ABSTRACT
Attributing the critique to Thoros could be explained as the narrator choosing a figure whose rule could have come to be viewed nostalgically as something of a golden age. In the 1160s he had been on good terms with the Latins, but after his death relations between the Franks and Armenians were soured for a number of years by the hostility of Mleh, Thoros's brother, who deposed Thoros's heir and seized power for himself. Having announced that he will tell the story of Thoros's visit, the author immediately inserts a brief description of the topography of the Latin kingdom. This is not a clumsy digression but represents an important part of the critique, making a necessary point about strategic geography. The kingdom of Jerusalem was long and narrow and it would be easy for a successful invader to break through to the sea, thereby cutting the kingdom in two as indeed happened in the immediate aftermath of Hattin.
