The Crusades 1095-1197

by Jonathan Phillips

  An alternative explanation for the call of the crusade was put forward in the 1930s by the German historian Carl Erdmann (Erdmann, tr. Goffart and Baldwin, 1977). He suggested that the real reason for the expedition was to answer a request for help sent by the Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, to the Council of Piacenza in March 1095. It is true that Alexius’s appeal was a major stimulus to Urban’s announcement at Clermont, but Erdmann’s subsequent line of argument is no longer sustainable. Until recently, however, this idea has been highly influential in understanding the origins of the First Crusade. Since the split between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in 1054 there had been some dialogue between the two sides to try to end the schism and Erdmann also advanced the unification of the Christian Church as part of the rationale for the crusade. The problems with his proposals are that by 1095 the Turkish threat to Byzantium was receding and, more importantly, Urban did not mention support for the Greeks in any of the accounts of his speech at Clermont. He did, on the other hand, refer to Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, as did his letter to Flanders, written within a month of Clermont (see Document 2 i). Erdmann claimed that when the pope asked people to liberate the Eastern Church he meant Byzantium, rather than Jerusalem. Since the 1980s, however, historians such as Riley-Smith (Riley-Smith, 1986, 1997) and Bull (Bull, 1993a, 1997) have started to use a further source of evidence, namely charters — documents which record the crusaders’ sale or mortgage of lands or rights — which demonstrate conclusively that the participants considered that they were going to liberate Jerusalem (see Document 3). In addition, the eye-witness account of the Gesta Francorum includes numerous references to ‘the journey to the Holy Sepulchre’, and relates Bohemond of Taranto’s command to ‘charge at top speed, like a brave man, and fight valiantly for God and the Holy Sepulchre’ (Gesta Francorum, tr. Hill, 1962: 36-7). The holy city was such a potent image that the pope could not have used it as a decoy to cover a campaign designed solely to help the Greeks and to facilitate a union with the Orthodox Church. It should not be denied that Urban would have welcomed both of these things as a consequence of the crusade, but they should be seen only as secondary aims. It was the ideas of liberating the Christians of the Levant and the city of Jerusalem that stirred the hearts and minds of those who planned the expedition and those who took the cross. Furthermore, by intending to recapture Christ’s patrimony the crusade had a just cause, which, as we saw earlier, was a prerequisite for the justification of Christian violence.

  It will never be possible to ascertain the precise motives of individual crusaders and, while the bulk of the evidence suggests a strong religious drive, other, more secular aspirations cannot be ignored. In spite of Urban’s call for the crusaders to proceed for ‘devotion alone’, even the pope must have had some awareness of the need for a group of men to settle in the Holy Land after it was conquered. Clearly, this would be a material advantage, although one might argue that the defence of Christ’s patrimony had a prominent spiritual aspect. The inducement of land and profit was even held out in one account of Urban’s speech (see Document 1 i) and this broad principle must have motivated some crusaders — the determination of Bohemond of Taranto to set up the principality of Antioch is the most obvious example of this. There was also a need for money to offset the cost of the crusade and to pay for expenses incurred en route. The Gesta Francorum caught this perfectly: ‘We passed a secret message down our line, praising God and saying, “Stand fast all together, trusting in Christ and in the victory of the Holy Cross. Today, please God, you will all gain much booty” . . .’ (Gesta Francorum, tr. Hill, 1962: 20). The writer saw no contradiction between these aims and in any case, it was permitted in canon law for soldiers to receive a fair wage and to take booty, but not to excess: presumably, this would have constituted greed and would incur God’s disfavour. Other motives for crusaders may have included a wish to escape from legal proceedings in the West, or simple curiosity of the wider world. Finally, as will be seen below, membership of a noble household probably brought about the involvement of some crusaders, although they too may have been motivated by any of the ideas outlined here.

  Preparations for the crusade

  After his speech at Clermont Urban wrote letters eliciting support (see Document 2 i) and he toured northern France himself to seek recruits for the expedition. The pope carefully scheduled his tour to coincide with local saints’ days and other important festivals to ensure as large a gathering as possible. After his sermon, people came forward and were signed with the cross. They also received the pilgrim’s staff and scrip (wallet) and were taken under the protection of the Church. This was a voluntary and binding commitment and could usually only be released by fulfilling the vow or death. Incidentally, the ‘voluntary’ nature of the vow may have been a little tenuous in the case of a noble’s household; if their lord decided that he was going on crusade, his entourage would have had little option but to join him, willing or not.

  What preparations were required to set out for the Holy Land? First, there was the need to organise the guardianship and running of one’s house and property. In theory, a crusader’s lands were under the protection of the Church, but a series of legal cases from the early twelfth century reveal that many who went to the East had their territory and rights encroached upon during their absence. The question of finance was another key issue because crusading was a hugely expensive business. To buy chainmail, horses and supplies for oneself would cost a great deal — some estimates suggest over four years’ annual income for most knights. People would have had some idea of the resources needed to fight a large-scale military expedition and the recent experience of the Norman Conquest of England (1066), for example, had provided just such an insight. The land market became flooded with crusaders trying to raise money and churches were forced to melt down valuables to provide gold and silver. The issue of cost is one reason why the old cliche of the crusaders being freebooting younger sons in search of land and money is deeply flawed, simply because such men would have been unable to afford to set out in the first instance, other than as hangers-on. Furthermore, charter material reveals family networks (see below) of crusaders comprising fathers and sons, brothers, uncles, cousins, eldest sons, youngest sons, with no sense at all of a monolithic body of youthful adventurers. The evidence also indicates that the suggested desire for land in fact applied to very few crusaders. The fact that the Frankish States were chronically undermanned throughout their existence demonstrated that relatively few crusaders chose to settle in the Levant.

  The crusade sets out

  It is estimated that c. 60,000 people set out from western Europe in the course of 1096. Of these only about 10 per cent were knights; the remainder were servants, pilgrims and hangers-on — women, children, the poor, the old and the sick. These last groups were a major handicap to the main forces because they needed feeding and protecting, but such had been the attraction of Urban’s appeal that they still took part. At first the crusade did not move as one great army, but marched in regional contingents which planned to assemble at Constantinople in the spring of 1097. These forces were led by members of the senior nobility and it appears that some family groups were particularly receptive to Urban’s call. Riley-Smith has traced the remarkable involvement of the Montlhery clan (Riley-Smith, 1997: 169-71). One member, Miles of Bray, was accompanied on the First Crusade by his son, Guy, his brother-in-law Walter of St Valery and two of Walter’s sons, his nephew Baldwin (later King Baldwin II of Jerusalem), and two other nephews — Humberge of Le Puiset and Everard III of Le Puiset — all of whom had taken the cross in 1095/96. We should also note that some crusader families had an existing tradition of pilgrimage to the Holy Land which may have formed a further reason for their taking the cross. For example, both the great-grandfather and the grandfather of Adhemar III of Limoges had been to Jerusalem in the course of the eleventh century. In addition to the forces of the higher nobility there were also smaller groups under lesser lords as well
as independent knights who would join or leave the major contingents according to the support that they received. We may notice that no kings took part in the expedition. Urban regarded the crusade as a papally-directed enterprise and had not explicitly invited any secular monarch to become involved. In any case, King Philip I of France was an excommunicate on account of his adulterous relationship with the countess of Anjou; Emperor Henry IV of Germany was the papacy’s principal opponent in the Investiture Contest, and William Rufus was too entangled in the government of England to be particularly interested. It was not until the crusade of Sigurd of Norway in 1110 that a king participated in a campaign in the Holy Land, although it should be noted that the rulers of Spain had long taken part in the reconquista.

  The leading figures in the First Crusade came from France or its borders. Contingents were led by: Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lotharingia; Count Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the King of France; Duke Robert of Normandy; Count Robert II of Flanders; Count Stephen of Blois; Raymond of Saint Gilles, count of Toulouse; and the Norman-Sicilian Bohemond of Taranto. It was in the late summer of 1096 that the main armies set out. Preparations for the expedition were marked by a burst of solar activity and the first good harvest for years — a favourable blessing. Before following the progress of the larger contingents it should be noted that a first wave of crusaders had departed from France in the spring of 1096, led by the charismatic preacher Peter the Hermit and the knight Walter the Penniless (Sansavoir). Another group proceeded down the Rhine led by Count Emicho of Leiningen and this latter force was responsible for the first atrocities of the campaign (see Document 4). They twisted the idea of fighting God’s enemies in the East to include those whom they saw as his enemies at home: the Jews — those responsible for Christ’s death and, incidentally, a very wealthy section of society. Fired by religious hatred and a need for money, this army perpetrated a series of terrible massacres on the communities of Speyer, Mainz, Trier and Cologne. As they moved on to Constantinople the armies of Peter and Emicho struggled to secure supplies. Outside the city itself the leaders were advised to wait for the remainder of the crusading forces, but as their men became increasingly restive they crossed into Asia Minor where they were very quickly annihilated by the Turks — a fate that some western chroniclers viewed as thoroughly deserved given their earlier behaviour. Until recently, these armies have generally been assumed to have been a peasant rabble, but in fact research indicates that there were a number of knights in their contingents and it was simply overzealousness and indiscipline that brought about their downfall, rather than the inherent weakness of a group of peasants.

  The armies of the great nobles arrived at Constantinople between November 1096 and May 1097. When forces of such diverse backgrounds assemble problems of discipline are inevitable and old squabbles resurfaced along with practical issues such as communication. The language barrier, for example, meant that it was unlikely a man from Toulouse could understand a man from Flanders. There was also the issue of rivalry between the different contingents and a contemporary chronicler, Ralph of Caen, related an episode which serves to illustrate the tensions that could break out in the course of the campaign. As morale sagged during the siege of Antioch (October 1097 to June 1098), gangs of northern and southern French formed up on linguistic lines to forage for supplies. They assaulted or freed those that they captured according to the language they spoke, and those responding in tongues other than Occitan or a northern French dialect were spared as neutrals.

  There was also the question of overall leadership and until his death at Antioch on 1 August 1098, the papal legate Adhemar of Le buy had acted as effective commander of the expedition, thus reflecting the pope’s role as the initiator of the crusade. Adhemar’s strength of personality had helped to maintain some control, but even before his death there had been serious differences of opinion between the leaders, a situation that was first exposed at Constantinople.

  It seems that the Emperor Alexius had been expected to join the crusade and possibly to lead it, but the trouble caused by Peter the Hermit’s crusaders and the size and strength of the main forces caused Alexius great concern lest the army turn against Constantinople itself. The presence of Bohemond of Taranto, an old enemy of the Byzantines, increased the emperor’s fears. He tried to get each leader to swear that they would return to him all the lands they captured which had once belonged to the Greeks. Much of the Levant had been under Byzantine rule until the seventh century and Antioch had been a part of their empire as recently as 1084. Furthermore, Asia Minor had only been lost after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and given the route of the crusade it was likely that some territory there would be recovered. Alexius also tried to extract oaths of homage and fealty from the crusaders in order to ensure their obedience. Some, under severe pressure, agreed to this. Others, most notably Raymond of Saint Gilles, refused, claiming that an oath of fealty was not compatible with his crusading vow to serve God. After much hard negotiation and threats to withdraw food supplies, Raymond took a less binding oath to maintain the emperor’s life and honour. Nevertheless, the crusade had got off to an awkward start — the westerners were reliant on the Greeks for supplies and had expected full military support. Such arguments did not bode well for long-term co-operation; and this was before they had started to confront the Muslims.

  The Muslim Near East

  The situation in the Islamic world was complicated and turbulent; in essence, however, it was very much to the crusaders’ advantage. There was the basic division in the Islamic faith: the Sunni Orthodox controlled Asia Minor and Syria and their spiritual leader was the caliph of Baghdad; the Shi’is ruled Egypt through the Fatimid dynasty and had their own caliph based in Cairo, yet such was the bitterness between these two groups that they were prepared to ally with the crusaders against one another, rather than form a common front against the Christians. A further factor in favour of the crusaders was the political turmoil that had afflicted both Sunni and Shi’i lands in the early 1090s when a number of important leaders in both camps died, often in mysterious circumstances. 1094 saw a particularly heavy mortality rate among caliphs and viziers and a later Arabic writer, Ibn Taghribirdi, described it thus: ‘This year is called the year of death of caliphs and commanders’ (Hillenbrand, 1997: 132). In contrast to the powerful rule of the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah (d. 1092), by 1097-99 there was a power vacuum in Asia Minor and northern Syria. This meant that when Christians reached the area they were confronted by a series of small rival lordships more concerned with fighting each other than in defeating the crusade. The leadership of the Sunni world remained in Baghdad, distracted by conflicts closer to home and largely unconcerned by appeals for help from the distant Levant. It was far easier to defeat opponents in this sort of condition than a well-established and strong ruler such as Malikshah; in fact, given the difficulties encountered by the crusaders anyway, it is probable that they would have failed to cross Asia Minor had they faced such an enemy. A final point to the crusaders’ advantage was that the Muslims, unsurprisingly, failed to recognise the crusade as an army of religious colonisation, and evidence suggests that they saw it as another raid from the Byzantine Empire rather than an army set on the capture and settlement of land.

  The crusade in Asia Minor and the siege of Antioch

  In May 1097 the crusaders began the siege of Nicaea in Asia Minor. By mid-June Greek forces had joined the western armies and the city soon surrendered and was taken into Byzantine hands. Later on that month, at Dorylaeum, the crusaders faced another test when they were attacked by a large Turkish army, but in spite of their unfamiliarity with the Muslims’ tactics (see below, p. 80), once again the Christians triumphed. In mid-September 1097 the crusade began to split up. Bohemond of Taranto’s nephew, Tancred, raided areas of Cilicia (on the south-eastern coast of modern-day Turkey) and captured a number of towns, including Tarsus and Adana. Baldwin of Boulogne, Godfrey of Bouillon’s brother, headed further east towards the city o
f Edessa. This territory was controlled by the Christian Armenians who welcomed the crusaders’ support against the Muslims that surrounded them. Baldwin was soon adopted as heir to the county, although he quickly sidelined the Armenian rulers and by March 1098 he had set up the first of the Latin settlements in the Levant. The county of Edessa was a fertile region located astride the Euphrates river and in the forty-six years the crusaders held the area it would provide important food and resources for the other settlements. There was also a substantial amount of intermarriage between the Franks (as the Latin settlers became known collectively) and the Armenians, the two noble classes finding that their warrior ethos and way of life had enough in common to overcome any doctrinal differences between them.