The main crusading army had pushed on across the Anatolian plateau and in October 1097 arrived at the city of Antioch in northern Syria. Here the expedition was to undergo its most testing period. The city itself was strongly defended with a powerful ring of walls, it was well provisioned and had a formidable citadel high above the main settlement. It was also a site of great religious importance for the crusaders as the home of the apostle Luke and the seat of one of the five patriarchal seats in the Christian Church.
The siege of Antioch would last almost eight months and the crusaders endured terrible conditions, including the bitterly cold Syrian winter. The Franks constructed their own fortifications and made sporadic attacks on the city but it was too big to blockade effectively and the defenders continued to receive supplies. The crusaders themselves ran short of food and were forced to mount increasingly lengthy foraging expeditions. Most of their horses died and the cost of all foodstuffs was hugely inflated. Cold and rain were a problem and tents and equipment rotted. Unsurprisingly pestilence broke out and many of the crusaders died or deserted. The Franks explained their dilemma by reasoning that they had incurred God’s disfavour. Adhemar of Le Puy proclaimed a three-day fast, banned all sex, gambling and swearing in an attempt to pull the expedition together and to regain God’s support. The siege dragged on with engagement and counter-engagement. Finally, in June 1098 the crusaders gained some success. Bohemond of Taranto intended to ignore his oaths to Alexius and to set up an independent principality at Antioch based upon the recently-held Greek lands. Bohemond contrived a plot with a renegade Armenian to betray the city to the crusaders. Concealing his intention, he tried to persuade the other leaders to let him keep the city if he could engineer its fall, although Raymond of Saint Gilles was unhappy at reneging on the oath to Alexius. Meanwhile the military situation was worsening as the Muslims of Mosul marched towards Antioch to relieve the city. Bohemond then revealed his plan to his colleagues who, in spite of Raymond’s objections, urged him to act. Before dawn on 3 June 1098 a rope was lowered from the walls of Antioch and the crusaders began to swarm over the walls. A terrible massacre took place and much booty was taken but the defenders withdrew to the citadel which meant that the crusaders had only taken the outer shell of Antioch.
Soon after this morale reached its lowest point. The crusaders themselves became besieged as the forces from Mosul arrived outside the city walls trapping them between the relief force and the Muslims in the citadel. The crusaders suffered extreme privation and the Gesta Francorum recorded, ‘So terrible was the famine that men boiled and ate the leaves of figs, vines, thistles and all kinds of trees. Others stewed the dried skins of horses, camels, asses, oxen or buffaloes, which they ate. These and many other troubles and anxieties, which I cannot describe, we suffered for the Name of Christ and to set free the road to the Holy Sepulchre; and we endured this misery, hunger and fear for twenty-six days’ (Gesta Francorum, tr. Hill, 1962: 62-3). More of the Franks deserted, including Count Stephen of Blois. This had another damaging effect on the crusade because during his retreat across Asia Minor he met Alexius, who was coming to assist the westerners. Stephen convinced the emperor that the Franks were doomed and so the Greeks turned back to Constantinople. One consequence of these events was that Bohemond claimed that the Byzantines had broken their agreement to provide military support and this, in turn, released the crusaders from their obligation to return captured lands to the Greeks.
The crusaders were in such a desperate situation that only a miracle could save the expedition; and that, in effect, is what happened. A pilgrim claimed to have had a vision in which St Andrew revealed to him where the Holy Lance, the lance which had pierced Christ’s side during the crucifixion, could be found. St Andrew promised that whoever carried this in battle would triumph. On 14 June the relic was discovered and this engendered such religious fervour that morale in the Christian army was transformed. Whether such a discovery was genuine or not — and some contemporaries doubted its authenticity — the crusaders faced their enemy with new determination. On 28 June 1098 the Franks lined up outside the city and after performing some complex military manoeuvres, probably borne out of the battle-hardness and cohesion acquired during three years on campaign, they forced the Muslims to flee. Seeing no relief, the defenders of the citadel soon surrendered and Antioch was taken. Bohemond was able to establish his principality, but the breaking of his oath to Alexius frustrated the Greeks’ long-term intentions of re-establishing their influence in northern Syria and this meant that future relations between Antioch and Byzantium would be marked by periods of considerable tension.
The siege of Jerusalem
After a period of rest the crusaders moved south. In December 1098 they besieged the town of Ma’arrat an Nu’man. Once again supplies were a problem and there are reports that the crusaders resorted to cannibalism to sustain themselves. The first months of 1099 were marked by a series of squabbles between the leaders of the expedition and also an underlying pressure from the rank and file of the army who were desperate to press on to Jerusalem and to fulfil their vows, thereby displaying their religious devotion.
On 7 June 1099 the Franks finally reached Jerusalem. The city was controlled by Egyptian Shi’i forces (they had displaced the Sunnis the previous year) and, as at Antioch, the Christians made little progress in the early stages of the siege. Yet now they had finally reached their goal the crusaders’ spiritual strength was renewed. A fast was proclaimed for 8 July and barefoot, carrying the relics of saints, the bishops and the clergy led the army in procession to the Mount of Olives and implored God’s help. An attack was prepared and on 15 July Godfrey of Bouillon’s men managed to fill the moat and cross on to the ramparts and enter the city. Jerusalem fell to the crusaders and after years of effort and toil the accumulated tensions of the march spilled over into an appalling massacre of the Muslim and Jewish defenders. The combination of religious fervour and extreme brutality is summed up in the comments of William of Tyre:
It was impossible to look on the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot. . . . Then, clad in fresh garments, with clean hands and bare feet, in humility they [the crusaders] began to make the rounds of the venerable places which the Saviour had deigned to sanctify and make glorious with His bodily presence . . . with particular veneration they approached the church of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord. . . . It was a source of spiritual joy to witness the pious devotion . . . with which the pilgrims drew near to the holy places, the exultation of heart and happiness of spirit with which they kissed the memorials of the Lord’s sojourn on earth. (William of Tyre, tr. Babcock and Krey, 1943: 1. 372-3)
Three weeks later an Egyptian force was defeated at Ascalon and the success of the First Crusade was assured. The Holy Land had been regained for Christianity. The capture of Jerusalem was a remarkable achievement and the crusaders believed that God must have blessed their expedition for it to have succeeded. Their incredible determination, principally borne out of a determination to free the Holy Sepulchre from Muslim hands, their growing military cohesion, and the deeply divided state of the Islamic world all contributed to their success. Pope Urban, however, did not live to see the successful outcome of his creation because he died before hearing news of the fall of Jerusalem. In the short term, many of the crusaders left for home, exhausted by their labours, but exultant at having accomplished their vows in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. These men returned to the West as heroes, feted for their achievements (see Document 6 ii), although probably worse off in physical and financial terms. There is little evidence of people coming back from the crusade with newfound riches, but some brought back relics from the Holy Land. Lord Riou of Loheac, for example, acquired a fragment of the True Cross and bequeathed it to his local church when he died in 1101
. Many of the crusaders had to reclaim lands and rights encroached upon in their absence. Those Franks remaining in the Levant had to start trying to stabilise their new possessions and to establish a rule of government.
In the Muslim world there was shock, and in some quarters outrage, at the crusaders’ success. Document 5 indicates the deep emotion generated by contemporary poets protesting at the failure of the Islamic people to react. The Seljuk sultan was preoccupied with events in Persia and did not lead an army to confront the westerners; Hillenbrand concludes, ‘The fate of Jerusalem was sealed, therefore, in Isfahan’ (Hillenbrand, 1997: 135). This neglect of his co-religionists was crucial because it gave the Franks the chance to conquer and then to consolidate their presence in the Levant — the birth of the Latin East.
3
The early decades of the Latin East c. 1097-c. 1152: Establishment and consolidation
The period 1097 to late 1144 was, in general, a successful time for the Franks. They consolidated the achievements of the First Crusade and founded four fully viable Latin States, although the loss of Edessa to Zengi in December 1144 was a most serious setback. Two particular features stand out when reading contemporary narratives of this time. First, the huge energy and effort required to establish the Frankish hold on the Holy Land is immediately apparent. The need for almost ceaseless campaigning — against a series of enemies — and exhausting marches and counter-marches is striking; the energy of King Baldwin II is especially worthy of note. Secondly, there were only four appeals to the West for crusades (1101, 1106-8, 1120-24, 1127-29) compared to at least fifteen for the period 1149 to 1186. This emphasises the Franks’ strength in this first phase of settlement and also reflects the relative weakness of their enemies.
The 1101 crusade and the early years of conquest
The first appeal to the West in 1101 was really a continuation of the First Crusade. Throughout the expedition the crusaders had been aware of people in Europe who had taken the cross but had failed to set out. Given their own losses, the crusaders had sent home a series of messages urging their co-religionists to join them. Papal letters restated this point and threatened shame and excommunication on those who did not fulfil their vows. A second spur for these people to act, and for others to join them, was provided by the news of the capture of Jerusalem. God’s apparent blessing of the crusade must have prompted a flood of people hoping to benefit from the success of the campaign. It also provided an opportunity for those who had deserted the main armies in 1097-98 to return to the Levant and to complete their vows. Among these was the former crusade leader, Count Stephen of Blois, whose wife had famously berated him for his cowardice and insisted that he redeem his honour. Two main armies were formed: a Franco-Lombard army (Italians, northern French and Burgundians), and an Aquitanian-Bavarian force led by Duke Welf IV of Bavaria and Duke William IX of Aquitaine. As they crossed Asia Minor both of these armies suffered a series of heavy defeats by Muslim forces and a much-depleted crusader army reached Jerusalem in the spring of 1102. It did, however, provide a large cavalry contingent at the Battle of Ramla in May 1102, although many men, including Stephen of Blois, were killed there. An infantry army fought at Jaffa in 1102 and this engagement marked the end of the crusade. In light of the size of the armies involved (probably 10,000 men in the Franco-Lombard army alone) the 1101 crusade achieved little, although, as Mullinder concludes, its involvement at Ramla and Jaffa was a significant contribution towards the survival of the fledgling kingdom of Jerusalem. Some of these crusaders also chose to remain in the Levant as settlers (Mullinder, 1998).
The need for the 1101 crusade can be vividly illustrated by outlining the extent of Frankish landholdings at the start of Baldwin I’s reign in 1100. The king held only the cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Jaffa (his sole port). When Baldwin was crowned, Fulcher of Chartres noted that the king would need energy to ‘conquer the Muslims in battle, or . . . compel them to make peace’. Fulcher also commented, with a sense of wonder that, given the Christians were so few in number, it was surprising that the Muslims did not attack them. Antioch, the other main centre of Christian strength, was c. 450 kilometres away and its leader, Prince Bohemond, had just been captured by the Muslims (July 1100). In spite of this unpromising situation, the hope of a new crusade and sheer necessity drove the Franks in the south to act. They recognised the need to capture further ports to allow new crusaders to arrive and to generate money from trade and pilgrim traffic. The Italian mercantile states of Genoa, Pisa and Venice were all involved in the conquest of the Holy Land and were granted property (usually an area in a city known as a ‘quarter’ - see p. 50) and legal and fiscal (tax) privileges. Caesarea was taken in May 1101 and here we can see, in microcosm, the process of conquest and settlement. Fulcher of Chartres recorded that during the siege most of the Muslim men fled or were killed, but the women who remained were spared ‘to turn hand mills’ (Fulcher of Chartres, tr. Ryan, 1969: 154). The Franks were, therefore, plainly aware of the need to use local labour, of whatever faith, to keep food production and the economy going. Baldwin also spared the emir to secure a big ransom. The city itself provided substantial booty and the Genoese alone were able to give each of their men (perhaps 8,000 in number) 48 solidi each in cash and 900 grams of pepper — a fine reward. They also acquired relics and treasures, such as the beautiful emerald green bowl still in the cathedral of St Lawrence. Finally, the settlers appointed an archbishop to impose their religious authority on the region. Thus we can see aspects of economic, administrative and religious issues organised to facilitate a permanent Frankish settlement.
The main threats to Christian lands at this time were to the south from Fatimid Egypt and to the north-east from Aleppo. A series of intense and bloody campaigns was fought in both theatres of war and Frankish resources were stretched very tightly indeed. Fulcher observed: ‘We were afraid that our foes might take one of our cities while it was denuded of manpower’ (Fulcher of Chartres, tr. Ryan, 1969: 183). Much of the time the Franks were victorious, although there were setbacks. At the Battle of Harran (in northern Syria) in May 1104 Count Baldwin of Edessa was captured and many other Christian knights were killed. In consequence of this defeat huge tracts of land were lost and the area controlled by the principality of Antioch was reduced by almost 60 per cent. Remarkably, the settlers recovered most of this territory within a decade, illustrating the extraordinarily flexible nature of boundaries in northern Syria during the early years of the twelfth century (Asbridge, 2000).
The 1108 crusade — a holy war against Christians
When Bohemond was released from captivity he resolved to bolster the long-term security of Antioch against both Muslim and Byzantine threats by seeking support in the West, first from the pope and then in France and England. As a leader of the First Crusade and probably its most accomplished warrior, Bohemond enjoyed a hero’s welcome in Europe and when he arrived there in 1106 huge crowds flocked to hear him describe his exploits. Children were named after him and he was widely feted. Bohemond’s purpose in the West was twofold. He wanted a wife and a new crusade. His new-found status meant that he could seek a bride at the highest level and in 1106 he married Constance, the daughter of King Philip I of France, thus cementing his prestige and establishing the ruling house of Antioch as one of real standing. Bohemond contacted Pope Paschal II on his way through Italy and by the time he reached northern France he was accompanied by a papal legate to help raise support for a new crusade. The first target of this expedition, intriguingly, was the Byzantine empire and only after a campaign against the Greeks did the crusade plan to proceed to the Holy Land. Bohemond had been a long-time adversary of the Byzantines and he intended to take the initiative himself by invading the empire and asserting his rights to act freely in northern Syria. There is little doubt that full spiritual rewards were offered for these campaigns and the presence of legate Bruno of Segni indicates papal awareness of this aim. Pope Paschal II was known to be unsympathetic to the Greeks, but f
or a crusade to be preached against Christians — albeit the schismatic Greek Orthodox ones — was a significant, and often overlooked, development in the history of crusading ideas. Pope Urban’s original concept of an expedition to free the Holy Sepulchre from the forces of Islam had, in just over a decade, been adapted to include warfare in the Iberian peninsula (see below, p. 154) and here, against fellow-Christians. In spite of its focus on the Greeks, contemporaries saw the 1108 crusade in a continuum with the First Crusade. Orderic Vitalis, an Anglo-Norman writer of the time, described it as ‘the third expedition to Jerusalem’ (Orderic Vitalis, tr. Chibnall, 1978: 6. 68-73). Bohemond recruited a large army to follow him and in 1107 he sailed for western Greece and besieged the port of Durazzo (on the Adriatic coast, in present-day Albania). He was soon defeated, however, and by the 1108 Treaty of Devol he became an imperial vassal, relinquished his lands in Cilicia and agreed to hold Antioch and Edessa from the emperor. Bohemond was also granted Aleppo in fief should the Christians capture it and he was forced to accept the principle of the restoration of a Greek Orthodox patriarch in Antioch. Part of Bohemond’s army continued on to Jerusalem where some men settled, but the prince himself returned to Italy where he died in 1112. His nephew, Tancred, had ruled Antioch in his absence and he rejected the terms of the Treaty of Devol. Fortunately for him, distractions elsewhere in the Byzantine Empire soon caused the Greeks to turn their attention away from northern Syria. Bohemond and Tancred had shown a determination to establish an independent principality and, while their aggression was tempered by the defeat at Devol, in the short term at least, circumstances enabled the Antiochenes to rule free of immediate Greek influence.
The Crusades 1095-1197 Page 5
