He did, however, accompany Baldwin, now count of Edessa, when he journeyed to Jerusalem late in 1099 to worship at the Holy Sepulchre and was also present when Baldwin came to Jerusalem, on 9 November 1100, to obtain the title of king. 9
Since Fulcher made his home in Jerusalem and began the fi rst draft of his history around 1101 – with the fi rst redaction of the Historia Hierosolymitana being completed around 1105 – he was therefore writing whilst living among crusaders who had captured the city in 1099. Th
is, along with the accuracy of
his observations, makes Fulcher only marginally less valuable than the direct eyewitnesses and it is a shame that he did not devote more of his history to the siege.
Another very important non-eyewitness account is that of Albert, a monk of Aachen. Th
at the Historia Iherosolimitana of Albert of Aachen is now considered a crucial source for the First Crusade, is in large part due to a wonderful new edition and translation by Susan B. Edgington (AA in the footnotes).10
Th
e strength of Albert’s history is that it is rich with vivid descriptions, supply-ing a great amount of detail that makes the other sources appear sparse in comparison. Earlier historians thought that it was a relatively late work as it continues to describe events all the way up to 1119. But Peter Knoch and Susan Edgington have demonstrated that the section dealing with the siege of Jerusalem was set down in 1102 or soon aft er. 11
Albert longed to go on the crusade with the departing contingents mustered by Duke Godfrey of Lotharingia, but various obstacles were put in his path.
A P P E N D I X
179
Instead, he eagerly sought returning crusaders and was fi lled with enthusiasm to tell their story. As Albert based his history primarily on oral sources, ‘the narration of those who were present’ and newly composed epic songs, his is a very valuable work.12 What makes it particularly important here is that it has a strong interest in the activities of the Lotharingians and gives their perspective on events. Th
ere are many incidents concerning the crusade that are only
known because Albert wrote about them and while he was not always free from errors I have tended to take a great deal from Albert’s history. Only in a few instances where it has not proved possible to synthesize the eyewitness accounts with the information provided by Albert have I declined to follow him.
Far shorter, just some 5,000 words, is a partial account of the siege of Jerusalem in a manuscript that once belonged to the abbey of Ripoll in Catalonia, now lodged as Bibliothèque Nationale (Latin) 5132, Folios 15 v. 23–19
v. 25. John France discovered the text and published an edition of it in the English Historical Review (RF in footnotes). 13 Th
is is a work that ends in a long
celebratory praise poem, but before the verses begin, the author wrote about the siege with such vivid detail that John France’s description of it as the work of an eyewitness seems correct. Although short, the text gives unique and fas-cinating descriptions of the attempts by the Provençal army to overcome the defences of Jerusalem facing them.
To have six works of such merit is a relative luxury for a historian of the late eleventh century. Although there remain gaps that have to be fi lled with conjectures and contradictions that require the historian to come down on one side or another, these accounts are really excellent sources and the material derived from them makes up the core of this narrative. Th
ere are several other
important medieval accounts of the siege of Jerusalem, but due to the fact that they were set down a little aft er the events of 1099 and because they depended less upon evidence from eyewitnesses, they form a second tier of sources, still useful, occasionally providing new information, but not to be counted upon if they diverge from the six sources described above.
Baldric, archbishop of Dol, wrote his version of events around the year 1108.
He was a scholar with a high level of education and extensive knowledge of the classics, which he put to good use in his poetry, for which he was much better known than for his Historia Hierosolymitana. 14 At the time of writing there is no modern edition of Baldric’s history. Th
e edition in the 1898 fourth volume
of the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, while not ideal by modern standards, did at least avoid the mistake of earlier editors who took a rather untypical manuscript tradition as the foundation of their editions. It is therefore the RHC
180 A P P E N D I X
edition that is the one used by this study (BD in the footnotes). 15 A research project has been created under Marcus Bull to produce a new edition, which will hopefully appear in due course.
Inspired by the events of the crusade and by his reading of the Gesta Francorum, Baldric decided that the anonymous author, through his clumsy writing style, had made worthless a subject that deserved to be treated far more eloquently.16 By rewriting of the Gesta Francorum Baldric arrived at a work that was more dramatic, richer in details and theological observations. Baldric was also, unfortunately, inclined to constantly adjust the information in his source to make the Christian army glitter as an illustration of divine approval, charity and harmony. Although some of Baldric’s additional descriptions are attractive, they can only be used with a great deal of caution. Not that all the additional information in the Historia Hierosolymitana can be dismissed as imaginative; Baldric himself drew attention in his prologue to the fact that the work as a whole did include new information from returning veterans, but on the whole, despite its colour, this history is much less reliable for information on the siege of Jerusalem than the earlier works. 17
In the twelft h century the most popular account of the First Crusade was another reworking of the Gesta Francorum, that by Robert the Monk, writing around the same time as Baldric of Dol. Around 100 manuscripts of Robert’s Historia Iherosolimitana survive today, a very substantial number, but there is no modern edition; the most recent being that published in the RHC series in
1866.18 Th
is edition is not ideal, as it was based on just 24 of the surviving manuscripts; nevertheless it is used here (RM in the footnotes).
Th
e Historia Iherosolimitana was written by a monk, Robert, who was present at the Council of Clermont, 18–28 November 1095, but thereaft er was not an eyewitness to the events he described. 19 He worked from a monastery in the episcopate of Reims. Robert was heavily dependent on the Gesta Francorum for the basic form of his history and for most of its content. His reworking of the Gesta Francorum, however, introduced new material and signifi cant elaborations.
Th
ere is a certain amount of historical information in the text that is original to Robert. Th
is might well be valuable eyewitness testimony from returning
crusaders, but – like with Baldric’s work – any such genuine material has to be reconstructed to free it from the distorting eff ect of Robert’s belief that the historian who embarked on writing about the journey to Jerusalem must be pleasing to God, for this, with the exception of the martyrdom of Christ, was the most miraculous undertaking since the creation of the world.20
Th
ere is a poetic history, the Historia Vie Hierosolimitane of Gilo of Paris, which has almost the same material and ordering as the narrative history of
A P P E N D I X
181
Robert the Monk. Whether one infl uenced the other has proved to be diffi cult
to establish, but the current view is that they share a now missing common source.21 Gilo was a Cluniac monk from Toucy in Auxerre who subsequently became cardinal-bishop of Tusculum.22 His metrical history was certainly written at some point before 1120, most probably towards the end of the fi rst decade of the century. On occasion Gilo off ers a small amount of information that is not to be found in Robert’s history and he is cited from the modern edition, with accompanying English translation, provided by C. W. Grocock and J. E. Siber
ry (GP in the footnotes). 23
Another cleric to be inspired by the Gesta Francorum to want to write his own history of the crusade was Guibert, abbot of Nogent. Guibert’s work has many commentaries, observations, reports of visions and miracles, which means that – unlike the histories by Robert and Baldric – it diverges considerably in structure and in content from the Gesta Francorum. Guibert also incorporated more historical material into his work than either of the other two northern French historians, both concerning the departure of the expedition, to which he was an eyewitness, and from the testimony of those who had returned from the expedition.
Th
ere are fi ve editions of the Gesta Dei per Francos, the most recent being the exemplary modern edition by R. B. C. Huygens, 1976, which is used here (GN in the footnotes).24 Huygens convincingly argued that the date of composition of the history was probably 1109.25 Th e fact that Guibert held strong
opinions and enjoyed polemics makes him a more valuable source for this book than his counterparts. Guibert interrupted his narrative to engage in theological debate and commentary more than any other early source for the First Crusade and therefore, while he was sympathetic to the nobles and scathing towards the poor crusader, Guibert provides fl ashes of illumination into the social relations that prevailed on the crusade.
Another slightly later but still useful source for the siege of Jerusalem and in particular for the part played by Tancred is the Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Jerosolymitana of Ralph of Caen. When Bohemond came to France and Normandy in 1106, he recruited a number of followers amongst whom as Ralph, a priest of Caen. Ralph was in Bohemond’s chaplaincy until journeying to Antioch, where, before 1111, he joined the following of Tancred until the death of the prince, 12 December 1112.
Ralph’s history is essentially a panegyric to Tancred. What makes it an important text for the crusade is that Ralph seems to have been free from the infl uence of the Gesta Francorum tradition. His sources seem to have been veterans of the crusade, especially Bohemond and Tancred. For all its enthusiasm
182 A P P E N D I X
and exaggeration of events that favoured Tancred, Ralph’s history cannot have strayed too far from the memory of crusading participants, as it was edited by Arnulf, the chaplain to Robert II, duke of Normandy who became patriarch of Jerusalem in 1099.26
We are lucky to have this source and only one manuscript of the work exists, which survived a fi re in 1716 that destroyed the library of the monastery of Gembloux where it was kept. Th
e edition of the Gesta Tancredi in expeditione
Jerosolymitana printed in the RHC series is the one used here (RC in the footnotes). B. S. Bachrach and D. S. Bachrach provided an English translation in
2005.27
Although many later Latin authors wrote about the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, very few added any details that could be used to supplement these sources. Orderic Vitalis wrote a section on the First Crusade in his extraordinary Historia Ecclesiastica (1123–41), but inserted the work of his friend Baldric of Dol, almost word for word. Th
e small number of changes that Orderic
made to Historia Hierosolymitana are worth noting though, as they were oft en reference to knights with land in England whom Orderic would have known about.
Much later, 1167–84, William of Tyre composed his Chronicon, an extremely sophisticated history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Th
is history is set
down by someone too far from events to count as a major source for the siege but it has some unique details that can be considered reliable given William’s background. William was born in Jerusalem around 1130 and lived in the city for some 16 years before leaving to obtain an education in Europe. On his return, he became Chancellor of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1174 and Archbishop of Tyre from 1175 to his death c.1185.
Given that William had access to an oral tradition concerning the city of Jerusalem and was extremely thorough in his use of written sources, including some now lost to us, it is with some confi dence that I have taken up one or two points from his account, mainly to do with the experiences of the local Christian population who remained within the walls of the city during the siege. In 1986 R. B. C. Huygens provided a modern, scholarly, edition of the Chronicon of William of Tyre for the Corpus Christianorum series, which is used here (WT in the footnotes).28
Turning away from the Latin sources, it is with great disappointment that the historian searches almost in vain for Jewish and Muslim perspectives on the siege. Th
ere were Jewish accounts of the passage of the First Crusade
through the Rhineland and these are harrowing to read, for they are detailed laments in honour of those from the Jewish community who were slaughtered
A P P E N D I X
183
by Christians associated with the People’s Crusade.29 Surprisingly, however, no major literary Jewish source exists for the much more devastating massacre in Jerusalem in 1099. Important fragments have, however, been found among the massive collection of Jewish manuscripts found in Old Cairo in the mid-nineteenth century, a collection known as the ‘Genzia documents’. An English translation of a key letter, along with a valuable discussion as to the implications of its contents, can be found in an article by S. D. Goitein and further commentary on the relevant Genzia fragments is provided in Moshe Gil’s A History of Palestine, 634–1099.30
Th
e Muslim sources for the siege of Jerusalem are equally fragmentary, at least as we have them today. Th
ere was an early history of the crusade written
by Hamdan b. ‘Abd al-Rahim, called History of the Franks who Invaded the Islamic Lands, but very unfortunately no copy has survived to modern times.
As the poems and polemics of the day said nothing about the actual events of 1099, historians have to turn to later works for the Muslim perspectives of the siege. Even then, the information available is very patchy. Th e Syrian writer
al-‘Azimi, for example, writing in 1160 says only this for 1099: ‘then they turned to Jerusalem and conquered it from the hands of the Egyptians. Godfrey took it. Th
ey burned the Church of the Jews.’31 Al-Qalānisī, based in Damascus and also writing around the year 1160, off ered a little more on the subject. His Continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus is an impressive work and an important one for the events of the region in the early twelft h century; H. A. R. Gibb translated it in full into English. But for the siege of Jerusalem the information in the Damascus Chronicle disappointingly scant. Al-Qalānisī wrote that it was the news that al-Afdal was on his way with a large army that prompted the Franks to renew their eff orts to take the city. Again, unlike any of the Latin sources, the Damascene historian reported that the Franks had burned a major synagogue. ‘Th
e Franks stormed the town and gained possession of it.
A number of the townsfolk fl ed to the sanctuary and a great host were killed.
Th
e Jews assembled in the synagogue, and the Franks burnt it over their heads.
Th
e sanctuary was surrendered to them on guarantee of safety on 22 Sha’ban
[14 July] of this year, and they destroyed the shrines and the tomb of Abraham. ’32
Considerably later, around 1200, Ibn al-Jawzī, writing in Baghdad gave details of the looting of the Dome of the Rock. ‘Among the events in this year was the taking of Jerusalem by the Franks on 13 Sha’ban [5 July]. Th ey killed
more than 70,000 Muslims there. Th
ey took forty-odd silver candelabra from
the Dome of the Rock, each one worth 360,000 dirhams. Th
ey took a silver
lamp weighting forty Syrian ratls. Th
ey took twenty-odd gold lamps, innumer-
able clothing and other things.’33
184 A P P E N D I X
Writing around the same time, from near Mosul, Ibn al-Athīr is more valuable in that, as was generally the case with this sch
olarly historian, many of the details he provided in his chronicle, Th
e Complete History match what we know
from the Latin sources. Ibn al-Athīr has the correct date for the capture of the city, 15 July, and correctly states that while the Muslims countered the attack on the south side of the city, it was taken from the north. He reported that the siege tower on the Mount Zion side was completely destroyed by fi re and all inside were killed. Also correct was his statement that the Muslims in the Tower of David survived to obtain a safe escort to Ascalon during the night. Th e fi gure
of 40 trebuchets that al-Athīr claims were built by the crusaders is a signifi cant exaggeration and this casts doubt on another more important fi gure in the account, that of the numbers of Muslims killed in the massacre, which he puts at 70,000. Al-Athīr’s account emphasizes the fact that at the Aqsā Mosque a great number of scholars and religious men were killed. He also off ered similar details to Ibn al-Jawzī on the booty taken from the Dome of the Rock.34
A modern English translation has been provided by D. S. Richards.
Carole Hillenbrand’s discussion of these sources has pointed out that none of them portray the Christians as fi ghters for their religion.35 For the fi rst 100
years or so of the Muslim historiographical tradition concerning the capture of Jerusalem, the Christian army was portrayed as an unexpected arrival into the Muslim political world, but not as a military force with a very distinct religious agenda. It was left to the theologians and poets to draw out the religious issues at stake arising from the crusading movement and some Muslim writers, such as al-Sulami (1105) were very swift to grasp that ‘Jerusalem was the goal of their desires.’36 Such polemical works are very important for tracing the evolution of jihad into a Muslim counter-crusade against the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, but as they contain no historical information about the siege of Jerusalem it is impossible to use them except perhaps as a source for the state of mind of some of the Islamic clergy in the aft ermath of the crusade. It can be argued that some scholars, at least, felt that there was a need to unite the Islamic world against the newly arrived unbelievers.37
The Siege of Jerusalem: Crusade and Conquest in 1099 Page 29