The Fall of Acre and the Salvation of Sodom. The use of peccatis exigentibus in response to the loss of Acre in 1291.

Abstract

In 1291 the Egyptian Mamluks conquered the city of Acre. The loss of Acre has come to signify the end of the crusades into the eastern Mediterranean from the Latin West. This fact posed a great challenge to medieval audiences and the authors writing for them. The crusades were supposed to be ordained by God. How could their failure be explained in a world in which everything is supposed to happen according to God’s plan? A common discourse used to explain defeat that seemingly went against God’s plan is the so-called peccatis exigentibus. This phrase is frequently used in medieval historiography to posit that bad things happen to God’s favoured people – in the Latin Middle Ages this refers of course to the European Christians – as punishment for their sins. This template has been used and developed throughout the entire crusading period to explain the many defeats the crusading movement had to suffer since the early 12th century. It is again on display in various texts who now aim to explain the conquest of Acre from a Western point of few. This article explores the development of the peccatis exigentibus argument from its biblical roots to its particular place in crusader historiography in the 12th century and subsequently referring to the capture of Acre after 1291. The article then takes a closer look at two texts which in reaction to the conquest of Acre adapt the peccatis exigentibus argument with reference to the same passage from the Old Testament (Genesis 18,17–32) but arrive at very different conclusions.