by John France
The fortunes of individual princes fluctuated. Before the final battle against Kerbogha, Godfrey and Robert of Flanders had to beg horses from the count of Toulouse for themselves, but this should not be taken to indicate simple poverty. For at the same time Godfrey could provide Henry of Esch with commons. Rather, confined as they were in Antioch they could not get horses. Princes were rich and had presumably brought much money with them. They had been given rich presents by Alexius and would have taken the bulk of the loot on all occasions. After the capture of Antioch when the plunder had made them rich they took the poor into their service. During and after the siege of Antioch they obtained bases for themselves, such as that of Count Raymond at Rugia which he had seized at the beginning of the siege.72 In an interesting aside Raymond of Aguilers tells us what was expected of a prince: Raymond of Toulouse, he says, had been ill and took custody of the Mahommeries tower to avoid charges of sloth, for it was being said in the army that he was prepared ‘neither to fight nor to pay’.73 The nominally independent elements in the army were drawn into the orbits of the Princes by want and the threat of want, as well as by considerations of propinquity, nation, political preference and military necessity. In the end they had little choice, for the situation in which they found themselves was always threatening and often desperate. It was to the princes that they turned to lead them into battle and to succour them in distress – ‘to fight, to pay’ neatly summarises the role of the princes which bound the army together and made it a dynamic fighting force. When it broke into Antioch but failed to win the citadel, and then was besieged by Kerbogah the army fell into despair. Some refused to fight and had to be burned out of their hiding places, while many fled. In this dark moment of despair Adhémar seized an opportunity to assert the unity of the army. On the night of 10–11 June a priest, Stephen of Valence, had a vision of Christ promising divine aid. Adhémar made the man take a public oath affirming its truth, then obliged the princes to swear that they would not desert.74 In this moment of peril the crusaders were assured of God’s aid, and of the presence and leadership of the princes. This affirmation of the solidarities which bound the expedition together was the basis for its recovery from despair.
The princes riveted the elements of the crusade together. By and large they managed to agree amongst themselves until the issue of the future of Antioch, and with it the whole expedition, became acute. Bohemond had been responsible for securing the betrayal of the city and he was promised control of it if the emperor did not come to their aid. Less than three weeks after the defeat of Kerbogah he was acting as ruler of the city, granting a charter to the Genoese on 14 July. When all met to discuss the future of the crusade in November, it was in the knowledge that Alexius had broken off his attempt to relieve Antioch. A letter from the leaders to Urban II, dated 11 September 1098, clearly reflected bitter hostility to the Byzantines, and in these circumstances only Raymond of Toulouse was prepared to stand for the Byzantine alliance.75 This quarrel over Antioch, the death of Adhémar of Le Puy on 1 August 1098, and many other doubts and worries led the leaders to hesitate, and it was their uncertainty which stalled the crusade and precipitated the alternative leadership of a visionary, Peter Bartholemew and his clerical associates who, playing upon the driving force of the crusade, supplemented the power of the princes. It was an unstable situation which could not continue, but it reveals how powerful was the basic religious motivation of the crusaders and the influence of the princes. When they diverged the crusade stalled.
There can be no doubt that religious enthusiasm was fundamental to the success of the First Crusade. Participation offered an escape from the certainty of hell-fire, and death in such a glorious cause the consolations of martyrdom.76 This was not an unalloyed and pure idealism. The formulations of the church might separate out ‘devotion’ from ‘honour and money’ but for the laity, righteous war invoked rightful reward. Fine distinctions were submerged in a blast of enthusiasm for a skilfully publicised idea which seemed, for a moment, to offer a bridge between the military and religious preoccupations of the European upper classes. But motivation in itself goes only part of the way to explaining the success of the crusade. That enthusiasm was structured by the form of the vow which gave the clergy some influence and, buttressed by national and feudal solidarity, centred on the great princes. The binding role of the princes can easily be underestimated for by modern standards this was a ramshackle army. But contemporary armies were not monolithic and it was of these that the leaders had experience. When they fell to arguing at the very moment that the Papal Legate died, the solidarities which had driven on the crusade almost collapsed. The politics of the crusade after the capture of Antioch are fascinating, but they are important because of what they reveal about the forces which drove the expedition on. The basic morale upon which the fighting qualities of the crusade depended had a complex make-up, but it was sufficiently fierce to lay the foundations of victory in the east. That victory, of course, owed something to other factors, most notably the divisions of the Islamic world, the military consequences of which will be considered below. But in this examination of the history of the First Crusade the emphasis will be upon the military experience of its participants and the way they drew upon and adapted this in the novel experience which brought victory in the east.
* * *
1 Raymond of Aguilers, Liber, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1969) (hereafter cited as RA), p. 151, tr. by A. G. Krey, The First Crusade (Princeton, 1921, Gloucester, 1958), p. 261.
2 The emperor, Alexius I, had a daughter Anna whose life of her father, The Alexiad, reveals Byzantine attitudes to the crusaders. Her angry belief that the Westerners had broken their promises, made to Alexius in 1096, when they seized Antioch in 1098 is a revelation of the importance attached by the Greeks to that city: J. France, ‘Anna Comnena, the Alexiad and the First Crusade’, Reading Medieval Studies, 10 (1983), 21–8. Anna was at pains to conceal that her father had asked for western help at the Council of Piacenza in March 1095, on which see S. Runciman, History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1951–4), 1. 103–5.
3 Nor is this hindsight. Genoa responded to Pope Urban’s appeal by sending a fleet and as early as July 14 1098 had concluded a treaty with Bohemond establishing their trading privileges in Antioch: H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck, 1902), pp. 155–6.
4 For a discussion of numbers see below pp. 122–142.
5 B. S. Bachrach, ‘Some observations on the military administration of the Norman Conquest’, Battle, 8 (1985), 2–4 speaks of a ‘scholarly consensus’ on the figure of 14,000; The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock (London, 1961), ‘E’ 1085, 1086. For the campaign of 1081, F. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907), 1. 265–84, accepts the figure of 15,000 suggested by the Little Norman Chronicle, an. 1080, in Amalfi im Frühen Mittelalter, ed. U. Schwarz, but Ordericus Vitalis, Historia aecclesiastica, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–79) (hereafter cited as OV), 4. 17 suggests only 10,000.
6 I am indebted for these figures and for much other geographical information to members of the Geography Department of University College Swansea, Professor D. T. Herbert, Dr A. Parry and G. B. Lewis. Of course we cannot know exactly how far they travelled, but these and other figures represent approximations based on what we know of their route.
7 Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R. Hill (London, 1962), pp. 23, 27 (hereafter cited as GF).
8 GF, pp. 28–71, 87–92.
9 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolimitana, ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913) [hereafter cited as FC], pp. 65–67; C. Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of the Crusade, tr. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton, 1977), pp. 355–71 tried to reconcile Fulcher’s omission by suggesting that Jerusalem was merely the goal of the expedition’s march and not the object of its endeavour; H. E. Mayer, The Crusades, tr. J. Gillingham (Oxford, 1972), p. 9 n. 6, gives the idea
support, but the arguments of H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban’s preaching of the First Crusade’, History, 55 (1970), 177–88 supported by J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), pp. 22–23 in favour of Jerusalem having always been Urban’s goal seem to me decisive.
10 The foundation of almost all modern thinking on Urban’s indulgence is Erdmann, Origins, but see also P. Alphandéry and A. Dupront, La Chrétienité el Vidée de croisade, 2 vols. (Paris, 1954–9) 1. 9–80; Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 17–25; Mayer, Crusades, pp. 8–37.
11 E. Caspar (ed.), Das Register Gregors VII, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1920–3), 1.69–71, 75–6, 172–3; on northern crusaders in the Spanish wars of the eleventh century see M. Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne au xie et xiie siècles (Paris, 1949).
12 R. Somerville, The Councils of Urban IL vol. 1, Decreta Claramontensia (London, 1972), pp. 9–41; J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, Raymond IV Count of Toulouse, (Syracuse, 1962), pp. 31–2; on Adhémar see J. G. d’Adhémar-Laubaume, Adhémar de Monteil, légat du pape sur la première croisade (Le Puy, 1910), and L. Bréhier, Adhémar de Monteil, un évêque à la première croisade (Le Puy, 1923).
13 R. Crozet, ‘Le voyage d’Urbain II et ses arrangements avec le clergé de France (1095–96)’, Revue Historique, 179 (1937), 270–310; R. Somerville, ‘The French Councils of Urban II; some basic considerations’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 2 (1970), 56–65; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, pp. 137–8; A. Becker, Papst Urban II (1088–99) (Stuttgart, 1964), pp. 232–80.
14 On the growth of religious sentiment and pilgrimage in the early eleventh century see Rodulfus Glaber Opera, ed. J. France (Oxford, 1989) [Hereafter cited as Glaber], pp. lxix–lxx, 96–7, 132–3, 198–203; on the cult of saints there is a huge literature but for an interesting local study see T. Head, Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: the Diocese of Orléans 800–1200 (Cambridge, 1990). See also B. Ward, Miracles and the Medieval Mind (Philadelphia, 1982).
15 I. S. Robinson, Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest (London, 1978). The life of Robert of Arbrissel illustrates the wide social appeal of the new piety, Vita beati Roberti de Arbrisello, PL 162. 1043–1078; on the context of his preaching V. W. Turner, The Forest of Symbols, (Cornell, 1967). See also H. Leyser, Hermits and the New Monasticism (London, 1984). Glaber, pp. 115–16 noted the rebuilding of village churches as well as those of great institutions.
16 Of the eleventh century it has been said: ‘Le temps du roi semble passé. Le temps des princes commence.’ J. Fiori, L’idéologie du glaive; préhistoire de la chevalerie (Geneva, 1983), p. 168.
17 Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, p. 47.
18 Glaber, pp. 106–9, 60 n. 2, 61–5. Fulk has been the subject of much study. For insight into the world of the princes see B. S. Bachrach, ‘A study in feudal politics; relations between Fulk Nerra and William the Great, 995–1030’, Viator, 7 (1976), 111–22.
19 Caspar, Gregors VII, 1. 423–4; Riley-Smith cites two participants in the First Crusade, Anselm of Ribemont and Arnold of Ardres who were famous for their piety and patrons of monastic houses: Idea of Crusading, p. 10.
20 Erdmann, Origins’, Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 1–12.
21 G. Duby, La Société aux xie et xiie siècles dans la région mâconaise (Paris, 1971), pp. 196–204, The Chivalrous Society (London, 1977) pp. 123–33, 150–77, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, tr. A. Goldhammer (Chicago, 1980), pp. 296–98; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘The Peace and Truce of God in the eleventh century’, Past and Present, 46 (1970), 42–67; ‘Genesis of the Crusades: springs of western ideas of Holy War’, in T. P. Murphy, ed., The Holy War, (Ohio, 1976), pp. 9–32; C. Morris, ‘Equestris Ordo: chivalry as a vocation in the twelfth century’, in R. Baker, ed., Religious Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, Studies in Church History, 15 (Oxford, 1978) pp. 87–96.
22 H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Bishop Ermenford of Sion and the penitential ordinance following the battle of Hastings’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 20 (1969), 225–42; Glaber, pp. 114–15, n. 206–7; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Cluny and the First Crusade’, Revue Bénédictine, 83 (1973), 285–311.
23 I. S. Robinson, ‘Gregory VII and the soldiers of Christ’, History, 58 (1973), 169–92, Authority and resistance, pp. 99–102; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory VII’s “Crusading” plans of 1074’, in B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C. Smail, eds. Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer, (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 27–40 (hereafter cited as Outremer); Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 1–12.
24 Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne, pp. 138–9; D. W. Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain (London, 1978), p. 60.
25 Robinson, ‘Soldiers of Christ’, 169–92; J. Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 18–19.
26 Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne, pp. 135–7, 143–4. On the supposed indulgence of Alexander II see P. Boissonade, ‘Cluny, la papauté et la première croisade internationale contre les Sarracins d’Espagne: Barbastro 1064–65’, Revue des Questions Historiques, 117 (1932), 237–301, ‘Les premières croisades françaises en Espagne: Normands, Gascons, Aquitains et Bourguignons (1018–32), Bulletin hispanique, 36 (1934), 5–28, and for the evidence against, A. Ferreiro, ‘The siege of Barbastro 1064–5: a reassessment’, Journal of Medieval History, 9 (1983), 129–47, in which, however, the consistent papal support for war in Spain is made very clear.
27 See for example a through examination of chivalric society’s attitudes to war in the Anglo-Norman world: M. J. Strickland, The Conduct and Perception of War under the Anglo-Norman and Angevin Kings 1075–1217, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1989, especially pp. 177–213, 237–80.
28 Ibid, p. 347.
29 J. Nelson, ‘Ninth century knighthood: the evidence of Nithard’, in C. Harper-Bill, C. J. Holdsworth and J. Nelson, eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen-Brown, (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 255–66 has argued for the early existence of ideas of knighthood; J. Fiori, ‘Les origines de l’adoubement chevaleresque’, Traditio, 35 (1979), 209–272; L’idéologie du glaive, pp. 135–57; L’essor de la chevalerie, X–XIII siècles, (Geneva, 1986), pp. 9–42, 223–67; M. Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony, c. 970–1130 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 155–204; Professor J. Riley-Smith is also preparing a book on early crusaders and I am equally indebted to him for information and discussion.
30 On contradictions between the elements of developed chivalry, the warrior ethic, ecclesiastical ethics and courtliness see S. Painter, French Chivalry (Cornell, 1964).
31 Here I agree with Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 27–9, that what was on offer was literally ‘remission of sin’.
32 See especially the description of the devil in Glaber, pp. 219–20. On the emergence of the devil see J. B. Russell, Lucifer: the Devil in the Middle Ages, (Cornell, 1984), especially pp. 92–128 and R. Colliot, ‘Rencontres du moine Raoul Glaber avec le diable d’après ses histoires’, Le Diable au Moyen Age (Paris, Aix-en-Provence, 1979), pp. 117–32. On the problem of salvation and its solutions see J. Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, tr. A. Goldhammer (London, 1984). As an example of eleventh-century hagiography see Bernardus Scholasticus, Liber de miraculis sanctae Fidis, PL 141. 127–64.
33 OV, 4. 49, 5. 217. On ‘Girart’ see below p. 13, n. 38; Adhémar de Chabannes, Chronique, ed. J. Chavanon (Paris, 1897), pp. 178.
34 Ferreiro, ‘Barbastro’, 140–1.
35 Defourneaux, Les Français en Espagne, pp. 143–5; GF, pp. 33–4. William has been identified as one of the sources for the character of the treacherous Ganelon in the Song of Roland, Defourneaux, p. 269, n. 2.
36 De nobili genere Crispinorum PL 150, 735–44.
37 S. Runciman, 1. 62–3, 66–7. On the Normans in Byzantium see also below pp. 87–8, 98–102, 152–3; J. Godfrey, ‘The defeated Anglo-Saxons take service with the eastern empire’, Battle, 1 (1978)
, 63–74; J. Shepherd, ‘The English in Byzantium’, Traditio, 29 (1973), 53–92.
38 ‘He does not leave a good knight alive as far as Baiol, nor treasure nor monastery, nor church nor shrine nor censer nor cross nor sacred vase: anything that he seizes he gives to his companions. He makes so cruel a war that he does not lay hands on a man without killing, hanging and mutilating him’: Girart de Roussillon, Chanson de Geste, ed. W. M. Hackett, 3 vols. (Paris, 1953/55) and OV, 4. 48–9, 5. 216–17, quoted by M. J. Strickland, Conduct and Perception of War, pp. 1, 104–5; T. Reuter, ‘Plunder and Tribute in the Carolingian Empire’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 35 (1985), 75–94.
39 Somerville, Councils of Urban II, p. 74, author’s own translation; Glaber, pp. 200–201.
