In the opinion of William of Tyre, the leaders of the besiegers of Damascus were betrayed when they were on the point of success. The traitors said that the far side of the city was easier to capture than the point which they had attacked; the armies were moved there, but soon realised there was no food or water, while the wall was not much weaker. Food soon failed in the new camp, as the besiegers had brought little with them, hoping to live off the orchards. But they could not return to the orchards, as the citizens barricaded the paths with beams and rocks, making the defences much stronger than before. All realised the treachery and decided to retreat. William believed that all the leaders from the west thereafter looked at every plan made by local Palestinian Franks as potentially treacherous and lost interest in helping the kingdom; pilgrims in the future were, as a result, fewer and less fervent. William inquired carefully about the identity of the traitors, and could come to no conclusions: he mentions three rumours. By the first, Thierry of Flanders had secured the agreement of all the leaders to give him the lordship of Damascus when it was captured, infuriating some local barons into acting treacherously. By the second, Raymond of Antioch influenced the traitors, as he still pursued his quarrel with Louis VII. By the third, it was simple bribery, but the recipients later discovered that the enormous bribe was in worthless counterfeit money. William hoped that the guilty would receive their just deserts. [It is worth saying that treachery would be more acceptable as an explanation to William than, say, the weakening of the crusaders by their losses in Anatolia, their incompetence in siege warfare, or the increasing power of the Muslims.]