Victory in the East

by John France

  Fig. 2 The journey of the First Crusade across Asia Minor

  Peter arrived at Constantinople on or about 1 August 1095 and was well received by Alexius. He advised that the crusaders should await the main armies now equipping in Western Europe, and shipped them all over into Asia Minor to a camp at Civitos (on the coast north of modern Altinova) on the southern shore of the Gulf of Nicomedia some fifty kilometres west of that city (now Izmit), where Albert makes it clear that ample supplies were provided (see fig. 2).39 Peter had charge of a significant military force, elements of which quickly began to tire of camp life and despite his prohibitions, to pillage. Nicaea, the capital of the Seljuk Turks, only lay some forty kilometres to the south down a steep road up the valley of the river Dracon (now Yalaç) and this acted as a magnet to would-be ravagers. A force of 7,000 foot and 300 knights was particularly successful in raiding this vicinity. A group of Germans and Italians of 3,000 foot and 200 knights, provoked by this example of Frankish daring, then attacked and seized Xerigordo, close to Nicaea, in late September and were massacred there by the Seljuks.40 Peter was at Constantinople asking for a reduction in food prices; presumably their level must have been a factor in these outbreaks. Walter Sans Avoir was now faced with demands for vengeance but he refused and most of the other captains of the army, Raynald de Broyes, Gautier de Breteuil and Fulcher of Orléans, supported him. However, Godfrey Burel, the leader of the infantry, disagreed and this crack in the front of authority enabled the popular clamour to succeed. An army of 25,000 foot and 500 knights sallied out to seek vengeance leaving behind only the women, children and the infirm. The Sultan Kilij Arslan’s forces were now well prepared and seeking the crusaders, who left camp on 21 October. They were organised in six groups, each formed around a banner. When they entered woodlands the Turks retired before them into the open plain at the edge of which they stood ready for battle. The westerners paused and sent forward the two groups of knights who were quickly encircled by Turks, who sent up a barrage of arrows and noise. The knights attacked, then recoiled towards the foot at the edge of the forest, and with their aid attacked again, but their horses were cut down by arrows so they were forced to fight on foot and were overwhelmed. Amongst the dead were Walter Sans Avoir and Raynald de Broyes, and when the survivors of the attack rejoined the main body its people took flight and were massacred.41 Peter’s camp soon fell and some 3,000 pilgrims sought refuge in an old fort which the enemy attacked, only to be driven off by imperial forces. Amongst the survivors it would seem that a large proportion were knights.42 The People’s Crusade had ended in tragedy, but not, it is worth saying, in farce. Albert of Aachen provides the only detailed account of events, but it shows an organised force which fought coherently until its élite, the 500 knights, were defeated. Obviously we cannot be certain of the numbers, but the Sultan was sufficiently alarmed to take the field himself at a time when he had other preoccupations. But if Peter’s army was much more than a mere rabble of poor men, it also lacked leadership. His charismatic figure sufficed to hold them together until there was trouble – in the Balkans accidental skirmishing, in Asia Minor rising prices. Even without him his captains knew military common sense when they saw it, but they were unable to present a united front. The failure of the People’s Crusade was a failure of authority – that was the contribution of the princes, who were assembling their forces in the West.

  We have seen the princes gathering money, and we can guess that they were also providing themselves with supplies, like those carried in Peter the Hermit’s wagon-train which was captured by the Byzantines in the fighting near to Nish.43 But how did they conceive their military task – what had Urban communicated to them and suggested or commanded, and what did they know of the lands for which they were setting out, and what of their new enemies? Those who set off on the People’s Crusade obviously saw their task as the annihilation of the enemies of Christ – they began with the Jews, may have extended it to the Hungarians in some cases, and were certainly hell-bent on it in the east. For them the crusade was the realisation of the command of God, ‘vengeance is mine’ and they His instruments. That this attitude was shared by all on the crusade is self-evident – the great massacres, such as that at Jerusalem, are clear evidence, but not everyone extended the idea to Jews. The notion of vengeance was an integral part of Urban’s appeal and in a certain sense was the chief objective of the crusade.44 But in the minds of the princes, with their great responsibilities, means and methods must have loomed as large as goals. What could they have learned from Urban II? For Urban the new expedition was part of the wider struggle against Islam, and he would actively prevent Spanish Christians from joining the expedition. He most certainly announced that the goal of the whole expedition was the liberation of Jerusalem, as we have noted.45 He appointed Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy as Legate and leader ‘in our stead’ and he fixed a date for their departure, 15 August 1096.46 He established a political objective which conditioned the conduct of the crusade – assistance for the Christians of the east. In practical terms this meant, above all, assistance for the Byzantine emperor. One of the most striking facts about the early twelfth-century histories of the crusades is the persistence in their accounts of Urban’s speech, of references to the need to help the Greeks. This is remarkable precisely because the contact between Latin and Greek, generated by the crusade, led to bitter hostility to Byzantium in the West. Despite this, Christian fraternity, upon which Urban’s appeal was based, remained a powerful influence upon crusader behaviour towards the Greek empire.47 It must, therefore, have been a powerful element in Urban’s original impulse to the crusade and we may presume that behind it lay the objective, so explicitly stated by Gregory VII in 1074, of uniting the churches of east and west under the authority of the Holy See, in other words ‘that the union of the Latin and Greek churches was one of the impelling motives in the call for the First Crusade’. Adhémar’s carefully conciliatory attitude to the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch who was restored to authority in his city after the crusader conquest, appears to confirm this.48 Certainly the crusade came at the end of a long series of negotiations between Urban and Alexius on unity.49 However, although Urban had laid down what was effectively a political condition which the crusaders had to meet, he appears not to have suggested how this might be done. Urban left military preparation to the leaders under the guidance of Adhémar who, however, does not seem to have been given the authority of an overall military commander, despite his military experience.50

  He went, perhaps, a little further than this. We may assume that it was Urban who informed the Byzantine emperor that he could expect important armies led by major leaders. He suggested that they gather at Constantinople. Conceivably he suggested that they should write to Alexius anouncing their coming, as some did.51 He certainly consulted with one of the leaders, Raymond of St Gilles, count of Toulouse, who had been the first to take the cross. The pope was in Raymond’s lands before Clermont and later was in his company in June and July of 1096 at a series of Councils in the Languedoc and Provence.52 It has been suggested that Raymond knew the mind of Urban, who had given him command of the entire expedition. Later he pursued a firm policy of friendship towards the Byzantine empire which we can presume was dear to Urban’s heart, but this is explicable in other terms for Raymond may have followed this line because he found it in his interests so to do. There is no firm indication of Raymond of St Gilles having been given any special position by Urban, and judging by the later efforts of the princes to resolve the question of leadership it is safe to conclude that he enjoyed no such eminence though it is important that he may have known Urban’s mind.53

  In leaving the planning up to the crusader leaders, Urban was conforming to the dictates of common sense. He was not a soldier and the conditions of the day, and in particular the tight timetable which he had laid down, precluded any meeting with them to seek their advice or to hammer out a plan. Moreover, he must have known that he could count on a considerable kn
owledge of eastern affairs amongst the leaders and their advisers. One striking feature of the First Crusade, which will be explored later, was the participation of fleets whose naval aid was essential for the success of the expedition. Most notable were the fleets of Genoa, Pisa and the ‘English’, which seem to have attacked the coastline of North Syria even before the crusaders arrived. We do not have any evidence that any of the military leaders of the crusade, nor the pope, made specific plans with those in charge of these expeditions.54 It is remarkable that they should have materialised in the waters off Antioch at such a propitious moment. The Genoese expedition of thirteen ships perhaps tried to co-ordinate its departure with the movements of the crusaders, for Urban had dispatched a legation to Genoa led by Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, and the later crusader, William bishop of Orange. Raymond of Toulouse may have suggested this for he was later closely associated with the Genoese. It sailed in July 1097 by which time the main armies were deep into Asia Minor.55 The fact that it took until mid-November to arrive at Antioch suggests that it sought information about the armies en route, for this was a long sailing time: by comparison the French fleet on the Third Crusade left Messina on 30 March 1191 and arrived at Acre on 8 June, while in 1183, Ibn Djobair travelled from Ceuta to Alexandria in twenty days.56 The English fleet must have set off much earlier to have reached the coast near Antioch well before the arrival of the crusaders in October 1097. It is, however, difficult to see how all these groups could have co-ordinated their movements. After the seizure of Laodicea, the English seem to have had close relations with Robert of Normandy, but the sources make no mention of any discussions in the West and the term Angli, used of this fleet, group, may refer to the people, generally of the North Sea area. Another English fleet called at Lucca where it picked up a local citizen, Bruno, whose adventures were later described in a letter sent out by the people of Lucca.57 In fact, the Italians must have been very well informed about the eastern Mediterranean. The merchants of Venice, Amalfi and Bari traded with Constantinople and Antioch. Indeed, in 1087, sailors from Bari stole the relics of St Nicholas from Myra. Shipping in this age tended to cling to coasts, and the northern route to the east via the Gyclades and Asia Minor was far safer than that along the North African coast onto which the fragile ships of the age could be easily driven by prevailing norther-lies.58 The merchants of Amalfi had close relations with the Fatimids who had been based in their familiar trading area of Tunis before their conquest of Egypt in 969, which may have been assisted by Amalfitan sea-power. In 996 more than a hundred merchants of Amalfi were killed and property belonging to the city valued at 90,000 dinars was destroyed in a riot in Cairo but contact continued. At the end of the eleventh century, Palermo was a thriving trading city with numerous contacts with the Islamic lands.59 Pisa and Genoa, which both interested themselves in the crusade, were outsiders in this trade for their power was concentrated in the western basin of the Mediterranean, but they would also have known about the east into whose trade they were anxious to break – it is notable that Amalfitans joined the Genoese expedition against Mahdia of 1087.60 Amalfi and Bari were of course within the Norman dominion in South Italy. The trading cities of Italy would have had a considerable knowledge of the east, and it was probably upon their knowledge that the ‘English’ fleet drew when making for Cyprus and the North Syrian littoral.

  Knowledge of the east was not, however, confined to the Italian trading cities. The pilgrimage to Jerusalem had become a mass movement in the eleventh century. Glaber’s famous passage about the mass of pilgrims going to the east in and around 1033, provoking some thinkers to speculate that it presaged the end of the world, is well known. In a nearby passage, however, he mentions the death of Robert the Magnificent, duke of Normandy (1027–35) at Nicaea while returning: his son, William the Conqueror, would later have his remains removed to Apulia. Fulk Nerra, count of Anjou, went to Jerusalem no fewer than three times.61 Further, a pattern of mass pilgrimage had developed which would have been familiar to the leaders of 1095. Richard of St Vannes was accompanied on his pilgrimage of 1026–7 William II Tallifer, count of Angoulême, along with many Aquitanians, Normans and Germans (a total of about 700), and his costs were defrayed by the duke of Normandy. In 1054–5 3,000 followed Lietbert of Cambrai on a journey to Jerusalem which was frustrated by war in the area. The decision of some West German bishops to go to Jerusalem in 1064 had also attracted great crowds of followers, perhaps as many as 7,000, and their ostentatious show of wealth attracted attack from brigands who had also troubled Richard of St Vannes, perhaps for the same reason.62 Pilgrimage to Jerusalem went on right up to the First Crusade; a knight from Jumièges appears to have travelled back from Jerusalem at the very time that the crusaders were fighting their way across Asia Minor.63 There was the obvious experience of Robert the Frisian, father of the Robert of Flanders, who joined the crusade. It is likely that he took different routes going to and from Jerusalem. From Anna Comnena we hear of him fighting with Alexius against the Patzinacks and promising to send him military support at Berrhoia (modern Stara Zagora), which is close to the route from the Danube down to Adrianople and thence to Constantinople. He also arranged the marriage of his daughter Adela, widow of Cnut II of Denmark, to Roger Borsa duke of Apulia, which would suggest that he took the route down through South Italy and across the Adriatic to the Via Egnatia and Constantinople. We have no certain knowledge, however, nor do we even know how long Robert spent in the east on a journey which took place between July 1086 and October 1089, but a period of over two years appears likely.64 The 500 knights whom he sent to Alexius served in the Balkans and in Asia Minor and presumably many of them returned to spread their knowledge widely. It is likely, therefore, that very recent and direct knowledge of the roads to the east and the distances to be travelled would have been common knowledge in the circle of the count of Flanders and his close associates, the house of Boulogne. More generally, any of the leaders would have known about the east from vassals and churchmen who had been on pilgrimage. Nor were pilgrims and merchants the sole sources of knowledge of the east. Many Normans took service with the Byzantine emperor, as we have noted. So did many Anglo-Saxons, whose service in the Varangian guard after 1066 is well known. Others settled under imperial auspices in the Crimea on the Black Sea.65 It seems very likely that the Anglo-Saxon monarchy had relations with the imperial court at Constantinople, and a seal of the Confessor bore the curious title Anglorum basileus. Robert II (996–1031) of France sent Ulric bishop of Orléans, as his ambassador to Constantinople in the reign of Constantine VIII (1025–8) with gifts of a precious sword and a reliquary; probably he was seeking a Byzantine bride whose glory would raise the prestige of the house of Capet. In the event his son Henry married Anna of Kiev, a lady with Byzantine relatives.66 A whole host of connections existed between the leaders of the First Crusade and the Byzantine east. They were not launching themselves into an unknown land, and their preparations presumably reflected knowledge of what was ahead of them. When Stephen of Blois, in a letter home to his wife Adela, estimated that, after the fall of Nicaea, Jerusalem was only five weeks away, he was probably drawing upon pilgrim experience which may have been widely shared.67 In summary, the leaders (and indeed many of those they led) would have known about the journey to Constantinople down the pilgrim way, and they would certainly have known something of the Greeks and their dealings. Even beyond Constantinople, the leaders would have had some notion of roads and distances. The South Italian Normans, whose relatives had fought for the emperors, should have known much more and so should the merchants of the Italian trading cities. So the men who would lead the crusade were not rushing headlong into the unknown. The pope had given them objectives and they could draw on a substantial body of knowledge. It was against this background that they prepared their armies and decided on their routes to Constantinople.

  Hugh of Vermandois was to be the first of the major leaders to depart. Significantly, he wrote to inform Alexius of his imminent ar
rival; Anna Comnena has preserved a memory of the letter, but gives it in a bombastic form intended to mock the westerners. Alexius’s immediate reaction to the letter was to alert the Governor of Dyrrachium (modern Durrës or Durazzo), which suggests that, in its original form, the letter mentioned Hugh’s proposed route. He travelled through Italy and, in October, crossed from Bari to Dyrrachium in company with Bohemond’s nephew, William son of the Marquis (see fig. 1). After their small fleet was shipwrecked, Hugh was rescued by the Governor and treated honourably ‘but he was not granted complete freedom’ as he was sent on to Constantinople where he arrived in November.68 The biggest group of north French nobles, led by Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders and Stephen of Blois, took the same route, meeting Urban II at Lucca in late October, the occasion when two of their clergy were given legatine powers. Thence they proceeded to Rome, where the disorders attendant on the division of the city between pope and anti-pope scandalised them. After that they journeyed via Monte Cassino to Bari where they were advised that it was too late in the season to make the crossing. Robert of Flanders crossed anyway; his was only a section of the combined force and perhaps he was more strongly motivated.69 We know nothing about his journey nor his relations with Alexius, for he had no chronicler with him. Anna makes no mention of him which is curious, for he was the son of Alexius’s friend and supporter Robert the Frisian. As for Curthose and Stephen, they stayed comfortably in Norman South Italy where they and their nobles could be sure of hospitality, presumably a factor which influenced the comfort-loving Robert to take this route in the first place. Significantly, Fulcher records that during this stay many poor pilgrims deserted – presumably because they were unable to maintain themselves in friendly territory which they could not pillage. It was during this sojourn in Italy that Odo of Bayeux died and was buried in Palermo, where Count Roger created a splendid monument to him. Attendant at his burial was Gilbert bishop of Evreux, though it is not certain that he had taken the cross for we hear nothing of him on the journey.70 It was not until early April of 1097 that Robert and Stephen prepared to cross the Adriatic. After this they enjoyed a peaceful march to arrive at Constantinople on 14 May 1097 by which time the other crusaders were besieging Nicaea. But their journey was not without interest. A ship capsized in Bari harbour drowning four hundred and causing many others to turn back. At the crossing of the river of the Demon (Skumbi) many of the poor were drowned and the foot-soldiers were saved only by the prompt action of the knights with their horses. This kind of attrition, coming on top of the ravages of disease and malnutrition must have appreciably reduced the crusader forces before they reached hostile territory.71