The Mugging of Bishop Adhemar

Besides sharing the story of Peter Bartholomew and his finding of the Holy Lance and his subsequent Trial by Ordeal, Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem ("History of the Franks who captured Jerusalem") offers so much more. He was attached to the retinue of Bishop of Le Puy, Adhemar, who was named papal legate and responsible for the spiritual guidance of the First Crusade. Adhemar (and Raymond) followed the army of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse.

Many Crusaders chose to head to the Holy Land by water, potentially a faster route, but prone to the changeability of the weather and severe storms. Many ships of Crusaders were lost at sea. Traveling over land had its own dangers. One was finding supplies, another was meeting up with hostile folk.

A third was meeting up with folk made hostile because you were an army that was commandeering supplies from them. The "People's Crusade," an enthusiastic and less-organized group led by Peter the Hermit—that started out early without waiting for the nobles and their armies to make better plans—alienated many of the people whose countries had to be crossed: they thought their cause would mean being welcomed and provisioned by any and all.

Count Raymond and Bishop Adhemar took the land route and had to deal with populations who were therefore understandably wary of these large Western European armies marching through their homeland. Fortunately, compared to the People's Crusade, Count Raymond's army was better able to handle opposition. That did not mean complete freedom from hostile actions, however. As Raymond records:

On a certain day, moreover, when we were in the valley of Pelagonia, the Bishop of Puy, who, in order to find a comfortable resting place, had withdrawn a little distance from the camp, was captured by the Patzinaks. They knocked him down from his mule, robbed him, and beat him severely on the head. But since so great a pontiff was still necessary to the people of God, through God’s mercy he was saved to life. For one of the Patzinaks, in order to obtain gold from him, protected him from the others. Meanwhile, the noise was heard in the camp; and so, between the delay of the enemy and the attack of his friends, he was rescued.

Adhemar survived, and reached Constantinople where Alexios I was emperor. Alexios was also very concerned about the large groups marching through his lands, even though his request to Pope Urban II for help with the Turks had been the catalyst for the Crusade. Adhemar went on to Nicaea and Antioch, where he died on 1 August 1098, never living to see Jerusalem conquered by the Europeans.

Who were the Patzinaks that attacked him? We more commonly call them the Pechenegs, and they were a thorn in the side of the Byzantine Empire in which they lived. I'll tell you who they were next time.

The Holy Lance, Part Three

So Peter Bartholomew was about to undergo Trial by Ordeal to verify whether he was being honest about his visions and  discovering the Holy Lance. Two fires had been lit, each 13 feet long and four feet high with a single foot of space between them. Peter, carrying the "lance" and wearing only a light tunic, would walk between them. If he and the lance were unharmed, then it could truly be believed that his visions were real and this was the spear that had pierced the side of Jesus while on the Cross. It was 8 April 1099, Good Friday.

Raymond of Aguilers, from whom we have the details of this entire incident regarding Peter Bartholomew, was the "master of ceremonies." He announced the purpose of the test to the crowd, that Peter and the lance would be consumed if Peter were lying. To this the crowd responded "Amen."

When the flames were 40 feet high, Peter bowed before Bishop Peter of Narbonne and again swore that his visions were true. The bishop handed him the lance, and Peter walked through the flames, although at one point inside he stopped briefly.

(The illustration here is by Gustave Doré, showing he moment when Peter approaches the waiting crowd and a bishop—probably Peter of Narbonne—with the fire behind him.)

Once through, he shouted Deus adjuva! "God help (me)." The crowd was amazed and elated, and rushed toward him. Some rushed to grab sticks from the fire as souvenirs of the miracle. He was surrounded by a mass of supporters.

He was dead by 20 April.

What happened? According to Raymond of Aguilers, the burns were minimal. He was, however, physically wounded in the crowd that surrounded him after the ordeal. Was it accidental? Crushed in the throng? Raymond says his spine was shattered; also, that his legs were cut three or four times. The theory is that, even though the trial was doable—the pause inside the flames, Peter says, was because Christ spoke to him—he had detractors among the nobles because of the way he tried to trade on his popularity and criticize the Crusade's leaders and take over the spiritual leadership. These detractors had their agents in the crowd, with the intent to make sure he did not survive the day, even if he survived the ordeal. Maybe God was on his side, but he had made human enemies that were determined to eliminate him. In the crowd that rushed to him after he came through the fire there were men with knives who cut him.

We have this story in far more detail than I have shared here thanks to Raymond of Aguilers, who wrote a history of this part of the Crusade. I want to talk more about his role as a historian and participant, next time.

The Holy Lance, Part Two

After the "finding" of the Holy Lance, the Crusaders in Antioch felt emboldened to break the siege around the city by Kerbogha, the atabeg of Mosul.

Peter the Hermit was sent to Kerbogha to suggest settling the conflict with a duel, but Kerbogha declined. A different Peter, Peter Bartholomew, whose "visions" led to the "buried" "Lance," joined the fight against the Muslims. Unknown to the Crusaders, Kerbogha's army had some internal conflicts and was not as powerful as it appeared. His superiors decided to teach the arrogant Kerbogha a lesson by not sending reinforcements. Kerbogha was forced to retreat to Mosul.

Inside Antioch afterward, the issue of the Holy Lance was re-examined, even though some attributed their military victory to its presence. Peter Bartholomew's vision of the Lance suggested it was buried just below the surface, but teams of men dug far down without success, until Peter went alone into the hole and "found" the lance point sticking up from the ground. Even though Peter's vision predicted a win against the Muslims, there were those who questioned Peter's truthfulness. One was papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, who may have already been aware that a piece of the Lance was said to be in Constantinople. 

Then, Adhemar died from plague on 1 August 1098, and Peter put himself forward as the spiritual leader on the Crusade. Peter actually claimed that Adhemar appeared to him in a vision and said he had suffered in Hell for three days because he had doubted the discovery of the Lance.

Peter claimed that Christ told him the Crusaders must march barefoot to Jerusalem, and other visions from Jesus and St. Andrew expressed anger at the sins of the Crusaders. When his further visions were ignored, and the veracity of the Lance was questioned, Peter volunteered to submit to a Trial by Ordeal to prove his innocence.

As a result, he went through trial by fire on 8 April 1099, which was Good Friday*. Peter would walk through a fire. Two piles of dry olive branches were made, four feet high and 13 feet long, with a one-foot space between them for Peter to walk through. Peter came to the trial wearing a simple tunic and prepared to walk through, carrying the Lance. If both appeared unharmed after the ordeal, he would be vindicated.

..and I will leave you there until tomorrow.

*Coincidentally this post has been made on Good Friday in 2024.

The Holy Lance, Part One

One of the "side-effects" of the Crusades was allowing Western Europeans to look for artifacts connected to the Bible and the life of Jesus. One member of the First Crusade claimed to have found one of those artifacts.

Peter Bartholomew was a French peasant from Provençe who, while on Crusade, began having visions. He functioned as a soldier after the capture of Antioch on 10 June 1098 when reinforcements came from Muslims, and in the ensuing siege of the city, suffered from famine like the rest of the Christian occupiers. In this weakened state, he had visions of St. Andrew, which he shared with the Crusade's leaders.

In the visions, St. Andrew took him to the Church of St. Peter inside Antioch and showed him the resting place of the Holy Lance. This was the spear of the Roman soldier called Longinus who used it to pierce the side of Jesus while on the Cross. (The True Cross was another relic that was found in the east.) The leaders were skeptical, and Peter warned them that their disbelief would cost them three days in hell's fires. As Peter's news spread to the rest of the army, excitement grew, and the boost in morale was seen as a good thing, so Peter's story wasn't challenged. The visions also singled Raymond of Toulouse out for a special role in the Crusade. (Although Raymond would make a more humble decision later.)

Raymond and 12 select men went to the place where the Lance was supposedly buried and began digging. After a day of digging, they found nothing. Peter's vision claimed that he had seen St. Andrew place the lance in the ground; it should have been closer to the surface, but a day's worth of digging found nothing. Another twelve were chosen to continue digging, but they found nothing.

Peter was then dropped into the hole to see for himself. He urged everyone above to pray, and while they were praying and no one could see him clearly, Peter shouted the discovery of the Lance, its point sticking up from the earth.

This was fortuitous, but also questionable. As with the visions themselves initially, the sudden discovery by Peter alone was hard to believe and yet a source of great joy and morale for the troops. A letter was even sent to Pope Urban II from Bohemund of Taranto mentioning the Lance and that its presence emboldened the troops.

This morale boost was important, because Antioch was surrounded by the forces of Kerbogha, the atabeg of Mosul. The next step for the Crusaders (and a test for the importance of the finding of the Lance), came next. I'll tell you about it tomorrow. And we are not done with Peter Bartholomew.

Adela of Normandy

Recent posts have mentioned three of William of Normandy's sons who had claims (some of them realized) to the throne of England. The Conqueror had several children with his wife, Matilda of Flanders. One of his daughters was known as Adela of Normandy, named for her maternal grandfather.

She has been called Henry I's favorite sister. She was born c.1067, a year before Henry, and so was close to him growing up, receiving a similar education. She was probably educated at the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, a Benedictine nunnery in Caen founded by her father. (Her mother would be buried there after her death in 1083.) Although she would not be in a position to inherit anything from her father, her parentage made her a valuable political asset as a bride.

About her 15th birthday, therefore, she was married at Chartres Cathedral to the son and heir to Count Theobald III of Blois, Stephen-Henry. Stephen-Henry was well into his 30s at the time. The marriage linked two powerful families of northern France. They had several children, a few of whom (William, Theobald, and Philip) are seen in the above illustration with their mother.

Stephen became Count of Blois at his father's death in 1089. When the First Crusade was announced, Stephen became one of tis leaders, using money from Adela. He was present at the Siege of Nicaea, writing letters to Adela about the events. His later actions were less than noble, a fact that disturbed his wife deeply and caused her to mock him.

Adela was regent whenever he was away, showing his trust in her and her administrative ability. She made grants to build new churches, and worked with St. Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, concerning misbehavior of nuns. She made sure her children were educated, since they were likely to have illustrious political careers—except, of course, for the ones she wanted to see enter Holy Orders, like her youngest, Henry, whom she dedicated to a religious life.

She became ill in 1105, and was visited by Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently exiled to the continent because of disputes with Adela's brother, Henry. In their conversations, Anselm made clear that excommunication of Henry was a possible next step to force Henry to comply with Anselm's demands for church autonomy. It is believed that she had a large part in convincing Henry to work with Anselm instead of against him.

She retired in 1120 to a prestigious convent at Marcigny near Cluny Abbey, where her son Henry was living. She died in 1137. Her financial support of churches and her devotion caused her to be named a saint.

Her persuasion of her brother to work with Anselm was a continuation of her support for the Church. Let us return to Anselm's story tomorrow.

The Siege of Nicaea

When the First Crusade was on their way to free the Holy land from the "infidel," they passed through Constantinople and asked for help from Emperor Alexios I. They left Constantinople in stages, starting in April 1097. Their first target was the city of Nicaea (now İznik), held by Seljuk Turks on the shore of Lake Ascania in Turkey.

Godfrey of Bouillon arrived first on 6 May, followed by other parts of the army including Raymond IV of Toulouse, Tancred, and Peter the Hermit with the remains of the People's Crusade.

The ruler of Nicaea, Sultan Kilij Arslan, was away, but rushed back when he got word the siege, but he was unsuccessful in breaking through the Crusaders. Nicaea had to make a decision.

Alexios had not joined the Crusading army for the siege, but stationed his forces at a nearby town. He had boats transported over land to the Crusaders to aid in a blockade on Lake Ascania, to prevent the Turks from getting food. The boats were sent with general Manuel Boutoumites. Following them was general Tatikios with 2000 foot soldiers. This was not simple support of the siege, however. Alexios instructed Tatikios to join the assault on the walls while Boutoumites from the lake side of the city secretly negotiated with Nicaea to surrender, making it appear that the Byzantines had captured Nicaea themselves and could dictate what happened in the aftermath. Here's how they pulled it off.

Boutoumites sent messages to the city rulers, offering them amnesty for surrender but promising destruction if they did not. Boutoumites was even allowed into the city (all out of sight from the land-side Crusaders). When Nicaea learned that Kilij Arslan was on his way, they forced Boutoumites out, but with the failure of Arslan's attack, they re-considered the Greek's offer. On the morning of 19 June, when the Crusading army prepared a large assault, the Byzantines on the lake-side were allowed into Nicaea; they raised their standard above the city walls, showing that they—not the Western Europeans—had control of the city.

Nicaea surrendered peacefully to Boutoumites, who as its new leader protected the city by forbidding plundering. Groups of Crusaders were allowed in of no more than 10 at a time. Arslan's family were sent to Constantinople, but were released with ransom once the Crusaders had moved on from Nicaea. Alexios did supply the Crusade with money and horses, but the wealth they might have had by ransacking Nicaea was denied them.

Part of Boutoumites' negotiation included showing Nicaea the chrysobull, which I suppose needs some explanation. I'll be happy to do that...tomorrow.

John Axouch, from War Prize to Commander

In June of 1097, the First Crusade captured Nicaea, at that time under the control of the Seljuk Turks. An attempt at defense by Kilij Arslan failed, after which Nicaea surrendered rather than allow the Crusaders to break the walls. (There is much more to that surrender that needs addressing soon.)

As in many such cases, captives from noble families were taken in order to guarantee good behavior on the part of the conquered. One of these was John Axouch, given to Emperor Alexios I as a present. Alexios took him to Constantinople where Axouch became a companion to Alexios' son John Comnenos (shown above; there are no available representations of John Axouch).

The two were constant companions and close friends. When Alexios died and his son became Emperor John II Comnenos, he appointed his close friend megas domestikos, essentially commander-in-chief of the army. Axouch was also given the court title of sebastos, equivalent to the Roman augustus, meaning "venerable one." Members of the imperial family were required to treat him with the greatest respect.

This generated hostility among the royal family, which Axouch wisely tried to ameliorate. When a plot against John by his sister Anna was foiled, John wanted to give Axouch all her properties, but Axouch refused, knowing how much the action would increase the enmity felt towards him by the royals. He also (we are told) persuaded John to reconcile with his sister and let her keep her property.

John liked to be personally involved in military campaigns, and the two worked well together. For example, Axouch would be sent ahead to begin a siege, and John would follow up with more of the army to swiftly conclude the taking of a city.

John died after being wounded while hunting on a campaign in Cilicia. Axouch quickly traveled back to Constantinople in order to reach it before news of the death did. The urgency was to ensure that John's younger son Manuel succeeded him, rather than the older Isaac. This may have had something to do with Isaac's reputation for being irascible, or perhaps in order to fulfill a prophecy. Some historians of the time claim that Axouch was close to Isaac, and tried to persuade John that the elder son was a better candidate. They also say Manuel was suspicious of the friendship between Axouch and Isaac.

Whatever the case, the truth is that Manuel became emperor and confirmed Axouch in his position as megas domestikos. There were troubles ahead, however, which I will tell you about tomorrow.

The Alexiad

Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062 - 1137) was a Byzantine noble. As a general, he defended Constantinople when the army of Godfrey of Bouillon attacked in 1097 during the First Crusade. He was also the second husband of Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos.

Anna's mother Irene Doukaina suggested he write a political history of the quarter century leading up to the coronation of his father-in-law, Alexios. It would largely be a "family history" of the Comnenos clan, and he gathered information for his "Material for a History." He drew on writings of contemporary historians such as Michael Psellos, John Skylitzes and Michael Attaleiates, covering many topics of which he would have no personal experience

Before the work was finished, Nikephoros died after becoming ill while on a military campaign in Syria. His widow, Anna, took the notes and turned them into The Alexiad, with a large focus on exalting her father:

I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, ...

However, to resume—I intend in this writing of mine to recount the deeds done by my father for they should certainly not be lost in silence, or swept away, as it were, on the current of time into the sea of forgetfulness, and I shall recount not only his achievements as Emperor, but also the services he rendered to various Emperors before he himself received the sceptre.

The 15 chapters include not only the political rise and fall of emperors, but also the encounter with the "Frankish barbarians" of the Crusade, with details useful to modern historians:

For the Frankish weapon of defence is this coat of mail, ring plaited into ring[s], and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt. An additional weapon of defence is a shield which is not round, but a long shield, very broad at the top and running out to a point, hollowed out slightly inside, but externally smooth and gleaming with a brilliant boss of molten brass.

About 10 manuscripts of the finished work survive, some of them complete. Written in Attic Greek, The Alexiad gives us another version of the time period for scholars to study with some unusual traits. It is the only historical work written by a woman, and it differs radically from other histories because the author acknowledges feelings and opinions of the events discussed.

She virtually ignores her brother, John II Comnenos, who became emperor after Alexios. Anna, of course, wanted Nikephoros to succeed her father. Was John that bad an emperor? Was his reign worthy of being ignored in The Alexiad? Let's look at John II Comnenos next time.

Emperor Alexios I Comnenos

Alexios I Comnenos (1057 - 1118) was the Byzantine emperor during the start of the Crusades. Since the Byzantines were a part of the old Roman Empire, and Christian, and a well-populated and economically significant city at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Europeans saw them as allies and the gateway to the lands of the infidels who held the Holy Land.

The Crusades were not his only concern, however. As a young man, he and his brother, Manuel Comnenos, served with distinction against the Seljuk Turks, whose territory was right across the Bosporus. The empire also had trouble with Normans in the western Balkans. At one point, he refused to fight against a kinsman who was seizing control of Byzantine territory in Asia Minor for himself. This did not count against Alexios, however, because his abilities were too valuable, and he was needed to help deal with Robert Guiscard.

His father, John Comnenos, had refused the throne when the previous ruler, Isaac I Comnenos, abdicated to become a monk. The throne therefore went to Constantine X Doukas, followed by Romanos IV Diogenes, then Michael VII Doukas, then Nikephoros III Botaneiates, against whom Alexios conspired to take the throne himself. Alexios surrounded Constantinople with his troops, broke through the walls on 1 April 1081, and was crowned on 4 April. Nikephoros fled, but was captured and forced into monk-hood.

Alexios took on an empire that was in decline and face with content military threats at the edge of its borders. Alexios' military skills enabled him to strengthen the empire and recover lost territory. The First Crusade was sparked by his requests for aid against the Turks, as mentioned in this 2012 post. He got the help (some of which was better than others), but the Seljuks continued to be a problem throughout his reign. He was also plagued by the question of succession, his preference being for his son John II Comnenos, while his wife pushed for their daughter Anna and her husband.

I might get to the resolution of who succeeded Alexios, John or Anna, but I want to talk about another Anna: Alexios' mother. She was an important figure who had a significant role in helping his rebellion succeed, and we should look at her next.

Kilij Arslan I

Kilij Arslan I (1079 - 1107) was the Sultan of Rum; it was he who had to deal with the Europeans of the First Crusade when they attempted to "free" the Holy Land from non-Christians in the late 1090s.

Prior to the First Crusade, however, he had his own set of difficulties. The Turks were organized in several different tribes that saw each other as rivals: Seljuks (Aslan's tribe), Danishmends, Mangujekids, Saltuqids, Tengribirmish, Artuqids, and Akhlat-Shahs. Upon the death of Arslan's father, Suleyman (d.1086), the Sultan Malik Shah I of Isfahan imprisoned him, seeing him as a potential rival. When Malik died in 1092, a quarrel among his jailers allowed him to escape, after which he assembled an army and set up a capital for himself in Nicaea.

In times of political rivalry, carefully chosen alliances become vital. A non-Turkish complication in this part of the world was the size and proximity of the Byzantine Empire. Nicaea was in Byzantine Territory, and Arslan was able to set up his capital there (relatively safe from his Turkish rivals) because of a strategic alliance.

Arslan married the daughter of Emir Tzachas, a Seljuk Turkish military commander. Tzachas had earlier in life become a significant member of Byzantine society, until he lost his position when Emperor Alexios Comnenos I came to power and dismissed him. He then became an enemy of the Byzantines. Arslan married the daughter, Ayşe Hatun, to strengthen his own power against the Byzantines.

Then there was a twist: Arslan received a communication from Alexios, claiming that Tzachas intended to usurp him. Arslan marched his army to Tzachas' location, invited his father-in-law to a banquet, and killed him. This simple act ingratiated him to Alexios. When the Crusade of 1101 captured Nicaea and sent Ayşe Hatun to Costantinople to be held for ransom, Alexios sent her back without a ransom, in order to honor his alliance with Arslan.

Kilij Arslan, whose name means literally "sword lion," drowned in 1107 while crossing the Khabur River to escape a losing battle against a rival. In January 2021, archaeologists found his grave in Silvan, in Turkey.

Emperor Alexios Comnenos' name keeps cropping up in discussions of the Crusades, and he should probably be discussed a little more, but that's for tomorrow.

The Sword of the Lion

When the First Crusade approached the Holy Land, they were met by the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, Kilij Arslan I. His first encounter with the Europeans came when the Peasants' Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, overran the castle of Xerigordon at Nicaea. They did so because Arslan sent his spies to give them the impression that the castle was easy pickings. In fact, it was inconsequential to him, but a German contingent raced to take their prize. Once they were settled in it, Arslan sent a force to besiege it and starve them out, knowing that the place had few supplies. He offered a choice: renounce Christianity and become captives, or be put to death.

The tables turned on Arslan after this, because the easy victory led him to believe that all the Crusaders would be easily handled. Unfortunately for him, a far more organized and strategy-oriented army was headed his way. He decided to refocus his attention on his rivalry with the Danishmend Turks, ignoring the soon-to-arrive actual First Crusade. 

As a result, he was away from Nicaea when the Crusaders besieged it in May 1097. Returning to Nicaea, he was defeated by the Crusaders on 21 May. Nicaea was then held by the Byzantines, and Arslan's wife and family were taken captive. She was sent to Constantinople to be held for ransom, but was returned without ransom (for reasons which are a separate chapter of Arslan's story).

Kilij Arslan means "sword lion," and he had a reputation for being a great soldier and leader, but in this case he decided not to go it alone and to ally himself with his Danishmend rivals (as he would later to deal with the Crusade of 1101), attempting to ambush the Crusaders at the end of June near Dorylaeum. The defensive line created by the disciplined Europeans, however, proved too strong for the Turkish mounted archers. The Turkish camp was captured on 1 July by the arrival of Bohemond with reinforcements. According to the Gesta Francorum, the Europeans gained respect for Aslan's tactics and soldiers, claiming "had the Turks been Christian, they would be the finest of all races."

Realizing he could not stop the conquest of the Holy Land, Arslan decided to spend his time on hit-and-run attempts on the Europeans. He also destroyed crops and water supplies in their path, but could not stop them. His experience here is what made him take the approach of the Crusade of 1101 much more seriously, but in that case he was facing a less-organized group that was easier to defeat.

Why, however, was his wife returned from Constantinople without the ransom the Europeans demanded? There were Byzantines in the Crusade, so clearly the Byzantines were enemies of Arslan. Or were they? I'll explain in the next post.

Deeds of the Franks

Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (Latin: "Deeds of the Franks and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem"), also known simply as Gesta Francorum (you can figure it out), is an account of the First Crusade, from the viewpoint of an anonymous member of the group following Bohemund of Taranto who later joined Raymond of Toulouse. This account gives us many details not always available elsewhere.

As well as accounts of some specific sieges and battles, there are details of some of the more mundane trials and tribulations. One anecdote is about the arrival of the "People's Crusade" led by Peter the Hermit, who departed early with a band of common people and families:

The Emperor had ordered such a market as was in the city to be given to these people. And he said to them, "Do not cross the Strait until the chief host of the Chritians has come, for you are not so strong that you can do battle with the Turks." The Christians conducted themselves badly, inasmuch as they tore down and burned buildings of the city and carried off the lead with which the churches were constructed sold it to the Greeks. The Emperor was enraged thereat and ordered them to cross the Strait. After they bad crossed, they did not cease doing all manner of evil, burning and plundering houses and churches.

Ultimately, these pre-crusaders were destroyed by the Turks. Part of their problem was not being wealthy enough to provision themselves, and winding up in a land where they had no access to resources. Locals, knowing their great need, were quick to take economic advantage:

When the Armenians and Syrians, however, saw that our men were returning utterly empty-handed, they counselled together and went away through the mountains and places of which they had previous knowledge, making subtle inquiry and buying grain and other bodily sustenance. This they brought to the camp, in which hunger was great beyond measure, and they sold a single assload for eight perpre, which is worth one hundred and twenty solidi of denarii. There, indeed, many of our men died because they did not have the means wherewith to buy at such a dear price.

Crusading was not an easy undertaking. Strange lands, no support,y chain, constantly being attacked (or attacking); it is astounding that they managed to accomplish any of their goals.

It occurs to me that readers of this blog will have no modern point of reference for a solidi, so I think it's time to talk about money next.

Guibert of Nogent

Guibert of Nogent, a Benedictine  was not remarkable in his time, but his extensive writings and autobiography have more recently provided insight into daily life in the Middle Ages.

Born c.1055 to minor nobility, his was a breech birth. His family made an offering to the Virgin Mary the he would be dedicated to a religious life if he survived. Guibert's father (according to his autobiography) was violent man who died while Guibert was still young. Guibert believed his father would have broken the vow and would have tried to get Guibert to become a knight.

At the age of 12, after six years of a strict tutor for the boy, his mother retired to an abbey near saint-Germer-de-Fly. Soon after, Guibert entered the Order of Saint-Germer, studying classical works. The influence of Anselm of Bec inspired him to change his focus to theology.

The first major literary work of his was the Dei gesta per Francos ("God's deeds through the Franks"). It is a more polished version of the anonymous Gesta Francorum. His additions give us more information about the reaction to the Crusade in France.

His autobiography is also patterned after another work, the Confessions of St. Augustine. It is a lengthy work dealing with his youth and upbringing and his life in a monastery. There are references that give us insight into daily life, such as when he denigrates someone for their manner of dress:

But because there are no good things, that do not at times give occasion to some wickedness, when he was one day in a village engaged on some business or other, behold there stood before him a man in a scarlet cloak and silken hose that had the soles cut away in a damnable fashion, with hair effeminately parted in front and sweeping the tops of his shoulders looking more like a lover than a traveller.

Guibert's criticisms tell us something about attitude toward certain fashions. 

He had a skeptical view on saints:

I have indeed seen, and blush to relate, how a common boy, nearly related to a certain most renowned abbot, and squire (it was said) to some knight, died in a village hard by Beauvais .on Good Friday, two days before Easter. Then, for the sake of that sacred day whereon he had died, men began to impute a gratuitous sanctity to the dead boy. When this had been rumoured among the country-folk, all agape for something new, then forthwith oblations and waxen tapers were brought to his tomb by the villagers of all that country round. What need of more words? A monument was built over him, the pot was hedged in with a stone building, and from the very confines of Brittany there came great companies of country-folk, though without admixture of the higher sort. That most wise abbot with his religious monks, seeing this, and being enticed by the multitude of gifts that were brought, suffered the fabrication of false miracles. [Treatise on Relics]

...and on saints' relics:

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, eagerly desired the body of St Exuperius, his predecessor, who was honoured with special worship in the town of Corbeil. He paid, therefore, the sum of one hundred pounds to the sacristan of the church which possessed these relics that he might take them for himself. But the sacristan cunningly dug up the bones of a peasant named Exuperius and brought them to the Bishop. The Bishop, not content with assertion, exacted from him an oath that these bones brought were those of Saint Exuperius. "I swear," replied the man, "that these are the bones of Exuperius: as to his sanctity I cannot swear, since many earn the title of saints are far indeed from holiness." [Treatise on Relics]

He died in 1124.

Speaking of deeds of the Franks, there should be some interesting items to glean from the aforementioned Gesta Francorum. Stay tuned.

Other Accounts of Clermont

How do we know what happened hundreds of years ago? Sometimes we have an archaeological finds that are subject to interpretation. Sometimes we have direct records, like coroner reports or exchequer accounts that we assume are straightforward. Sometimes we have histories written by contemporaries, or eyewitnesses, but even those we have to look at with a critical eye. Did the author have an agenda? Did the author have an accurate memory of the event? Did the author know how to interpret events?

For example: what did Urban actually say at Clermont on 27 November 1095 to announce the (First) Crusade? Six accounts have survived.

First, we have a letter Urban himself sent to Flanders. He says "a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient" (because he has had a request from the emperor in Constantinople for help with the Turks) and makes a passing reference to Jerusalem by saying the barbarism has "even grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection." Interestingly, there is no indication that this Crusade has as its main purpose taking over Jerusalem from non-Christians.

There is also the Gesta Francorum ("Deeds of the Franks"), an anonymous history written only a few years after 1095, that simply says Urban called upon people to "take up the way of the Lord" and be prepared to suffer in the undertaking. This account suggests that Urban was calling on the Franks specifically for this task, and caused the Franks to sew crosses onto the right shoulders of their garments to indicate their willingness.

Two eyewitness accounts exist. Fulcher of Chartres was a chaplain whose detailed account of the Council of Clermont (in the week preceding the announcement) gives an account in which he claims to record only things that he saw with his own eyes. He is the best (we think) account of what Urban actually said.

Robert the Monk is the other account. Robert says he was an eyewitness to Urban's speech, and he may have been: Robert has been identified as a former abbot of Saint-Remi who lived from c.1055 - 1122. Writing more than ten years after the speech, he embellishes it (compared to Fulcher's version) and makes it more dramatic. It is Robert who claims that the crowds as one shouted Deus vult ("God wills it!") at the conclusion of the announcement.

Two more accounts that do not claim to have been present exist. Guibert, the abbot of Nogent, adds his own emphasis on returning Jerusalem to Christian possession to fulfill prophecies about the Apocalypse. Baldric, the archbishop of Dol, seems to re-write the account from the Gesta Francorum and emphasize the Crusade as an appeal to chivalry. Part of Urban's focus during the Council was to reign in violence caused by Christian knights in the West.

We take what we can get from the historical record and hope we can assemble the jigsaw puzzle of historical events.

Tomorrow I'll tell you a little more about Guibert of Nogent and his very "modern" skepticism about something that scholarship definitely agrees with, no matter what people in the Middle Ages believed.

Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey (c.1060 - 18 July, 1100) was the second son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and therefore was not in line for much inheritance. His godfather, however, was Godfrey the Hunchback, Duke of Lower Lorraine. The Duke had no children, and named Godfrey his heir. The old Duke died in 1076, leaving Godfrey the duchy--if he could keep it.

Lower Lorraine was an important buffer between France and Germany, but that made it important to a lot of people. In 1076, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (of the Investiture Controversy) wanted there Lower Lorraine for his son, confiscating it and leaving Godfrey with Bouillon and the land around the cities of Antwerp and Breda. Godfrey's land was also being nibbled at by his aunt Matilda of Tuscany, his cousin Albert III of Namur, and a couple others. His brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, supported him, and eventually he won the Lower Lorraine back by 1087.

Having a larger territory made it possible to gather a larger force to join the First Crusade, which set off in August 1096. Godfrey mortgaged his estates to the bishops of Liège and Verdun, and he and his brothers led a group of 40,000 overland to Constantinople.

"Crusade fever" sparked a new wave of antisemitism. While passing through Mainz, word went out that Godfrey had vowed to avenge the Crucifixion by eliminating all Jews. Emperor Henry prohibited this, and one report (written 50 years later) says Godfrey relented after the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne each paid him 500 marks (1 mark=8 ounces of either gold or silver).

The army reached Jerusalem in June 1099 (after many other events and encounters). On 14-15 July, they got over the walls using siege towers made from lumber from Italian ships, intentionally dismantled for the purpose. Godfrey was one of the first to enter the city. They had left home three years earlier, but they had set foot in Jerusalem (after conquering other towns along the way), and could claim success.

The next step was to determine how to rule the new Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey was chosen to rule (after Raymond of Toulouse, the oldest and most experienced warrior of the Crusade had turned it down), and chose to be Calle Defender of the Holy Sepulchre rather than king. Among other acts, Godfrey endowed the Jerusalem hospital.

What we know of the Crusades comes to us from various chronicles. They do not always agree, and their general reliability must always be examined very carefully. Tomorrow we'll look at a couple accounts of the First Crusade.

The First Crusade Commences

It can be argued that the First Crusade, announced in 1095, could not or would not feasibly have been undertaken much earlier than the end of the 11th century. A few different trends combined at the right time.

One was that the political power of Western Europe had recently grown; kingdoms were becoming more sophisticated with fewer border squabbles, and the church and the secular powers had the organizational ability to manage a large undertaking. Also, there was an eschatological air ever since the year 1000, and the end of the world could be nigh, sparking a religious fervor not previously seen. The end of the world in Biblical terms involved Jerusalem, and so freeing Jerusalem from infidels was important. A request from Alexius I Comnenus of Constantinople to get help from the West with his infidel problems was a catalyst for Urban II to declare this undertaking.

Assembling armies takes time, however, and joining the Crusade was expensive. There was no large standing army in any country capable of taking on such a huge military operation, so citizens from all walks of life were recruited. The prospect of a plenary indulgence from the pope that would remove the need for penance was a strong inducement to join. Individuals sold goods and sought donations to be able to afford food, armor, weapons, passage, etc.

The main forces (there were four major organized groups) were ready to depart Europe in August 1096. A fifth and smaller force led by the King of France's brother, Hugh of Vermandois, left early and was shipwrecked in the Adriatic. (There was also an impatient "People's Crusade" that left early and, well, see the result here.)

The major group was led by Godfrey of Bouillon (1060 - 1100), the duke of Lower Lorraine. Much of the story of the First Crusade relies on his actions. We can look at how the Crusade went through the point of view of the first European "King of Jerusalem" next time.

[map source]

The First Crusade Announced

Christianity in the Middle Ages did not approve of Islam and its swift growth. It was not many years after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE that the Islamic occupation of Jerusalem was established in 638. Even though Jews and Christians were allowed in the city, and a treaty was signed between the caliph and the Patriarch of Jerusalem guaranteeing protection of Christian holy places, Western Europe and the papacy saw Jerusalem as a problem to solve.

Pope Urban II decided it was important to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule, and to that end he announced there would be a special gathering at Clermont in France in 1095. Clermont was the site of a couple religious councils. He was holding one on 18 November, 1095. Urban had received a request for aid from Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus against the Muslim Turks

On 27 November he spoke from a wooden platform to a crowd of thousands of the faithful that had gathered. On each of four sides of the platform were men with leather conical "megaphones" who repeated his words so that they could reach as far as possible to the crowds. (I have read this in the past, but cannot now find a reference for it, so take it as literary license for now.)

In short, he called all Christians to join in a war against the Muslims to free the Holy Land. This would also be an important pilgrimage for any involved, and would include a plenary indulgence (a remission of all penance for sins) to those who partook. When Urban finished his announcement, he concluded Deus vult! (Latin for "God wills it.") The crowd erupted, repeating his Deus vult.

The result of all this? We'll see tomorrow whether they succeeded.

The Charter of Liberties

A copy of the Coronation Charter of Henry I/Charter of Liberties

When William Rufus died, his younger brother Henry assumed the throne. It should have gone to the oldest brother, Robert Curthose, who was away on the First Crusade, because of an agreement between William and Robert. After all, when their father died, Henry was given a chunk of money; he wasn't even given a plot of land to rule the way Robert was given the dukedom of Normandy and William got England. The nobles didn't want to accept Henry at first. It was probably the Charter of Liberties that changed their minds.

The Charter of Liberties is also known as the Coronation Charter. It is the earliest extant coronation charter from England. In it, the new king makes promises to uphold laws. The statements made in this particular Charter were popular because they undid many of the acts of William that were unpopular.

For instance, statement 1 promises that Henry "shall not take or sell any property from a Church upon the death of a bishop or abbot, until a successor has been named to that Church property." (William had left the position of Archbishop of Canterbury lie vacant after the death of Lanfranc, so that he could appropriate the revenue from the archbishop's lands.)

Statement 6 forgives "all debts and pleas which were owing to my brother, except those which were lawfully made through an inheritance."

Statement 8 reverses the practice of being forced to bribe the king: "If any of my barons commit a crime, he shall not bind himself to the crown with a payment as was done in the time of my father and brother, but shall stand for the crime as was custom and law before the time of my father, and make amends as are appropriate."

Other statements put more control in the hands of the barons, and promise that the Crown shall not act rashly. When Robert Curthose went on the First Crusade, William gave him 10,000 marks—the equivalent of 25% of the annual royal budget. William got this money from a very heavy tax levied on the whole of England.

Even though in the normal course of events Henry would not have been part of the succession, the Charter of Liberties presented at his coronation helped to "sell" him to the noble class.

Sibling Rivalry

When William the Conqueror died in 1087, he decided to leave the throne of England to his second eldest, William Rufus. To his eldest, Robert Curthose, who had once rebelled against him, he left the Duchy of Normandy. (Robert hadn't even come to his father's deathbed, staying on the continent because of the bad blood between him and his family.) The youngest son, Henry, got £5000 silver (and two smaller provinces in France: Maine and the Cotentin Peninsula). William and Robert, as the two major landholders, agreed to make each other their heir.

Robert Curthose tomb in Gloucester Cathedral

That didn't last.

Months later, several barons decided to revolt against William Rufus in the Rebellion of 1088. Robert joined them. Verbally. He never actually traveled to England to take part in the rebellion with any troops; had he done so, the rebellion might have succeeded. As it happened, William invaded Normandy a few years later, capturing large parts of the Duchy from Robert.

They managed to reconcile, however, when they decided to team up and expand both their property holdings by taking Maine and Cotentin away from their younger brother, Henry. Henry lost the Cotentin (an important coastline on the English Channel) after a two-week siege, retaining only the smaller and now land-locked Maine.

William died in a hunting accident on 2 August 1100. At the time, Robert was returning from the 1st Crusade. He hurried back to England to claim the throne because of the agreement he had with William since 1087. Unfortunately for him, Henry was in a position to claim the throne before Robert returned.

Robert's troops landed at Portsmouth in 1101 to fight for the throne. Henry was awaiting him at Pevensey (coincidentally[?], near where their father had made his landing for the Norman Invasion of 1066), but caught up with Robert before he reached London, and defeated him. Henry convinced Robert to give up his claim to the throne for 3000 marks per year. That might have resolved their conflict—and it did, for a little while.

But then Ralph Flambard escaped from the Tower of London.

[to be continued]