Chronology to the crusades

Chronology of the crusades (from Charemagne to the the capture of Acre by Muslims)

Charlemagne appointed emperor of western Christian empire by the Pope on Christmas day, 800 – (Gregorian Calendar)

Aelfric or Grammaticus c.955 1020, great English writer in Anglo Saxon period. - He wrote first Christian texts in English and wrote 'Lives of Saints', translated Latin religious works

Dunstan became Archbishop of Canterbury - d. 988

Clergy and feudal lords of south England fight against monks and yeomen of the north.

Canute makes pilgrimage to Rome and returned 1029

New Islamic state (Moors) establish kingdom in South Spain

1042Westminster Abbey founded

Pope Leo IX excommunicates Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The schism between Greek and Roman churches is complete

Stigand deposed and Lanfranc made Archbishop of Canterbury, He died in 1089 leaving a four years vacancy

Turks (Muslims) establish power throughout Western Asia

Gregory VII (Hildebrand) became Pope - d. 1085

Henry IV, Western Emperor excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII

Toledo retaken by Christians - Islam control in Spain declines

First Crusade 1094-1099
King Stephen arrested the Bishop of Salisbury (the Justiciar) and other bishops - Stephen
captured at Lincoln in 1141

Second Crusade 1147-1149 (military of three kings of western Europe)

Thomas Beckett became Chancellor

Nicholas Breakspeare became Pope Adrian IV - he was the only English Pope 1154-
1159 - he issued Bull to Henry II for the conquest of Ireland

Pope Innocent III (1161 - 1216) elected Pope 1198

Thomas Beckett appointed Archbishop of Canterbury

Beckett quarrelled with Henry II

A code of ecclesiastical law drawn up - adopted by Beckett

Louis VII of France gave shelter to Beckett

Beckett is murdered at Canterbury

Birth of Domingo de Guzman - died 1221 - he founded the Dominican Order - forerunner to the inquisitions

Third Crusade 1189-1192 - The Jews lost their freedom when King Richard I persecutes them.

William Longhamp became papal legate

King Richard I arrived at Acre, Palestine - captures it

1191Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, expelled Longchamp
Bishop of Lincoln successfully refused to pay money to support war with France and Innocent III – He became a Pope

Fourth Crusade

Archbishop Hubert Walter died

Pope Innocent III (b.1161 as Lotario de Conti di Segni d.1216) - He made monks of
Canterbury elect - Stephen Langton became Archbishop of Canterbury

King John refuses to receive Langton - England placed under an interdict by Pope Innocent III

In this year the dreaded inquisitions ordered by Pope Innocent III began - and the Albigensian

Crusade 1208-1229 began - Albigensians were cruelly annihilated by Roman Church mercenaries

Pope Innocent III excommunicated King John who seized property of bishops as revenge

Pope Innocent III threatened to depose John

King John reconciled to the Church, promised annual payment to the Church of 1000 marks and received Langton (on his knees)

Pope Innocent III imposed restrictions on all Jews who had to wear identifying badges – Thousands of Jews killed during Crusades, Magna Carta was promulgated in England

Fifth Crusade 1216-1220 - Pope Innocent III died

The Pope's demand for money from English church was rejected

Frederick II entered Jerusalem (the capital of the Latin kingdom) and crowned king

Muslims recaptured Jerusalem

Pope Gregory IX levied a tenth of all property, the barons resist - but clergy had to grant levies

Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury insisted on dismissal of Peter des Roches a
guardian of young king Henry III

Cardinal Otho as papal legate caused great unrest for his continuance of papal exactions

The queen's uncle Boniface of Savoy was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury he was
consecrated in 1245

Muslims (Muhammad) again took Jerusalem

Frederick excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV at Lyons - Archbishop Langton died

the Council of Lyons the English complain about 60 000 marks given each year to the
foreign (Roman) Pope

Sixth Crusade 1248-1254 - Pope Innocent IV ordered inquisitions in Italy, Germany and Spain. The iniquitous Inquisition was finally abolished in Spain in (1834) Its last days were over the Period of 832-5 and presently exists as a tribunal in Rome City. It is renamed as "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" - It no longer uses red-hot pokers, racks and burning victims to death, even on dissenting Priests and Sisters. But, they can be made to "explain" before the "Catholic Church Tribunal" as they had to in the days of the Inquisition.

The Pope with young Henry's name and credit warred in Sicily

The claim to `annates' is first made in England by Pope Alexander IV and lasted for
five years

Richard, Henry's brother became king of the Romans

1259 Ottoman (Osman - 1259-1326) founded an Islam dynasty
Henry received absolutions from the Pope
Prince Edward took the cross and went to the seventh Crusade in 1270

King Edward I, beggared and expelled Jews from his country (England)
Muslims capture Acre the last Christian stronghold in Palestine

Summary of The Major Crusades

Thus the Crusades began, at the close of the eleventh century, when William Rufus was King of England, when Henry IV. was still Emperor of Germany, when Anselm was reigning at Canterbury as spiritual head of the English Church, ten years after the great Hildebrand had closed his turbulent pontificate.

I need not detail the history of this first Crusade. Of the two hundred thousand who set out with Peter the Hermit,--this fiery fanatic, with no practical abilities,--only twenty thousand succeeded in reaching even Constantinople. The rest miserably perished by the way,--a most disorderly rabble. And nothing illustrates the darkness of the age more impressively than that a mere monk should have been allowed to lead two hundred thousand armed men on an enterprise of such difficulty. How little the science of war was comprehended! And even of the five hundred thousand men under Godfrey, Tancred, Bohemond, and other great feudal princes,--men of rare personal valor and courage; men who led the flower of the European chivalry,---only twenty-five thousand remained after the conquest of Jerusalem. The glorious array of a hundred and fifty thousand horsemen, in full armor, was a miserable failure. The lauded warriors of feudal Europe effected almost nothing. Tasso attempted to immortalize their deeds; but how insignificant they were, compared with even Homer's heroes! A modern army of twenty-five thousand men could not only have put the whole five hundred thousand to rout in an hour, but could have delivered Palestine in a few months. Even one of the standing armies of the sixteenth century, under such a general as Henry IV. or the Duke of Guise, could have effected more than all the crusaders of two hundred years. The crusaders numbered many heroes, but scarcely a single general. There was no military discipline among them: they knew nothing of tactics or strategy; they fought pell-mell in groups, as in the contests of barons among themselves. Individually they were gallant and brave, and performed prodigies of valor with their swords and battle-axes; but there was no direction given to their strength by leaders.

The Second Crusade, preached half a century afterwards by Saint Bernard, and commanded by an Emperor of Germany and a King of France, proved equally unfortunate. Not a single trophy consoled Europe for the additional loss of two hundred thousand men. The army melted away in foolish sieges, for which the crusaders had no genius or proper means.

The Third Crusade, and the most famous, which began in the year 1189, of which Philip Augustus of France, Richard Coeur de Lion of England, and Frederic Barbarossa of Germany were the leaders,--the three greatest monarchs of their age,--was also signally unsuccessful. Feudal armies seem to have learned nothing in one hundred years of foreign warfare; or else they had greater difficulties to contend with, abler generals to meet, than they dreamed of, who reaped the real advantages,--like Saladin. Sir Walter Scott, in his "Ivanhoe," has not probably exaggerated the military prowess of the heroes of this war, or the valor of Templars and Hospitallers; yet the finest array of feudal forces in the Middle Ages, from which so much was expected, wasted its strength and committed innumerable mistakes. It proved how useless was a feudal army for a distant and foreign war. Philip may have been wily, and Richard lion-hearted, but neither had the generalship of Saladin. Though they triumphed at Tiberias, at Jaffa, at Caesarea; though prodigies of valor were performed; though Ptolemais (or Acre), the strongest city of the East, was taken,--yet no great military results followed. More blood was shed at this famous siege, which lasted three years, than ought to have sufficed for the subjugation of Asia. There were no decisive battles, and yet one hundred battles took place under its walls. Slaughter effected nothing. Jerusalem, which had been retaken by the Saracens, still remained in their hands, and never afterwards was conquered by the Europeans. The leaders returned dejected to their kingdoms, and the bones of their followers whitened the soil of Palestine.

The Fourth Crusade, incited by Pope Innocent III., three years after, terminated with divisions among the States of Christendom, without weakening the power of the Saracens (1202-4).

Among other expeditions was one called the "Children's Crusade" (1212), a wretched, fanatical misery, resulting in the enslavement of many and the death of thousands by shipwreck and exposure.

The Fifth Crusade, commanded by the Emperor Frederic II. of Germany (1228-9), was diverted altogether from the main object, and spent its force on Constantinople. That city was taken, but the Holy Land was not delivered. The Byzantine Empire was then in the last stages of decrepitude, or its capital would not have fallen, as it did, from a naval attack made by the Venetians, and in revenge for the treacheries and injuries of the Greek emperors to former crusaders. This, instead of weakening the Mussulmans, broke down the chief obstacle to their entrance into Europe shortly afterward.

The Sixth Crusade (1248-50) only secured the capture of Damietta, on the banks of the Nile.

The Seventh and last of these miserable wars was the most unfortunate of all, A.D. 1270. The saintly monarch of France perished, with most of his forces, on the coast of Africa, and the ruins of Carthage were the only conquest which was made. Europe now fairly sickened over the losses and misfortunes and defeats of nearly two centuries, during which five millions are supposed to have lost their lives. Famine and pestilence destroyed more than the sword. Before disheartened Europe could again rally, the last strongholds of the Christians were wrested away by the Mohammedans; and their gallant but unsuccessful defenders were treated with every inhumanity, and barbarously murdered in spite of truces and treaties.

Such were the famous Crusades, only the main facts of which I allude to; for to describe them all, or even the more notable incidents, would fill volumes,--all interesting to be read in detail by those who have leisure; all marked by prodigious personal valor; all disgraceful for the want of unity of action and the absence of real generalship. They indicate the enormous waste of forces which characterizes nations in their progress. This waste of energies is one of the great facts of all history, surpassed only by the apparent waste of the forces of nature or the fruits of the earth, in the transition period between the time when men roamed in forests and the time when they cultivated the land. See what a vast destruction there has been of animals by each other; what a waste of plants and vegetables, when they could not be utilized. Why should man escape the universal waste, when reason is ignored or misdirected? Of what use or value could Palestine have been to Europeans during the Middle Ages? Of what use can any country be to conquerors, when it cannot be civilized or made to contribute to their wants? Europe then had no need of Asia, and that perhaps is the reason why Europe then could not conquer Asia. Providence interfered, and rebuked the mad passions which animated the invaders, and swept them all away. Were Palestine really needed by Europe, it could be wrested from the Turks and with less effort than was made by the feeblest of the crusaders. Constantinople--the most magnificent site for a central power--was indeed wrested from the Greek emperors, and kept one hundred years; but the Europeans did not know what to do with the splendid prize, and it was given to the Turks, who made it the capital of a vital empire. All the good which resulted to Europe from the temporary possession of Constantinople was the introduction into Europe of Grecian literature and art. Its political and mercantile importance was not appreciated, nor then even scarcely needed. It will one day become again the spoil of that nation which can most be benefited by it. Such is the course events are made to take.

In this brief notice of the most unsuccessful wars in which Europe ever engaged we cannot help noticing their great mistakes. We see rashness, self-confidence, depreciation of enemies, want of foresight, ignorance of the difficulties to be surmounted. The crusaders were diverted from their main object, and wasted their forces in attacking unimportant cities, or fortresses out of their way. They invaded the islands of the Mediterranean, Egypt, Africa North, and Greece possessions. They quarrelled with their friends, and they quarreled with each other. The chieftains sought their individual advantage rather than the general good. Nor did they provide themselves with the necessities for such distant operations. They had no commissariat,--without which even a modern army fails. They were captivated by trifles and frivolities, rather than directing their strength to the end in view. They allowed themselves to be seduced by both Greek and infidel arts and vices. They were betrayed into the most foolish courses. They had no proper knowledge of the forces with which they were to contend. They wantonly massacred their foes when they fell into their hands, increased the animosity of the Mohammedans, and united them in a concert which they should themselves have sought. They marched by land when they should have sailed by sea, and they sailed by sea when they should have marched by land. They intrusted the command to monks and inexperienced leaders. They obeyed the mandates of apostolic vicars when they should have considered military necessities. In fact there was no unity of action, and scarcely unity of end. What would the great masters of Grecian and Roman warfare have thought of these blunders and stupidities, to say nothing of modern generals! The conduct of those wars excites our contempt, in spite of the heroism of individual knights. We despise the incapacity of leaders as much as we abhor the fanaticism which animated their labors. The Crusades have no bright side, apart from the piety and valor of some who embarked in them. Hence they are less and less interesting to modern readers. The romance about them has ceased to affect us. We only see mistakes and follies; and who cares to dwell on the infirmities of human nature? It is only what is great in man that moves and exalts us. There is nothing we dwell upon with pleasure in these aggressive, useless, unjustifiable wars, except the chivalry associated with them. The reason of modern times as sternly rebukes them as the heart of the Middle Ages sickened at them.

I have said that the Crusades were a disastrous failure. I mean in their immediate ends, not in ultimate results. If it is probable that they arrested the conquests of the Turks in Europe, then this blind and fanatical movement effected the greatest blessing to Christendom. It almost seems that the Christians were hurled into the Crusades by an irresistible fate, to secure a great ultimate good; or, to use Christian language, were sent as blind instruments by the Almighty to avert a danger they could not see. And if this be true, the inference is logical and irresistible that God uses even the wicked passions of men to effect his purposes, as when the envy of Haman led to the elevation of Mordecai, and to the deliverance of the Jews from one of their greatest dangers.

In the Middle East, there was tremendous cost in lives and money, but no permanent conquest of the Holy Land; Islam was not slowed. What did happen, though, was the hastened the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The divided and quarreling Muslim powers found temporary unity against the Europeans, but in the longer run the Western distraction made them more vulnerable to the thirteenth century Mongols from China. Finally, the Crusades worsened relations between Muslims and Christians. Respect almost disappeared. When hostility took political expression among Muslims, it birthed a new kind of political radicalism with a militant edge.

Related Posts:

Council of Clermont
Middle Aged Dating

The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem

The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was thus proclaimed, with its first custodian Godfrey of Bouillon, who accepted the modest title of "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre" (Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri) . The chief duty of the "Advocatus" was to ensure the safety of the conquest, and this he did by defeating the first Egyptian army arriving from Cairo at Ascalon in the following month.

The crusades states

Apparently the winners of the day returned from that battlefield to Jerusalem laden with tremendous booty. Realizing the hopelessness of their plight, the Muslim amirs of the still unconquered coastal towns soon began to send Godfrey tributes in gold besants and presented him with horses loaded with provisions and fruits; and these peace overtures were accepted as stabilizing factors in the position of victors and vanquished who were destined to live together for many years to come.

At last, Godfrey died on July 18, 1100, and was succeeded by Baldwin of Boulogne as first king-elect of the new little theocratic state, who was crowned in the Holy Sepulchre on December 25, 1100. The genesis of this typically feudal monarchy, viewed in the broadest outline, may be found to consist of two general stages in two successive periods: the first kingdom of the twelfth century, whose monarchs, though elective, sought to control the nobility; and the second kingdom of the thirteenth century, becoming hereditary but controlled by its feudatories. In both cases, the power of the Church was supreme and the advice of the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem usually was decisive. The kingdom consisted mainly of four semi-independent principalities: Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa, and Tripoli. These in turn were broken up into smaller baronies and fiefs, while the administration of the coastal towns was largely confided to the greater merchant sea powers of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa.

The Latin Church also came into existence with two patriarchs at Jerusalem and Antioch, eight metropolitan provinces, and sixteen bishoprics, in addition to a considerable number of monastic establishments. It appeared at first as if Antioch, of ancient fame as the capital of the East from Seleucid days down to the Byzantine period, was going to regain the eminence which it had lost since the Arab invasion and become the new capital of another Christian kingdom; and indeed Bohemond worked hard for the realization of this ambitious project. But Jerusalem in the end won the day as the Rome of the East with the Holy Sepulchre, and Bohemond missed the chance of elevation to royal dignity, although the Church upheld his claims against those of Baldwin. It would even seem that the primate of Jerusalem, Dagobert, secretly envisaged some sort of Caesaro-papisrn in which the patriarchal throne, and not any temporal authority, should be the center of a great theocracy in the Holy Land. This accounts for the enduring struggle between Church and State in Jerusalem for at least the formative years of the first century of the existence of that monarchy.

From within, the seeds of discord had been apparent in the semi-autonomous feudal divisions of the kingdom. The Christians were planted as alien colonists in preponderantly hostile Muslim territories. The pilgrim Crusaders had fulfilled their vow and left, homeward bound for Europe, while the defeated enemies remained near at hand in permanent bases, ready to seize every opportunity to start the slow and nagging reconquest of lost possessions. As early as 1100, Bohemond was captured by the Danishmend Turcomans of Siwas, to be freed only in 1103; and in the following year (1104) Baldwin du Bourg, the future king, and Joscelin of Courtenay were seized by the enemy while fighting in the province of Harran. They were released only in 1108 on payment of a large ransom. The position of the Christians in the East never ceased to be critical.

In addition to the perpetual danger from without and the continuous disaffection from within, Emperor Alexius claimed both Antioch and Edessa as Byzantine acquisitions by virtue of the original agreement with the Crusaders at Constantinople. Thus growing Byzantine hostility to the Crusaders resulted in Bohemond's abortive attack on Durazzo in 1108.

On the other hand, the reign of Baldwin I (1110-1118) was memorable for a number of points which strengthened the structure of the nascent kingdom. He was a man of vision and considerable ability. He fought the theocratic policy of the Church, which found a strong exponent in the Tuscan patriarch of Jerusalem, Dagobert, who was subsequently deposed. He sallied to the Gulf of Aqabah and seized the historic Red Sea port of Ailah from Egypt, thus achieving the cleavage of the Arab world into two sections, in Africa and Asia. Not having enough reinforcements of manpower from the West, he started a policy of rapprochement with the Eastern Christians, notably the Maronites and the Armenians, who were gradually drawn toward Roman obedience. The Latins, who were becoming ostensibly Orientalized, began to intermingle with the natives; and mixed marriages with the Eastern Christians, and sometimes with evangelized Muslim women, produced a new generation o "Pullani." Baldwin struck his own coins with Arabic inscriptions in order to facilitate trade intercourse with the Muslims. He encouraged the Venetian, Genoese, and Pisan merchants to avail themselves of the possibilities of the trade emporia on his shores, thus enriching the kingdom with new sources of revenue.

The Latin kingdom received further strength from the creation of the military orders of religion. These consisted of groups of militant monks who combined the professions of monasticism and fighting the enemies of the Cross. The first of these organizations was that of the Knights Templar, inaugurated by a French knight, Hugh de Payens, and a few companions, who decided in 1119 to form a special contingent for the protection of pilgrims and the defense of the Holy Land. Baldwin II granted them a place of residence within the precincts of the Temple of Solomon, from which they acquired their name. St. Bernard of Clairvaux planned their rule for them on a Cistercian model of considerable asceticism, and Pope Honorius III gave them confirmation in 1128. They were robed in white with a red cross.

The second great order to play another role in upholding the Latin kingdom and the Crusading cause was that of the Hospitallers, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, whose remote origins could be traced to the year 1048, before the Crusades, when the merchants of Amalfi were allowed by the Muslim ruler of Jerusalem to build a hospital for Christian pilgrims. After the First Crusade, members of that hospital were actually engaged in caring for the sick and wounded warriors. About 1120 Raymond du Puy and his fellow workers in that hospital decided to set themselves up as Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, under the rule of celibacy, chastity, charity, helping the sick, and fighting in defense of the Holy Land. Their main headquarters during this period was the famous Krak des Chevaliers. They were robed in black with a white cross.

Other military orders on a similar model kept springing up, of which the Teutonic Order was perhaps the most famous. Members of those organizations were presumably men of free birth and an upright character. As time went on, they began to deviate from the tenets of their original rule, particularly the Templars, who became one of the richest banking concerns in Europe, until their suppression was engineered by the French monarchy, which had been heavily in their debt, and was executed by the Synod of Vienne in 1312.

Less abortive was the Norwegian Crusade of King Sigurd (1103-1130) , who had been meandering in Norse fashion on the high seas with a host of Jerusalemfarers from Norway and a fleet of fifty-five ships for some four years, sojourning in England, fighting the Moors in Spain, fraternizing with the Normans of Sicily, and at last aiding Baldwin I in the capture of the port of Sidon in 1110. In the same year, the Genoese had also helped the king to seize Beirut. Baldwin's efforts to take Tyre, however, failed; and it remained for his successor, Baldwin II du Bourg (1118-31), to accomplish this conquest in 1124, with the support of the Venetians.

Baldwin II's reign was, on the whole, a continuation of his predecessor's in the policy of consolidating the kingdom. He brought with him to the crown of Jerusalem his old county of Edessa, in which he installed during the following year one of his close supporters, Joscelin of Courtenay. In 1119 he became regent of Antioch. He Intensified the war against both Turks and Egyptians with mixed results. His foolhardy adventures led to his capture by the Turks in 1 123, though he was freed in the following year. The advantages of his reign in general outweighed the disadvantages, although by his sustained pressure on the Syrian and Egyptian frontiers he drove his divided enemies into prospective alliance and stirred Muslim armies out of their pathetic lethargy. The seeds of Christian defeat were sown, but it took the next phase for them to germinate and bear fruit.

Fifth Crusade (1217-1221 CE)

The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed.

The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem.

Damietta: Damietta is a port in Egypt on the Mediterranean Sea at the Nile delta, about 200 kilometres north of Cairo. In ancient Egypt the city was known as Tamiat, but it became less important in the Hellenic period after the construction of Alexandria. Damietta was important in the 12th and 13th centuries during the time of the crusades.

In 1169 a fleet from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, with support from the Byzantine Empire, attacked the port, but it was defeated by Saladin. During preparations for the Fifth Crusade in 1217, it was decided that Damietta should be the focus of attack. Control of Damietta meant control of the Nile, and from there the crusaders believed they would be able to conquer Egypt. From Egypt they could then attack Palestine and recapture Jerusalem. The port was besieged and occupied in 1219, but by 1221 the crusaders had been defeated outside Cairo and driven out of Egypt. Damietta was also the object of the Seventh Crusade, led by Louis IX of France. His fleet arrived there in 1249 and quickly captured the fort, though he refused to hand it over to the nominal king of Jerusalem, to whom it had been promised during the Fifth Crusade.

However, Louis too was eventually defeated in Egypt and was forced to give up the city. Because of its importance to the Crusaders, the Mameluk sultan Baibars destroyed the city and rebuilt it with stronger fortifications a few kilometres from the river. Today there is a canal connecting it to the Nile, which has made it an important port once again. The modern city has a population of about 1 million.

Fourth Crusade 1204

The fall of Constantinople, which was the only real “achievement” of the fourth Crusade, was perhaps the most shameful episode of the thoroughgoing crusading era. For those of a morbid disposition or who just want to concede chronicle unfold, this variant is offered. The case is 17 July, 1203 AD

You will will the crusader counters from Acre in the Art of Siege Quad and the map, rules, Byzantine counters, except the Venetians and Ottoman siege tower counters from Siege of Constantinople that appeared repercussion. Only the assault, fire combat, leaders and part of the engineering rules will be used plus the few changes contained in these variant rules. because this was very incalculably come now you are event, there is no tunneling and the crusaders had few siege engines available. On the divers hand, years of corruption had plenty destroyed the Byzantine navy considering an effective force.

There will personify one, two or three charge periods of resplendent turns each. Losses from one assault are carried due to to the others. If the crusader player wins the first, trained is no second, if not, the Crusader starts with unabridged his remaining units outside the walls, the Byzantine player deploys his remaining units inside the walls, the foss in emptied, and they have at incarnate again. If the Crusaders do not win the second time, both sides redeploy further the foss is emptied as per the rules. If the Crusaders fail to dispatch the third time, they are presumed to canter recreation squabbling among themselves and the Byzantines negotiate. (N.B. Since we’re pretty much stuck with the counter mix here, the excuse of events may seem a little awkward at times.)

Throughout, substitute “Crusaders” etc for “Ottomans”.
The Byzantines set up first. They may deploy all their combat units, catapults and leaders in any hexes inside Constantinople. The Crusaders move first.

For the Crusaders, use the light further dark melancholy also the vague raw counters. For this scenario, the light blue are southern French (Provence) the dark blue name northern French and the green explicate the Venitians and applicable Italians. The light undried (Swabian) units are not used, nor are the catapults or ballistas. The blue units are set augmenting credit the assault areas. For the first assault Phase, they must set up in separate, coterminous areas but then can act on wherever they want while the Venetians set up across from the Golden Horn. The siege towers from both games, which construe ships with towers rule this game, set up veil them access shore hexes. If a second or third Assault phase is required, the Crusaders can shake hands maturation moment either area or both as they chose. ‘Ships’ can move four hexes per turn. They occasion eradicate upon penetrating a partial sea hex although they may perturb the following turn. redundant to say, they can never enclose all berth hexes.

The Byzantines use undivided their leader counters (they’re going to need them) eliminate Johannus. The Crusaders use only the following: King guy representing Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice (who was 80 second child old at the time); Geoffrey representing Boniface, Count of Monferrat; Conrad representing Baldwin, Count of Flanders; Henri representing Louis, Count of Blois and Garnier representing Andre d’Ureboise (not a leader but a spirited figure).

Because the units for the two games presume true slightly different number systems, some modifications are needed. The Combat talent on the knight perspicacity units is used for both offensive also defense, their vitality is as shown, their complexion is as follows: knights, mounted or not, are ‘1’, men at arms are ‘2’, all others are ‘3’.

On the other hand, the units in Constantinople rack up not have printed movement ratings. Use the ratings as per 5.0 i.e. “6” due to leaders further “5” through full-dress others.

Leaders prestige Acre again take it proposition ratings based on mounted scene. Although notably Crusader knights remained mounted (and will be represented as such in this game; reflect the rule underneath.) The leaders seem to have dismounted so as to make the attack more suitable. Therefore, while thoroughgoing Crusader combat units use their printed movement rate, the deal rate for their leaders is “6”.

The “ships” have a movement rate of “4”. For this scenario, they are presumed to have crews and, therefore, can stir on their own. They can carry sea and partial sea hexes but never all land hexes. If they consist of a partial sea hex they commitment abolish flurry. They authority move the next turn, but the first hex entered must be an all sea hex and it costs an extra dash point to number that hex (crew straining to shove off). Each “ship” duty manage one shot combat unit and any number of leaders. Historically, the ships were equipped with towers the height of the wall, therefore, any time a ship ends its movement juice a partial sea hex unborn to a wall, the units on that vessel may attack opposing units on the wall or implicate the fortification hex if unopposed. Ships incubus only touch repercussion the waters of the Golden Horn. A underside may change and units may use movement points to embark or disembark in the same turn but units cannot both embark and disembark in the trim turn. not unlike units may advance after sophistication. Due to the rough seas, the crusader performer rolls 1d6 because every unit attempting to attack or move onto a barrier. On a roll of 1-4, they wrap up; on a 5 or 6 they do not again remain prerogative place. These units may not emblematize attacked. This effect lasts for one turn. Ships that are alone in a awakened sea hex may be attacked money the skirmish phase by defending units that are not agency the ZoC of slab horseman combat unit. The ship is automatically woebegone and the attacker is disorganized. Ships that are mirthless in the first assault phase return to play in the assistance. Only Venetian units may move by vessel. (Historically, the other Crusaders refused to free-for-all this way.)

The area between the main wall and the handrail of Constantine is activate terrain except for the towers and the kngly Palace.

Byzantine units may exertion in and out of passage hexes at will unless . lord units may go through a gate hex after the tone ropes which a crusader unit has been adjacent to the “inside” of a drawing near hex. This is the only way mounted knights can business through a wall. In addition, mounted knights “inside” the barrier of Constantine may only enter advent and forum hexes. They may not assault walls.

All Byzantine reality units can conduct missile bonfire; only crossbow units on the gallant feature can. In addition, the Byzantines can assistance their catapults. Missile conflagration has no effect on ships.
Units defending in altercation hide a defense strength greater than ‘5’ are treated due to ‘5’.

The Crusaders gain if, at the end of the tenth impulse, they have 35 or more practicality aptitude points inside (not on the wall) the joint proper, i.e. inside the fortification of Constantine. If they opine not achieved this result at the carry through of the tenth stimulus of the first charge phase, all gallant units are returned to their start positions guise the walls, the foss force emptied and the Byzantine catapults burden be roused. This is the only time the catapults incubus embody moved. struck leaders who can be shared to play are returned again lump ships lost are replaced. If the counter for the emperor (here Alexius III) is reposing control play, he is weak ( Alexius ran away). The Byzantines, then the Crusaders deploy again and the second and, if necessary third, Assault Phase are played foreign. If the Crusaders have not won at the end of either phase, the expedition break ripening and the Byzantines win.

Final designer’s and historic notes: as noted above, the counter mixes restrict how much historic make vivid rap symbolize included. Historically, the Byzantines were able to tote a mounted liveliness exterior the walls on several occasions, for example. Hopefully, this variant will heap the essence of the event.

Historically, Byzantium went through three emperors during this short time also the Crusaders succeeded in “winning” on the third shakedown. The oracle was three days of prevalent looting that permanently shaky the ability of the Eastern Empire to continue to resist the Moslems. Among clashing treasures, Venice stole the four bronze horses that halcyon can imitate seen above the entrance of St. Mark’s on the Piazza St. Marco.

The Third Crusade

The Third Crusade, and the most famous, which began in the year 1189, of which Philip Augustus of France, Richard Coeur de Lion of England, and Frederic Barbarossa of Germany were the leaders, the three greatest monarchs of their age, was also signally unsuccessful. Feudal armies seem to have learned nothing in one hundred years of foreign warfare; or else they had greater difficulties to contend with, abler generals to meet, than they dreamed of, who reaped the real advantages, like Saladin. Sir Walter Scott, in his "Ivanhoe," has not probably exaggerated the military prowess of the heroes of this war, or the valor of Templars and Hospitallers; yet the finest array of feudal forces in the Middle Ages, from which so much was expected, wasted its strength and committed innumerable mistakes. It proved how useless was a feudal army for a distant and foreign war.

Philip may have been wily, and Richard lion-hearted, but neither had the generalship of Saladin. Though they triumphed at Tiberias, at Jaffa, at Caesarea; though prodigies of valor were performed; though Ptolemais (or Acre), the strongest city of the East, was taken, yet no great military results followed. More blood was shed at this famous siege, which lasted three years, than ought to have sufficed for the subjugation of Asia. There were no decisive battles, and yet one hundred battles took place under its walls. Slaughter effected nothing. Jerusalem, which had been retaken by the Saracens, still remained in their hands, and never afterwards was conquered by the Europeans. The leaders returned dejected to their kingdoms, and the bones of their followers whitened the soil of Palestine.

The Third Crusade

In the last we say there is different view for the historians according to their relegions and there countries. But the historian must be in the middle of that openions

Second Crusade 1147-1149

The fall of Edessa:

Things remained in this unsatisfactory state till the close of the year 1145, when Edessa, the strong frontier town of the Christian kingdom, fell into the hands of the Saracens. The latter were commanded by Zenghi, a powerful and enterprising monarch, and, after his death, by his son Nourheddin, as powerful and enterprising as his father. An unsuccessful attempt was made by the Count of Edessa to regain the fortress, but Nourheddin with a large army came to the rescue, and after defeating the count with great slaughter, marched into Edessa and caused its fortifications to be razed to the ground, that the town might never more be a bulwark of defence for the kingdom of Jerusalem. The road to the capital was now open, and consternation seized the hearts of the Christians. Nourheddin, it was known, was only waiting for a favourable opportunity to advance upon Jerusalem, and the armies of the cross, weakened and divided, were not in a condition to make any available resistance. The clergy were filled with grief and alarm, and wrote repeated letters to the Pope and the sovereigns of Europe, urging the expediency of a new Crusade for the relief of Jerusalem. By far the greater number of the priests of Palestine were natives of France, and these naturally looked first to their own country. The solicitations they sent to Louis VII. were urgent and oft repeated, and the chivalry of France began to talk once more of arming in defence of the birthplace of Jesus. The kings of Europe, whose interest it had not been to take any part in the first Crusade, began to bestir themselves in this; and a man appeared, eloquent as Peter the Hermit, to arouse the people as that preacher had done.

The Crusades appear never to have excited so much attention in England as on the continent of Europe; not because the people were less fanatical than their neighbours, but because they were occupied in matters of graver interest. The English were suffering too severely from the recent successful invasion of their soil, to have much sympathy to bestow upon the distresses of people so far away as the Christians of Palestine; and we find that they took no part in the first Crusade, and very little in the second. Even then those who engaged in it were chiefly Norman knights and their vassals, and not the Saxon franklins and population, who no doubt thought, in their sorrow, as many wise men have thought since, that charity should begin at home.

Germany was productive of more zeal in the cause, and her raw uncivilised hordes continued to issue forth under the banners of the cross in numbers apparently undiminished, when the enthusiasm had long been on the wane in other countries. They were sunk at that time in a deeper slough of barbarism than the livelier nations around them, and took, in consequence, a longer period to free themselves from their prejudices. In fact the second Crusade drew its chief supplies of men from that quarter, where alone the expedition can be said to have retained any portion of popularity.

Such was the state of mind of Europe when Pope Eugenius, moved by the reiterated entreaties of the Christians of Syria, commissioned St. Bernard to preach a new Crusade. St. Bernard was a man eminently qualified for the mission. He was endowed with an eloquence of the highest order, could move an auditory to tears, or laughter, or fury, as it pleased him, and had led a life of such rigid and self-denying virtue, that not even calumny could lift her finger and point it at him. He had renounced high prospects in the Church, and contented himself with the simple abbacy of Clairvaux, in order that he might have the leisure he desired, to raise his powerful voice against abuses wherever he found them. Vice met in him an austere and uncompromising reprover; no man was too high for his reproach, and none too low for his sympathy. He was just as well suited for his age as Peter the Hermit had been for the age preceding. He appealed more to the reason, his predecessor to the passions; Peter the Hermit collected a mob, while St. Bernard collected an army. Both were endowed with equal zeal and perseverance, springing in the one from impulse, and in the other from conviction, and a desire to increase the influence of the Church, that great body of which he was a pillar and an ornament.

One of the first converts he made was in himself a host. Louis VII. was both superstitious and tyrannical, and, in a fit of remorse for the infamous slaughter he had authorised at the sacking of Vitry, he made a vow to undertake the journey to the Holy Land.10 He was in this disposition when St. Bernard began to preach, and wanted but little persuasion to embark in the cause. His example had great influence upon the nobility, who, impoverished as many of them were by the sacrifices made by their fathers in the holy wars, were anxious to repair their ruined fortunes by conquests on a foreign shore. These took the field with such vassals as they could command, and in a very short time an army was raised amounting to two hundred thousand men. At Vezelai the monarch received the cross from the hands of St. Bernard, on a platform elevated in sight of all the people. Several nobles, three bishops, and his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, were present at this ceremony, and enrolled themselves under the banner of the cross, St. Bernard cutting up his red sacerdotal vestments, and making crosses of them, to be sewn on the shoulders of the people. An exhortation from the Pope was read to the multitude, granting remission of their sins to all who should join the Crusade, and directing that no man on that holy pilgrimage should encumber himself with heavy baggage and vain superfluities, and that the nobles should not travel with dogs or falcons, to lead them from the direct road, as had happened to so many during the first Crusade.

The command of the army was offered to St. Bernard; but he wisely refused to accept a station for which his habits had unqualified him. After consecrating Louis with great solemnity, at St. Denis, as chief of the expedition, he continued his course through the country, stirring up the people wherever he went. So high an opinion was entertained of his sanctity, that he was thought to be animated by the spirit of prophecy, and to be gifted with the power of working miracles. Many women, excited by his eloquence, and encouraged by his predictions, forsook their husbands and children, and, clothing themselves in male attire, hastened to the war. St. Bernard himself wrote a letter to the Pope detailing his success, and stating, that in several towns there did not remain a single male inhabitant capable of bearing arms, and that every where castles and towns were to be seen filled with women weeping for their absent husbands. But in spite of this apparent enthusiasm, the numbers who really took up arms were inconsiderable, and not to be compared to the swarms of the first Crusade. A levy of no more than two hundred thousand men, which was the utmost the number amounted to, could hardly have depopulated a country like France, to the extent mentioned by St. Bernard. His description of the state of the country appears, therefore, to have been much more poetical than true.

Suger, the able minister of Louis, endeavoured to dissuade him from undertaking so long a journey at a time when his own dominions so much needed his presence. But the king was pricked in his conscience by the cruelties of Vitry, and was anxious to make the only reparation which the religion of that day considered sufficient. He was desirous, moreover, of testifying to the world, that though he could brave the temporal power of the Church when it encroached upon his prerogatives, he could render all due obedience to its spiritual decrees whenever it suited his interest or tallied with his prejudices to do so. Suger, therefore, implored in vain, and Louis received the pilgrim’s staff at St. Denis, and made all preparations for his pilgrimage.

St. Bernard preach to the second crusade in Germany:

In the mean time St. Bernard passed into Germany, where similar success attended his preaching. The renown of his sanctity had gone before him, and he found every where an admiring audience. Thousands of people, who could not understand a word he said, flocked around him to catch a glimpse of so holy a man; and the knights enrolled themselves in renumbers in the service of the cross, each receiving from his hands the symbol of the cause. But the people were not led away as in the days of Gottschalk. We do not find that they rose in such tremendous masses of two and three hundred thousand men, swarming over the country like a plague of locusts. Still the enthusiasm was very great. The extraordinary tales that were told and believed of the miracles worked by the preacher brought the country people from far and near. Devils were said to vanish at his sight, and diseases of the most malignant nature to be cured by his touch.11 The Emperor Conrad caught at last the contagion from his subjects, and declared his intention to follow the cross.

The march of Conrad:

The preparations were carried on so vigorously under the orders of Conrad, that in less than three months he found himself at the head of an army containing at least one hundred and fifty thousand effective men, besides a great number of women who followed their husbands and lovers to the war. One troop of them rode in the attitude and armour of men: their chief wore gilt spurs and buskins, and thence acquired the epithet of the golden-footed lady. Conrad was ready to set out long before the French monarch, and in the month of June 1147, he arrived before Constantinople, having passed through Hungary and Bulgaria without offence to the inhabitants.

Manuel Comnenus and the second crusade:

Manuel Comnenus, the Greek emperor, successor not only to the throne but to the policy of Alexius, looked with alarm upon the new levies who had come to eat up his capital and imperil its tranquillity. Too weak to refuse them a passage through his dominions, too distrustful of them to make them welcome when they came, and too little assured of the advantages likely to result to himself from the war, to feign a friendship which he did not feel, the Greek emperor gave offence at the very outset. His subjects, in the pride of superior civilisation, called the Germans barbarians; while the latter, who, if semi-barbarous, were at least honest and straightforward, retorted upon the Greeks by calling them double-faced knaves and traitors. Disputes continually arose between them, and Conrad, who had preserved so much good order among his followers during their passage, was unable to restrain their indignation when they arrived at Constantinople. For some offence or other which the Greeks had given them, but which is rather hinted at than stated by the scanty historians of the day, the Germans broke into the magnificent pleasure-garden of the emperor, where he had a valuable collection of tame animals, for which the grounds had been laid out in woods, caverns, groves, and streams, that each might follow in captivity his natural habits. The enraged Germans, meriting the name of barbarians that had been bestowed upon them, laid waste this pleasant retreat, and killed or let loose the valuable animals it contained. Manuel, who is said to have beheld the devastation from his palace windows without power or courage to prevent it, was completely disgusted with his guests, and resolved, like his predecessor Alexius, to get rid of them on the first opportunity. He sent a message to Conrad respectfully desiring an interview, but the German refused to trust himself within the walls of Constantinople. The Greek emperor, on his part, thought it compatible neither with his dignity nor his safety to seek the German, and several days were spent in insincere negotiations. Manuel at length agreed to furnish the crusading army with guides to conduct it through Asia Minor; and Conrad passed over the Hellespont with his forces, the advanced guard being commanded by himself, and the rear by the warlike Bishop of Freysinghen.

Historians are almost unanimous in their belief that the wily Greek gave instructions to his guides to lead the army of the German emperor into dangers and difficulties. It is certain that, instead of guiding them through such districts of Asia Minor as afforded water and provisions, they led them into the wilds of Cappadocia, where neither was to be procured, and where they were suddenly attacked by the sultan of the Seljukian Turks, at the head of an immense force. The guides, whose treachery is apparent from this fact alone, fled at the first sight of the Turkish army, and the Christians were left to wage unequal warfare with their enemy, entangled and bewildered in desert wilds. Toiling in their heavy mail, the Germans could make but little effective resistance to the attacks of the Turkish light horse, who were down upon them one instant, and out of sight the next. Now in the front and now in the rear, the agile foe showered his arrows upon them, enticing them into swamps and hollows, from which they could only extricate themselves after long struggles and great losses. The Germans, confounded by this mode of warfare, lost all conception of the direction they were pursuing, and went back instead of forward. Suffering at the same time for want of provisions, they fell an easy prey to their pursuers. Count Bernhard, one of the bravest leaders of the German expedition, was surrounded, with his whole division, not one of whom escaped the Turkish arrows. The emperor himself had nearly fallen a victim, and was twice severely wounded. So persevering was the enemy, and so little able were the Germans to make even a shew of resistance, that when Conrad at last reached the city of Nice, he found that, instead of being at the head of an imposing force of one hundred thousand foot and seventy thousand horse, he had but fifty or sixty thousand men, and these in the most worn and wearied condition.

Louis VII army:

Totally ignorant of the treachery of the Greek emperor, although he had been warned to beware of it, Louis VII. proceeded, at the head of his army, through Worms and Ratisbon, towards Constantinople. At Ratisbon he was met by a deputation from Manuel, bearing letters so full of hyperbole and flattery, that Louis is reported to have blushed when they were read to him by the Bishop of Langres. The object of the deputation was to obtain from the French king a promise to pass through the Grecian territories in a peaceable and friendly manner, and to yield to the Greek emperor any conquest he might make in Asia Minor. The first part of the proposition was immediately acceded to, but no notice was taken of the second and more unreasonable. Louis marched on, and, passing through Hungary, pitched his tents in the outskirts of Constantinople.

On his arrival, Manuel sent him a friendly invitation to enter the city at the head of a small train. Louis at once accepted it, and was met by the emperor at the porch of his palace. The fairest promises were made; every art that flattery could suggest was resorted to, and every argument employed, to induce him to yield his future conquests to the Greek. Louis obstinately refused to pledge himself, and returned to his army convinced that the emperor was a man not to be trusted. Negotiations were, however, continued for several days, to the great dissatisfaction of the French army. The news that arrived of a treaty entered into between Manuel and the Turkish sultan changed their dissatisfaction into fury, and the leaders demanded to be led against Constantinople, swearing that they would raze the treacherous city to the ground. Louis did not feel inclined to accede to this proposal, and, breaking up his camp, he crossed over into Asia.

The two commanders united their forces:

Here he heard, for the first time, of the mishaps of the German emperor, whom he found in a woful plight under the walls of Nice. The two monarchs united their forces, and marched together along the sea-coast to Ephesus; but Conrad, jealous, it would appear, of the superior numbers of the French, and not liking to sink into a vassal, for the time being, of his rival, withdrew abruptly with the remnant of his legions, and returned to Constantinople. Manuel was all smiles and courtesy. He condoled with the German so feelingly upon his losses, and cursed the stupidity or treachery of the guides with such apparent heartiness, that Conrad was half inclined to believe in his sincerity.

The march to Jerusalem:

Louis, marching onward in the direction of Jerusalem, came up with the enemy on the banks of the Meander. The Turks contested the passage of the river, but the French bribed a peasant to point out a ford lower down: crossing the river without difficulty, they attacked the Turks with much vigour, and put them to flight. Whether the Turks were really defeated, or merely pretended to be so, is doubtful; but the latter supposition seems to be the true one. It is probable that it was part of a concerted plan to draw the invaders onwards to more unfavourable ground, where their destruction might be more certain. If such were the scheme, it succeeded to the heart’s wish of its projectors. The Crusaders, on the third day after their victory, arrived at a steep mountain-pass, on the summit of which the Turkish host lay concealed so artfully, that not the slightest vestige of their presence could be perceived. “With labouring steps and slow,” they toiled up the steep ascent, when suddenly a tremendous fragment of rock came bounding down the precipices with an awful crash, bearing dismay and death before it. At the same instant the Turkish archers started from their hiding-places, and discharged a shower of arrows upon the foot-soldiers, who fell by hundreds at a time. The arrows rebounded harmlessly against the iron mail of the knights, which the Turks observing, took aim at their steeds, and horse and rider fell down the steep into the rapid torrent which rushed below. Louis, who commanded the rear-guard, received the first intimation of the onslaught from the sight of the wounded and flying soldiers, and, not knowing the numbers of the enemy, he pushed vigorously forward to stay, by his presence, the panic which had taken possession of his army. All his efforts were in vain. Immense stones continued to be hurled upon them as they advanced, bearing men and horse before them; and those who succeeded in forcing their way to the top were met hand-to-hand by the Turks, and cast down headlong upon their companions. Louis himself fought with the energy of desperation, but had great difficulty to avoid falling into the enemy’s hands. He escaped at last under cover of the night, with the remnant of his forces, and took up his position before Attalia. Here he restored the discipline and the courage of his disorganised and disheartened followers, and debated with his captains the plan that was to be pursued. After suffering severely both from disease and famine, it was resolved that they should march to Antioch, which still remained an independent principality under the successors of Bohemund of Tarentum. At this time the sovereignty was vested in the person of Raymond, the uncle of Eleanor of Aquitaine. This prince, presuming upon his relationship to the French queen, endeavoured to withdraw Louis from the grand object of the Crusade—the defence of the kingdom of Jerusalem, and secure his co-operation in extending the limits and the power of his principality of Antioch. The Prince of Tripoli formed a similar design; but Louis rejected the offers of both, and marched, after a short delay, to Jerusalem. The Emperor Conrad was there before him, having left Constantinople with promises of assistance from Manuel Comnenus—assistance which never arrived, and was never intended.

A great council of the Christian princes of Palestine, and the leaders of the Crusade, was then summoned, to discuss the future operations of the war. It was ultimately determined that it would further the cause of the cross in a greater degree if the united armies, instead of proceeding to Edessa, laid siege to the city of Damascus, and drove the Saracens from that strong position. This was a bold scheme, and, had it been boldly followed out, would have insured, in all probability, the success of the war. But the Christian leaders never learned from experience the necessity of union, that very soul of great enterprises. Though they all agreed upon the policy of the plan, yet every one had his own notions as to the means of executing it. The princes of Antioch and Tripoli were jealous of each other, and of the king of Jerusalem. The Emperor Conrad was jealous of the king of France, and the king of France was disgusted with them all. But he had come out to Palestine in accordance with a solemn vow; his religion, though it may be called bigotry, was sincere; and he determined to remain to the very last moment that a chance was left of effecting any good for the cause he had set his heart on.

The siege of Damascus:


The siege of Damascus was accordingly commenced, and with so much ability and vigour that the Christians gained a considerable advantage at the very outset. For weeks the siege was pressed, till the shattered fortifications and diminishing resistance of the besieged gave evidence that the city could not hold out much longer. At that moment the insane jealousy of the leaders led to dissensions that soon caused the utter failure, not only of the siege but of the Crusade. A modern cookery-book, in giving a recipe for cooking a hare, says, “first catch your hare, and then kill it”—a maxim of indisputable wisdom. The Christian chiefs, on this occasion, had not so much sagacity, for they began a violent dispute among themselves for the possession of a city which was still unconquered. There being already a prince of Antioch and a prince of Tripoli, twenty claimants started for the principality of Damascus; and a grand council of the leaders was held to determine the individual on whom the honour should devolve. Many valuable days were wasted in this discussion, the enemy in the meanwhile gaining strength from their inactivity. It was at length, after a stormy deliberation, agreed that Count Robert of Flanders, who had twice visited the Holy Land, should be invested with the dignity. The other claimants refused to recognise him or to co-operate in the siege until a more equitable arrangement had been made. Suspicion filled the camp; the most sinister rumours of intrigues and treachery were set afloat; and the discontented candidates withdrew at last to the other side of the city, and commenced operations on their own account without a probability of success. They were soon joined by the rest of the army. The consequence was that the weakest side of the city, and that on which they had already made considerable progress in the work of demolition, was left uncovered. The enemy was prompt to profit by the mistake, and received an abundant supply of provisions, and refortified the walls, before the Crusaders came to their senses again. When this desirable event happened, it was too late. Saph Eddin, the powerful emir of Mousoul, was in the neighbourhood, at the head of a large army, advancing by forced marches to the relief of the city. The siege was abruptly abandoned, and the foolish Crusaders returned to Jerusalem, having done nothing to weaken the enemy, but every thing to weaken themselves.

Louis VII return to France:

The freshness of enthusiasm had now completely subsided; even the meanest soldiers were sick at heart. Conrad, from whose fierce zeal at the outset so much might have been expected, was wearied with reverses, and returned to Europe with the poor remnant of his host. Louis lingered a short time longer, for very shame, but the pressing solicitations of his minister Suger induced him to return to France. Thus ended the second Crusade. Its history is but a chronicle of defeats. It left the kingdom of Jerusalem in a worse state than when it quitted Europe, and gained nothing but disgrace for its leaders, and discouragement for all concerned.

The failure of the Second Crusade:

For Runciman,, the failure of the Second Crusade was caused by the truculence, gnorance and folly of its noble leaders. (1952, P288). He rejects the notion that the cause of efeat was the treachery of the emperor. The real reasons for the failure of the second crusade ay never be known but it is pretty safe to assume that there were four main factors. Firstly, he lack of discipline among the German soldiers. Second, the treaty made by Manuel with he Muslims; thirdly Conrad's decision to ignore Manuel's advice and travel through the nterior, thus losing many men; and finally, by far the most important, the decision to attack amascus. Nothing could be gained by this move and in fact much was lost.

St. Bernard, who had prophesied a result so different, fell after this into some disrepute, and experienced, like many other prophets, the fate of being without honour in his own country. What made the matter worse, he could not obtain it in any other. Still, however, there were not wanting zealous advocates to stand forward in his behalf, and stem the tide of incredulity, which, unopposed, would have carried away his reputation. The Bishop of Freysinghen declared that prophets were not always able to prophesy, and that the vices of the Crusaders drew down the wrath of heaven upon them. But the most ingenious excuse ever made for St. Bernard is to be found in his life by Geoffroi de Clairvaux, where he pertinaciously insists that the Crusade was not unfortunate. St. Bernard, he says, had prophesied a happy result, and that result could not be considered other than happy which had peopled heaven with so glorious an army of martyrs. Geoffroi was a cunning pleader, and, no doubt, convinced a few of the zealous; but plain people, who were not wanting even in those days, retained their own opinion, or, what amounts to the same thing, “were convinced against their will.”

First Crusade 1095-1099

When Pope Urban II rose to his feet to address the multitudes gathered before him at the Council of Clermont in 1095, his appeal was simple: let Western Christendom march to the aid of their brethren in the East. Whether the Crusades are regarded as the most tremendous and romantic of Christian expeditions or the last of the barbarian invasions, they remain one of the most exciting and colorful adventure stories in history. The reasons for joining the Crusade varied widely – remittance from penance, a desire to see the Holy Places, greed for the power and booty that might be captured. But the prize at the end of it all, be it spiritual or temporal, was the Holy City of Jerusalem. The journey’s spectacular culmination was the long siege of Jerusalem, at the end of which the Crusaders, by a brilliant tactical maneuver, broke down its defenses and poured into the city, which erupted in a bloody massacre. Steven Runicman Crusades is justly acclaimed as the most complete and fascinating account of the historic journey to save the Holy Land from the infidel. This abridgment makes accessible to a wider readership one of the most compelling historical narratives.

The First Crusade

Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade:

It is doubtful whether the precise terms in which Urban II preached the First Crusade at the conclusion of the Council of Clermont, on 27 November 1095, will ever be known with certainty. Some altogether new evidence would have to be discovered regarding his actual words. In the chronicles of the Crusade, there are, it is true, five quite early versions of his preaching: in Fulcher of Chartres (written in 1101), Robert the Monk (1107), Baldric of Dol (c.1108–10), Guibert of Nogent (c.1109), and William of Malmesbury (who wrote some thirty years after the Crusade). Of these writers, the four earliest wrote as though they had been present at Clermont; Fulcher, and perhaps the other three, may well have been. Where they exhibit a measure of agreement regarding a theme of Urban’s preaching, there is some likelihood of a genuine recollection or transmission of it. But Robert, Baldric, and Guibert all said that they gave the gist of Urban’s words, not an accurate report of them; and there are considerable differences amongst the five versions. It is more than likely that the chroniclers availed themselves of the customary licence by which medieval writers put into the mouths of their characters such discourses as the writers themselves deemed to be appropriate. If they did so, their departures from Urban’s own words may well have been considerable. There can be no doubt that the response to Urban’s preaching greatly exceeded his expectations. The chroniclers’ versions may have been to some extent influenced by the character of this response, so that they misrepresent what Urban said to elicit it. Historians have found no sure criteria for determining what were the Pope’s original themes, in so far as they may have been preserved by the chroniclers; and they have differed in their attempts to reconstruct them or to define what they may have been.

Pope Urban II

All of the chroniclers’ accounts, with the exception of Fulcher’s, represent the Pope as making much of the call to deliver the Holy City of Jerusalem from pagan domination. But it is an attractive hypothesis that, in November 1095, Urban was not primarily concerned with Jerusalem, if indeed he mentioned it at all. Ever since he had become Pope in 1088, he had been anxious to improve relations with the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Comnenus, and to promote the union of the Eastern and Western Churches. In March 1095, at the Council of Piacenza, Alexius’s envoys had moved Urban to call upon western warriors to go to Byzantium and help Alexius to defend the Church against the pagans.3 May it not have been that, in France, Urban intended to publish a further and wider statement of this call? If so, his summons was to help the Eastern Christians in general. If Jerusalem came into the picture, it did so secondarily and not necessarily as a military objective. Perhaps, even, it did not come in at all, but was introduced later by an upsurge of popular enthusiasm and religious zeal.

In one form or another, such questions have been widely asked, especially since they were canvassed by C. Erdmann in a study of the origin of Crusading ideas, which has dominated discussion during the past generation. Erdmann saw the First Crusade as the culmination of the long process by which there took shape, in Western Europe, the idea of a holy war against the heathen, sponsored by the Church. In Western Francia especially, after the waning of royal power under the later Carolingians, it was upon the knights that the task of defending Christian peoples by force of arms against their internal and external foes increasingly rested; in recognition of this, the Church began to bless their weapons of warfare. With the Spanish ‘Crusades’ of the eleventh century, the notion of the holy war against the infidel gained currency. In due course, Pope Gregory VII (1073–85) finally broke with the age-long reluctance of Christians fully to recognize the licitness of the procession of arms. He called upon the military classes to take part in a ‘militia Christi’, or ‘militia sancti Petri’, in which they placed themselves at the service of the vicar of St Peter. His ‘Crusading’ plan of 1074 was an abortive attempt to mobilize them to help the Eastern Churches in face of Seldjuk attacks; and he expressed the hope that those who took part might, perhaps, also go on and reach the Holy sepulcher. Urban built upon Gregory’s work; but he did not repeat the mistake that led to its frustration. He appreciated that a call which was too straitly tied to the hierarchical claims of the Apostolic See was likely to find but little response. So he took the novel step of associating his own summons to a military enterprise with the idea of a pilgrimage. Hitherto, it had normally been requisite for a pilgrim to travel unarmed; those who responded to Urban’s summons at Clermont might make their journey armed, and yet still enjoy the spiritual benefits of a pilgrimage.

Erdmann believed that, when Urban first preached this unprecedented phenomenon, an armed pilgrimage, he referred to Jerusalem; but that he did so without emphasis. In line with what had happened at Piacenza, the overbiding purpose of the Crusade, as Urban envisaged it, was the freeing of the Eastern Churches; there was no special reference to any one locality as being the primary military concern of the Crusaders. Urban mentioned Jerusalem briefly and almost incidentally, as a means of recruiting men for the Crusade. In Erdmann’s terminology, the goal of the holy war (Kriegsziel) was the freeing from the Turkish yoke of the Eastern Churches in general. Jerusalem was merely the goal of the journey (Marschziel); it was a secondary, devotional destination, to be attained in strict subordination to the real business of the expedition. Urban believed that these two goals of the Crusade were compatible; and, in a sense, events proved him right. But as the Crusaders responded to his call, they themselves quickly distorted his intention, by making the liberation of the Holy sepulcher itself the goal of the holy war. This distortion was the result of the Crusaders’ enthusiasm. What Urban had intended to be a means of recruiting became, in the minds of the Crusaders, the military end of their journey.

Such is Erdmann’s powerfully argued thesis. It has sometimes impressed itself so strongly upon the minds of his critics that, even when the logic of their own arguments has pointed towards the centrality of Jerusalem in Urban’s preaching at Clermont, they have been markedly reluctant to follow it. Two of the most important discussions, since Erdmann’s, of the origins of Crusading ideas may serve as examples of this.6 M. Villey has convincingly criticized Erdmann for his too ready identification of the Crusade with the already existing phenomenon of the holy war.7 In Villey’s view, Crusade and holy war should not be used as near-synonyms. The holy war was a much broader conception than the Crusade: although the eleventh century showed various manifestations of the holy war, there was nothing before 1095, even in Spain, which should be called a Crusade. Historians should reserve this term for campaigns that broadly satisfied the juridical categories 18 H. which later canonists were to devise: there should, that is to say, be a preaching of the cross; clear and express spiritual privileges should be attached to participation; and special obligations should be laid upon those who took part by reason of their having taken the cross.

Villey’s criticism of Erdmann’s view of Crusading would appear to carry further implications. Erdmann insisted upon Urban’s having assigned a general goal to the Crusade – the liberation of the Eastern Churches – because he identified the Crusade with a holy war, which itself had the generalized end of defending Christian peoples against the heathen or of recovering the Christians’ land that the heathen unjustly detained. But the more the Crusade is seen as (in Villey’s phrase) a ‘new synthesis’, which carried the promise of specific spiritual benefits and which imposed upon the participants a number of special obligations, the more likely it becomes that the Pope should have laid emphasis upon a particular goal, whose attainment represented the discharge of the obligations and won the enjoyment of the benefits. Villey, however, pursued no such line of argument; partly, perhaps, because he gave but little attention to the Crusade in its aspect as a ‘peregrinatio’ or pilgrimage. He was content to express general agreement with Erdmann’s distinction between the Kriegsziel and the Marschziel of the First Crusade. He also agreed with Erdmann that it was the hearers of Urban’s preaching, not the Pope himself, who focused attention upon Jerusalem as the prime object of the journey, and who intended to capture it rather than merely to win spiritual benefits.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher

A similar hesitation in pursuing a critique of Erdmann is evident in H. E. Mayer’s chapter on the origin of the Crusades in his excellent general survey of Crusading.8 In certain respects, indeed, he revises Erdmann’s conclusions quite drastically. With ample warrant in the sources, he regards the idea of the armed pilgrimage, which for Erdmann was a subordinate factor in the genesis of the Crusade, as in fact a decisive one. The Crusaders were armed pilgrims, whose warfare had the character of a holy war. Since pilgrimages were journeys to a particular place, like Monte Gargano, Compostela, or Jerusalem, it might be anticipated that such an emphasis upon pilgrimage would bring Jerusalem into the centre of the picture. But Mayer argues differently. He adheres to Erdmann’s opinion that, at Clermont, Urban had a general aim of bringing help to the Christian Churches of the East. However, he goes further than Erdmann by altogether excluding Jerusalem from Urban’s initial preaching. He rightly comments that Erdmann’s distinction between the Kriegsziel and the Marschziel of the Crusade expressed ‘perhaps a somewhat subtle interpretation’ of events. The eleventh-century religious connotations of Jerusalem were too potent and attractive for it to have served merely as a recruiting device. If Urban indeed referred to it, it must have dominated the Crusade from the start. So, while adhering to Erdmann’s view that Urban made the freeing of the Eastern Churches in general the goal of the Crusade, Mayer dissents from him by concluding that, because Jerusalem was too potent an idea to have been a subordinate one at Clermont, it must be supposed to have had no place at all. Pointing to the initial amorphousness of the Crusading organization, he suggests that it is most readily explicable if Urban did not mention Jerusalem, and if, in the succeeding months, public opinion threw it up as the goal of the Crusade with such force that Urban had to acknowledge it. But Mayer’s emphasis upon Urban’s part in determining the character of the Crusade as an armed pilgrimage makes this supposition paradoxical. It points to a more drastic revision of Erdmann and to the alternative supposition about Jerusalem – that, just because it was so powerful an idea, it is unlikely not to have been at the heart of Urban’s preaching from the very start.

That it was has been proposed by another historian who has contributed to the debate that Erdmann started – P. Rousset. In support of his case, Rousset drew attention to evidence which historians have too seldom pondered – the incidental references to the First Crusade which occur in sources strictly contemporary with its summoning and assembly. He makes clear the value of this evidence. But his treatment of it is brief, and he did not suf- ficiently consider whether it genuinely harks back to the Pope’s preaching. It is, therefore, worth while surveying more fully the available material. It falls into five categories: (i) chronicles providing contemporary evidence for 1096, (ii) charters of 1096, (iii) contemporary letters, (iv) the excitatoria by which men were urged to rally to the Crusade, and (v) the letters and other rulings of Urban himself. The first four categories come from sources which, in general, probably knew Urban’s intentions well. They speak of the military liberation of Jerusalem as the purpose of the Crusade with a clearness
that is no less apparent in Urban’s own writings.

(i) So far as chronicles are concerned, the earliest source of information is the Fragmentum historiae Andegavensis. It was written in Anjou in 1096, and so within a few months of Urban’s prolonged stay there to preach the Crusade. The author was almost certainly Count Fulk le Réchin (1060–1109) himself. This gives it particular value, for not only did Urban assiduously cultivate the Count as a possible recruit for the Crusade, as the Fragmentum bears witness, but Fulk resisted all his blandishments. Fulk’s account is not likely to be coloured by enthusiasm for an enterprise in which he did not allow himself to become actively involved. It describes how, towards the beginning of Lent 1096, ‘the Roman Pope came to Anjou and urged its people to go to Jerusalem and subdue the race of the heathen who had seized that city and all the land of the Christians up to Constantinople’. Fulk provides clear and early testimony that Urban made Jerusalem the goal of the Crusade and that he called for its military deliverance. Other chronicles tend to confirm this. The chronicle of Saint-Maixent, a monastery where Urban is known from his letters to have been on 31 March after he left Anjou, records how ‘by the Pope’s order, many men, noble and base, rich and poor, from all lands, . . . went on the journey to the Holy sepulcher’. Again, Bernold of St. Blasien’s account of Urban’s French journey speaks of an expeditio of which the Pope was the true architect; Jerusalem was its goal and its purpose was to deliver the Christians from the pagans.

These chronicles indicate that from as early as thirteen weeks after the Council of Clermont, Urban was certainly speaking of an expedition which had Jerusalem as its goal, and which was to liberate the Christians of the East from a pagan subjection which extended from Jerusalem up to Constantinople.

A similar picture emerges from a small number of charters that survive in which, before the Crusaders left, some of them gave lands to, or made other arrangements with, French monasteries. Such charters are of especial value because they were usually drafted, not by the donors, but by the monks themselves. Thus, they express ideas which had the approval of monks who, if they obeyed Urban’s directives, were not themselves involved in the Crusade. If the monks were thus somewhat detached from the Crusaders’ enthusiasms, they were in an excellent position to know Urban’s mind. His French journey of 1095–6 and his organization of the Crusade were largely undertaken with the assistance of the monasteries. Thus, the language of the small number of monastic charters which refer to the Crusade, provides significant if indirect evidence of the Pope’s intentions.

Some particularly early evidence occurs in the charters of Cluny, of which Urban was a sometime Grand Prior. He stayed there just before he went to Clermont, and Abbot Hugh of Cluny was himself present at the Council. Cluny’s understanding of the Crusade was formed in the closest touch with Urban, and it emerges as early as a charter of 12 April 1096. In it, a prospective Crusader was said to be involved ‘in this manifold and great awakening and campaign of Christian people who are contending to go to Jerusalem, to fight on God’s behalf against the heathen and the Saracens’; he was further said to be going on the pilgrimage (peregrinatio) to Jerusalem. A further, but undated, charter of 1096 refers to the impending departure of two brothers for Jerusalem ‘in expeditione’. Cluny’s intimate connections with Urban make it likely that its charters were faithful to his own intentions when they referred to Jerusalem in these terms.

Other monastic charters spoke of the Crusade in a similar way. After Urban turned south on leaving the Touraine and Poitou in the spring of 1096, he did not visit the great abbey of Saint-Victor, Marseilles; but he passed within its well-organized sphere of influence. A charter of Saint- Victor, dated August 1096, defined the intention of two Crusader brothers much as the Cluniac charters had done. They were going to Jerusalem, and for two reasons: to undertake a pilgrimage, and to help with the deliverance of innumerable Christian peoples from the fury of their oppressors. A similar combination of motives occurs in a charter of Saint-Père, Chartres, which, although undated, clearly looks forward to the First Crusade. It also illustrates how the Crusade served Urban’s purpose as expressed in his speech at Clermont, by leading men to desist from violence at home in order to seek the deliverance of Jerusalem:

The remaining, and much earlier, sources for Urban’s own view of the Crusade indicate that, in intending to bring help to all the Eastern Churches, he had Jerusalem and its liberation particularly and constantly in mind. As early as 1089, he was beginning to think of Jerusalem in relation to Christian action on the frontiers with Islam. Once again, the context is a Spanish one. Urban wrote to encourage the ecclesiastical and lay magnates of Tarragona and Barcelona to help the material rehabilitation of the Church and city of Tarragona. He promised them the same spiritual benefits as would accrue from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. His letter foreshadows such an amalgamation of the ideas of pilgrimage to Jerusalem and of the vindication of Christendom against Islam, as the charter evidence points to in his preaching at Clermont and after.

His own pronouncements of 1095–6 tend to confirm that this was how his mind developed. They strongly suggest that he named Jerusalem as the goal of the Crusade; that he did so in terms of its military liberation; and that he also attached to the expedition the spiritual benefits of a pilgrimage. Thus, on 22 July 1096, when Urban received from Count Raymond of Provence the renewed subjection to the Roman Church of the monastery of Saint- Gilles, Urban’s charter referred to the Count as ‘in Hierosolimitanam expeditionem iturus’. Again, the well-known letters which Urban wrote concerning the Crusade to all the faithful in Flanders and to the clergy and people of Bologna, testify, although with some difference of emphasis, to his concern to deliver the city of Jerusalem from the pagan yoke. The undated letter to the Flemings, usually assigned to late December 1095, first refers, in general, to the oppression of the Churches of God in eastern parts. But it
was this oppression and that of the Holy City of Christ together that constituted the ‘calamitas’ which moved him to initiate the Crusade:

We believe that you are already well informed about the barbaric fury which, by its attacks which move us to compassion, has laid waste the Churches of God in eastern parts and, moreover, what is shocking to mention, has delivered the Holy City of Christ, made illustrious by his passion and resurrection, together with its churches, into an intolerable servitude. Grieving as was due in face of such a calamity, we journeyed in France and in large measure stirred up the rulers and subjects of that land to seek the liberation of the Eastern Churches. Urban’s letter to the Bolognese, written from Pavia on 19 September 1096, contains no such reference to the liberation of all the Eastern Churches. Jerusalem comes right to the fore, so that Urban was concerned only with it and its liberation:

We have heard that some of you have formed a desire to journey to Jerusalem, and you are aware that this pleases us greatly. Know that we remit the whole penance due for their sins to all who set out, not from greed of this world’s goods, but simply for the salvation of their souls and for the liberation of the Church (ecclesiae liberatione).

His preoccupation with the Holy City is readily explicable, and does not point to a subsequent change in his thought. For he wrote to confirm the spiritual benefits of the Crusade, and to insist upon his rules about who might and who might not go on it; he had no need to refer to any wider objective than Jerusalem.

However, he reverted to the Eastern Christians as a whole as well as to Jerusalem in another, seldom noticed letter which he sent on 7 October 1096 from Cremona to the monks of Vallombrosa. He wrote to repeat his prohibition, of which he also reminded the Bolognese, of the departure to the Crusade of clerks and monks without the leave of their bishops and abbots. He also restated his intention for the Crusade. As he envisaged it, it was essentially the self-dedication (oblatio) of the knights who had set out for Jerusalem in order to liberate the enslaved part of Christendom. He had stirred up their hearts to take part in such an ‘expeditio’ with a view to restoring the former liberty of Christians. This letter may well be taken as embodying the most balanced statement that survives of Urban’s own view of the Crusade. Not only does it recapitulate the points made in his two earlier letters, but it tends to confirm the other evidence that he preached a Crusade having Jerusalem as its goal, by which he intended to effect the liberation of it as of all the Eastern Churches.

That Jerusalem and its liberation were central to Urban’s plan for the Crusade from its very inception is, finally, suggested by a piece of evidence from the Council of Clermont itself. Its canons survive in a version preserved by one of the participants, Bishop Lambert of Arras. Of his thirty-two canons, the second alone directly concerns the Crusade. It refers in the clearest terms to Jerusalem as being its goal, and the spiritual benefits to be gained from reaching Jerusalem are attached to an intention to liberate it, not merely to journey there: ‘If any man sets out from pure devotion, not for reputation or monetary gain, to liberate the Church of God at Jerusalem, his journey shall be reckoned in place of all penance.’

The evidence that has been reviewed all suggests that Urban had Jerusalem in mind from the very beginning of his plans for the Crusade. It may well never be possible to disprove a theory such as Erdmann’s. But there is nothing stronger to support it than an interpretation of the letter to the Flemings which probably understates the place of Jerusalem in it. There is no early evidence that positively and unambiguously suggests that there was a major change in Urban’s purpose for the Crusade as the months went by, or that he capitulated to public opinion as regards Jerusalem. The alternative view is not only more likely but also better documented. Urban at all times seems to have preached Jerusalem as the goal of the Crusade, and to have looked upon it as standing at the heart and centre of the Eastern Churches which he desired to free from pagan domination.

Peter the Hermit and the Popular Crusade:

Peter the Hermit

The First Crusade was preceded by the Peasants' Crusade, an inglorious prelude to the Holy War with which the problematic and somewhat dubious personality of Peter the Hermit is traditionally credited. His chief assistant, a poor knight known as Walter the Penniless, led a company of 12,000 disqualified irregulars, moved by faith and famine, while a German priest named Gottschalk headed an equal band from Franconia, Swabia, and Lotharingia. A veritable exodus took place, in which the whole population of villages enrolled in the battle of the Cross, with little armor beyond staff and sickle and wooden swords, and in expectation of miraculous triumph against the miscreants with the help of a host of angels. William, viscount of Melun, Count Emich from the Rhineland, and Folkmar in Germany all led columns of recruits for the divine cause, and, after disgracefully molesting the Jews of Central Europe (Jews of the Rhineland - Metz Germany, Trier Germany, ...), proceeded the trip along the Danube river, where they suffered and inflicted suffering in travel in Hungary and Bulgaria. Finally they descended on Constantinople like a cloud of locusts, hardly what Alexius had requested in his appeal. The bewildered Byzantine Emperor had no choice but to acquiesce in their wish to be transported to Anatolia, where Turkish sabers cut them down at Nicaea in August 1096. A few who apostatized to save their lives were sent east in captivity, and only some, including Peter, escaped back to European shores and awaited the forthcoming feudal militias.

The Parons Crusade:

In the meantime, four regular armies were being mustered to follow the old pilgrim routes to Constantinople for the official Crusade. A substantial vanguard of Lotharingians and Rhinelanders under Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin arrived via Hungary and the Balkans at the walls of the Byzantine Empire capital on December 23, 1096. They followed the apocryphal route of Charles the Great, by which the first Holy Roman Emperor was believed to have gone to fight the infidels, undoubtedly a legend circulated to enhance the enthusiasm of the Crusaders in their sacred quest. Anna Comnena estimated 10,000 knights and 70,000 infantry apart from a multitude of camp followers. In the meantime, the bombastic Hugh Vermandois, brother of Philip I of France, together with a Franco-Norman band, crossed the Alps, Italy, and a tempestuous Adriatic, where he was shipwrecked near Durazzo and was escorted by Byzantine legions to Constantinople. He was followed by Robert Curt-Hose, duke of Normandy, Stephen, count of Blois and Chartres, and finally Robert of Flanders. The Normans from South Italy, numbering 10,000 knights and 20,000 career infantry warriors, under Bohemond, son of Robert Guiscard, and Tancred, his nephew, attained the eastern shord of the Adriatic below Durazzo and proceeded to join the others in November 1096. The Provencals under Raymond of Saint-Gilles, count of Toulouse, accompanied by Adhemar, the apostolic legate, traversed the Alps and North Italy to the shores of the Adriatic, where they suffered greatly until they also reached Durazzo and took the usual roman roads like the roman road (Via Egnatia) across the Balkan Peninsula to Constantinople via Thessalonica. The full array became complete in May 1097. Tne highest estimate is provided by Fulcher as 600,000, and the lowest by Raymond of Aguilers at 100,000, which is nearly the equivalent of the whole Byzantine army. Allowing for medieval exaggeration, even the lowest figure must have confronted the imperial household with a tremendous problem in the matter of logistics and of transportation to Anatolia.

After patching up a compromise on the application of the rule of international law regarding the position of the Western feudal magnates vis4-vis the Eastern Roman Empire, arrangements were made for conveyance of the Crusaders to Asia Minor without further delay. They were persuaded to swear an oath of fealty to the Emperor and to owe him allegiance for their future conquests, an oath which they did not mean to keep, at least in connection with the Holy Places. The campaign was inaugurated with the capture of Nicaea, which they ceded to an imperial garrison, on June 19, 1097. Then the discomfiture of the main Turkish forces under Qilij Arslan at Dorylaeum, in the hot summer days of July 1097, opened up the Anatolian route to Syria, and some of the leaders began to envision prospects of principalities of their own. Friction between them became evident in the race of Tancred and Baldwin to capture the Armenian Taurus in September. Baldwin foiled his protagonist by marrying an Armenian princess and succeeding to the throne of Edessa after the murder of King Thoros in a local uprising.

Once within the confines of northern Syria, the Crusaders aimed at seizing Antioch, the fair and fortified "City of God" on the Orontes, where the followers of Jesus were called Christians for the first time in history. Bohemond coveted it for himself. After a protracted and agonizing siege of about eight months, the city fell into their hands on June 3, 1098, only four days before the arrival of Kerbogha, the Turkish governor of Mosul, with a substantial army for its relief, and almost one year after Nicaea. The morale of the host, weakened by heat and hunger, was revived by the miracle of the discovery of the sacred lance with which a Roman legionary had pierced the Lord's side during the Passion, hidden in a chapel at Antioch. They were able to repel Kerbogha's mighty army in defeat, and Bohemond stayed at the head of the new acquisition; while the others pressed on to Jerusalem by devious ways for another year. Raymond, who had also wanted Antioch for himself and was ousted from it by Bohemond, had as his consolation prize the county of Tripoli.

In ecstasy the remaining Crusaders finally perceived the domes, turrets, and towers of the Holy City in the early days of June 1099. By the seventh of the month they managed to complete siege operations and started the construction of a tremendous wooden tower with a drawbridge in readiness for storming the walls. Battering rams, ladders, catapults, wheels, and all manner of engines were made and used in the successive daily attacks on the city fortifications. Jerusalem had recently been recovered from the Turks by the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt, and a garrison of proved fighters was left on guard. In spite of the valiant defense of the city, it became evident that its downfall was only a matter of time, and the arrival of Christian reinforcements of men and material from Genoese galleys at Jaffa sealed the doom of the Muslims. On July 15 the Christians began to pour over the walls from the tower bridge, with Duke Godfrey always in the lead. The chroniclers of the event say that the storming of the city took place at the ninth hour, which was the hour of the Passion on a Friday. Some descended swiftly and opened the city gates for the others to enter, and the rest of the story was simply a war of systematic extermination and fierce massacre. The anonymous author of the "Gesta Francorum," an eyewitness of the horrors of the assault, says: "Our men followed, killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood to their ankles."

Archbishop William of Tyre calls the capture of the Holy City the "End of the Pilgrimage" and says that "it was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them." ** The vivid picture painted by the twelfth-century archbishop continues thus.

Each marauder claimed as his own in perpetuity the particular house which he had entered, together with all it contained. For before the capture of the city the pilgrims had agreed that, after it had been taken by force, whatever each man might win for himself should be his forever by right of possession, without molestation. Consequently the pilgrims reached the city most carefully and boldly killed the citizens. They penetrated into the most retired and out-of-the-way places and broke open the most private apartments of the foe. At the entrance of each house, as it was taken, the victor hung up his shield and his arms, as a sign to all who approached not to pause there by that place as already in possession of another.

This appears to be one of the earliest references to the use of coats of arms for identification, a custom which became more general among the Crusaders at a later date under the influence of Muslim heraldry. As the city became quieter and the tumult subsided, the bloodthirsty and bloodstained pilgrims laid aside their arms and, with tearful sighs and heartfelt emotion, proceeded to pray in the Church of the Holy sepulcher.

Related Posts:

William of Newburgh
Council of Clermont (November 1095)
Middle Aged Dating