Peter Tudebode

We know but little about Peter Tudebode life. Besly asserts that he was with the army of Poitou, commanded first by Hugo of Lusignan, and then by Gaston of Bearn. But there is no positive proof of this. Besly was led to this conclusion because Hugo was then Lord of Sivray. The book copies the ‘ Gesta Prancorum/ nearly word for word; many of the interpolations are mere episodes, and of little importance. He gives some details concerning the capture of Jerusalem, which may serve partly as an amplification, partly as a rectification of the ‘Gesta.’

Peter Tudebode's Source:

Besly, in the preface to Tudebod’ s History of Jerusalem,’ positively asserts that the  Gesta Francorum,’ edited by Bongars as a genuine and authentic narrative, and frequently used as such by former writers, was nothing more than a plagiarism of the grossest kind, the anonymous author being entirely indebted to Tudebod for his facts, and thinks it his duty to expose such a wholesale plagiarism. Besly grounds this assertion chiefly upon three passages, — one in which Tudebod speaks of himself, and two wherein he mentions the death of his brothers. In these cases, Tudebod, he says, speaks as an eye-witness, and the anonymous author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum’ has carefully omitted all mention of these occurrences in his narrative. Besly’s views met with general concurrence, and have been followed by all subsequent historians of the Crusades .

I must confess that the reasons urged for this opinion appear to me thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that there is evidence of exactly the reverse. In the case in point, Tudebod narrates an unlucky event which occurred at the siege of Jerusalem ; “the author,” he adds, “Tudebod, a priest of Sivray, was present, and was an eye-witness.” The whole narrative, to which this statement is appended, is omitted in the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ and I can conceive nothing unlikely in the supposition that Tudebod, having got so far in his transcription of the * Gesta/ should have inserted in this place something he had himself witnessed. There is nothing to disprove that he and his brothers were present with the army, but there are many objections to looking upon his narrative as the original source of the "Gesta Francorum".

First of all, the anonymous author invariably speaks in the first person ; Tudebod, sometimes in the first, at other times in the third person.

Further, the anonymous author, as we shall presently see, was a knight. Tudebod was a priest. The first remains true to his character, whereas Tudebod introduces himself sometimes as a warrior, at others as a priest , which can easily be accounted for, if we consider him only as the secondary author.

In both works passages occur which are wanting in the other. Those which Tudebod alone has are anecdotes, traits of individual character, etc., which can be easily inserted or omitted, without interfering with the narrative. But it is not so in the other case. It clearly appears 'that Tudebod, from a mistaken endeavour at compression, has omitted passages essential to the meaning. His narrative of the conquest of Nicaea has faults inexcusable in an eye-witness, but easily understood as the errors of a transcriber. It is impossible not to see that the "Gesta Francorum" is the source from which he draws.

This leads me to the last and most important point, which Besly passes over lightly, but which appears to me conclusive. Tudebod makes use of Raymond’s work, as well as of the "Gesta" He has inserted several passages from the former, word for word, in his compilation. Had the author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum ’ followed Tudebod, it would be impossible that some passage from Raymond should not have slipped into his text. Precisely the one passage which is to be found both in Raymond and in the anonymous author of the * Gesta Erancorum/ makes the matter quite clear. Tudebod follows first the ‘ Gesta/ then Raymond, and then repeats the last sentences from the * Gesta ’ for a second time.

References:

Tudebodus (P.), Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere Trans. with introd. and notes by John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill., Philadelphia, 1974.

James (M. L.), The age of the crusades, New York, 1914.

Murray (A. V.), The Crusades: an encyclopedia, CA : ABC-CLIO, 2006.

William of Tyre

While the West appropriated and developed the history of the Crusades in the manner we have described, a very remarkable man was engaged in Palestine with the praiseworthy object of giving to that kingdom a history of its past, and to Europe a " memorial for the future. He wrote with a strong feeling of patriotism, and at the same time under the sad impression that he could only find solace for present sorrow in the recollection of former happiness. The means at his disposal and his personal character fitted him for the task. The strong and persistent energy with which he mastered his materials enabled him to produce one of the greatest historical works of the Middle Ages.

William of Tyre was born in Palestine, but we have no information as to the place of his birth or his parentage. 1 He was educated in Europe, most probably at Paris ; but this surmise is merely conjectural ; for he himself (our sole authority) only states that he quitted Syria about the year 1163, in order to pursue his studies. Pour years afterwards we find him an archdeacon of the Church of Tyre, a friend of King Amalric, and tutor to the subsequent I King Baldwin IV. Even at that time the King employed him in the most important negotiations ; he went to Greece in 1168, to ratify .an offensive alliance with the Emperor Manuel against Egypt. Personal affairs carried him to Rome in 1169. On his return, at the death of. the Bishop of Bethlehem, he was made Chancellor of the kingdom, and in I the year 1174 Archbishop of Tyre. 2 Prom that time, he was naturally considered one of the most important members of the aristocracy of the land ; he took an active part in all negotiations of any importance, and his influence was felt by all ranks throughout the kingdom. The time and place of his death are involved in mystery ; the information on this point given by Hugo Plagons is unworthy of credit, and scarcely deserves mention.

The idea of writing his history had occurred to William of Tyre in the year 1170. Besides his own wish, there was an additional reason in the command of King Amalric, at whose desire he had already written a history of the Arabs since the time of Mahomet. For this latter work he employed Greek and Arabic materials, above all the history of Saith, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Amalric also busied himself in procuring him materials, and doubtless much that was valuable in this book has been lost. It cannot be asserted that it would have been free from error. The work of William of Tyre which we do possess precludes such a supposition. But that work shows a more complete and scientific knowledge of Saracen life than any” of his contemporaries or coreligionists possessed. It appears that in the year 1182 he had nearly completed the collection of his materials ; at all events, he then began to put them into form ; and he mentions in several passages, in the first and nineteenth books, the year we have given as the time when he wrote them.  In 1184 he had completed twenty-two books, and brought down his narrative to the autumn of the preceding year. He was then in doubt whether to continue to portray the increasing miseries of those times, and determined to complete the history of the year 1184 in a twenty third book. But his purpose was not carried out, the work that has come down to us breaks off with the first chapter of that book.

The manner in which the author collected his materials appears to me similar to that already described. He wrote partly from information obtained from those who had still a vivid recollection of the past, partly from his own observation I and the honest reports of eye-witnesses. It is an important consideration, that the materials of his first fifteen books are still, for the most part, extant in their original sources. Albert of Aix, archbishop Baldrich, Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of I Agiles, and Chancellor Gauthier, supply him with ; the materials for the First Crusade, and the reigns of Godfrey, Baldwin I., and Baldwin of Burg. We shall see further on what changes he introduced ; but, in general, the accuracy of the copy spares me the trouble of pointing out individual instances. Before passing, however, to the consideration of his own original contributions, I will notice a few doubtful points.

References:

Sybel (H.), The History And Literature Of The Crusades, London, 1861.

Atiya (A. S.), The Crusade: Historiography and Bibliography, London, 1962.

Brundage, (J. A.), "Recent Crusade Historiography: Some Observations and Suggestions", CHR (49), 1964.

Edbury (P. W.), William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East, Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Fulcher of Chartres

    Fulcher of Chartres a chaplain from Chartres, took the cross, in the year 1095, and joined the army of Count Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, with which he marched through Apulia and Greece, and reached the camp before Nicaea in June, 1097. He remained with the bulk of the crusading army until its arrival in Meerasch, and went thence to Edessa with Count Baldwin, who then commenced his enterprise against that town.  Up to this point his information is good, and frequently most important ; both on particular facts and on the general aspect of affairs. I allude more particularly to his account of the journey through Italy and Greece. He here shows the incorrectness of the impression that the armies had met together in the west of Europe, and that great masses of them had marched towards the East in regularly organized bodies. “ We wandered,” says Eulcher, “ as we could, in April, May, June, until October, wherever we could obtain supplies.” Adhemar had appointed Constantinople as the general rendezvous. Moreover Fulcher’s narrative of the march from Dorylaeum to Eikle is important, and very attractive,* from the great descriptive powers of the writer. His account of the occurrences in Edessa is conclusive, as he was the only eye-witness . It agrees in the main with that of Matthew Eretz of Edessa, who is the next best authority ; whereas both Albert of Aix and Guibert have followed quite different reports .

    Unfortunately Fulcher breaks off here, and turns his attention to the main body of the crusading army, which then seemed the point of most interest. It is scarce credible that a contemporary, living at the distance of only a few days’ journey, should receive such absurdly false accounts. What reliance can be placed on these traditions, when even in a few score years they circulated in the distant West in such wild and uncertain forms ? The chronological sequence of events is lost ; the accuracy of the narrative disappears, and a blind enthusiasm finds vent in miraculous stories. Even here however some few passages are important : such as the account of Tancred’s conquest of Bethlehem, which checks a different report given by Albert of Aix ; Tancred’s plundering of the Temple, and the subsequent negotiations, which are supported by the testimony of Radulph against Albert.

    Eulcher remained in Jerusalem, after a short absence, until the death of Godfrey of Bouillon at Edessa. He then accompanied Baldwin I. to Palestine, and remained there with the King in the same capacity as he had previously been with the Count. From this time his work is most important. Here, where all other eye-witnesses fail, his account is trustworthy, and often full. Let us attempt from this point to determine its general character.

    It is obvious, in the first place, that the author by no means intended to write a history : the work is in reality a diary of his own life, with all the circumstances as they happened ; in which state Gui bert saw it in the year 1108 or 1110, in the West ; though it does in fact come down to 1127. He records what personally concerns himself, and devotes to it more or less space, according to his own individual taste. I will select the first example that occurs to me (to which many might be added); the passage in which he relates Baldwin’s taking possession of Jerusalem. He begins with a vivid description of the march from Edessa : “ Collegit exercitulum suum,” — two hundred knights and seven hundred infantry ; they go from city to city ; the Prince of Tripolis sends bread, wine, wild honey, and mutton to their tents ; at the same time he tells them of an ambush prepared for them near Berytus.

    This they found terribly confirmed, for the narrow and wild passes were occupied by the Saracens. He then describes the battle, and how the Christians were at first unsuccessful. “ We were ill at ease,” says he ; “ we affected courage, but we feared death. I wished myself home again at Chartres or Orleans.” Luckily, however, they fought their way through, and Pulcher devotes many pages to a description of the happy manner in which they brought this adventure to a close. They subsequently reached Kaiphas, which then belonged to Tancred, who, as is well known, was one of the leaders of the opposition against’ Baldwin’s succession.

    Fulcher enters into no explanation of the relations between the two princes. He only says shortly : “ We did not enter Kaiphas, because Tancred was then at enmity with us ; but,” he continues, “ Tancred being then absent, his people sold us bread and wine outside the walls, for they considered us as brothers, and were anxious to see us.” And a little further on : “ As we approached Jerusalem, the clergy and the laity came forth to meet the King in solemn procession ; likewise came the Greeks and the Syrians, with crosses and candles, who received him with joy and honour and loud shouts, and escorted him to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.” After this the narrative again becomes very meagre. “The Patriarch Dagobert was not present; he had been slandered to Baldwin, and bore him a grudge ; wherefore he sat apart on Mount Sion until his malice was forgiven.” Not one word explaining the cause and purport of this quarrel.

    No one could suppose that the whole existence of the Christian' kingdom in the Bast was at that moment at stake; nor does he bestow more attention upon the King and his peculiar talent for government. He proceeds :  “ We remained six days in Jerusalem, rested ourselves, and the King made his first arrangements; then we started again. Then follows a detailed and most lively journal .of his travels through the whole southern portion of the kingdom. Later we find a short narrative of the Second Crusade. He was in 1102 with the King during an expedition against Ascalon in Joppa. “There,” he says, “he met several knights who were waiting for a favourable wind, in order to return as speedily as possible to France. They had lost their horses the year before, together with all their baggage, during a march through Rumania.”

    Fulcher’s work has been much used, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent writers. We have already mentioned that Guibert knew the book. Spite of his obligations to Fulcher, Guibert speaks contemptuously of him, without however bringing any specific charge against him. Bartholf de Nangiejo was more grateful : he compiled the ‘ Gesta Expugnantium Hierusalem,’ distinctly acknowledging his authority. 120 Many passages are taken from the * Gesta Francorum,’ not exactly word for word, but they betray their origin. Others, again, are evidently fabulous tales, having no pretence to authenticity. The work is in no way important.

References:

Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia Hierosolymitana (1095-1127), ed. by. Heinrich Hagenmeyer, Heidelberg, 1913.

Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem (1095-1127),  trans. by. Francis Rita Ryan, University of Tennessee Press, 1969.

King Fulk of Jerusalem (1131–1143)

King Fulk of Jerusalem or Count Fulk of Anjou V, later Fulk, King of Jerusalem. He was the grandfather of Henry II, ruler of England and France. Fulk was born between 1089 and 1092 in Angers, Pays de la Loire in France. He was the son of father Count Fulk IV of Anjou and mother Bentrade de Montfort. In 1092 Bentrade later left her husband and went to marry  King Philipe I  de France, despite  never officially obtaining a divorce from Fulk’s father. Fulk became count of Anjou after his father died in 1109; in 1110, he married Erembourg of Maine. He had a daughter Matilda and a son Geoffrey of Anjou. Fulk was a gentle and pious man, although said to have an embarrassingly bad memory for names and faces. 

Fulk  went  on  a  Crusade  in  1119  or  1120;  his  involvement  with  the  Knights  Templar  began  during  this expedition to the Holy Land, including the stipend of two Knights. He returned to France in late 1121 and was planning to go back to Angiers in 1127. He received a group of ambassadors from King Baldwin II of Jerusalem in 1127. While, Baldwin had no male heir  to  the  throne,  he  had  chosen  his  daughter  Melisende  to  rule  Jerusalem  upon  his  death.  However,  Baldwin needed a powerful lord to marry her and safeguard his daughter’s inheritance. Fulk  was  good  nominee,  because  he  was  a  wealthy  crusader,  an  experienced  military  commander  and  a widower, as his wife Erembourg had died in 1126. Fulk, however, did not immediately agree to Baldwin’s terms and insisted on not only being the consort of the Queen. Rather, he wanted to be King of Jerusalem in his own right. Baldwin reflected Fulk’s proposal and accepted it.

His relations with the Templars, and his marriage to Melisende. He came not by conflict, but from political relations.

Once he and Baldwin came to an agreement, Fulk gave the county seat of Anjou to his son Geoffrey and went to Jerusalem. He and Melisende married on 2 June 1129. Their son Baldwin III was born in 1130. The couple became joint rulers after Baldwin II died in 1131. Fulk brought French influences to the kingdom. For example: he allowed countrymen from Anjou to settle in Jerusalem. Other Crusader states from the North of possible invasions from Fulk to their territory. These states included the Principality of Antioch or the County of Tripoli. The leaders  of  the  Crusade  states  saw  Fulk  as  illegitimate  for  possible  reasons:  They  saw  him  as  less powerful then Baldwin, Fulk didn’t follow Baldwin’s orders on the throne, and he was not from Jerusalem, he was from far away. In 1136, Fulk and Melisene’s second son, Amalric I, was born. 

After Baldwin’s death, Fulk quickly took sole control of the governance of Jerusalem, excluding Melisende. The second  Generation of Jerusalem Christians on the whole supporting  the  Queen’s family, including her cousin Hugh II of le Puiset. He was very devoted to the Queen and saw Fulk as a rival. In 1134, Fulk accused Hugh of infidelity with Melisende. Hugh rebelled in protest and secured the city of Jaffa. He resisted Fulk’s army until the Patriarch, the Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem intervened the Conflict.  •  This was called the revolt of Hugh of Jaffa. Later, a peace treaty was signed; Hugh was exiled for four years. When Hugh was assassinated in his exile, Fulk or his supporters were accused, but there was no concrete proof to show their involvement. The  scandal  was  enough  for  those  who  supported  the  Queen  to  initiate  a  palace  coup  and  take  over  the government. Fulk’s supporters were terrorized in the palace, and the king was unable to fight back. This resulted in Queen Melisende’s direct control over the government from 1136 onwards. 

Fulk aimed to secure Jerusalem’s northern borders; in particular his greatest concern was the rise of Atabeg Zengi of Mosul, a Turkish King of the north Zengrid dynasty. In 1137, Fulk was defeated in a battle at Barin by Zengi. He subsequently allied himself with Mu’in ad-Din Unar,  the  vizier  of  Damascus,  as  the  vizier  was  threatened  by  Zengi  as  well.  Fulk  captured  the  fort  of Banians, in the north lake of Tiberias and then secured the northern border. Fulk also strengthened the southern borders; fortresses were built in Kerak to the south of the Dead Sea. And have connection with Jerusalem to the Red Sea. Fulk also had forts built in the south – west in order to overpower the Egyptian fortresses at Ascalan. The city was  a  base  to  launch  frequent  raids  on  the  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem.  His  plan  was  to  neutralize  the  threat against the Egyptian Fatimids. In 1137 and 1142, the Byzantine emperor John II Comnenus arrived in Syria attempting to impose control over the crusader states His arrival was ignored by Fulk, who declined an invitation to meet the emperor in the capital city. Because of being against John’s assertion of authority. He was willing to cooperate with non-Christian empires to succeed in his goals, including Adin Unur, leader of Damascus.  

In 1143, as the king and queen holidayed in Acre, Fulk died in a horse riding accident. When carried back to the city, he lay unconscious for three days before dying. He was buried in the church of the Holy Sepulch in Jerusalem. Melisende mourned him privately and publicly, despite the previous conflict in their marriage. Queen Matilda of Jerusalem succeeded to the throne, which was later taken by her son Baldwin III. 


References:

Conder (C. R.), The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, New York, 2011.

Tyerman (Ch.), God's War: A New History of the Crusades, Harvard University Press, 2006.