The Assassins & The Crusaders
- Woman’s Voice: History Hit and Assassin's Creed presents Assassins vs Templars Real Histories of the secret orders.
- Matthew Lewis: Welcome to the inside of one of history's greatest stories. In this collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit, we're taking you back to the very beginning. The story of Assassin's Creed is one of deadly rivalry between conflicting ideologies that asks whether peace is found through freedom or control. It begins with Assassins and Templars racing to gather the Pieces of Eden in the fiery heat of the Near East amidst brutal religious upheavals. We're all Desmond Miles now, and we've found our Animus. We've found a team of the best historians working in their fields who will unlock the memories of the past for us. They'll lead us through the vaults of their secrets and introduce us to some of the people who inspired the game. It's time to break into the vaults of two of history's most infamous organizations as we pit the Assassin's Creed against the Templar Order. In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Nicholas Morton, an Associate Professor at Nottingham Trent University and a specialist in the medieval Near East. Nick's written several books, most recently The Mongol Storm, which considers the arrival of the Mongol Empire amidst the Crusades. And he's joining me today to talk about the Assassins and their relationship with Richard I, Lord Edward, and the various Crusader states. Thank you very much for joining us, Nick.
- Nicholas Morton: Great to be on the show.
- Matthew Lewis: The Crusader states and the Assassin sect sort of overlap each other in history. They run parallel to each other, pretty much. What was the relationship like between them? Did they view themselves as enemies? Were they divided on Christian versus Muslim lines?
- Nicholas Morton: One of the most interesting dimensions to the history of the relationship between the Crusader states and the Assassins and it goes back a little bit before the Crusaders arrived, because about 20, 30 years before the Crusaders, the entire Near East region is invaded by a group of people called the Seljuk Turks, and their invasions start in the year 1000, and they reach the northern Syrian region where the Crusaders themselves conduct their invasions about 20 or so years before the Crusaders. And the point is that the Seljuk Turks conquer the entire area, but that, of course, includes many different groups, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish, and it can't be guaranteed when the Crusaders arrive that these people will feel a sense of shared purpose and common feeling with the Seljuk Turks, who are themselves invaders. So you've got many groups, such as the Bedouin, and yes, the Assassins, who exist in a sort of amidst space. They don't necessarily feel aligned to the Seljuk Turks, but neither do they feel aligned to the Crusaders either, and that's what makes the relationship really so interesting in that they're trying to plot a route to their own survival amidst these two invaders coming in from different directions.
- Matthew Lewis: So the Assassins don't necessarily feel any loyalty to fellow Muslims, they're looking for a way for the Assassins to survive.
- Nicholas Morton: Well, in some cases they do, but the Seljuk Turks themselves are Sunni Muslims, or they become Sunni Muslims at least during the course of the 12th century. The Assassins, or Nizaris, they are Shia Muslims, and they're intensively persecuted by the Seljuk Turks, and so often they feel a greater sense of threat from the Seljuk Turks than they do from the Crusaders themselves.
- Matthew Lewis: What was the geopolitical setup of the Holy Land throughout these Crusades? It changes, I guess, but essentially we know we have Crusader states and we know we have Muslims, but it seems like the Assassins are a third power at play there.
- Nicholas Morton: Sure. Okay, so let's set the scene a little bit. Only a couple of decades before the arrival of the First Crusade, much of the Near East has been conquered by the Seljuk Turks, and they are a new influence in the region. They're not a long-standing or historic community in the area, and they have now come to rule a very broad population consisting of many Christian and Muslim groups, and many different ethnicities as well, whether that's Arabs or Kurds or other peoples across the entire area. And then, about 20 or so years after the Seljuk Turks reached the Near East, you have the advent of the First Crusade. As the First Crusaders set out from Western Christendom with the earliest waves in 1096, they became a major presence in Northern Syria in 1097 onwards, so only 20 or so years after the Seljuk Turks, and they conquered Antioch in Northern Syria. They were invited to defend the city of Edessa, and they then took power in Edessa soon afterwards, and then their armies advanced south, conducting a very brutal siege and overthrow of Jerusalem. Now, the conquests of these three cities, Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem, laid the foundation for what would become the Crusader States, essentially European countries in the Near East, in modern money, if you like. But this raises all sorts of questions for everyone else. The Seljuk Turks vigorously resisted the arrival of the First Crusaders, because, naturally, they threatened their control over the entire region. But at this point, at least, the Crusaders defeated field army after field army, sent against them from the various Seljuk Turkish governors from the area, cities like Aleppo, Damascus, and Mosul. And so, for a time, at least, it looks as if Seljuk authority is hovering in the balance. And that raises lots of questions for the various local communities who make up the bulk of the population. And the questions here would include things like, who's going to win? Irrespective of who you want to win, who is going to win? And then, of course, who do you prefer? Because it can't be taken for granted that the Crusaders would be viewed in a more hostile way than the Seljuk Turks. They're both invaders, and neither of them have been particularly gentle in taking control. And so some pick the era after the First Crusaders, their moment to rebel against the Seljuk Turks. Others align themselves more with the Seljuk Turks. But the Nizaris, or the Assassins, which is the nickname that people gave to many years later, they were one of these groups. Who should they support? Because they're intensively persecuted by the Seljuk Turks. In fact, when the Seljuk, a new sultan, came into power in 1105, he identified the Nizaris, or Assassins, as his number one opponent. Didn't even mention the Crusaders. In fact, it's something of a sort of Eurocentric conceit that the Crusaders are the biggest show in town. They're not. There's a lot of things going on in the Near East. At this point, at least, the Seljuks see the Nizaris, the Assassins, as being a very, very serious threat. So that raises a question for them, as it does for many, many other groups across the Near East. Who's going to win? Who should they support? Whose side are they on? And crucially, how do they survive against these two millstones of these two powers who are rivaling one another for control over many areas of the Near East?
- Matthew Lewis: And I guess if the Seljuks are persecuting the Assassins in particular, there might be a degree to which the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and perhaps the Assassins start to view the Crusaders as potential allies.
- Nicholas Morton: That's seen in many cases in the Near East. When we talk to people about the Crusades, they'll not nearly always sort of caption it as, oh, it's a Christian versus Muslim war. And there is an element of that. But there's lots of situations where you have Christians and Muslims on both sides. There's more reasons than just religion for conflict in the Near East. There's trade. There's population movements. There's the rivalries between families and ethnicities. It's a very complex map, which makes the whole thing incredibly intricate, but also very fascinating at the same time.
- Matthew Lewis: The balance of power swings backwards and forwards throughout the Crusades. And we join in the game in the Third Crusade, when the First Crusade's successful for the Christians, the Second Crusade a failure for the Christians, success for the Muslims. The Third Crusade is underway. Do we see the relationship between the Crusader states and the Assassins changing as that balance shifts?
- Nicholas Morton: Yes, absolutely. So the main thing is that perhaps the biggest presence of the assassins is in Aleppo, certainly in an urban area in northern Syria. Aleppo and northern Syria, where they have a large community. And the various Turkic rulers of Aleppo have to work out how they're going to orientate themselves vis-à-vis the Assassins. There's a strong pressure from other Seljuk Turkish rulers in the region to persecute them, but they've got to manage the fact there's a large population there too. And so eventually they're expelled. And so many Nizaris or assassins go down to Damascus, and there too, they are placed under a great deal of pressure. And so they begin to open talks with the Crusader states in the 1120s. The idea being that they will hand over the lands that they own in return for lands within the Crusader states. And then in the midst of a big crusade in 1129, because of fears that the Nizaris are collaborating or cooperating with the Crusaders, the authorities in Damascus conduct a massacre of Nizaris or Assassins in Damascus. And that then very much brings the assassins into the Crusader states, looking for sanctuary. And they eventually create a sort of small territory for themselves in northern Syria. And occasionally the Crusader states fight on the same side as the Assassins. Occasionally they fight against one another. It's not a particularly amicable relationship. Often the neighbouring landowners, who are often the Templars and Hospitallers, want tribute from the Assassins. But nonetheless, there are times where they work together. There are times when they fight together. But one of the most interesting details is that along the boundaries of Assassin territory, they've got boundary stones. And on the Crusader or Templar side of the border, those boundary stones are marked by a cross. And on the assassin's side, they're marked by a dagger, just to make the point that this is where the territory changes.
- Matthew Lewis: And we can really see iconography there that we would associate with those groups today, probably.
- Nicholas Morton: Sure. But like I said, it is a very uneven relationship. The Templars frequently want tribute from the Assassins. And one particularly well-known episode is where the assassins want to form a formal alliance with the largest of the Crusader states, called the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And the King of Jerusalem is very keen to have that alliance because he's looking for additional allies he can work with in the region. But the Templars don't want that alliance because they want to maintain their tribute payments from the Assassins. And so when the Assassins come down to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, they send their envoys down to finalise that treaty. It's actually the Templars who ambush the Assassins' deputation and assassinate them, if you like. So they then ruin that treaty. King Amalric of Jerusalem is furious. It ruins the relations at that moment. But relations go up and down for many decades, all the way through that period. Yes.
- Matthew Lewis: That's an interesting moment though, because the central conceit of Assassin's Creed is the Assassins who represent the desire to find peace through free will versus the Templars who want peace through order. And it places them ideologically at odds. And it sounds like the Templars had a different relationship to the Assassins than the rest of the Crusader states perhaps did.
- Nicholas Morton: Yeah, it's fairly simple. They want tribute from them. The Assassins, it's very difficult to gauge the assassins' motives and what they're after because we have so little written by them. Although judging by their actions, what they really want is to be left alone. They're aware that they're very small in number. And so they compensate for that by conducting these very high-profile assassinations, which means that people are often terrified of them. I mean, Saladin famously spent his nights on many campaigns sleeping in a wheeled wooden tower, which could be locked from the inside because he was so concerned that he might be assassinated. And the Assassins seem to have tried possibly around twice to assassinate Saladin, but they never got to him. But they could create huge amounts of fear. And that's how they protected their community because rulers didn't want to cause trouble with them because of that very danger.
- Matthew Lewis: Did that give them a power that went beyond their size and their territorial sort of reach? Did that fear of them and their ability to get to people make them more powerful than they might have otherwise been?
- Nicholas Morton: In most cases, yes. But so we're told by one Crusader called John de Joinville, not with the Templars. And the reason for that is the Templars, yeah, the Templars had a Templar Master, but the Templar Master ruled alongside a ruling council called the Central Chapter. And the assassins knew that if they were to kill a member of the Central Chapter or to kill the Templar Master, the remainder of the chapter would just continue to rule. So wherever you killed a sultan or a queen or a king, that would cause a crisis of state for most territories. It wouldn't actually affect the Templars because they're ruled by a group of 13. So unless you can kill all of them simultaneously, it's not going to work.
- Matthew Lewis: The original Assassin's Creed game picks up in the 1190s during the Third Crusade when Richard I, Richard the Lionheart, is in the Holy Land and he's a character in the game. But Richard I eventually gets into trouble because of alleged connections to the Assassins. Do we know whether he was on good terms with the Assassins? I mean, he's accused of hiring them to kill somebody. Is that likely? Do we know how true that is?
- Nicholas Morton: Oh, well, this is one of the great whodunits of the medieval period. The person who was killed was called Conrad of Montferrat. And Conrad was significant because he felt that he should be king of the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. And he wasn't the person Richard backed. Richard wanted another person to be king of Jerusalem. He wanted the existing king of Jerusalem, a man called Guy of Lusignan, to be king of Jerusalem. And so there had been an ongoing controversy over which of these people, Guy or Conrad, would become king. Now, that matter had just been settled before Conrad was assassinated with the decision going to Conrad. And so you could say, well, maybe it was Richard. Maybe he was angry at the fact that Conrad had become king of Jerusalem. But on the other hand, that's also not likely because Richard had been receiving reports of trouble in England while he's away. He knows he's got to get back. And whilst Conrad wouldn't have been his choice, Conrad's choice would have raised the prospect of stabilising things so that he could leave. So did Richard do it? It's difficult to say. Did he have a relationship with the Assassins? We don't have evidence of that, but it's not impossible either. It's very hard to say. The other possible culprits are Saladin or another member of the crusading elite who's out there, or perhaps the Assassins themselves. Famously, the Duke of Austria sent envoys to the Assassins basically to ask, why did you kill Conrad? And they came back saying, we killed Conrad for our own reasons. But actually, it's thought that that letter which reports that reply may have been forged. So again, another layer of complexity to the question of who did it.
- Matthew Lewis: And interestingly, Conrad's father, William, is a character in the game as well. He's one of the targets of Altaïr for assassination. So we see a direct parallel there between the game and real life. In the game, you're trying to assassinate William. In real life, it's his son who is actually killed by the Assassins. How does this end up getting Richard I into trouble?
- Nicholas Morton: It gets him into trouble because Richard has plenty of enemies, particularly within the crusader camp. The crusading army is a combination of factions from across Western Christendom who share very little except the fact that they are broadly seeking to try and conquer Jerusalem. Aside from that, they have longstanding political differences and disagreements, and many of them are not well disposed towards Richard. So when the prospect of blaming Richard for that assassination comes up, naturally, many will seize onto it, even if it's still not clear whether he did or he didn't or exactly what happened there.
- Matthew Lewis: Most of the crusades feel a lot like everyone taking their personal problems from Europe on holiday to the Near East in the sun and fighting it out amongst themselves as much as fighting Muslims there.
- Nicholas Morton: That's very true. And there's plenty of quarrels and arguments. And Richard, on his way home, was imprisoned by Leopold of Austria. And it seems very likely the reason for that was the on-crusade. When the city of Acre was conquered by the crusading forces, Leopold put his banner above the city walls, which is often taken as the symbol of the victor. And Richard said, well, no, you have all the victor by what about the fall of the city. He pulled down Leopold's banner and up goes his own. And Leopold was furious. So yes, there's that ongoing tension and controversy between crusading leaders could play out both in the crusader states and indeed in Western Christendom.
- Matthew Lewis: But am I right that the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat was kind of the official reason that Richard was held on his way home?
- Nicholas Morton: It's difficult to say what Leopold's actual motives were, that he probably had several things running through his mind. But certainly that accusation would have been a powerful one.
- Matthew Lewis: And your most recent book deals with the arrival of the Mongols in the Near East in the midst of all of this crusade. How does their arrival on the scene change the dynamic? Does it have an effect on the Templars and the Assassins in particular?
- Nicholas Morton: Yeah, so the Assassins had a very troubled relationship with the Mongols. Initially, when the Mongols started their invasions into the Near East, they began in the 1220s, that's when the Mongols had reached the region south of the Caspian. And at this point, it's not clear whether the Assassins saw the Mongols as a threat or even a potential ally. The Assassins tend to get persecuted quite a lot in this period. And so they may have seen the Mongols as a possible way of avoiding that. And there's even one report that says that they actually wrote to the Mongols inviting them in. Having said that, when the Mongols did finally arrive in force, in the Assassins' own territories in the 1250s, they besieged the Assassins' many strongholds. These are their strongholds in Persia. The Assassins have got two main clusters of territory, one in Syria, one in Persia. They besieged these citadels in Persia, or modern-day Iran, and then were very brutal in their overthrow of those strongholds. So the Mongols very much set themselves up as opponents to the Assassins. Again, this seems to have been a reaction, at least in part, to fears the Assassins would try and kill the great Khan or some leading members of the Mongol imperial family. So the Mongols overthrew the Assassins in the 1250s very brutally, although some of the sieges of the Assassins' castles lasted for well over a decade. And then the Mongols advanced across the Tigris, across the Euphrates, into northern Syria, into the region where you've got the Crusader States, as well as various other Muslim territories as well. And the main Mongol army besieged Aleppo in the north, which is only, I don't know, maybe 40 or 50 miles from the Assassins' own territory. And at this point, that raises the question of, well, what are the Mongols going to do next? Are they going to try and overrun the Assassins' territories in Syria, just as they had their territories in Persia? And certainly, when a flying column was sent out from the siege of Aleppo down towards Damascus by the Mongol leader, a man called Hulegu, he instructed his lieutenant leading that army, a man called Kitbuqa, to destroy the Assassins' lands on his journey south, or at least as part of that campaign. But he didn't do it. He went to Damascus, he secured Damascus' overthrow, and perhaps he was planning on doing it later. We'll never know, because at that point, the Mongol army was defeated by an Egyptian army led by the Mamluk dynasty, who was in charge of Egypt at this time. And so we don't know whether Kitbuqa would have sought to overthrow the Assassins immediately after that or not. What we can say with confidence is that the Assassins were acutely aware of the threat the Mongols posed from that point, if not before. And so they were very much looking for ways of supporting those who could resist the Mongols in later years.
- Matthew Lewis: So the scenery is changing all of the time and I think we have this view of the Assassins being quite, I guess, mercenary is the word. They're up for hire for anybody. But it sounds like they also had their own political agenda and their own considerations of who their friends or enemies were at any given time as well.
- Nicholas Morton: I haven't come across examples of the Assassins sort of murdering on order. If you pay a certain amount of money, you get a certain number of assassinations. But they do seem to have been open to political influence. So if there was a sort of a regional overlord who they felt that they ought to keep in favour with, then yes, they could well conduct assassinations on behalf of that regional overlord. And that does become clear in the 13th century, particularly after the Mongols become such an imminent threat. Because the only power in the region that shows any real ability to defeat the Mongols is the Mamluk Empire of Egypt and Syria. And so we have examples soon after the Mongols arrive in northern Syria in the early 1260s of the Assassins actually looking for Mamluk favour. Because they realise the Mamluks are their best chance of surviving. And so they begin to look to work with the Mamluks. And certainly in later years, a lot of the Mamluks' enemies, particularly Mongol opponents, do either suffer attempted assassinations or very real assassinations. There are a smaller number also of attempted assassinations against leaders in the Crusader States as well, which are sort of very, very thin territories by this stage, clinging onto the coast of the Levantine region.
- Matthew Lewis: And a lot of the gameplay in Assassin's Creed revolves around being sneaky, assassinating people from the shadows, surprise attacks, all of that kind of thing. What do we actually know about Assassin tactics? Is that the way they operated?
- Nicholas Morton: There's one tactic which seems to work particularly well and which we do tend to have fairly well recorded. And that tactic, in essence, is that the Assassins would disguise themselves as someone who might be of service to the leader they want to assassinate. And then to offer themselves for service, to get into that ruler's employ, and then just to wait until the order comes to strike. The idea being that that ruler will learn to trust them, will eventually lower their guard, and then they've got them where they want them. One very famous episode of this is where the Assassins sent an envoy to see Saladin. And the envoy said, look, I want to speak to you, Saladin, just you by yourself. And Saladin said, look, I'm not going to get rid of my entire entourage. I'll keep two bodyguards with me, but then we can talk in at least relative privacy. And so the Assassin's envoy said, okay, that's fine, we can do that. So they had their meeting. And the Assassin's envoy then went to that meeting and then addressed Saladin's two bodyguards and said, if I asked either of you to kill Saladin, would you do it? They both said yes, because they were both, if you like, sleeper agents for the Assassins. And this really worried Saladin. And the Assassins could do the same thing with leaders in the Crusader States. And so in, I think it's 1270, the Lord of Montfort, Lord of Tyre, a city on the coastline in the north of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, he employed two warriors as light cavalry in his army of his lordship. And he learned to trust them. And consequently, they became quite close. And it was at that moment that they then chose to strike. So this is quite common. Get close to the ruler you're after, wait for them to drop their guard, and then you've got them.
- Matthew Lewis: And did the Assassins tend to work in public or in private? Did they want people to know that they had killed someone? Or were they more keen that that person died in secret?
- Nicholas Morton: I'm not aware of the Assassins seeking to perform what could be described as sort of show killings, killing someone as a public spectacle. There are a few times that people were murdered in public places. The ruler of Mosul was killed in Damascus in a very sort of public act. But I suspect that in many cases, the Assassins want at least some chance of getting away. And the chances of doing that in public are much less than if you can do it in private and get out before the alarm is raised. So often it's in private or semi-private. It's often in those sorts of… I suppose the modern equivalent would be not if you were going to drive to a public event. You wouldn't be killed at home. You wouldn't be killed in the car. Perhaps when you're getting out of the car and going into the venue. It's those sorts of crossover moments. That's when you're vulnerable. And often that's when the Assassins struck. But essentially they wanted to do it when their target guard was down.
- Matthew Lewis: And I guess part of that bit about having sleeper agents there is that they can then pick those moments. They can find the moments to strike when the target is most vulnerable.
- Nicholas Morton: Sure. The non-lethal alternative, which is just, as with the Saladin example I gave you, of just making it very clear just how vulnerable you are if they want to get you, which of course gives political leverage without even having to kill anyone.
- Matthew Lewis: Yeah, which is in itself a very different form of power, I guess.
- Nicholas Morton: Sure. But much of this, this is the basic power relationship here, is it's a small community which is often intensively persecuted trying to find ways of exerting political influence, defending itself whilst recognising its limitations in terms of total population numbers, I suppose.
- Matthew Lewis: And there's another interesting incident that we can talk about. So in 1190s, Richard I gets kind of wrapped up with the idea that he may have engaged the Assassins to kill Conrad of Montferrat. And that causes trouble for him because of his proximity to the Assassins. 80 years later, we have Lord Edward, who would soon become King Edward I of England, also in the Holy Land on Crusade. And he becomes the target of an assassination attempt by the Assassins. What do we know about how that attempt played out?
- Nicholas Morton: So very similar to many of the others, really. It seems as if this person, the Assassin, offered himself for service with Edward and his entourage. He grew close to Edward. And on this occasion, I think it was in Edward's bedchamber, he waited till he'd got Edward alone. And then tried to stab him when he was unawares. But he's Edward I, and I don't know, whatever you think of Edward I, no one disputes that he was an excellent warrior. And so not an easy person to catch as unaware. So it seems as if the Assassin did draw blood. But Edward got to him before he could strike a mortal wound. And of course, as soon as Edward had held this person, the alarm was raised. And then the room was flooded with soldiers and the Assassin was killed. So the assassination attempt was a failure. But it's a very similar approach to many of the others the Assassins tried. And there's various stories about this. It seems as if Edward's brother was pretty quickly on the scene. There is one story from a much, much later period that his wife, Eleanor of Castile, sucked poison from the wound. Because the idea being the blade may have been poisoned. In fact, that doesn't seem to have been the case. But it's one of the stories told about the incident.
- Matthew Lewis: It's a great medieval romantic tale to add on to it. And so how do we know that the attack on Lord Edward was by the Assassins? Do they claim credit for it?
- Nicholas Morton: That's a complicated question. We know that an assassination attempt occurred. But there is a temptation when studying Near Eastern history to assign every assassination to the Assassins because they're well known for that. People could murder one another for all sorts of reasons and different factions could do that. So we can never be quite sure. And certainly there are other groups who may have conducted the assassination. And it may not have been as simple as it's being the Mamluk Sultan commissioning it. May have been one of the regional governors instead. It's difficult to be sure. All we can say is that because the assassination attempt itself had many of the hallmarks of the typical approaches the Assassins used previously to assassinate. Disguising himself as one of Edward's followers, waiting for a moment of when Edward's guard was dropped and then conducting the act. That would be fairly standard for the Assassins. But that's no guarantee. And so it's always one of these sorts of grey area questions which of course would have strengthened the Assassins' hand at the time. People can never be quite sure who it was they were up against.
- Matthew Lewis: And I guess to some extent if they develop a known tactic it becomes repeatable by someone else who could make it look like an attempt by the Assassins.
- Nicholas Morton: Yep, absolutely. And so once again there are question marks over these sorts of things. But of course the Assassins, their whole purpose is to live in the shadows and to play with those grey areas. So that whole grey area would work in their favour.
- Matthew Lewis: And does Edward make much of the assassination attempt himself? I guess surviving an assassination attempt would have been a mark of prestige for him. It shows how brave and how strong he was.
- Nicholas Morton: Quite possibly. Certainly the incident became very well known in Western Christendom soon afterwards. And you have various sort of songs and elaborations and reinterpretations told of the story in later years. Yes, absolutely.
- Matthew Lewis: And do we know why the Assassins may have gone after Edward I? Or does that remain a mystery?
- Nicholas Morton: That's not clear. I mean Edward's crusade has occasionally been billed as this sort of epic contest, as it were. The crusaders coming in, the Muslim powers trying to defeat this crusade. In fact, it wasn't. Edward's army was not large. The papacy had hoped to raise a big army and hadn't. Edward arrived with a fairly small crusading force. He conducted a couple of very, very limited campaigns. And they were so limited that actually the Mamluk Sultan mocked them simply because they weren't making any difference to the status quo whatsoever. And so in a sense, I'm rather surprised that Edward was targeted, not because he was an enemy to the Mamluk Sultan, who could then, of course, leverage support from the Assassins, but because geopolitically, he was fairly insignificant by this stage. One suggestion that has been made is that the Mamluk Sultan wanted a treaty with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which Edward opposed. So this may have been a way of making sure that treaty happened. But the thing that surprises me most about the assassination is that it happened at all, because quite honestly, by this stage, the Kingdom of Jerusalem is such a minor player in the affairs of the Near East. The big players are the Mongols and the Mamluks, and they're facing off along the line of the River Euphrates. Kingdom of Jerusalem's hardly got any military leverage at all by this stage.
- Matthew Lewis: Could it have been an effort just to finish off the crusader kingdoms? (34:38) I mean, they don't last too much longer after this anyway.
- Nicholas Morton: They don't, and that would make sense. Although to be honest, Edward wasn't billed to be going home fairly soon after this anyway. It may have been a show of strength, though, you're right.
- Matthew Lewis: We know that in that moment, Edward's assassin was captured and was killed at the scene. But what would generally happen to an Assassin if their attempt failed?
- Nicholas Morton: Well, if an assassination attempt failed, the Assassin would either get away or more likely they wouldn't, in which case the Assassin specifically would be killed. But it's actually quite rare to hear of repercussions against the Assassin's territorial holdings. Once they had the protection of the Mamluk Sultanate, essentially that gave them a fair degree of protection anyway. There was a case in 1213 when the assassins killed the son of one of the rulers of the Crusader states. And following that, there was a campaign directly against the Assassin's strongholds as a repercussion of that. But often because the Assassins conduct their assassinations for their patron, as it were, the person who has a fair degree of control over them, normally it's the patron who gets blamed rather than them themselves.
- Matthew Lewis: It seems like the core message here is if you go to the Holy Lands on Crusade and someone offers to be of service and seems like a really useful, helpful chap, probably don't take him into your service.
- Nicholas Morton: Well, unless you're very confident in your relationship with the Assassins, certainly.
- Matthew Lewis: Thank you very much for joining us today, Nick, to run through all of that. And a big reminder to people to look out Nick's book, The Mongol Storm, which is available in all good bookstores everywhere. Thank you very much, Nick.
- Nicholas Morton: Thank you so much.
- Matthew Lewis: Join us again next time on Assassins vs Templars when I'm joined by Dr. Juliet Wood to talk about the Templars, the Grail and the mythology that surrounds them. Make sure you're following the Echoes of History podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts so you don't miss an episode in this fascinating series. This series is a special collaboration between Ubisoft and History Hit with post-production undertaken by Paradiso Media.