set out in a few more days, when the auguries were propitious.31
Th
e arrival of dawn on 12 August 1099 found the crusader army stirring.
A cacophony of trumpets and horns sounded out, drowning the chorus of birds that fl ed into the sky. Th
e fanfare was hardly necessary for few had slept well
under the open sky, knowing that their fate and that of everyone waiting in Jerusalem was to be decided in the day ahead. Again the leaders of the army impressed upon everyone the need to refrain from looting until the battle was won. Th
is time the message was reinforced by Arnulf and Peter, who as they took confession and blessed the army with the Holy Cross, made it clear that anyone who took plunder prematurely would be excommunicated.32
Once more the Christian army assembled in their three-by-three formation and resumed the march to Ascalon. As they did so, an extraordinary response came from the herds milling around the soldiers. Th
e animals pricked up
their ears and as the army marched forward, the domesticated creatures did
152
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
the same. When the army paused or accelerated, the herds kept pace. Th is
proved to be more than just a curious pattern of behaviour; it meant that when the Egyptians saw the clouds of dust in the sky that indicated a large force was approaching, the size of the Christian army appeared to be massively exaggerated.33
From al-Afdal’s perspective, the morning had brought the greatest shock of his political and military career. Th
at the Christians would dare abandon
their walls and come to fi ght the mighty Egyptian army at Ascalon could hardly have been anticipated. Nor that they would pass up the chance of taking a great deal of plunder back to Jerusalem in order to risk their lives in battle. Th ere was
little time for preparation. While trumpets and drums sounded the mobilization, it was the Sudanese infantry who could most quickly be sent to interpose themselves before the advancing crusaders. Th
e rest of the army, especially the
heavily armoured Armenian knights needed time to prepare themselves. From the walls of Ascalon, the citizens stared with alarm at the great clouds of dust that marked the rapid advance of a Christian force that seemed to match the numbers of Fatimid troops in the camps below, now the scene of urgent activity and the source of blaring calls to arms.
As the crusaders closed upon their enemy, they redeployed, forming a longer front and sending foot soldiers with archers ahead to protect the cavalry until they were close enough to charge. Th
e herds of animals that had followed them
this far now fell away as the pace of the army quickened. Duke Godfrey and his men took the critical left fl ank of the line, critical because as they were advancing with the sea on their right, it was the more exposed left wing of the Christian army that had the best view of the Jaff a and Jerusalem gates of Ascalon. Godfrey’s plan was, if possible, to avoid committing his troops until the last, so that he could monitor developments from the direction of the city and respond if additional Muslim troops issued forth.
On the right, riding through orchards that reached nearly all the way to the sandy shoreline, was Count Raymond and the Provençal army. Th
eir task was
also to hold back in case of Muslim reinforcements or a faltering in the momentum of the overall attack. In the centre, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders, once more side by side, were to lead the main assault with Tancred and many other less prominent leaders supporting them. As the Christian centre came into contact with the Sudanese infantry arrows began to fl y, soon the knights spurred their horses and lowered their lances and as they charged the formation of the army looked like a fl attened V, the wings moving less swift ly than the centre, ensuring that the line would not be enveloped.
T H E
A F T E R M AT H
153
For a while the fi ghting was fi erce and the whips of the Sudanese troops off ered some protection against the advancing cavalry. But there was no core to the Fatamid army, no heavy cavalry to come to the assistance of their infantry.
Instead all was confusion among the tents. As the fi ghting became fi ercer it favoured the mail-clad knights, to the point that the losses of the Muslim infantry were intolerable. Th
ey scattered and the way was open to the weak and dis-
organized heart of al-Afdal’s army.
Seizing the opportunity, Godfrey signalled for the whole army to join the assault and right across the line, from Raymond’s forces at the coast through to the Lotharingians on the left , the banners of the Christian army moved deep into the Fatamid camp. He may not have enjoyed the grind of sieges, but when Robert of Normandy was given the opportunity to fi ght he rode into battle as courageously as any knight. Having spotted al-Afdal’s standard, a golden apple on the top of a pole covered with silver, Robert and his followers charged at the knot of Muslim warriors around it and Robert himself struck down the standard bearer. Nearby Robert of Flanders had ridden with equal determination through the Fatimid army; while Tancred, unsurprisingly, was raging through the heart of the camp. 34
Faced with this onslaught, without adequate organization and equipment, the Fatimid army broke apart. Some ran towards Ascalon in the hope of reaching the gates before the Christian knights, others ran towards the sea in the hope of swimming out to Egyptian ships. Still more just stood, helpless and bewildered to fi nd their enemies all around them. An immense slaughter began.
Like butchers killing beasts in an abattoir, the knights struck out left and right with clinical effi
ciency, piling up the corpses. A miserable fate overtook many
of those who had run for the gates of the city. Crowded together in their panic, the fl eeing army created such a press that hundreds suff ocated. Hundreds more were doomed by the hurried closure of the gates. Th
ose who had chosen to seek
safety towards the sea were no better off as they ran into Count Raymond’s army and their deaths. Pitiful scenes were played out as men ran back and forth on the sand until caught and stabbed. Seeing the battle was lost, the ships of the Egyptian navy hoisted their sails and stood out to sea.
Many of the Muslim soldiers had climbed palm trees or into the branches of olive and fi g trees, hoping to be concealed among the leaves. Once discovered, those within reach were speared and slaughtered, while those higher up in the branches provided targets for archers, until, wounded, they fell to the ground and the blades that awaited them. Although the beginning of looting among the tents of the Egyptian army gave some Muslim soldiers the confi dence to
154
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
attempt a rally, Duke Godfrey had his own men well in hand. Berating the Christians who had paused in their destruction of enemy soldiers, Godfrey scattered the remaining pocket of resistance and the massacre continued throughout the aft ernoon.35
At last the Christian army regrouped and the army was given permission to gather booty. It was an immense haul. Not only were there thousands of camels, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats and oxen, there were tents full of military equipment. Singing praises to God and looking forward to the celebrations on their return, the greater part of the army set out for Jerusalem, triumphant and happy. Proud of his role in the battle, Robert of Normandy paid 20 marks for the banner of al-Afdal, which he donated to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where it was displayed until recaptured by Saladin in 1187. Th
e might of Egypt
was shattered. By this victory the crusaders had ensured that Jerusalem, the city for which they had endured so much suff ering, would remain in Christian hands for the foreseeable future.
Chapter 10
Legacy
In its own terms, the First Crusade was an extraordinary success. Having set out in 1096 with only the most vague idea of the political situation
in the Levant, three years later the crusaders had established a new Christian principality at Antioch, a new kingdom at Jerusalem, and had taken over the Armenian lordship of Edessa. Moreover, they had defeated the powerful army of Kerbogha, general for the Seljuk caliphate based in Baghdad, and that of al-Afdal, the vizier of the Fatimid caliphate of Cairo. Th
ese achievements more than fulfi lled
the vows the pilgrims had taken back in Europe, for they had not only placed the Holy City in the hands of a Christian ruler but their military victories against much larger armies had ensured that the fl edgling Christian states were secured, at least for the short term.
Th
e princes and the leading knights of the army were almost instantly considered heroes by the Latin Christian world. Very soon aft er 1099 lords were being entertained in their halls by verses composed to honour the venture, verses which were careful to celebrate the deeds of any relative of the host might who was on the crusade. While the travels of singers and performers spread tales of the conquest of the Holy City right across Europe, more seden-tary monastic scholars accomplished the same popularization of the crusade through their writings. Th
ere seemed to be no more worthy subject matter
than the story of the Holy Journey and by 1110 several accounts of the crusade, refi ned and polished and with edifying examples of praiseworthy behaviour, were circulating throughout the literate circles of Western Europe.
Th
e knight whose reputation was most celebrated was Godfrey, the tall, fair-haired, conqueror of Jerusalem. All sorts of legends sprang up about him, with a variety of popular tales presenting the Lotharingian warrior as a near saint.
Godfrey gained the power to heal the blind; his election to the rule of the city came aft er a lightning bolt lit a candle he was holding; he fought famous trials of individual combat against Muslim princes; and so forth. Later composers of romantic verses found Godfrey an attractive fi gure for their chivalric tales and in some he was made the grandson of the Swan Knight, one of six brothers who were said to turn into swans when the golden necklaces that they were born with were removed.1
156
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
One of the reasons that such legends could spring up in regard to Godfrey is that he did not live long aft er obtaining his new domain. Th
erefore no distaste-
ful incidents of political alliance with local Muslim rulers or examples of military setback existed to cloud the purity of his story. Godfrey died on 18 July 1100 and with his death came a short political struggle for control of the new kingdom. Th
e Normans and Lotharingians, who had co-operated at the siege
of Jerusalem, now fell out. Tancred, in alliance with Diambert, archbishop of Pisa and papal legate, who had recently arrived in the region and who had managed to obtain the patriarchate of Jerusalem, urged his uncle, Bohemond, to come south and take the city. In the meantime the Lotharingian entourage of Godfrey seized the all-important citadel of Jerusalem and sent their messengers to Edessa to appeal to Baldwin, Godfrey’s brother, to take over.
Th
e race was won by Baldwin and by Christmas 1100 his position was secure enough that he could hold a ceremony in Bethlehem in which he was reconciled to Diambert, with the patriarch crowning Baldwin king of Jerusalem. Th e
reign of Baldwin I was a modestly successful one from the perspective of the Christian nobility of the kingdom and while he suff ered the occasional severe military check, by his death in 1118 Baldwin had gradually expanded the territory under Christian control, notably by the capture of the Fatimid coastal cities of Acre in 1104, Tripoli in 1109, and Beirut the following year.
Not all the prominent leaders of the First Crusade enjoyed as much success in later life as the Lotharingian brothers. Robert of Flanders did well enough, returning to his country with great fame and a number of relics, relics that won him the enthusiasm of the local clergy and the nickname Robert of Jerusalem.
Manoeuvring with some success between the German, English and French kings, Robert was able to govern Flanders with near complete autonomy until his death on 5 October 1111, drowning aft er a fall from his horse while on an expedition with the French king, Louis VI, ‘the fat’. His close comrade on the First Crusade, Robert of Normandy, lived a great deal longer, but would have swapped all those extra years for the freedom of his crusading companion. 2
On his return to Normandy, Duke Robert was immediately embroiled in a struggle for control of England. With his older brother, William II, dying in a hunting accident in the New Forest on 2 August 1100, the duke was in a position to claim the English crown, but only if he could unseat his younger brother, Henry, who had benefi ted from William’s death and Robert’s absence to move quickly to consolidate himself as king. Successfully landing in Portsmouth in 1101 thanks to the corruption of the admiral of Henry’s defensive fl eet, an invasion by Robert’s army began well; only to peter out as the church intervened to
L E G A C Y
157
prevent a bloody civil war between the brothers and their respective supporters.
Robert was never again to have such an opportunity to defeat his younger brother.
Over the next four years, while Henry slowly but surely consolidated his position in England and undermined the strength of those knights who had opposed him, Robert’s domain grew weaker and weaker as – at the cost of his political authority – the duke’s energies were spent on living a pleasant and dissolute life. In 1105 Henry felt confi dent enough to launch a major invasion of Normandy and by September 1106 Robert, having seen the loyalty of his followers disintegrate, decided to risk everything with a desperate attack on Henry’s army at Tinchebray. Defeat meant that the rest of Robert’s long life was one of captivity, for the fi rst 20 years at Devizes Castle, before his removal to Cardiff Castle where he died in 1134. Th
e Latin writers of the Christian world
were universal in their pity for the former crusader.
By contrast with the downward trajectory of Robert, the young Italian Norman, Tancred, went on from the conquest of Jerusalem to become a famous prince in the Near East. Back in 1096, Tancred and his uncle, Bohemond, had made a pact to go on crusade together. Tancred had agreed to set out on crusade with Bohemond as his lord, while Bohemond swore that Tancred would be his second in command. Th
is arrangement was adhered to throughout their lives.
In August 1100, Bohemond was imprisoned aft er being surrounded by the Damishend emir Malik Ghazi Gumushtakin and captured near Melitene.
Tancred, who had been building up his own small principality of Galilee, hurried north to act as regent of Antioch. With Bohemond’s release in 1103, however, Tancred was in a diffi
cult position; having lost his estates in Galilee to
King Baldwin I due to his absence at Antioch, he was back to being the lord of only very minor territories. Whatever tension may have arisen between the two relatives as a result in this diminution of Tancred’s status they did not fall out but rather co-operated in order to extend the authority of Antioch against their many enemies.
Aft er a year campaigning together to strengthen the principality of Antioch, Bohemond once more left Tancred in charge of the principality. Because he had an ambition to rid Antioch of its greatest threat, the Byzantine attempts to regain the city, Bohemond left for Italy and France in 1105 to recruit an army with which he intended to best Alexius, the Byzantine Emperor. Bohemond’s tour through France was a triumphant one, culminating in him marrying Constance, the daughter of King Phillip and obtaining the hand of Cecilia, her half sister, for Tancred.
158
T H E S I E G E O F J E R U S A L E M
In the autumn of 1107 Bohemond invaded Greece, setting up a siege at Dyrrhachium. But Alexius moved swift ly too, settling his aff airs in Anatolia so that he could be free to bring up his army and navy in reply. Soon it was Bohemond who was on the defensive
and in September 1108 the Norman prince was obliged to recognize he had been defeated with a treaty that surrendered the autonomy of Antioch by making its ruler a vassal of the Byzantine Empire. Rather than implement the Treaty of Devol, Bohemond retired to Apulia, where he died in 1111, a celebrated fi gure but one whose fi nal place in the political hierarchy of the times was far more modest than the empire he had dreamed of.
While Bohemond’s star had declined, Tancred’s had risen. Aft er Bohemond’s defeat at Dyrrhachium in 1108, Tancred took charge of Antioch once more, holding it in the name of Bohemond’s young son. As ruler of Antioch, Tancred very eff ectively sustained the autonomy of the principality, with success in battle against rival Christian lords and also against Ridwan, the powerful ruler of Aleppo. Having skilfully arranged alliances with Latin Christian, Muslim and Armenian rulers in the region Tancred looked to be a position to increase his authority and fame even further, when he fell ill and died on 12 December 1112, only 36 years old. His had been an extraordinarily vigorous life of warfare, even by the standards of the day, and a striking example of how military success and strategic acumen could take a young knight with just 40 followers to the heights of fame and power.
Th
e rivalry between Tancred and Count Raymond of Toulouse, that had been so evident at the siege of Jerusalem, was also continued throughout their lives, for Count Raymond remained in the region as an ally of the Byzantine emperor.
Early in 1101, a new wave of crusaders began to arrive at Constantinople, inspired by the success of those who had embarked on the expedition of 1096.
Raymond of Toulouse was in Constantinople at the time and at the urging of Alexius joined the crusade. Whereas Raymond and the Byzantine forces wanted to campaign in western Anatolia, the news of Bohemond’s capture by Malik Ghazi excited the newly arrived knights, causing them to ride off eastwards with the intention of rescuing their hero. Th
e adventure ended catastrophically
for the Christian army when it ran into a united Muslim army: Malik Ghazi and the Seljuk sultan of Rum, Qilij Arslān, were supported by troops from as far afi eld as Aleppo. Count Raymond barely escaped alive (loosing his precious relic, the Holy Lance in the process) and made his way back to Constantinople.
The Siege of Jerusalem: Crusade and Conquest in 1099 Page 25