Ibn Khurdadhbah, al-masalik, ed. de Goeje, pp. 113—15, for the ninth century; Ibnal-Faq!h, mukhtasar, ed. de Goeje, pp. 149—51; Ibn Rustah, al-a4aq al-nafisa, ed. de Goeje, pp. 128—30;al-Masud!, muruj, ed./trans. Pellat, § 128, p. 74 (AR), p. 55 (FR); § 722, p. 35 (AR), p. 271 (FR), forthe tenth century.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >