by John France
* * *
1 Crozet, ‘Le voyage d’Urbain’ 274–7; Hills, Raymond IV, pp. 105–8; GR, p. 456.
2 OV, 4. 85, 211, 115:5. 27.
3 David, Robert Curthose, p. 228.
4 Andressohn, Godfrey de Bouillon, pp. 34–5, 39–40, 41, 43–5; Mayer, Mélanges, pp. 20–1.
5 It is not certain whether Robert called at Constantinople on his outbound or return journey. Verlinden, Robert le Frison, p. 158–9, suggests that Robert met Alexius whilst returning in 1089. Alexiad, pp. 229–30, 232–3 reports the meeting and the request for aid without giving any dates. On the letter of Alexius and its use as a basis for forgery, Verlinden pp. 162–4; on Robert II, see M. M. Knappen, ‘Robert of Flanders on the First Crusade’, in L. J. Paetow, ed., The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to D. C. Munro (New York, 1928), pp. 79–100; he gained great prestige from crusading, Dunbabin, France in the Making, p. 291.
6 Fawtier, Capetian Kings, p. 18; GN, p. 149; P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2nd edition, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885–6), 1. 688.
7 GF, p. 7; Malaterra, p. 102, says that because of Bohemond’s recruiting activities, the armies of the two Rogers so melted away that the siege had to be abandoned; Yewdale, Bohemond, pp. 31–2.
8 Yewdale, Bohemond, p. 33; GF, p. 63; see above p. 13.
9 Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, dite de Clarius, ed. R. H. Bautier and M. Gilles (Paris, 1979), p. 381; Hagenmeyer, kreuzzugsbriefe, pp. 138–40; Runciman 1. 165; GF, pp. 63–5.
10 AA, 314 says Eustace travelled with the North French forces but he is never mentioned by their chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres: Runciman, 1. 147 n. 1. It is possible, as Runciman suggests, that his may have been one of the many smaller independent contingents which arrived at Constantinople in the spring of 1097.
11 Robert II of Flanders (1093–1111) had succeeded his father only in 1093; above p. 56; Stephen Henry, count of Meaux and Blois, was quite experienced but had long lived under the shadow of his father Theobald (1037–1089/90): Bur, Comté de Champagne, p. 230; Eustace III of Boulogne was the successor of the famous Eustace II whose death is usually dated between 1082 and 1088: Andressohn, Godfrey de Bouillon, p. 25, but there is room to think it may have occurred as early as 1076: Mayer, Mélanges, pp. 20–1.
12 Bur, Comté de Champagne, pp. 286–7; on the house of Boulogne see above p. 45; Mayer, Mélanges, pp. 32–6.
13 Hills, Raymond IV, pp. 15–19.
14 Verlinden, Robert le Frison, p. 165; Dunbabin, Origins of France, pp. 291–2; on the question of the ‘Norman world’ and its sense of identity see G. Loud, ‘Gens Normannorum – myth or reality?’, Battle, 4 (1981) 104–16.
15 GR, 2. 523, 603–4.
16 Grossman, Financing of the Crusades, pp. 36–7; David, Robert Curthose, pp. 91–6.
17 Andressohn, Godfrey de Bouillon, pp. 51–2; Grossman, Financing of the Crusades, pp. 31–2; A. V. Murray, ‘The army of Godfrey de Bouillon 1096–99: structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 70 (1992), 301–29. I am very grateful to Dr Murray for allowing me to see an advanced copy of this article; (Soloman) Bar Simson, Chronicle, The Jews and the Crusaders, tr. S. Eidelberg (Wisconsin, 1977) p. 25.
18 Mayer, Mélanges, pp. 43–4.
19 Grossman, Financing of the Crusades, p. 35.
20 Ibid, p. 34 who notes that Bohemond seems to have kept control of much of his property in Italy
21 Grossman, Financing of the Crusades, p. 36 citing Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, p. 143.
22 On southern French society and economy at this time see A. R. Lewis, The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society 718–1030 (Austin, 1965) pp. 395–400; RA, p. 88, 111–12; for the importance of the fair at St Gilles, R. H. Bautier, The Economic Development of Medieval Europe, by H. Karolji (London, 1971), p. 104; Grossman, p. 33, argues for the sale of the Rouerge, but this is contested by Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, p. 37 who believe that Raymond could easily have financed his crusade from income. On the coinage used, see D. M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusaders and the Latin East (London, 1983), pp. 2–6.
23 On which see below pp. 311.
24 Recueil des Chartes de l’Abbaye de Cluny, ed. A. Bernard and A. Bruel, 6 vols. (Paris, 1876–1903), 5. 51. Cluny got the land, for Achard died in a skirmish between Jerusalem and Jaffa on 18 June 1099: RA p. 141. For other grants see Grossman, Financing of the Crusades, pp. 44–56; Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban’s preaching of the First Crusade’, 177–88; Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 45–7.
25 J. Sumption, Pilgrimage (London, 1975), pp. 169, 205–6.
26 The sources for the great German pilgrimage are: Annales Altanenses Maiores, MGH SS 20. 782–824; Lambert the Monk, Annales Hersfeldenses, MGH SS 3. 18–116; Marianus Scotus, Chronicon, MGH SS 5. 558–59. For commentary see E. Joranson, ‘The Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–65’, in L. J. Paetow, ed., The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to D. C. Munro (New York, 1928), pp. 3–43.
27 Glaber, pp. 96–7, 132–7, 198–205. On the abortive French pilgrimage of 1054 see L. Bréhier, L’Eglise et l’Orient au Moyen ge (Paris, 1921), pp. 44–5.
28 The tradition that Peter went to Jerusalem and was inspired to preach its liberation by his sufferings has been thoroughly examined by E. O. Blake and C. Morris, ‘A hermit goes to war; Peter and the origins of the First Crusade’, W. J. Shiels, ed. Monks, Hermits and the Ascetic Tradition (Oxford, 1985), 79–107, who suggest that the notion that he may have influenced Urban II cannot be totally dismissed. The present writer sees the roots of the Crusade in papal policy and Urban’s own thinking, though their idea that Peter might have been an official preacher appointed by Urban, p. 83, cannot be dismissed. On popular religious movements and the ‘Peace of God’ in the eleventh century see above pp. 6–7 n. 21.
29 For a general survey see H. Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite (Leipzig, 1879). The original work exploding the idea that this was simply a peasant rabble was that of F. Duncalf, ‘The Peasants’ Crusade’, American Historical Review, 26 (1921), 440–453. This has been given considerable precision by Riley-Smith’s research on individuals in Idea of Crusading, pp. 49–57.
30 H. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de la Première Croisade (Paris, 1902) pp. 13, 18; on the persecution at this time see Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 52–7. This was not the first great persecution, the ‘First Holocaust’ as he calls it. Jewry had already suffered one major persecution amongst the West Franks, on which see R. Chazan, ‘1007–1012: the initial crisis for northern European Jewry’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 38–39 (1970–71), 101–17.
31 AA, 274–6.
32 For the chronology of Peter’s march and that of Godfrey through Eastern Europe I have followed J. W. Nesbitt, ‘The rate of march of crusading armies in Europe: a study and computation’, Traditio, 19 (1963), 181 in his revision of Hagenmeyer.
33 AA, 286–7; Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 50–2 identifies Hugh of Tübingen and Walter of Tegk as amongst the Germans, but doubt has been cast on the source of this information, on which see below p. 92, n. 36.
34 AA, 277.
35 AA, 277–84.
36 Emicho is usually identified as the Count Emicho of Leiningen listed along with other crusaders in the Chronicle of Zimmern, ed. H. Hagenmeyer, pp. 17–88. In a devastating critique of the value of this source A. V. Murray, ‘The army of Godfrey Bouillon’, 315–22 has shown this to be almost valueless and cites a recent study, Ingo Toussaint, Die Grafen von Leiningen: Studien zur leiningischen Genealogie und Territorialgeschichte bis zur Teilung von 1317/18 (Sigmaringen, 1982), pp. 25–8 which suggests that Emicho may have come from Flonheim on the middle Rhine. Bar Simson, pp. 28–9; Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolymita, RHC Oc. 5 [hereafter cited as Ekkehard], p. 20; AA, 292–5; Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 50–1.
37 AA, 289–91; Ekkehard, pp. 20–1.
38 Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, pp. 26–8; (Eliezer) Bar Nathan, Chro
nicle, in Mainz Anonymous, The Jews and the Crusaders, tr. S. Eidelberg (Wisconsin, 1977), pp. 85–91; AA 295.
39 GF, pp. 2–3; Alexiad, p. 311; AA, 283, 284.
40 AA, 284–5; GF, pp. 3–4. The location of Xerigordo is unknown.
41 It is now impossible to fix the location of this battle, for Albert is alone in describing it and the only clue is that it took place at the edge of the woods and vegetation patterns have changed. Probably it was fought on the upper Yalac near the present route 595, along which there are several possibilities, from the Gulf of Izmit (Nicomedia) to Iznik (Nicaea) via Yalakdere.
42 AA, 287–9.
43 AA, 287–92.
44 See above p. 4 and the very clear discussion in Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 50–7.
45 Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 19–20; see above p. 4
46 Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugesbriefe, pp. 136–37.
47 W. M. Daly, ‘Christian fraternity, the crusaders and the security of Constantinople’, Medieval Studies, 22 (1960), 43–91.
48 A. C. Krey, ‘Urban’s crusade; success or failure?’, American Historical Review, 53 (1948), 235–50; Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory VII’s “Crusading” plans’ 27–40.
49 On which see P. Charanis, ‘Aims of the medieval crusaders and how they were viewed by Byzantium’, Church History, 21 (1952), 123–134, and the same author’s brief note in American Historical Review, 53 (1948), 941–4.
50 J. Richard, ‘La Papauté et la direction de la première croisade’, Journal des Savants, (i960),
51 It is very evident that Alexius knew that major armies were on the way and was making preparations to provide for them, although the ‘People’s Crusade’ arrived early; see above pp. 88–95. Alexiad, p. 308, is mendacious in suggesting that Alexius had no foreknowledge.
52 Hill and Hill, Raymond IV, pp. 30–2, ‘Justification historique du titre de Raymond de Saint-Gilles; “Christiane milicie excellentissimus princeps’”, Annales du Midi, 66 (1954), 101–12.
53 See below especially pp. 297–324.
54 On the role of the fleets and their actions see below pp. 209–220.
55 P. F. Kehr, Regesta Pontificum Romanonum. Italia Pontificia, 10 vols. (Rome, 1906–75), 6. 2. 323: Hills, Raymond IV, p. 34; Caffaro, De liberatione civitatum orienti, RHC Oc. 5, 49–50.
56 M. Mollat, ‘Problèmes navales de l’histoire des croisades’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 10 (1967), 351.
57 Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugsbriefe, p. 145.
58 Bautier, Economic Development, p. 99; J. H. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean 64–1571 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 87–101 and see map, p. 14.
59 A. O. Citarella, ‘The relations of Amalfi with the Arab world before the crusades’, Speculum, 42 (1967), 300, 310; C. Cohen, ‘Un texte peu connu relatif au commerce oriental d’Amalfi au X siècle’, Archivio Storico Napoletano, 34 (1955), 61–67; D. Abulafia, The Two Italies (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 42–49.
60 Cowdrey, ‘Mahdia Campaign’, 15–16, though Citarella, pp. 311–12 believes that Pantaleone took part in this as an individual and that Amalfi, because of its good relations with Arab powers, held aloof. On the Mahdia campaign see above p. 48.
61 Glaber, pp. 204–5, 202–5, 60–1. On Robert’s remains see K. Giggaar, ‘England and Byzantium’, 83.
62 H. Dauphin, Le Bienheureux Richard, abbé de St-Vanne-de-Verdun (Louvain, 1946), pp. 281–94; E. Joranson, ‘Great German Pilgrimage’, in L. J. Paetow, ed., The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to D. C. Munro, (New York, 1928), pp. 3–43.
63 Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, pp. 20–1.
64 C. Verlinden, Robert le Frison, pp. 152–7, 168; Alexiad, pp. 229–30, 232–3.
65 Godfrey, ‘The defeated Anglo-Saxons’, 68–74.
66 Cigaar, ‘England and Byzantium’, 86; Glaber, p. 202–3; Dunbabin, France in the Making, p. 136.
67 Hagenmeyer, Kreuzuggesbriefe, p. 140.
68 Alexiad, pp. 313–15; GF, pp. 5–6.
69 FC, pp. 75–6; on the chaplains see below p. 303 n. 17.
70 FC, p. 76; David, Robert Curthose, pp. 223–4.
71 FC, pp. 76–8.
72 GF, pp. 7–8; On Guiscard’s expedition see above pp. 74–7.
73 On Byzantine attitudes to the Normans see J. Hermans, “The Byzantine view of the Normans’, Battle, 2 (1979) 78–92.
74 GF, pp. 8–11; see below pp. 106–7.
75 Alexiad, pp. 315, 324.
76 RA, pp. 36–8.
77 RA, p. 38; A. C. Krey, The First Crusade (Princeton, 1921, Gloucester, 1958), p. 65: ‘We believed we were in our own country, thinking that the Emperor and his satellites were our brothers and helpmates’.
78 RA, pp. 38–9.
79 RA, pp. 40–1.
80 AA, 299–302.
81 AA, 303–5.
82 AA, 304–5; on the size of his army see below pp. 129–30.
83 Compare the figures suggested for the march through the Balkans of between 29 and 17. 6 kilometres per day, on which see above p. 90, n. 32. The average daily mileage figures used here are not to be taken literally. Speed of march must have varied enormously according to the nature of the country, tiredness of army etc: the Provençals were tired by the time they reached Dyrrachium and had troubles with the Byzantines, while the North French were rested and local arrangements went smoothly. The figures are used here to indicate comparative rates of progress and they can be very revealing.
84 Historia Belli Sacri, RHC Oc. 3 [hereafter cited as HBS], 177; GF, p. 8.
85 RA, pp. 40–2; HBS, 179 also relates that Count Raymond received letters urging him to press on to Constantinople ahead of his army and stating that the emperor would lead them to Jerusalem, but this interesting source, which has been insufficiently explored, depends on Raymond of Aguilers at this point; GF, p. 12 and see below p. 113–14.
86 FC, p. 80; Kreuzzugsbriefe, pp. 141–2, 146–9, 154–5, 165.
87 G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, tr. J. Hussey (Oxford, 1956), pp. 317–20 summarises the position of Byzantium on the eve of the crusade. See also R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The Byzantine Empire on the eve of the Crusades’, Historical Association Pamphlet (1953); P. Charanis, ‘The Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century’, in K. Setton and M. W. Baldwin, eds., A History of the Crusades, 6 vols. (Pennsylvania, 1959–) (hereafter cited as Setton, Crusades1), 1. 177–219.
88 Alexiad, pp. 156–8.
89 A. Harvey, Economic Expansion of the Byzantine Empire 900–1200 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 244: ‘However, the eleventh century is most notable for a steady expansion which extended into the twelfth century and affected all aspects of economic activity.’
90 On the situation in Syria see below pp. 197–205.
91 France, ‘Anna Comnena’, 20–1; G. Loud, ‘Anna Komnena’, 41–57 shows how good Byzantine intelligence about the Normans of South Italy may have been; J. H. Pryor, ‘The oath of the leaders of the First Crusade to the Emperor Alexius; fealty, homage’, Parergon, 2 (1984)’, 112.
92 Alexiad, pp. 315, 325, 327, 329, 341.
93 Alexiad, pp. 315, 325; Pryor, ‘Oaths of the leaders’, 117, 122–4
94 Alexiad, p. 323, tr. Pryor, p. 122.
95 Alexiad, p. 341.
96 France, ‘Anna Comnena’, 22–31.
97 France, ‘Crisis of the First Crusade’, 289–90; Runciman, 1. 320.
98 GF, pp. 75–6; RA, pp. 83, 93–4; AA, 434.
99 GF, pp. 5–7, 11; RA, p. 41, who explains that the count’s anger was a result of hearing of his army being attacked on the road to Constantinople by imperial troops.
100 WP, pp. 104–5; Pryor, ‘Oaths of the Leaders’, 115–22 takes the view that it was unthinkable for men of the status of the leaders to become vassals when they already had lords at home and were not receiving lands.
101 GF, p. 12.
102 GF, pp. 11–12; A. C. Krey, ‘A neglected passage in the Gesía and its bearing on the literature of the
First Crusade’, in L. J. Paetow, ed., The Crusades and other Historical Essays presented to D. C. Munro (New York, 1928), pp. 57–79, shows clearly that Alexius’s promise of Antioch to Bohemond recorded here is an interpolation.
103 AA, 305–11; Alexiad, pp. 319–23.
104 AA, 311.
105 AA, 312–13; RA, pp. 41–2; J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, ‘The convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of St-Gilles’, American Historical Review, 58 (1953), 322–7, Raymond IV, pp. 48–52.
106 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, RHC Oc. 5 [hereafter cited as RC], 612–13, 619–21; GF, p. 13; AA, 313; Alexiad, p. 341.
107 Alexiad, p. 329; Pryor, ‘Oaths of the Leaders’, 115 draws attention to the oaths of earlier Frankish mercenaries.
108 FC, p. 83.
109 J. F. Lemarignier, Recherches sur l’Hommage en Marche et les Frontières Féodales (Lille, 1945), pp. 113, 161.
110 Diplomatic documents preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1964), pp. 1–4. A recent study of Byzantine-Crusader relations, not used by Pryor, ‘Oaths of the Leaders’, concludes that the leaders took oaths of vassalage, but is sceptical of the notion of liege homage being applied to the relationship; R. J. Lilie, Byzanz und die kreufahrerstaaten (Munich, 1981), pp. 22–3. The notion has been applied, however, to the relationship between Bohemond and Alexius: J. Ferluga, ‘La ligesse dans l’empire byzantin’, Sbornik Radova, 7 (1961), 97–123.
111 Poly and Bournazel, Feudal Transformation, p. 75 and see the article by Hill and Hill above p. 115, n. 105.
112 On the siege of Nicaea see below pp. 162–5 and on Byzantine naval aid pp. 210–20.
113 Alexiad, pp. 336–7.
114 RA, p. 41.
115 RA, p. 91–2. On Laodicea see David, Robert Curthose, pp. 230–44.
116 Tatikios’s instructions were to take over any cities which the crusaders conquered ‘if indeed God granted them that favour’: Alexiad, p. 341.
117 See below pp. 165, 166.
118 Hagenmeyer, kreuzzugsbriefe, pp. 141–2, 146–9; on the restoration of John the Oxite, see AA, 433.
119 Alexiad, p. 330; AA, 314.