Armies of Heaven

by Jay Rubenstein

  9 RA, p. 113. Hill and Hill (1962), p. 93, in their translation, render cum aliis submerses esse, as “You were almost overwhelmed by sin like the others,” though the Latin does not justify that metaphorical reading.

  10 RA, p. 106, where he writes of simple pauperes, of pedites pauperes, and of milites plebei.

  11 RA, p. 114. I cannot agree with the suggestion of France (2006), p. 17, that the five ordines here are the five cultural groups within the army at Arqa, led by Raymond, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, Godfrey, and Tancred, respectively.

  12 RA, p. 115. See also p. 86, where Andrew speaks to Peter of those “who go by the right path or who love God.”

  13 As Christ enunciates to Peter at RA, p. 114.

  14 RA, pp. 115–116. See also Conor Kostick, Social Structure of the First Crusade (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2008), pp. 143–146. The Latin word translated here as “sovereign” is potestas: RA, p. 115. The word does not necessarily refer to the count but rather to the authority in the army more generally, including, presumably, the judges.

  15 RA, pp. 113–114. The Bible verse is Apoc. 20:4–5. A similar analysis of this vision appears in Philippe Buc, “Martyrdom in the West: Vengeance, Purge, Salvation and History,” in Nils Holger Petersen, Andreas Bücker, and Eyolf Oestrem, eds., Resonances: Historical Essays on Continuity and Change (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols 2010), 21–56, esp. pp. 45–48.

  16 See RC 100, p. 677, and 102, p. 678. RC had also known him in Normandy before the crusade and dedicated his book to him. Alphandéry and Dupront, p. 117, speak of Ralph’s rationalisme normand, marshaled in the name of defending Bohemond’s claims to Antioch.

  17 The other chronicler is PT, p. 101.

  18 RC 102, p. 678. Ralph references in this context James 1:17, that the victory was “from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” Among modern historians, France (2006), p. 20, argues, “In the end [Peter Bartholomew’s] association with Count Raymond and his Provençal patriotism exposed him to attack, and that was his undoing.” See also Colin Morris, “Policy and Visions: The Case of the Holy Lance at Antioch,” in War and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of J. O. Prwestwich, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1984), pp. 33–45 (pp. 44–45).

  19 RC 102, p. 678.

  20 These visions occur in rapid succession: RA, pp. 116–120.

  21 RA, pp. 116 and 120.

  22 RA, pp. 120–121. It is highly likely that Raymond was involved in the pyre’s construction. One manuscript of Peter Tudebode (London BL MS Harley 3904) confirms that the woodpiles were thirteen feet long and adds that they were three and one-half feet high; see the Hills’s edition of PT, p. 131. The quotation is from Robert Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 1.

  23 RA, p. 121. The manuscript is BL MS Harley 3904.

  24 RA, p. 123. The other two accounts are FC 1, 18, 4, pp. 238–240; and GN 6, 22, p. 263.

  25 “Guillelmus Maluspuer” and “Guillelmus Bonofilius”; RA, pp. 121–122.

  26 RA, pp. 123–124. Fulcher gives the date of his death: FC, 1, 18, 4, pp. 238–240. RC, anxious to undermine Peter’s reputation as much as possible, places his death postridie, which is to say, the day after the ordeal: RC 108, p. 682. GN 6, 22, p. 263, independently of Raymond’s book, offers the same explanation for Peter’s death (that the crowd crushed him in the midst of celebration).

  Chapter 17

  1 Gog and Magog, or rather “Gog of the land of Magog,” are mentioned in prophecy in Ezek. 38:2. They were believed to have been imprisoned by Alexander the Great.

  2 On Augustine and millenarianism, see Paula Fredriksen, “Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse,” in The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard K. Emmerson and Bernard McGinn (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 20–37. As for other signs, the prophecies of “pseudo-Methodius” remained immensely popular throughout the Middle Ages, despite being built on an explicitly millenarian model. The regularity with which exegetes and theologians condemned millenarianism was in itself a sign that people continued to read the Apocalypse in this fashion. In general, modern historians, enamored of St. Augustine, have attributed more potency to his words than seems plausible.

  3 These passages, the so-called Little Apocalypse, appear in Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

  4 Adso, p. 26. The prophet pseudo-Methodius describes the moment more generally as the end to all earthly rule: Sibyllinische Texte, p. 93. The best study on the interplay between crusade thought and these prophetic texts remains Carl Erdmann, “Endkaiserglaube und Kreuzzugsgedanke im 11. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 51 (1932): 384–414.

  5 RA, p. 111, describes the distribution of tithes. If Peter the Hermit was at Arqa before Godfrey and Robert of Flanders arrived, my presumption is that he was traveling with Robert of Normandy’s contingent. His appointment to responsible ecclesiastical office indicates, moreover, that he would have won the trust of Arnulf.

  6 RA, pp. 127–128.

  7 RA, pp. 125–126, and p. 110. Alexius proposed to arrive on the Feast of John, which is July 25.

  8 RA, pp. 109–110. RA places these negotiations just before his account of Peter Bartholomew’s ordeal. Hagenmeyer’s Chronologie places the negotiations around May 1, based on evidence from HBS 108, pp. 216–217. Other historians have followed his lead. I place this encounter in the general period of mid-April to early May but have kept the exact date vague because the evidence is uncertain. For example, HBS 102, pp. 214–215, does say that the Frankish ambassadors spent Easter (April 10, 1099) in Jerusalem with al-Afdal. France (1994), p. 325, based on this evidence, observes that the Franks were “obviously on friendly terms with their hosts.” The story in fact says that al-Afdal threatened to kill them in Jerusalem and that they were saved only by a miracle—again, we must treat the evidence with caution.

  9 RA, pp. 124–125; GF, pp. 84–85.

  10 RC 110, p. 683; RA, pp. 130–131.

  Chapter 18

  1 AA 5, 38, pp. 388–389; RA, pp. 134–135; France (1994), pp. 325–330.

  2 AA 5, 39–40, pp. 390–395.

  3 Luke 24:13–27; RC 111, p. 683; HBS 109, p. 217; AA 5, 44, pp. 400–401; FC 1, 25, 14–15, pp. 278–280. I am translating the expression communem domum at RA, p. 143, as “town hall.” Literally, it means “common house.” On the objections, see RA, p. 137. I have reconstructed pilgrimage details from Saewulf, Peregrinationes tres, ed. R. B. C. Huygens CCCM 139 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1994), p. 73; and FC, 1, 25, 16, p. 280.

  4 RC 111–112, pp. 683–85; HBS 110, p. 217. I have elected to follow Tancred’s biographer rather than AA 5, 45, pp. 400–401, who says that Tancred rejoined the army on the main road to Jerusalem.

  5 RC 113–114, pp. 685–686; HBS 111, p. 217.

  6 BB 4, 9, pp. 96–97; RtM 9, 1, p. 863, marginal note; AA, 5, 45, pp. 402–403. AA estimates the number of survivors p. at this point at 60,000; France (1994), 141–142, estimates 20,000.

  7 GN 7, preface, p. 266; 7, 2, pp. 269–270; 7, 5–6, p. 275.

  8 GN 7, 9, p. 282; RC 123, p. 691. On Jerusalem syndrome, see, for example, Yair Bar-El, Rimona Durst, Gregory Katz, Josef Zislin, Ziva Strauss, and Haim Y. Knobler, “Jerusalem Syndrome,” British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (2000): 86–90. As this article points out, Jerusalem syndrome has not been conclusively demonstrated as a disorder affecting mentally well-balanced visitors to the Holy Land (i.e., apparent sufferers may have gone to the Holy Land already susceptible to such extreme psychological reactions). After the physical and emotional hardships of the crusade, however, many of the Franks would likely have been prone to similar reactions. Aryeh Graboïs, Le pèlerin occidental en Terre sainte au Moyen ge (Brussels: De Boeck Université, 1998), argues similarly that medieval pilgrims experienced the historical/biblical Jerusalem rather than the Jerusalem of current events when they visited the Holy Land.

  9 RA, p. 139; RC 118, p.
688. France (1994), p. 345, argues that even without the hermit, it is likely the crusaders would have settled upon an early attack.

  10 HBS 115, p. 219; AA 6, 1, pp. 406–407. FC, 1, 27, 1, pp. 292–293, indicates that there were multiple ladders but is probably not to be trusted here. RA, pp. 137 and 139. Baudry observes that they all would have walked barefoot, except for fear of an enemy attack: BB, 4, 9, p. 97.

  11 RA, pp. 139–141. See also, among others, GF, p. 89; AA 6, 6, pp. 410–413; and BB 4, 12, pp. 99–100. On the physical conditions of the march generally, Riley-Smith (1986), pp. 60–73, is particularly eloquent.

  12 RC, 120, p. 689, places this discovery after the first attack, rather than before, as in Asbridge (2004), p. 303. On the ships, see France (1994), pp. 336–337; GF, pp. 88–89; and RA, pp. 141–142 and 146.

  13 RA, p. 138, mentions the resistance to the move. See also France (1994), pp. 338–339 and 344–345; and Adrian J. Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades (New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 43.

  14 GF, p. 91. On the presence of women among those carrying out this difficult task, see Ripoll Account, p. 645.

  15 GF pp. 67–68; AA 6, 7, pp. 412–413. This is the first time Albert mentions the hermit; he thus does not associate him with the failed attack of June 13. On processions, see France (1994), p. 347; and Riley-Smith (1986), pp. 82–85. In a letter from the future patriarch of Jerusalem, Daimbert (written, or ghostwritten, by Raymond of Aguilers) says that “the Lord was placated by this humility”: Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, 18, p. 171.

  16 RA, pp. 144–145.

  17 Josh. 6:1–21. GN 7, 6, pp. 276–277, draws the connection explicitly. See also PT, pp. 137–138.

  18 BN 34, p. 513; PT, p. 137; RA p. 145; AA 6, 8–9, pp. 414–415.

  19 RA, p. 145; AA 6, 8, pp. 412–415. PT, p. 138, attributes the sermon to Arnulf.

  20 He does not state explicitly that the sermon occurred during the procession, but he does note that all the bishops and priests were present, in full vestment, but he does note that all the bishops and priests were present, in full vestment, and that one man set in a higher place spoke to the people: BB 4, 13, p. 100.

  21 BB 4, 13, pp. 100–101. The editors of the RHC suggest that this last passage is a paraphrase of Virgil, Ecl. 3.16. This entire elegant structure grows out of a meditation in Eph. 6:10–20, the famous Pauline passage about putting on the armor of God.

  22 BB 4, 13, p. 101, and 1, 17, p. 23.

  23 GP 9, 5, p. 244, ll. 271–272; CdA 11, p. 26, ll. 171–178.

  24 RA, p. 147. GF, p. 90, says the towers were moved four days before, on July 9. RA, p. 147, places the move on the night before the battle, apparently July 13: “On the eve of when the combat had been ordered” (“Instante autem iusse obpug-nationis die”), despite the Hills’s note to the contrary (n. 1). Historical tradition tends to favor GF in all things (e.g., France [1994], pp. 347–348). In this case I would—like Asbridge (2004), p. 310—follow Raymond since moving the tower and equipment four days earlier would seem to undercut significantly the element of surprise. RC, 122–124, pp. 690–692, agrees with Raymond. AA 6, 9, pp. 414–415, agrees with GF, placing the maneuver just after the procession. The other towers are mentioned in HBS 121, p. 221.

  25 AA 6, 9–11, pp. 414–419; RC 124, pp. 691–692; FC 1, 27, 8, pp. 297–298.

  26 AA 6, 15, pp. 422–423; RA pp. 148–149.

  27 BB 4, 14, p. 101; AA 6, 16, pp. 422–423; RtM 9, 7, p. 866, and 8, 14, p. 855; HBS 121, p. 221; RA, p. 149.

  28 RA, p. 149; PT, pp. 140–141; Ripoll Account, p. 649; Apoc. 19:12. See also France’s commentary on the historical significance of the sermon (as well as the author’s possible eyewitness status): “An Unknown Account of the Capture of Jerusalem,” English Historical Review 87 (1972): 772–783. The rider on the white horse is first mentioned in Apoc. 6:2. See also Don Denny, “A Romanesque Fresco in Auxerre Cathedral,” Gesta 25 (1986): 197–202. RA, p. 150.

  29 On the first person over the wall: Lethold was the consensus candidate—mentioned in GF, pp. 90–91; PT, p. 91; GN 7, 7, p. 278 (predicting Lethold will be celebrated for generations); BB 4, 14, p. 102; and RtM 9, 7, p. 867 (adding that a certain Guicher followed Lethold). AA 6, 19, pp. 428–429, has the brothers climbing onto the walls together. HBS 122, p. 221, says that Bernard was the first, followed by Lethold and Engelbert, RA, pp. 150 and 151, says at first that Tancred and Godfrey were first but then notes a little later that several people saw Adhémar lead the way. On the battle details: AA 6, 18–19, pp. 426–429 (who mentions that local Christians warned the Franks about this fire); and RC 125, p. 693. RA, p. 150, describes Godfrey’s dramatic entry onto Jerusalem’s walls. See also France (1994), pp. 351–353. AA 7, 3, pp. 488–491, elaborates on the mechanics of Greek Fire in a battle fought by Godfrey as king of Jerusalem.

  30 GN 7, 7, p. 279, and 7, 10, p. 283; BN 35, p. 515; HBS 126, p. 223; RtM 9, 8, p. 868; RA, p. 150.

  31 GF, p. 91; GN 7, 7, p. 279, and 7, 8, p. 280; BB 4, 14, p. 102; BN 35, p. 515; RtM 9, 8, p. 868.

  32 RA, p. 150. Raymond would use a similar description in a letter written in September 1099 on behalf of Archbishop Daimbert of Pisa, later patriarch of Jerusalem, saying that the horses in Jerusalem rode through blood up to their knees: Hagenmeyer, Epistulae 18, p. 171. EA 17, p. 24, borrows this language. See also Kedar (2004), p. 65.

  33 RC 129, pp. 695–696; AA 6, 23–25, pp. 430–437. FC 1, 26, 9, p. 290, mentions in the Temple of the Lord, or Dome of the Rock, an “idol named Muhammad.”

  34 AA 6, 26, pp. 436–439; BB 4, 14, p. 103; FC 1, 29, 2, pp. 304–305; RA, p. 151. Isa. 11:10, in the Vulgate, reads “Et erit sepulchrum eius gloriosum.” Robert discusses this verse as it applies to the crusaders: RtM 9, 9, p. 869. See also Riley-Smith (1986), pp. 142–143.

  Chapter 19

  1 RA, p. 150.

  2 FC 1, 28, 1, pp. 301–302; HBS 123, p. 222.

  3 AA 6, 28, pp. 438–439. Albert says here as well that Raymond received a huge amount of money in exchange for their release. See also RA, p. 151; GF, p. 92; and PT, p. 141.

  4 AA 6, 28–29, pp. 438–441; GF, pp. 91–92. PT, p. 141, unusually, says that Tancred ordered the killing himself.

  5 AA 6, 29, pp. 440–441.

  6 AA 6, 30, pp. 440–443 (I am closely following Edgington’s translation).

  7 GF, p. 92; FC 1, 33, 19, pp. 332–333, and note b. See also n. 51 on the same page; and Kedar (2004), p. 20, and n. 8. EA 20, p. 26, also comments on the stench around Jerusalem.

  8 RA, p. 143.

  9 RA, p. 152; AA 6, 33, pp. 444–446; GN 7, 11, p. 284.

  10 FC 1, 30, 1, p. 308.

  11 GN 7, 25, p. 318; HBS 130, p. 225. The epitaph reads, “Rex licet electus. rex noluit intitulari. Nec dyademari. sed sub christo famulari”; recorded in Brussels BR MS 9823–9824, fol. 138v. I discuss the origins of the “advocate” myth later in the chapter.

  12 AA 2, 16, pp. 84–87; EA 11, p. 19.

  13 AA 6, 34–35, pp. 446–449. Alphandéry and Dupront, p. 131, suggest that this story and the ones to follow were probably retrospective inventions made after Godfrey had become king, but there is no particular reason to see them as such. They are just as likely examples of the evidence mustered to support Godfrey’s claim to leadership.

  14 AA 6, 26–27, pp. 436–439. Albert refers briefly to Stabelo’s activity during Baldwin I’s reign: AA 9, 4, pp. 640–643.

  15 AA 6, 36–37, pp. 448–451.

  16 Vita beatae Idea [in AASS Apr. 2] 4, p. 142, with the vision of the sun mentioned at 3, p. 142. The later version is published in RHC Oc. 5, pp. 307–309; and is appended to a collection of crusade chronicles in Paris BnF Arsenal MS 1101, fol. 101v. See also WT 9, 6, p. 427.

  17 RA, pp. 152–153.

  18 RA, p. 71.

  19 RA, p. 153.

  20 Hagenmeyer, Epistulae 18, pp. 167–174. Specifically in the preamble (p. 168), Godfrey is described as “by the grace of God now advocate of the church of the Holy Sepulcher.” On the composition of the
letter, see Hagenmeyer’s notes in Epistulae , pp. 108–110; John France, “The Election and Title of Godfrey de Bouillon,” Canadian Journal of History 18 (1983): 321–329 (pp. 326–327); and Alan V. Murray, “The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem,” Collegium Medievale 3 (1990): 163–178 (pp. 163–164).

  Chapter 20

  1 GF, p. 93, says that Tancred and Eustace captured Nablus and then received a summons from Godfrey to return because of an impending battle at Ascalon. Within a few lines, the author reported that while returning, Tancred learned of an Egyptian army massing at Ascalon and sent warning to Godfrey. AA 6, 42, p. 456, has Godfrey carrying out reconnaissance work with Tancred and Robert of Flanders because of the rumored attack and learning himself of the army at Ascalon. Other potentially independent sources, such as FC 1, 31, 1–2, pp. 311–312, and RC 138, p. 703, are vague on the details of who discovered the army.

  2 RA, p. 154.

  3 The discovery of the True Cross is described in several places: RA, pp. 154–155; FC 1, 30, 4, pp. 309–310; BN 37, p. 516; EA 29, pp. 33–34; and AA 6, 38, 450–453.

  4 GF, p. 94. AA 6, 41, pp. 456–457, says that Peter traveled to Ascalon with the army. In either case Peter was playing a remarkably prominent role. See the analysis of Flori (1999), pp. 457–461.

  5 GF, p. 94.

  6 RA, pp. 156–158; GF, pp. 94–95; FC 1, 31, 5–6, pp. 313–315; AA 6, 42, pp. 458–459, and 6, 44, pp. 460–463; GN 7, 17, p. 296. AA and GN are the only writers to argue that it was a deliberate ruse on the part of the Egyptians.

  7 The herds are described at GF, p. 94; and RA, pp. 155–156. PT, p. 145, alone mentions the dueling sermons with Lance and Cross. AA 6, 42, pp. 456–457, observes that Raymond refused at first to go because of petulance, but relented owing to external pressures.

  8 AA 6, 43–44, pp. 458–461.

  9 RA, p. 157–158; GF, p. 96; BB 4, 20, p. 109; RtM 9, 16, p. 873.