e town off ered no resistance and the
T H E
A F T E R M AT H
145
Christian lords were quickly and comfortably accommodated in Nablus with their troops.
Back in Jerusalem, feeling abandoned and betrayed, Count Raymond
stormed off from the city on the 28 July, declaring himself dishonoured.
Ignoring the threat posed by the long-awaited Egyptian army, Count Raymond, with those personally loyal to him as well as the crowds who had believed in the popular visionary Peter Bartholomew, took themselves to the Jordan and having gathered palms undertook a strange ritual. Peter Bartholomew had given instruction to Count Raymond that his desires would be met by God if he were rowed across the river on a raft of branches, clad only in his shirt and trousers, there to be prayed for by the crowd. Th
e signifi cance of the ritual was
unknown to those present, but Count Raymond underwent it all the same. It acted as a salve for his hurt and as a demonstration that some crusaders, at least, still believed in his special relationship to God.21
Inside the walls of Jerusalem, however, Godfrey was presented with an even greater sign of God’s favour. As it had become more and more likely that the Christian army would reach Jerusalem and besiege of the city, one of the Christian clergy living in Jerusalem had taken their most venerated relic and hidden it. A fragment of the cross on which Christ was crucifi ed had been made into a gold clad cross about 20 centimetres high. Fearing that this, the Lord’s Cross, would either be stripped of its gold by Ift ikhār’s men or damaged in the turmoil of the siege, the cleric had hidden it in a run-down and dusty house, one that had been long abandoned. Now that there was a rightful Christian ruler in the city, the cleric felt it safe to bring the cross to light again.
On Friday 29 July 1099 – a day that co-incidentally saw the death of Pope Urban II, shortly before the news arrived in Rome of the success of his crusade – a great procession was held through the streets of Jerusalem, where the clergy led the people to the hiding place of the relic. Th
en, with great veneration for the
cross, all returned to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was a very auspicious start for the new prince.22
Th
e other keystone of Christian control of Jerusalem was the election of a patriarch to head the clergy. If the patriarch was not to be the head of a theocratic system of government over the city, he still was a powerful fi gure, in charge of greater revenues than were available to the king and with a great deal of autonomy. Clearly it was of great importance to Godfrey that the chosen patriarch was someone whom he could co-operate with. It did not trouble the Latin Christian army that the clergy of Jerusalem already had a head. Th eir
patriarch, Simeon II, had fl ed to Cyprus in anticipation of the siege. From the island he had done his best to ingratiate himself with the crusading princes,
146
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
sending them gift s of pomegranates, fruits, fat bacons and fi ne wines. Th is
counted for little in the aft ermath of the conquest, for the Latin Christians wanted one of their own, even if that meant the risk of producing a schism between the recently arrived clergy and those loyal to their former patriarch.
Th
e diffi
culty for the Christian clergy was in fi nding a suitable candidate from among their own ranks. Th
ere were very few survivors with anything like
the education expected for someone holding such an exalted position. Otto of Strasbourg would have been an attractive candidate from Godfrey’s point of view, not least in his respect for secular authority. But his past association with the enemies of the reform papacy counted against him, as did his desire to return to Germany. It was the Norman, Arnulf of Chocques, who – as he had long hoped – therefore emerged as the leading candidate.
Arnulf of Chocques was skilled at logic and had taught the subject to Cecilia, daughter of William the Conqueror, at the Holy Trinity convent in Caen. In grammatical learning too, Arnulf was qualifi ed for a high position in the church. On the death of the crusading bishop Odo of Bayeux at Palermo, early in 1097, Arnulf inherited control of a great deal of the bishop’s funds and valuable possessions. With this came a higher profi le among the Christian army and Arnulf proved to be a very capable speaker and leader of Christian services.23
Above all because of his education, Arnulf was a clear contender for the position of patriarch. But his authority was undermined by the fact that the former supporters of Peter Bartholomew – who included some of the more fervent and popular preachers – hated him as being responsible for the visionary’s death. To some extent Arnulf had tried to conciliate the neutrals and the local Christians by gaining a share of the silver from the Dome of the Rock for the Church. But Arnulf ’s enemies drew attention to the fact that he was an illegitimate child: worse, the child of a clergyman. Moreover, during the course of the crusade his enjoyment of the company of women had earned Arnulf such a notorious reputation that the versemakers of the expedition were inspired to compose salacious tales about him. 24
What might have tipped the balance with the neutrals and secured Arnulf ’s appointment was his active leadership during the course of the crusade and a willingness to share the risks of the soldiers. At Nicea he had stood among the throwing machines, urging the soldiers on in the hard and dangerous work of fl inging stone aft er stone at the city. At Dorylaeum Arnulf had been among those in the vanguard of the army who – under the leadership of Bohemond –
had weathered half a day of attack while waiting for the rest of the army to come up; there he had kept his composure and helped organize the initial
T H E
A F T E R M AT H
147
scattered army into a coherent defensive force. Most noted of all his deeds was the fact that in the spring of 1099 Arnulf had volunteered to leave the siege of ‘Arqā, go to the coast and sail north, skirting the Arab cities, to fi nd Godfrey and Robert of Normandy and remonstrate with them on the need to rejoin the rest of the army, given the rumoured approach of a Turkish force.25
On 1 August 1099 Arnulf won the acclaim of the majority of the assembled clergy. As with Godfrey’s title a certain amount of tact was required in consolidating his position. Given the sensitivity of the position and the signifi cant level of opposition, Arnulf took the title of Chancellor of the Holy Church of Jerusalem, Procurator of the Holy Relics and Custodian of the Alms of the Faithful. In eff ect he was the patriarch and it was only a matter of days before he was using the term in his letters, but Arnulf awaited papal confi rmation of his extraordinary promotion with a certain anxiety and caution. As leader of the Church of Jerusalem, Arnulf ’s fi rst act was to agree with a proposal by Godfrey that 20 brothers should be assigned to keep the divine offi ces, singing
praises and hymns to Christ every hour, and off ering mass. Th
ey would be paid
for out of the off erings that came to the Church. To let the Christian population of the city know when psalms were being sung and mass was underway, they commissioned bronze bells, for under Muslim rule no Christian church had bells that sounded, nor had any other signal been made from a church that service had begun.26
In the two weeks since the Jerusalem had fallen, while the Christians were manoeuvring against one another in order to shape their structures for governing the city, al-Afdal had fi nally brought his great army out of Cairo. Th e vizier
was a methodical man and fully aware of the importance of eff ective logistical support for a major military undertaking. He had led an army to capture Jerusalem in August 1098 and had done so very effi
ciently by bringing with
him a great number of mangonels and plenty of supplies for the construction of more. Despite the advantages of catching the Christian army outside the walls of the city, al-Afdal could not accelerate the motions of the Fatimid bure
aucracy in time to achieve this: it took around two months to fully mobilize the army.
Th
e mustering of the Fatimid army was always a cumbersome process, with civil administrators having to be part of the process as they were responsible for the soldiers’ pay. In 1099 the mobilization was hampered by the fact that Egypt had experienced a serious plague on and off for the previous fi ve years, as well as the fact that the army had marched north only the previous year, bringing with it much of the equipment stored in the three great storehouses of Cairo. Th
e state armoury and arsenal, including a workshop employing
148
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
3,000 craft smen, had been labouring hard to replenish the necessary arms and armour. When it did fi nally get underway, however, the Fatimid army was an impressive sight. Berbers and Arabs provided the light cavalry that were so important to the pattern of warfare in the region, but a more heavily armoured component was present in the form of Armenian horsemen and Sudanese foot soldiers. Th
e latter formed about a third of the armed forces available to
al-Afdal and were distinctive to Christian eyes, due to the darkness of their skin and the fact they were armed with unusual weaponry. As well as bows, which they fi red from bended knee, they had iron-tipped whips that when wielded skilfully could strike with such force that they splintered shields and even cut through the links of chain mail. Th
ese whips could be used to lash at the faces
of approaching horses, deterring the all-important charge of the Christian cavalry and had the additional psychological advantage that their use in large numbers created an intimidating wave of noise. 27
All in all, the Fatimid army assembling at Ascalon was around 20,000 strong, many of them troops of the highest calibre. If al-Afdal, who was personally leading the army, was a little complacent, that was understandable. His general Ift ikhār was in Ascalon with the garrison from the citadel of Jerusalem and with an accurate assessment of the strength of the Christian army. Th e Muslim
troops could expect to face about 1,200 knights and 10,000 foot soldiers and should have a considerable advantage in siege equipment. Th
e odds therefore
favoured the Egyptians by some two to one. Still, there was no reason to take any chances and al-Afdal waited at Ascalon for the fl eet to bring the supplies that would be needed for the siege and for reinforcements from the coastal cities.
News of the growing size of the Fatimid camp outside of Ascalon reached Jerusalem on 4 August. Godfrey’s response was to send a messenger to Nablus, to set Tancred and Eustace’s troop in motion with orders to scout for accurate intelligence. Th
e Christian ruler of Jerusalem set the rendezvous for Ramla and
while Tancred rode west to the coast, Godfrey acted with great energy to get the maximum possible number of soldiers in the fi eld. Already he had decided not to be penned up within the walls of the city but to go out and meet the enemy in the fi eld.
Th
e scouting manoeuvre by Tancred and Eustace was successful. Riding southwards from Caesarea with the sea on their right hand side, their presence in the area was entirely unexpected and the Christian princes surprised a group of riders from the vanguard of the Fatimid army that they encountered on 7 August. Th
e Christian knights scattered their opponents and took several
captive. Th
ese prisoners confi rmed that al-Afdal was at Ascalon with the core
T H E
A F T E R M AT H
149
of the Egyptian army just awaiting the arrival of the fi nal batch of supplies and reinforcements before setting out. A courier was sent at once to Jerusalem confi rming that the rumours were correct, while Tancred and Eustace continued on to Ramla.28
Leaving only a small garrison for the Tower of David and the city, Godfrey rode out for Ramla on 9 August in the company of Robert of Flanders, the Patriarch and his clerical ally Arnulf, bishop-elect of Bethlehem. Before their departure a barefoot procession had been held before the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple of the Lord, praying to God not to allow the sacred places so recently purifi ed to be profaned once more. Peter the Hermit – the talisman of the poor – and the Patriarch took up the Holy Cross and carried it with the departing knights.29
Whereas Robert of Flanders accepted the need to accompany Godfrey without demur, for once his close friendship with Robert of Normandy broke down. Th
e Norman duke and Raymond of Toulouse were doubtful. Was this all simply an exaggerated alarm so that Godfrey could set a precedent in wielding power over them all? Rather than leave with the others, they simply sent ahead a few trustworthy knights. Only aft er these knights had raced back with the news that the prospect of battle was indeed a genuine one did Robert of Normandy and Count Raymond ride out of Jerusalem, leaving the city almost bare of defenders and the remaining population praying fervently and inces-santly that the Christian warriors would not be overcome.
In the meantime, Arnulf, the bishop-elect of Bethlehem could not be found, nor was he ever seen again by the Christian army. Duke Godfrey had given the bishop the responsibility of returning to Jerusalem to encourage the stragglers to hurry if they wanted to participate in the coming battle. Arnulf ’s alliance with his namesake, Arnulf of Chocques, now patriarch, had advanced his prospects for a successful career in the Holy City and its environs. Th at career was
abruptly terminated by his capture en route between Ramla and Jerusalem.
Given that no subsequent eff ort was made to ransom the bishop or exchange him for a senior Muslim prisoner, it is likely that Arnulf was killed on the spot.
On 11 August, with their full force of knights, about 1,200, and with 9,000
foot soldiers, the crusading army set out for Ascalon. It was almost reckless in ambition, to march so deep into enemy territory with such a modest force.
But to take the off ensive had the critical advantage that the majority of the army wished to return to Europe and might not have united in order to conduct a potentially long and diffi
cult defence of Jerusalem. Furthermore, they
had the example of Bohemond’s daring march to intercept the much greater
150
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
force of Ridwan of Aleppo at the siege of Antioch. All the senior knights, except those with Count Raymond and Robert of Normandy had fought in that famous victory.
All the same, it was a terrible gamble, to march nearly 40 kilometres into hostile territory to give battle. Th
e consequences of defeat would be disastrous.
Not only would Jerusalem be lost, but it would be unlikely that many of the knights, let alone the foot soldiers, would escape all the way back to Antioch and safety. Th
is really was an ‘all or nothing’ encounter and the Christian
princes knew it. No longer bickering for position, everyone accepted Godfrey’s command. Th
e ruler of Jerusalem was careful not to antagonize anyone and
included all the prominent leaders in his councils. Th
eir fi rst decree was to
emphasize that the coming battle was about the security of their lives and of Christian Jerusalem and not about booty. Any crusader who began looting before the battle was concluded would have their ears and nose cut off . Th ey
also agreed a marching order that took into account the danger of being surrounded and the typical tactics of the Muslim armies they had fought thus far.
Assuming that a simple formation of vanguard and rearguard would fi nd itself enveloped, the Christians spaced out their order of march into three sections based on their regional affi
liation, front, middle and back, each of which in
turn was organized with three distinct sections:
Th
e idea, potentially a very eff ective one, was that no matter which direction an attack came from,
the commander of a section could turn to face the enemy without creating major weaknesses for the army as a whole. Duke Godfrey in the centre was available to bolster the ranks that most needed assistance. In the event, the careful planning of their marching order proved to be unnecessary, the Egyptian army was still in camp.30
T H E
A F T E R M AT H
151
Towards sunset, about 25 kilometres north of Ascalon, the crusaders encountered enormous herds of cattle, camels, oxen, sheep and goats. Th ese
animals were being brought to feed the huge numbers of soldiers at Ascalon and provide them with milk and meat for the coming siege. Th
e herdsmen fl ed
at the approach of the Christian army, although as they numbered in the thousands they might have put up suffi
cient resistance to save a sizeable part of
the herd from capture. But their shock at the unexpectedly large force marching towards them was too great to think of anything but escape. In keeping with their new rule concerning booty, there was no dispersal of the crusading army in pursuit of these animals, nor any attempt to rope them off as personal property. To meet the needs of feeding the Christian army, a certain number of the sheep were butchered, but the rest of the animals were ignored.
Th
at night around their camp fi res the crusaders spent a wretched time, without tents or wine and with very little bread, grain or salt. Meat, at least, was in abundance, with mutton being substituted for bread. A strange and disconcerting rumour spread that al-Afdal intended to massacre all those in Jerusalem over 20 years of age, but that the younger Franks would be held in captivity to mate with Egyptian women to breed a warrior race from Frankish stock.
Meanwhile, the fl eeing herdsmen arrived at the camp of al-Afdal. Th eir reports
were, however, somewhat garbled. It was a serious blow that a Christian raiding party had stolen the herds intended for the siege of Jerusalem, but the Egyptian vizier had no idea that the full force of the crusade was nearly upon him. Rather, he assumed that the knights would be returning in the direction of Jerusalem with their spoils. Th
ere was no need for hasty measures; instead he planned to
The Siege of Jerusalem: Crusade and Conquest in 1099 Page 24
