Armies of Heaven

by Jay Rubenstein

  10 Our one source for the Council of Paris is GN 2, 17, pp. 133–134, who seems to have been well informed on the early stages of the crusade in connection with the Capetian kings. He also mentions the French hopes that Hugh might become king of Jerusalem: GN 2, 14, p. 131. The figure of fifteen miles was not chosen at random. Philip warned his son, the future Louis VI, to be especially wary of the castle of Montlhéry, a place whose vile treachery had robbed Philip of his youth. Montlhéry was sixteen miles outside Paris: Suger, 8, p. 38. The verses cited are Apoc. 6:12–13 and Joel 2:30–32.

  11 EA 10–11, pp. 18–19, and 2, p. 12. The chronology of these signs is unclear. Ekkehard saw the first comet on October 7, presumably 1096, though possibly 1095. The second sign occurred three years later, in March, probably 1099.

  12 EA 10, p. 19; GN 7, 32, p. 330, discussed in Rubenstein (2002), p. 123.

  13 “A viscous liquid was clearly seen to ooze from the violently cut line of the cross”: GN 4, 17, p. 197. See also GN, 7, 32, p. 330, where he describes the green and red crosses more generally.

  14 GN 7, 32, p. 331; AA 1, 30, pp. 58–59; EA 11, p. 19. Alphandéry and Dupront, pp. 55–56, give the goose a folkloric interpretation. For the Jewish report, see Chazan (1987), pp. 232–233.

  15 Chazan (1987), pp. 56, 235, and, more generally, 232–240; Annales Hildesheimnenses, MGH SS 3, an. 1096, p. 106, which gives the figure of 1,014, although the annalist credits the deaths to Peter the Hermit. The quotation, surprisingly, is from AA 1, 27, pp. 52–53, whose use of the term “uncircumcised” elsewhere in this passage suggests that he had a remarkable ability to empathize with the Jews or else that he worked with a Jewish source or both.

  16 Chazan (1987), p. 250; Annales Pragenses MGH SS 3, an. 1096, p. 120. The Norman massacre we know of thanks to Monodies 2, 5, pp. 246–249. It seems likely that Peter’s followers were also responsible for anti-Jewish violence in Metz; see Chazan (1987), pp. 63 and 287.

  17 Chazan (1987), pp. 95–97.

  18 Chazan (1987), pp. 250–251. Chazan, pp. 65–66, downplays the apocalyptic overtones of this rhetoric. Matthew Gabriele, “Against the Enemies of Christ: The Role of Count Emicho in the Anti-Jewish Violence of the First Crusade,” in Christian Attitudes Toward Jews in the Middle Ages : A Casebook, ed. Michael Frassetto (New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 61–82. See also France (1994), p. 95; Flori, “Une ou plusieurs ‘première croisade’? Le message d’Urbain II et les plus anciens pogroms d’Occident,” Revue Historique 285 (1991): 3–27 (pp. 4–5).

  19 Annales Hildesheimnenses, an. 1096, p. 106; Annales Wirziburgenses, an. 1096, p. 246; Sigebert, Chronica, MGH SS 6, an. 1096, p. 367. Benjamin Z. Kedar discusses the baptisms and canon law in “The Forcible Baptisms of 1096: History and Historiography,” in Forschungen zur Recihs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte: Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag 1 (Stuttgart, Germany: Anton Hiersemann, 1998), pp. 187–200.

  20 The passage here is from the prophecy of the Tiburtine Sibyl, published in Sibyllinische Texte, p. 185. Adso, p. 28, states that two witnesses, foretold in Apoc. 11, will convert the remnant of the Jews. See also the version of Adso attributed to Methodius, which concludes with the conversion of the Jews: published in LF, fols. 108v–110r, pp. 220–223; and in Adso, pp. 146–152. See also the commentary of André Vauchez, “Les composante eschatologiques de l’idée de croisade,” in École Française (1997), pp. 233–243 (p. 242).

  21 EA 12, p. 20; Gesta Andegavensium peregrinorum, RHC Oc. 5, p. 346. Similarly reported by the later chronicler Richard of Poitou, monk of Cluny: Chronicon, in RHGF 12, pp. 411–412. On Godfrey’s extortions, see Chazan (1987), pp. 53 and 86–88.

  Chapter 4

  1 OV 5, 9, pp. 28–29, says that the army included several eminent Frankish lords and 15,000 soldiers. AA 1, 6, pp. 8–9, says that there were only eight knights. Both writers draw the connection to Peter.

  2 On Walter’s name, see Edgington’s n. 14 in AA, p. 9, and, more generally, AA 1, 6, pp. 8–13, our most detailed account of Walter’s progress.

  3 Philippopolis is in modern-day Bulgaria and is called Plovdiv. OV 5, 9, pp. 30–31, tells of Walter’s death.

  4 In this book I have mostly followed the dating in Hagenmeyer, Chronologie. But for Peter’s army (and Godfrey’s), I follow the revisions proposed by John W. Nesbitt, “The Rate of March of Crusading Armies in Europe: A Study and Computation,” Traditio 19 (1963): 167–181. On this stage of Peter’s march, see AA 1, 7, pp. 12–15. The verse cited is Gen. 22:17; see also 2 Sam. 17:11.

  5 AA 1, 7, pp. 14–15; GN 2, 9, pp. 123 and 122. Guibert’s account of these early stages of the crusade is admittedly compressed (though more substantial than the accounts of most of his peers). It is likely that he is conflating stories about Peter’s armies with stories about Emicho’s (discussed later in the chapter). He says that many of Peter’s followers returned after a battle with Hungarians at “Moysson,” probably Coloman’s castle Moson. See Edgington’s n. 57 in AA p. 45.

  6 AA 1, 7, pp. 14–17.

  7 AA 1, 8, pp. 16–19.

  8 AA 1, 9–12, pp. 18–27.

  9 AA 1, 12–14, pp. 26–29.

  10 AA 1, 14–15, pp. 28–29.

  11 Folkmar is one of the shadowiest figures in the crusade narrative. Identified by Frutolf as a priest, the Magdeburg chronicler deliberately corrects this point to say that Folkmar was a layman who had once lived within monastic walls: Frutolf, an. 1096, p. 108; Annales Magdeburgenses, MGH 16, an. 1096, p. 179. EA 12, p. 20, gives the brief account of the destruction of Folkmar’s army. Because Frutolf (and, following him, Ekkehard) describes Folkmar as traveling through Bohemia, he is usually connected with the pogrom there, described by Cosmas, Chronicon Bohe-morum , MGH 9, an. 1096, p. 103.

  12 AA 1, 23–24, pp. 44–49, is the most detailed account of Gottschalk’s disastrous pilgrimage, which I have largely followed here. EA 12, p. 20, provides a much shorter account, saying that the pilgrims occupied a castle and that the locals attacked them and drove them out.

  13 AA 1, 25, pp. 48–49; 1, 28, pp. 52–55; and 2, 1, pp. 60–61, where he mentions Drogo’s presence in Emicho’s 1, army. There were other pogroms in Germany in Neuss Drogo’s presence in Emicho’s army. There were other pogroms in Germany in Neuss on June 24, in Wevelinghovenon on June 25, in (possibly) Altenahr on June 26–27, in Xanten on June 27, and in Moers on June 29–July 1. See Chazan (1987), pp. 274–281 and pp. 347–348, n. 250. Not all of these persecutors were crusaders. But they were men motivated by the general atmosphere of apocalypse and revenge that surrounded the call to free Jerusalem. The other sources for Emicho’s march are Frutolf, an. 1096, p. 108; and EA 12, pp. 20–21.

  14 The details come mainly from AA 1, 29, pp. 54–59, largely confirmed by Frutolf and EA, as cited previously. We can place the survivors with Hugh because AA mentions the presence of Drogo and Clarembald with Hugh the Great in Constantinople in AA 2, 7, pp. 72–73.

  15 FC 1, 6, 3, pp. 154–156; Alexiad 10, 7, pp. 313–314; GN 1, 19, p. 135. Anna says that almost all of Hugh’s ships save his own were destroyed; Guibert describes the passage as “smooth sailing.” The sources are more or less in agreement that Hugh passage as “smooth sailing.” The sources are more or less in agreement that Hugh was placed in captivity.

  16 FC 1, 5, 12, p. 153, and 1, 6, 13, p. 163. The best introduction to Fulcher is Verena Epp, Fulcher von Chartres: Studien zur Geschichtsscreibung des ersten Kreuz-zuges (Düsseldorf, Germany: Droste, 1990). Fulcher observes on 1, 6, 12, that the knights could expect a hundredfold return.

  17 FC 1, 7, 1–3, pp. 163–166. The dates for the Franks’ visit to Lucca and Rome as given in Hagenmeyer, Chronologie (October 25 and October 28) are highly speculative.

  18 FC 1, 7, 4–5, pp. 166–168. Bohemond’s sermon was discussed in Chapter 1. It is possible that Anna Comnena describes the capture of one of Robert’s followers in Alexiad 10, 8, pp. 315–318. The name she gives is “Prebentzas.” Anna uses the incident mainly to tell an amusing story about how belligerent Latin p
riests were. The translator’s suggestion that Prebentzas was Richard of the Principate has little merit.

  19 GF, pp. 7–9; HBS, 7–8, p. 177; AA 2, 14, pp. 82–83. France (1994), p. 107, estimates that Bohemond averaged around four kilometers a day, over one-half and in some cases almost one-third of what other leaders were able to achieve, even though Bohemond was traveling through territories with which he was well familiar.

  20 The richest, and in many cases only, source for Godfrey’s early activity is AA, in this case 2, 1–4, pp. 60–67.

  21 AA 2, 5–10, pp. 68–77.

  22 Hill and Hill (1962), pp. 33–40; Riley-Smith (1997), p. 119.

  23 On the “celebrities” in Raymond’s army, see Hill and Hill (1962), p. 35. Raymond mentions his ordination in RA, p. 108: “I was promoted to the priesthood during the journey of God.”

  24 RA, pp. 36–38. The number forty has obvious biblical connotations and should not be read too literally.

  25 RA, pp. 39–41. Anna Comnena confirms that it was Alexius’s policy to shadow the crusaders and occasionally skirmish with them: Alexiad 10, 5, pp. 310–311.

  26 Frederic Duncalf, “The Peasants’ Crusade,” American Historical Review 26 (1921): 440–453 (which, despite the title, argues against the idea of the first wave of crusaders being a “popular” army); Riley-Smith (1986), pp. 50–52. See also the comments of France (1994), p. 95: “But if Peter’s army was much more than a mere rabble of poor men, it also lacked leadership.... The failure of the People’s Crusade was a failure of authority.”

  27 FC 1, 7, 1–5, p. 168–172.

  Chapter 5

  1 Alexiad 10, 5, pp. 308–309. Warren Treadgold gives a concise account of Alexius’s career and character, and his response to the First Crusade, in A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 612–637.

  2 Alexiad 10, 5–6, pp. 309–312; 11, 6, p. 349; 10, 8, pp. 317–318.

  3 AA 1, 15, pp. 28–31; GF, pp. 2–3; A lexiad 10, 6, p. 311.

  4 The list of relics comes from the possibly spurious letter of Alexius to Count Robert discussed in the notes to Chapter 2. See Hagenmeyer, Epistulae 1, p. 134. The commentary on the pilgrims’ behavior is GF, p. 3. AA 1, 15, pp. 30–31, does not mention any problematic behavior on the part of Peter’s army, observing simply that after five days it crossed the Straits of St. George. Flori (1999), pp. 285–286, following AA, suggests that Peter crossed the Bosphorus of his own accord, not under duress.

  5 BB 1, 9, p. 18; Flori (1999), pp. 297–299; France (1994), p. 95.

  6 The quotations are from BB 1, 9, p. 18, with details drawn from GF, pp. 2–4; and AA 1, 15–17, pp. 30–39. GF is more critical of the crusaders. AA notes neither the bad behavior nor the cultural conflicts within the army. He also says that the Franks and the Romans were making the raids and that the “Teutons” therefore decided to march inland. GF says that the Germans and the Italians (Alamanni and Lombards) broke away from the Franks because of the Franks’ arrogance.

  7 AA does not name the castle but says (1, 16, pp. 32–33) that it was three miles from Nicea. GF, p. 3, says that the pilgrims entered Nicea and marched for four days before attacking the castle called “Exrogorgos,” which lay beyond Nicea. Alexiad 10, 6, pp. 311–312.

  8 The anonymous source is, of course, GF, p. 4, who says as well that the leader of the Germans agreed to betray the city. AA does not specify the length of the siege; it is possible to read his account and conclude that it lasted only a day. AA 1, 18, pp. 36–37, also mentions Peter’s motive for going to Constantinople. GF, p. 4, says that Peter left the army because he couldn’t control it. The thirst imagery in GF, pp. 3–4, is very likely built from stock images of siege warfare since GF does not seem to have been terribly well informed about Peter’s armies.

  9 AA 1, 18–19, pp. 36–39. GF, p. 4, does not describe the Franks as organizing an attack; Kilij-Arslan’s armies simply caught them unaware. Alexiad 10, 6, p. 312, tells the unlikely story (but no doubt highly entertaining for Anna’s audience) that Kilij-Arslan dispatched spies into the Franks’ camp to spread the rumor that the Germans had discovered great plunder; at the mention of the word “money,” the Franks marched out of Civitot without a plan.

  10 The description of Turkish battle tactics here is taken from a miracle story of St. Léonard of Noblat involving Bohemond: Vita et miracula S. Leonardi, in AASS, Nov. 6, 3, p. 161, supplemented by comments from FC 1, 11, 6, pp. 194–195. The miracle story was probably based on sermons preached by Bohemond in 1106: Nicholas L. Paul, “A Warlord’s Wisdom: Literacy and Propaganda at the Time of the First Crusade,” Speculum 85 (2010), 534–566 (pp. 557–558). The specifics of the battle come from AA 1, 20–21, pp. 40–43. I have attempted to be somewhat more sympathetic to the decisions of Walter and the rest of the army than most modern (and medieval accounts). For example, Asbridge (2004), p. 102, describes the pilgrims’ action in attacking the Turks as “a perilously risky operation against a largely untested enemy, endangering the entire first wave of the crusade for little or no reason.”

  11 AA 1, 22, pp. 42–45. He estimates the number of pilgrims in the tower at 3,000. Alexiad 10, 6, pp. 312–313. GF, pp. 4–5, provides stock images of siege warfare, including the unlikely detail of a priest killed in the battle while performing mass.

  12 Alexiad 6, 10, p. 313; GF, p. 5; AA 1, 22, pp. 42–45. AA 5, 3, pp. 342–343; and RA, p. 55, mention the rumors about the Turcopoles’ lineage. The decapitated bodies in p. 55, mention the rumors about the Turcopoles’ lineage. The decapitated bodies in Nicomedia are noted by FC 1, 9, 5, p. 180, and will be discussed in the next chapter.

  13 AA 2, 10, pp. 74–77; Alexiad 10, 9, pp. 320–323. Anna Comnena places these skirmishes during the Easter season. She also seems to conflate these battles with ones that occurred a little over two weeks after Christmas.

  14 The analysis here is based on Alexiad 10, 6, p. 311. Anna Comnena states her belief there and at 10, 9, p. 319, that some of the crusaders, particularly Bohemond, were mainly interested in taking over Constantinople. The latter passage describes Alexius’s attempt to break crusader communications.

  15 AA2, 13–14, pp. 78–83; Alexiad 10, 9, pp. 320–323, recalling that Anna appears to conflate several events here and moves these events, which happened January 13–19 to Easter. She also says that Godfrey gave in to Alexius’s demands the next day and thus does not mention the subsequent plundering. GF, pp. 6–7, follows in general outline the events presented here.

  16 AA 2, 14–15, pp. 82–85. AA suggests that Alexius learned of Bohemond’s legation only after Bohemond’s representatives had made their proposal to Godfrey.

  17 AA 2, 16, pp. 84–87; Alexiad 10, 9–10, pp. 323–326. Anna associates the “peasant incident” with another army, but it is unclear which one she has in mind. She also places it after the soldiers have sworn the oaths. Given the degree of uncertainty, I have felt entitled to a little chronological freedom in my use of the anecdote.

  18 Alexiad 10, 9, p. 323, and 10, 11, p. 328 (in reference to Bohemond’s oath).

  19 AA 2, 16, pp. 84–87; GF, pp. 11–12 (again, as in the previous note, in reference to Bohemond’s oath); Hagenmeyer, Epistulae 4, p. 138. On the oaths, J. H. Pryor, “The Oath of the Leaders of the First Crusade to the Emperor Alexius Comnenus: Fealty, Homage,” Parergon 2 (1984): 111–141, argues that the leaders took oaths of vassalage but not homage. Jonathan Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–8,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988): 185–277 (pp. 227–237), suggests that Bohemond at least did perform liege homage to Alexius, accepting the emperor as his exclusive lord. Of course, we ought to be cautious in attributing too much precision to these ideas. The potential existed for cross-cultural miscommunication between Greeks and Latins, and ideas about vassalage and homage were very much in flux at this time in the Latin world. This was demonstrated famously by Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, U
K: Oxford University Press, 1994). Reynolds discusses Godfrey’s oath on p. 405, though she treats the vocabulary with excessive caution since she mistakenly dates the composition of AA’s history to 1119. See also the judicious comments by Flori (1999), pp. 109–112.

  20 AA 2, 16–17, pp. 86–89.

  21 Alexiad, 13, 10, p. 422. On Bohemond’s facility with Greek, see Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” pp. 251–258.

  22 Alexiad 10, 11, pp. 327–328.

  23 Alexiad 10, 11, p. 329; GF, pp. 11–12; PT, p. 43, n. v, and p. 48; RC 10, p. 612. The Norman historiographical tradition on this point is extremely confused. I have previously attempted to sort out the details in Rubenstein (2004), pp. 194–196. The earliest version of the story, in brief, is likely the promise concerning lands “in Romania,” as it appears in some manuscripts of the “Tudebode” chronicle and in RC. I am generally in accord with the analysis of Jean Flori, Bohémond d’Antioche, Chevalier d’Aventure (Paris: Payot, 2007), pp. 105–112. The arguments of Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” demonstrating that Bohemond struck an alliance with Alexius seem compelling, though, as already noted, I would be reluctant to frame an argument in terms of “liege homage.”

  24 GF, pp. 13–14; RC 11, p. 612.

  25 RA, pp. 41–42, is the key source for these events. On the oaths, see Hill and Hill (1962), p. 51. More generally, on the character of oath-taking in Occitania, see Frederic L. Cheyette, Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), pp. 187–198. Alexiad 10, 11, pp. 329–330, describes the attention showered on Raymond by Alexius, though as noted elsewhere (Shepard, “When Greek Meets Greek,” p. 205), Anna exaggerates the warmth of their relationship.