by John France
The success of the First Crusade, and its capture of Jerusalem in 1099, has been conventionally explained by its ideological and political motivation. This book looks at the First Crusade primarily as a military campaign and asks why it was so successful. Modern writing about the crusade has tended to emphasise the moral dimension and the development of the idea of the crusade but its fate was ultimately decided on the field of battle. This book looks at the nature of war at the end of the eleventh century and the military experience of all the contending parties in order to explain its extraordinary success. It is the first such examination, taking into account all other factors but emphasising the military.
VICTORY IN THE EAST
VICTORY IN THE EAST
A military history of the First Crusade
JOHN FRANCE
University College, Swansea
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521419697
© Cambridge University Press 1994
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1994
Reprinted 1996
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
France, John.
Victory in the East: a military history of the First Crusade/John France.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0 521 41969 7
1. Crusades – First, 1096-1099.
2. Military art and science – History – Medieval, 500-1500.
3. Military history, Medieval.
I. Title.
D161.2.F73 1994
940.1′8–dc20 93-28329 CIP
ISBN 978-0-521-41969-7 Hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-58987-1 Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work is correct at the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.
To my wife, Angela
Contents
* * *
List of figures
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
1 The roots of victory
2 War in the West
3 Campaigns, generals and leadership
4 Preparations and prelude
5 The size of the crusader army
6 The first enemy: the Turks of Asia Minor
7 The second enemy: the siege of Antioch
8 The siege of Antioch: crisis and delivery
9 The siege of Antioch: victory
10 Divisions
11 Jerusalem: triumphant ending
12 Perspectives
Appendix A note on the sources
Select bibliography
Index
Figures
* * *
1 The armies march to Constantinople
2 The journey across Asia Minor
3 Friends and enemies in the Middle East, 1095
4 Syria and the First Crusade
5 The siege of Nicaea and the Turkish attack of 16 May 1097
6 Battle of Dorylaeum
a Phase 1
b Phase 2
c Phase 3
d Phase 4
7 Antioch and vicinity
8 Siege of Antioch, October 1097 – February 1098
9 The Lake Battle: 9 February 1098
10 Siege of Antioch, March–May 1098
11 Crusader capture of Antioch, night of 2/3 June 1098
12 Kerbogah’s siege of Antioch, 4–29 June 1098
13 The fighting around the citadel of Antioch
14 The defeat of Kerbogah
15 The siege of ‘Akkār, 14 February–13 May 1099
16 The march south
17 Jerusalem
a Initial deployment, 7–12 June 1099
b Attack of 13 June, 1099
c Final attack of 13–15 July 1099
18 Battle of Ascalon, Phase I and II, 12 August 1099
Acknowledgments
* * *
I am deeply indebted to an enormous number of people who have helped me in the writing of this book. In the spring and summer of 1992 I was awarded grants by the British Academy and the Lever-hulme Trust which enabled me to follow the path of the First Crusade from Istanbul to Jerusalem. This book would have been infinitely poorer without the observations which I was able to make, and I would like to thank both organisations for their generous support. We are fortunate that in the United Kingdom there are now two Chairs of crusading studies. Professor Bernard Hamilton of the University of Nottingham has advised me over many years and I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to read part of the present work. Professor J. Riley-Smith of Royal Holloway and Bedford New College and Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History-elect at the University of Cambridge has been kind enough to offer me much help and I was privileged to attend his seminar at the Institute of Historical Research in London. Dr David French, Director of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, very generously provided me with invaluable information about the ancient and medieval road system of Asia Minor. I should also like to thank him and his colleagues, particularly Shirley and Stuart Blaylock, for their kind hospitality and advice on travelling in Turkey. Dr Stephen Mitchell of the Classics Department, University College Swansea, was also good enough to help me on the history of Asia Minor and gave assistance with maps. Tim Severin was also helpful in this respect. John Gillingham of the London School of Economics read two vital chapters and made many valuable suggestions. My colleague Mr I. W. Rowlands was also kind enough to look at parts of the typescript. Peter Edbury of University College, Cardiff has been an invaluable source of help and advice and his colleague David Bates has advised on the Normans. I should like to thank Dr Susan Edgington of the Huntingdonshire College for letting me see the text of her forthcoming edition of Albert of Aachen for so helpfully responding to my requests for information – may her new edition appear soon! I have been pleased to test out my ideas on war in discussion with Matthew Bennett of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, while my understanding of middle eastern history, no matter how limited, has been immeasurably improved by discussion with Professor A. K. S. Lambton. Dr A. V. Murray of the University of Leeds was kind enough to let me see some of his work in advance and to offer helpful suggestions. I should like to thank Professor Israel Roll of Tel Aviv University and Mrs Dorit Cohen of the Israeli National Maritime Museum, Haifa, for their specialist advice, and Denys Pringle for his helpful response to my questions. My knowledge of the Crusade of 1101 has been much improved by discussion with Mr Alec Mulinder. Professor D. T. Herbert and his colleague Dr A. H. Perry of the Geography Department, University College Swansea provided much help on matters geographic and meteorological. Mr G. B. Lewis drew the maps used in this book and any errors come from the material I supplied to him. I would like to thank Fran
cis Herbert and David McNeill of the Royal Geographical Society for their patient assistance. All the above have contributed ideas and advice, but of course responsibility for the material is mine alone.
All scholars rely heavily on learned institutions and libraries and I have been immensely helped by the Director, Professor P. K. O’Brien, and the staff of the Institute of Historical Research. The library staff of University College Swansea, the British Museum Reading Room, London University Library, the National Library of Wales and the School of African and Oriental Studies bore with me with patience and courtesy. Mr Geoffrey Fisher of the Conway Library at the Courtauld Institute was very helpful in discussing illustrations.
The staff of Cambridge University Press have been extremely helpful and I would like to thank Katherine Boyle the copy editor and always and ever William Davies.
Finally I would like to thank all those who gave me so much assistance on my journey along the route of the First Crusade from Istanbul to Jerusalem.
John France
History Department, University College, Swansea SA2 8PP
The author wishes to thank Dr S. B. Edgington and Mr W. G. Zajac for their kind assistance in offering corrections for this edition.
Abbreviations
* * *
AA
Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana, RHC Oc. 4
AASS Boll
Acta Sanctorum ed. J. Bollandus, G. Henschenius et al. (Antwerp, 1643– )
AASSOSB
Acta Sancorum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti ed. J. Mabillon, 9 vols. (Paris, 1688–1702)
Aleppo Chronicle
Kemal ad-Din, ‘Chronicle of Aleppo’, RHC Or. 3
Alexiad
Anna Comnena, Alexiad tr. E. R. A. Sewter (London, 1969)
Amatus
Amato di Monte Cassino ed. V. Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1935)
ASC
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ed. D. Whitelock (London, 1961)
BD
Bauldry of Dol, Historia Jerosolimitana, RHC Oc. 4
BT
The Bayeux tapestry ed. D. M. Wilson (London, 1985)
Damascus chronicle of the Crusades
Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus chronicle of the Crusades, extracts ed. and tr. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1967)
Ekkehard
Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, RHC Oc. 5
FC
Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913)
GCA
Gesta Comitum Andegavorum, in Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou et des seigneurs d’Amboise ed. L. Halphen and R. Poupardin (Paris, 1913)
GF
Gesta Francoum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. R. Hill (London, 1962)
Glaber
Rodulfus Glaber Opera, ed. J. France (Oxford, 1989)
GN
Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Die per Francos, RHC Oc. 4
GR
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. T. D. Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1840)
HBS
Historia Belli Sacri RHC Oc. 3
HGM
Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ed. P. Meyer, 3 vols. (Paris, 1891–1901)
HH
Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold (London, 1879)
Ibn Khaldun
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddima: an introduction to history ed. and tr. R. Rosenthal, abridged N. J. Dawood (Princeton, 1967)
Matthew
Matthew of Edessa, ‘Chronique’, RHC Arm. 1
MGH
Monumenta Germaniae Historica
MGH Auct. Ant.: Auctores antiquissimi
MGH SRG: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum ad usum scholarum
MGH SS: Scriptores
SS rer. Lanpob.: Scriptores rerum Langobardorum
Michael
Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarch Jacobite d’Antioche 1166–99 ed. and tr. J. B. Chabot, 4 vols. (Brussels, 1963, reprint of 1899–1910 edition)
al-Mulk
Nizam al-Mulk, Traité de gouvernment composé pour le Sultan Malik Shah ed. C. Schefer, 2 vols. (Paris, 1892–3). There is also an English translation, The Book of government or rules for kings ed. and tr. H. Darke (New York, 1960)
OV
Ordericus Vitalis, Historia aecclesiastica, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–79)
PL
Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–64)
PT
Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Philadelphia, 1974)
RA
Raymond of Aguilers, Liber, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1969)
Ravandi
Ravandi, Muhammad b. Ali b. Sulaiman, Rabat al-sudur wa ayatal surur ed. M. Iqtal (Leiden and London, 1921)
RC
Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, RHC Oc. 5
RH
Roger of Hovenden, Chronica Magistri Rogeris de Hovenden ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols. (London, Rolls Series, 1871)
RHC
Recueil des Historiens des Croisades
RHC Ar.: Historiens Arméniennes
RHC Oc: Historiens Occidentaux
RHC Or.: Historiens Orientales
RM
Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana, RHC Oc. 3
Runciman
S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1951–4)
Setton, Crusades
K. Setton and M. W. Baldwin (ed.), A history of the crusades (Pennsylvania, 1959–89)
Tarsusi
Tarsusi, Murda ben Ali, Tabsira Arbub al-albad extracts ed. and tr. C. Cahen, ‘Un traité d’armurie composé pour Saladin’, Bulletin d’études orientales, 12 (1948), 103–63
Vic et Vaisette
C. de Vic et J. J. Vaisette, Histoire Générale de Languedoc, 5 vols. (Paris, 1743–5)
Wace
Wace’s Roman de Rou et des Ducs de Normandie ed. H. Andresen, 2 vols. (Bonn, 1877–9)
WJ
William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. J. Marx (Paris, 1914)
WP
William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum, ed. R. Foreville (Paris, 1952)
WT
William of Tyre, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, RHC Oc. 1
CHAPTER 1
The roots of victory
* * *
The capture of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099 was of enormous importance in the history of the Christian West and the Orthodox and Islamic East. It was the culmination of five years of incredible effort which began in November 1095 when Pope Urban II launched the great expedition at Clermont in the Auvergne. For those who laboured on it and survived, the seizure of Jerusalem represented a triumphant consummation. Little wonder that amongst the appalling carnage and slaughter of the sack, in which men ‘rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins’, they believed ‘it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies’ and rejoiced. ‘A new day, new joy, new and perpetual gladness, the consummation of our labour and devotion, drew forth from all new words and new songs’.1 For the papacy, which conceived the idea of the expedition, its victory was a vindication of the pope’s claims to be the leader of the Christian world. In the ideological conflict between empire and papacy, which we call the ‘Investiture Contest’, the victory of the crusade tipped the balance sharply towards the papacy. The capture of Jerusalem and its port of Jaffa began the establishment of a western colony in the east. It was not the first – the crusade had already seized Antioch and Edessa – but Jerusalem was an ideological imperative for the whole of Latin Christendom, a spur which for two centuries would drive men and women on bitter journeys by land and sea to savage war in the distant Levant. That the pope alone could declare such a war established his position as something akin to the Caliph’s as ‘Commander of the Faithful’. For the
Christian and Orthodox empire at Constantinople with its long tradition of diplomacy, the arrival of the westerners introduced a new and unpredictable factor into the politics of the Mediterranean. The newcomers were at once Christians and strangers whose attitude to Byzantium was ambiguous to say the least.2 For Islam, the crusader victory marked the arrival of an alien force whose beliefs and attitudes were deeply threatening, though this was only slowly recognised. For western traders the victory opened the way for the growth of new enclaves controlled by friendly forces through which to tap the riches of the east, rivals to established centres like Constantinople and Alexandria.3 The victory of the First Crusade precipitated great changes, in the ideological and political conflicts of Europe, in the politics of the Levant, and in the trading habits of the Mediterranean basin. It is not difficult to understand why modern historians have enthusiastically addressed the question of explaining the success of an undertaking which had such momentous consequences.
The story of the crusade is fascinating. Urban created a mass movement; an army of about 50,000–60,000, plus non-combatants, was set in motion in 1095.4 Such numbers were unknown in the west. The army with which William, duke of Normandy, conquered England in 1066 probably numbered 14,000 men, including sailors, delivering effectives of about 8,000–9,000 onto the battlefield, of whom perhaps as many as 3,000 were mounted. Twenty years later the Anglo-Saxon chronicler recorded that William mustered ‘a larger force of mounted men and footsoldiers than had ever come into this country’ against an invasion threat. In 1081 Robert Guiscard attempted to conquer the Byzantine empire with an army of about 15,000 fighting men.5 Comparisons must take into account the presence, in the crusader army of 1095, of many non-combatants, the elderly, women and children. However, it is evident that the army of the First Crusade was something quite unprecedented in size and, indeed, undertaking. Such a mass movement could not but fascinate later generations, especially since it also appears as David in a contest with the forces of Islam. For the crusade challenged three great enemies, the Turks of Asia Minor, the Sultanate of Baghdad and the Egyptian Caliphate, and to do this travelled great distances. From Cologne to Constantinople via Ratisbon, Belgrade and Sofia is 2,300 kilometres and from Paris via Brindisi and Thessalonika 2,380. On the route followed by the main army Jerusalem is 1,970 kilometres from Constantinople. So the people who set out in 1095 were prepared to walk and ride some 4,300 kilometres.6 Conditions on the march were appalling; the arid heat of central Asia Minor and the steep passage of the Taurus mountains took their toll.7 To such natural horrors were added the supply problems attendant on feeding an army of such a size. This was most acute during the nine-month siege of Antioch, while there was a tremendous shortage of water during the bitter siege of Jerusalem.8 It should be remembered that before the age of modern hygiene and medicine any army reckoned to lose more from disease than from battle. In what appears to be a reliable estimate, the eye-witness chronicler, Raymond of Aguilers, suggested that the army which besieged Jerusalem had only 1,200–1,300 knights and 12,000 foot with an unspecified number of non-combatants and sick. As they marched to Ascalon only a month after the fall of the city, he tells us that the army had shrunk to 9,000 foot and barely 1,200 knights; the siege cost the crusade almost a quarter of its fighting strength. The real casualties may have been worse, for the army mustered for Ascalon included marines and sailors from a Genoese fleet which had not arrived at the start of the siege. The siege of Antioch lasted nine months across a winter, and in that time many battles were fought; the losses must have been horrendous. In the eleventh century long-distance travel was, in itself, a hazardous business. Pilgrims anticipated death on their devotions, while in England a merchant who made three journeys overseas was entitled to the status of thegn. In the light of this appalling attrition it is little wonder that historians have seen the crusade as truly a triumph of the will and have emphasised this as an explanation of its success. What drove men and women through heat, privation and death to the liberation of the Sepulchre of the Lord at Jerusalem? The issue of motivation, seen as the foundation of the morale of the army, has been explored by modern writers and dominated explanations of the success of the crusade.