First Crusade

First Crusade
Part of the Crusades
The capture of Jerusalem marked the First Crusade's success
Date 1095–1099 Location Near East (Anatolia, Levant, Palestine) Result Decisive Christian victory and land control Territorial changes Anatolia and Levant captured for Christendom; Kingdom of Jerusalem/crusader states created
Belligerents
Christendom: Holy Roman Empire Genoa Lower Lorraine Provence Kingdom of France Blois Boulogne Flanders Le Puy-en-Velay Vermandois Kingdom of England Normandy Duchy of Apulia Taranto Byzantine Empire Kingdom of Cilicia	Saracen: Great Seljuq Empire Danishmends Fatimids Almoravids Abbasids
Commanders
Guglielmo Embriaco Godfrey of Bouillon Raymond IV Stephen II Baldwin of Boulogne Eustace III of Boulogne Robert II of Flanders Adhemar of Le Puy Hugh of Vermandois Robert II of Normandy Bohemond of Taranto Tancred, Prince of Galilee Alexios I Komnenos Tatikios Constantine I	Kilij Arslan I Yaghi-Siyan Kerbogha Duqaq Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan Ghazi ibn Danishmend Iftikhar ad-Daula Al-Afdal Shahanshah
Strength
Crusaders: ~ 35,000 men[1] (5,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry)[2] Byzantines: ~ 2,000 men[2]

Crusades People's – First – Second – Third – Livonian – German Fourth – Albigensian – Children's – Fifth – Prussian – Sixth – Seventh – Shepherds' – Eighth – Ninth – Aragonese – Alexandrian – Nicopolis – Northern – Hussite – Varna – Otranto – Ottoman-Hungarian Wars  – Ottoman-Habsburg – Lepanto – Vienna Crusades portal

First Crusade Nicaea – Dorylaeum – Antioch – Ma'arrat al-Numan – Jerusalem – Ascalon

Seljuk-Crusader War (1097–1127) Nicaea – Dorylaeum – Antioch – Ma'arrat – Melitene – Crusade of 1101 – Harran – Artah – 3rd Ramla – Tripoli – Shaizar – Al-Sannabra – Sarmin – Ager Sanguinis – Hab – Azaz – Marj es-Suffar

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the dual goals of reconquering the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and freeing the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule. What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia quickly turned into a wholescale Western migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe. Both knights and peasants from many nations of Western Europe travelled over land and by sea towards Jerusalem and captured the city in July 1099, establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other Crusader states. Although these gains lasted for less than two hundred years, the First Crusade was part of the Christian response to the Islamic conquests, as well as the first major step towards reopening international trade in the West since the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Contents 1 Background 1.1 Background 1.2 Historiography 2 Chronological sequence of the Crusade 2.1 Council of Clermont 2.2 Recruitment 2.3 People's Crusade 2.3.1 Persecution of the Jews 2.4 Princes' Crusade 2.4.1 March to Jerusalem 2.4.2 Siege of Antioch 2.4.3 Siege of Jerusalem 2.5 Crusade of 1101 and the establishment of the kingdom 3 Analysis of the First Crusade 3.1 Aftermath 3.2 Pilgrims 3.3 Popularity of the Crusade 3.4 Spiritual versus earthly rewards 4 In arts and literature 5 References 6 Sources 6.1 Primary sources 6.2 Primary sources online 6.3 Secondary sources 6.4 Bibliographies

Background

Background

The origins of the crusades in general, and of the First Crusade in particular, are varied and are widely debated among historians. They are most commonly linked to the political and social history of eleventh-century Europe, the rise of a reform movement within the Papacy, and the political and religious situation of Christianity and Islam in Europe and the Middle East.

Christianity, which had spread throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East in the early Middle Ages, was by the early eighth century limited to Europe and Asia Minor after the rapid spread of Islam. The Umayyad Caliphate had conquered Syria, Egypt, and North Africa from the predominantly Christian Byzantine Empire, and Spain from the Christian Visigothic Kingdom.^[3] In North Africa, the Ummayad empire eventually collapsed and a number of smaller Muslim kingdoms emerged, such as the Aghlabids, who entered Italy in the 9th century, and the Kalbids, who became prey to the Normans capturing Sicily by 1091. Pisa, Genoa, and Aragon began to battle other Muslim kingdoms for control of the Mediterranean, exemplified by the Mahdia campaign and battles at Majorca and Sardinia.^[4]

At the western edge of Europe, and of Islamic expansion, the Reconquista in Spain was well underway by the eleventh century; it was intermittently ideological, as evidenced by the Epitome Ovetense written at the behest of Alfonso III of Asturias in 881, but it was not a proto-crusade.^[5] Increasingly in the eleventh century foreign knights, mostly from France, visited Spain to assist the Christians in their efforts.^[6] Shortly before the First Crusade, Pope Urban II had encouraged Spanish Christians to reconquer Tarragona, near Barcelona, using much of the same symbolism and rhetoric that was later used to preach the crusade.^[7]

In the east was the Byzantine Empire, fellow Christians who had long followed a separate Orthodox rite. Since 1054 the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches had been in schism, and the imposition of Roman church authority in the east may have been one of the causes of the crusade.^[8] Under Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, the empire was largely confined to Europe and the western coast of Anatolia, and faced many enemies: the Normans in the west and the Seljuk Turks in the east. The Seljuks invaded Byzantium in 1071, and in response, in 1074, Pope Gregory VII called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to their aid. This call, while largely ignored and even opposed, nevertheless focused a great deal of attention on the east.^[9]

The Seljuks and Byzantines continually fought for control of Anatolia and Syria. The Seljuks, who were orthodox Sunni Muslims, formerly ruled a large empire ("Great Seljuk") but by the time of the First Crusade it had divided into many smaller states after the death of Malik Shah I in 1092. Malik Shah was succeeded in the Anatolian Sultanate of Rüm by Kilij Arslan I, and in Syria by his brother Tutush I, who died in 1095. Tutush's sons Radwan and Duqaq inherited Aleppo and Damascus respectively, further dividing Syria amongst emirs antagonistic towards each other, as well as Kerbogha, the atabeg of Mosul.^[10]

Egypt and much of Palestine were controlled by the Arab Shi'ite Fatimids, whose empire was significantly smaller since the arrival of the Seljuks. Warfare between the Fatimids and Seljuks caused great disruption for the local Christians and for western pilgrims. The Fatimids, at this time ruled by caliph al-Musta'li, with the vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah holding actual power, had lost Jerusalem to the Seljuks in 1076, but recaptured it from the Ortoqids, a smaller Turkic tribe associated with the Seljuks, in 1098, just before the arrival of the crusaders. ^[11]

The heart of western Europe itself had been relatively stabilized after the Christianization of the Saxons, Vikings, and Magyars by the end of the tenth century. However, the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire gave rise to an entire class of warriors who now had little to do but fight among themselves.^[12] The random violence of the knightly class, and often knighthood itself, were regularly condemned by the church, and the Peace of God was established to prohibit fighting on certain days of the year. At the same time, the reform-minded Papacy came into conflict with the secular world, resulting in the Investiture Controversy, and popes such as Gregory VII needed theological justification for the subsequent warfare. It became acceptable for the Pope to utilize knights in the name of Christendom, not only against political enemies of the Papacy, but also against Muslim Spain, or, theoretically, against the Seljuks in the east.^[13]

Historiography

All these events are claimed by historians to have contributed to the origin of the crusades. According to the "Erdmann thesis", developed by German historian Carl Erdmann, the origin was directly linked to the eleventh-century reform movements. Exportation of violence to the east, and assistance to the struggling Byzantine Empire were the primary goals, with Jerusalem a secondary, popular goal.^[14]

Generally, historians have either followed Erdmann, with further expansions upon his thesis; more recently, they have also considered the influence of the rise of Islam. According to Steven Runciman, there was no immediate threat from Islam, for "in the middle of the eleventh century the lot of the Christians in Palestine had seldom been so pleasant."^[15] The crusade was a combination of theological justification for holy war and a "general restlessness and taste for adventure", especially among the Normans and the "younger sons" of the French nobility who had no other opportunities.^[16] Thomas Asbridge argues that the crusade was simply Pope Urban II's attempt to expand the power of the church, and to reunite the churches of Rome and Constantinople, which had been in schism since 1054. The spread of Islam was unimportant, because "Islam and Christendom had coexisted for centuries in relative equanimity."^[17] Thomas Madden represents the opposite view; while the crusade was certainly linked to church reform and attempts to assert papal authority, it was most importantly a pious struggle, waged by faithful idealists, to liberate fellow Christians who "had suffered mightily at the hands of the Turks." This argument distinguishes the relatively recent violence and warfare that followed the arrival of the Turks from the general advance of Islam which is dismissed by Runciman and Asbridge.^[18] Christopher Tyerman incorporates both arguments; the crusade developed out of church reform and theories of holy war as much as it was a response to conflicts with Islam throughout Europe and the Middle East.^[19] For Jonathan Riley-Smith, poor harvests, overpopulation, and a pre-existing movement towards colonising the frontier areas of Europe also contributed to the crusade; he also notes, however, that "most commentators then and a minority of historians now have maintained that the chief motivation was a genuine idealism." ^[20]

The idea that the crusades were a response to Islam dates back as far as twelfth-century historian William of Tyre, who began his chronicle with the fall of Jerusalem to Umar ibn al-Khattab.^[21] Although the original Islamic conquests took place centuries before the First Crusade, there were more recent events that European Christians still remembered. In 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah; Pope Sergius IV supposedly called for a military expedition in response, and in France, many Jewish communities were even attacked in misplaced retaliation. Nevertheless, the Church was rebuilt after al-Hakim's death, and pilgrimages resumed, including the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–1065, although those pilgrims also suffered attacks from local Muslims.^[22]

Chronological sequence of the Crusade

Council of Clermont

Main article: Council of Clermont

Whatever the ultimate causes of the crusade, the most immediate factor was a request for assistance from Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Alexius was worried about the advances of the Turks, who had reached as far west as Nicaea, not far from Constantinople. In March of 1095, Alexius I sent envoys to the Council of Piacenza to ask Pope Urban II for aid against the Turks. Urban responded favourably, perhaps hoping to heal the Great Schism of forty years prior and re-unite the Church under papal primacy by helping the Eastern churches in their time of need.^[23]

In July of 1095, Urban turned to his homeland of France to recruit men for the expedition. His travels there culminated in the Council of Clermont in November, where, according to the various speeches attributed to him, he gave an impassioned sermon to a large audience of French nobles and clergy, graphically detailing the fantastic atrocities being committed against pilgrims and eastern Christians. There are five versions of the speech written by people who may have been at the council (Baldric of Dol, Guibert of Nogent, Robert the Monk, and Fulcher of Chartres) or who went on crusade (Fulcher and the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum), as well as other versions found in later historians (such as William of Malmesbury and William of Tyre). All of these versions were written after Jerusalem had been captured, and it is difficult to know what was actually said and what was recreated in the aftermath of the successful crusade. The only contemporary records are a few letters written by Urban in 1095.^[24]

All the versions generally agree that Urban talked about the violence of European society and the necessity of maintaining the Peace of God; about helping the Greeks, who had asked for assistance; about the crimes being committed against Christians in the east; and about a new kind of war, an armed pilgrimage, and of rewards both on earth and in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking.^[25] They do not all specifically mention Jerusalem as the ultimate goal, but it seems clear from Urban's subsequent preaching that he intended the expedition to reach Jerusalem all along.^[26] The enthusiastic crowd responded with cries of Deus lo volt! ("God wills it!").^[27]

Recruitment

Urban's speech had been well-planned; he had discussed the crusade with Adhemar, Bishop of Le Puy, and Raymond IV of Toulouse, and instantly the expedition had the support of two of southern France's most important leaders. Adhemar himself was present at the Council and was the first to "take the cross." For the rest of 1095 and into 1096, Urban spread the message throughout France, and urged his bishops and legates to preach in their own dioceses elsewhere in France, Germany, and Italy as well. However, it is clear that the response to the speech was much larger than even the Pope, let alone Alexius, expected. During his tour of France, Urban tried to forbid certain people (including women, monks, and the sick) from joining the crusade, but found this nearly impossible. In the end most who took up the call were not knights, but peasants who were not wealthy and had little in the way of fighting skills, in an outpouring of a new emotional and personal piety that was not easily harnessed by the ecclesiastical and lay aristocracy.^[28] Typically preaching would conclude with every volunteer taking a vow to complete a pilgrimage to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; they were also given a cross, usually sown onto their clothes.^[29]

As Thomas Asbridge writes, "Just as we can do nothing more than estimate the number of thousands who responded to the crusading ideal, so too, with the surviving evidence, we can gain only a limited insight into their motivation and intent."^[30] Previous generations of scholars argued that the crusaders were motivated by greed, hoping to find a better life away from the famines and warfare occurring in France, but as Asbridge says, "this image is...profoundly misleading."^[31] Greed is unlikely to have been a major factor because of the extremely high cost of travelling so far from home, and because almost all of the crusaders eventually returned home after completing their pilgrimage, rather than trying to carve out possessions for themselves in the Holy Land. ^[32]. It is difficult or impossible to assess the motives of the thousands of poor for whom there is no historical record, and even for the knights, whose stories were usually told by monks or clerics. However, since the secular medieval world was so deeply ingrained with the spiritual world of the church, it is likely that personal piety was a major factor for many crusaders.^[33]

Despite this popular enthusiasm, however, Urban ensured that there would be an army of knights, drawn from the French aristocracy. Aside from Adhemar and Raymond, the leaders he recruited throughout 1096 were Bohemond of Taranto, a southern Italian ally of the reform popes; Bohemond's nephew Tancred; Godfrey of Bouillon, who had previously been an anti-reform ally of the Holy Roman Emperor; his brother Baldwin of Boulogne; Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the excommunicated King Philip I of France; Robert of Normandy, brother of King William II of England; and his relatives Stephen of Blois and Robert of Flanders. The crusaders represented northern and southern France, Germany, and southern Italy, and so they were divided into four separate armies which were not always cooperative, although they were held together by their common ultimate goal. ^[34] Their motives are somewhat clearer; greed was apparently not a factor, as Robert of Normandy sold his entire duchy to his brother, and Godfrey sold or mortgaged his property to the church.^[35] According to Tancred's biographer, he was worried about the sinful nature of knightly warfare, and was excited to find a holy outlet for violence.^[36]

It is commonly assumed that only younger members of a family went on crusade, as they had no prospects for advancement at home, but Riley-Smith has shown that this is not the case. Aside from the major nobles of France who left everything behind, among the lower aristocracy, and possibly among the peasants, entire families often went on crusade, at their own great expense. ^[37]

People's Crusade

Main article: People's Crusade

The great French nobles and their trained armies of knights were not the first to undertake the journey towards Jerusalem. Urban had planned the departure of the crusade for 15 August 1096, the Feast of the Assumption, but months before this a number of unexpected armies of peasants and petty nobles set off for Jerusalem on their own, led by a charismatic priest named Peter the Hermit of Amiens. Peter was the most successful of the preachers of Urban's message, who developed an almost hysterical enthusiasm among his followers, although he was probably not an "official" preacher sanctioned by Urban at Clermont.^[38] A century later he was already a legendary figure; William of Tyre believed that it was Peter who had planted the idea for the crusade in Urban's mind.^[39] It is commonly believed that Peter led a massive group of untrained and illiterate peasants who did not even have any idea where Jerusalem was, but in fact there were many knights among the peasants, including Walter Sansavoir.^[40]

Lacking military discipline, and in what likely seemed to the participants a strange land (Eastern Europe), they quickly landed in trouble, in Christian territory. Walter's army fought with the Hungarians over food at Belgrade, but otherwise arrived in Constantinople unharmed. Peter and his army, marching separately from Walter, also fought with the Hungarians and may have captured Belgrade. At Nish the Byzantine governor tried to supply them, but Peter had little control over his followers and Byzantine troops were needed to quell their attacks. Peter arrived at Constantinople in August, where they joined with Walter's army, which had already arrived, as well as separate bands of crusaders from France, Germany, and Italy. This unruly mob began to attack and pillage outside the city in search of supplies and food, and one week later Emperor Alexius ferried them all across the Bosporus.^[41]

After crossing into Asia Minor, the crusaders split up and began to pillage the countryside, wandering into Seljuk territory around Nicaea. The experience of the Turks was overwhelming; most of the crusaders were massacred. Some Italian and German crusaders were defeated and killed at Xerigordon at the end of August. Meanwhile, Walter and Peter's followers, who, though for the most part untrained in battle, were led by about 50 knights, fought a battle against the Turks at Civetot in October. The Turkish archers destroyed the crusader army, and Walter was among the dead. Peter, who was absent in Constantinople at the time, later joined the main crusader army, along with the few survivors of Civetot.^[42]

Another army of Bohemians and Saxons did not make it past Hungary before splitting up.^[43]

Persecution of the Jews

Main article: Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade

At the local level, the preaching of the First Crusade sometimes ignited organized violence against Jews. While anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for centuries, the First Crusade marked the first mass organized violence against Jewish communities. In Germany, certain leaders understood this war against the infidels to be applicable not only to the Muslims in the Holy Land, but also against Jews within their own lands.^[44] Setting off in the early summer of 1096, a German army of around 10,000 Crusaders led by Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emicho, proceeded northward through the Rhine valley, in the opposite direction of Jerusalem, and began a series of pogroms which some historians call "the first Holocaust".^[45] This understanding of the idea of a Crusade was not universal, however, and Jews found some refuge in sanctuaries, with one example being the Archbishop of Cologne's attempts to protect the Jews of the city from the slaughter carried on by the city's population.^[44]

The preaching of the crusade inspired further anti-Semitism.^[46] According to some preachers, Jews and Muslims were enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity. The Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of a Christian emperor there would supposedly instigate the End Times, during which the Jews were supposed to convert to Christianity. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were thought to be responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the far-away Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home. The crusaders moved north through the Rhine valley into well-known Jewish communities such as Cologne, and then southward. Jewish communities were given the option of converting to Christianity or being slaughtered. Most would not convert and, as news of the mass killings spread, many Jewish communities committed mass suicides in horrific scenes. Hundreds of Jews were massacred, despite attempts by local clergy and secular authorities in some places to shelter them.^[46] The massacres were justified by the claim that Urban's speech at Clermont promised reward from God for killing non-Christians of any sort, not just Muslims. Although the papacy abhorred and preached against the purging of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during this and future crusades, there were numerous attacks on Jews following every crusade movement.

Princes' Crusade

The Princes' Crusade, also known as the Barons' Crusade, set out later in 1096 in a more orderly manner, led by various nobles with bands of knights from different regions of Europe. The four most significant of these were Raymond IV of Toulouse, who represented the knights of Provence, accompanied by the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy; Bohemond of Taranto, representing the Normans of southern Italy with his nephew Tancred; The Lorrainers under the brothers Godfrey of Bouillon, Eustace and Baldwin of Boulogne; and the Northern French led by Count Robert II of Flanders, Robert of Normandy (older brother of King William II of England), Stephen, Count of Blois, and Hugh of Vermandois the younger brother of King Philip I of France, who bore the papal banner.^[47] King Philip himself was forbidden from participating in the campaign as he had been excommunicated.^[48] The entire crusader army consisted of about 30,000-35,000 crusaders, including 5,000 cavalry.^[49] Raymond IV of Toulouse had the largest contingent of about 8,500 infantry and 1,200 cavalry.^[50]

March to Jerusalem

Leaving Europe around the appointed time in August, the various armies took different paths to Constantinople and gathered outside its city walls between November 1096 and May 1097.^[47] Accompanying the knights were many poor men (pauperes) who could afford basic clothing and perhaps an old weapon. Peter the Hermit, who joined the Princes' Crusade at Constantinople, was considered responsible for their well-being, and they were able to organize themselves into small groups, perhaps akin to military companies, often led by an impoverished knight. One of the largest of these groups, comprising of the survivors of the People's Crusade, named itself the "Tafurs."^[51]

The Princes arrived in Constantinople with little food and expected provisions and help from Alexius I. Alexius was understandably suspicious after his experiences with the People's Crusade, and also because the knights included his old Norman enemy, Bohemond. At the same time, Alexius harbored hopes of exercising control over the crusaders, who he seems to have regarded as having the potential to function as a Byzantine proxy.^[52] The gates of the city where not open to them as friends for their army was large enough to take the city. Only the leaders of the crusaders were allowed to come in. Thus, in return for food and supplies, Alexius requested the leaders to swear fealty to him and promise to return to the Byzantine Empire any land recovered from the Turks. Without food or provisions, they eventually had no choice but to take the oath, though not until all sides had agreed to various compromises, and only after warfare had almost broken out in the city. Only Raymond avoided swearing the oath, cleverly pledging himself to Alexius if the emperor would lead the crusade in person. Alexius refused, but the two became allies, sharing a common distrust of Bohemond.

Alexius agreed to send out a Byzantine army under the command of Taticius to accompany the crusaders through Asia Minor. Their first objective was Nicaea, an old Byzantine city, but now the capital of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rüm under Kilij Arslan I. Meanwhile, Arslan was campaigning against the Danishmends in central Anatolia having left behind his treasury and his family having underestimated the Crusaders.^[53] The city was subjected to a lengthy siege, which was somewhat ineffectual as the crusaders could not blockade the lake on which the city was situated, and from which it could be provisioned. When Arslan heard of the siege, he rushed back to Nicaea and attacked the Crusader army on the 23 May but was driven back with heavy losses being suffered on both sides.^[54] Seeing that he would not be able to save the city, he advised the garrison to surrender if their situation became untenable. Alexius, fearing the crusaders would sack Nicaea and destroy its wealth, secretly accepted the surrender of the city; the crusaders awoke on the morning of 19 June 1097 to see Byzantine standards flying from the walls. The crusaders were forbidden to loot it, and were not allowed to enter the city except in small escorted bands. This caused a further tension between the Byzantines and the crusaders. The crusaders now began the journey to Jerusalem and Stephen of Blois writing home to his wife Adela, stated he believed it would take five weeks.^[55] In fact, the journey would take two years.^[56]

The crusaders, still accompanied by some Byzantine troops under Taticius, marched on towards Dorylaeum, where Bohemond was pinned down by Kilij Arslan. At the Battle of Dorylaeum on 1 July, Godfrey broke through the Turkish lines, and with the help of the troops led by the legate Adhemar - who attacked the Turks from the rear - defeated the Turks and looted their camp.^[54] Kilij Arslan withdrew and the crusaders marched almost unopposed through Asia Minor towards Antioch, except for a battle, in September, in which they again defeated the Turks. Along the way, the Crusaders were able to capture a number of cities such as Sozopolis, Iconium and Caesarea although most of these were lost to the Turks by 1101.^[57][58]

The march through Asia was unpleasant. It was the middle of summer and the crusaders had very little food and water; many men died, as did many horses.^[59] Christians, in Asia as in Europe, sometimes gave them gifts of food and money, but more often the crusaders looted and pillaged whenever the opportunity presented itself. Individual leaders continued to dispute the overall leadership, although none of them were powerful enough to take command; still, Adhemar was always recognized as the spiritual leader. After passing through the Cilician Gates, Baldwin of Boulogne set off on his own towards the Armenian lands around the Euphrates. In Edessa early in 1098, he was adopted as heir by King Thoros, an Armenian Greek Orthodox ruler who was disliked by his Armenian subjects for his religion. Thoros was soon assassinated and Baldwin became the new ruler, thus creating the County of Edessa, the first of the crusader states.^[60]

Siege of Antioch

Main article: Siege of Antioch

The crusader army, meanwhile, marched on to Antioch, which lay about half way between Constantinople and Jerusalem. On 20 October 1097 the crusader army set Antioch to a siege which lasted almost eight months,^[61] during which time they also had to defeat two large relief armies under Duqaq of Damascus and Ridwan of Aleppo. Antioch was so large that the crusaders did not have enough troops to fully surround it, and thus it was able to stay partially supplied.^[62]

In May 1098, Kerbogha of Mosul approached Antioch to relieve the siege. Bohemond bribed an Armenian guard named Firuz to surrender his tower, and in June the crusaders entered the city and killed most of the inhabitants.^[63] However, only a few days later the Muslims arrived, laying siege to the former besiegers.^[64] At this point a minor monk by the name of Peter Bartholomew claimed to have discovered the Holy Lance in the city, and although some were skeptical, this was seen as a sign that they would be victorious.^[65]

On 28 June 1098 the crusaders defeated Kerbogha in a pitched battle outside the city, as Kerbogha was unable to organize the different factions in his army.^[66] While the crusaders were marching towards the Muslims, the Fatimid section of the army deserted the Turkish contingent, as they feared Kerbogha would become too powerful if he were to defeat the Crusaders. According to legend, an army of Christian saints came to the aid of the crusaders during the battle and crippled Kerbogha's army.

Bohemond argued that Alexius had deserted the crusade and thus invalidated all of their oaths to him. Bohemond asserted his claim to Antioch, but not everyone agreed, notably Raymond of Toulouse, and the crusade was delayed for the rest of the year while the nobles argued amongst themselves. It is a common historiographical assumption that the Franks of northern France, the Provençals of southern France, and the Normans of southern Italy considered themselves separate "nations" and that each wanted to increase its status. This may have had something to do with the disputes, but personal ambition was just as likely to blame.

Meanwhile, a plague broke out, killing many, including the legate Adhemar, who died on 1 August.^[67] There were now even fewer horses than before, and Muslim peasants refused to give them food. In December, the Arab town of Ma'arrat al-Numan was captured after a siege, which saw the first occurrence of cannibalism among crusaders.^[68] The minor knights and soldiers became restless and threatened to continue to Jerusalem without their squabbling leaders. Finally, at the beginning of 1099, the march was renewed, leaving Bohemond behind as the first Prince of Antioch.

Siege of Jerusalem

Main article: Siege of Jerusalem (1099)

See also: Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon

Proceeding down the coast of the Mediterranean, the crusaders encountered little resistance, as local rulers preferred to make peace with them and give them supplies rather than fight.^[69] On 7 June the crusaders reached Jerusalem, which had been recaptured from the Seljuks by the Fatimids of Egypt only the year before.^[70] Many Crusaders wept on seeing the city they had journeyed so long to reach.

As with Antioch, the crusaders put the city to a siege, in which the crusaders themselves suffered many casualties, due to the lack of food and water around Jerusalem.^[70] By the time the Crusader army reached Jerusalem, only 12,000 men including 1,500 cavalry remained.^[50] Faced with a seemingly impossible task, their morale was raised when a priest, by the name of Peter Desiderius, claimed to have had a divine vision instructing them to fast and then march in a barefoot procession around the city walls, after which the city would fall, following the Biblical example of Joshua at the siege of Jericho.^[70] On 8 July 1099 the crusaders performed the procession as instructed by Desiderius. The Genoese troops, led by commander Guglielmo Embriaco, had previously dismantled the ships in which the Genoese came to the Holy Land; Embriaco, using the ship's wood, made some siege towers and seven days later on 15 July, the crusaders were able to end the siege by breaking down sections of the walls and entering the city. Some Crusaders also entered through the former pilgrim's entrance.

Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem.^[71] Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Jews in their synagogue by the Western wall, the crusaders spared few lives.^[71] According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." However, scholars John and Laurita Hill discovered in 1969 that this line was taken directly from biblical passage Apocalypse 14:20.^[72] The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads", killing everyone inside.^[73] Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".^[74]

The Gesta Francorum states some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."^[75] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone." ^[76]

On 22 July, a council was held in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Raymond of Toulouse at first refused to become king,^[77] perhaps attempting to show his piety but probably hoping that the other nobles would insist upon his election anyway. Godfrey, who had become the more popular of the two after Raymond's actions at the siege of Antioch, did no damage to his own piety by accepting a position as secular leader. Raymond was incensed at this development and took his army out into the countryside. The exact nature and meaning of Godfrey's title is somewhat of a controversy. Although it is widely claimed that he took the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri ("advocate" or "defender" of the Holy Sepulchre), this title is only used in a letter which was not written by Godfrey. Instead, Godfrey himself seems to have used the more ambiguous term princeps, or simply retained his title of dux from back home in Lower Lorraine. According to William of Tyre, writing in the later 12th century when Godfrey was already a legendary hero in crusader Jerusalem, he refused to wear "a crown of gold" where Christ had worn "a crown of thorns".^[78]Robert the Monk is the only contemporary chronicler of the crusade to report that Godfrey took the title "king".^[79] In the last action of the crusade, Godfrey defeated an invading Fatimid army at the Battle of Ascalon. He died in July 1100, and was succeeded by his brother, Baldwin of Edessa, the first to take the title King of Jerusalem.

Crusade of 1101 and the establishment of the kingdom

Main article: Crusade of 1101

Having captured Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the crusading vow was now fulfilled.^[80] However, there were many who had gone home before reaching Jerusalem, and many who had never left Europe at all. When the success of the crusade became known, these people were mocked and scorned by their families and threatened with excommunication by the clergy. Many crusaders who had remained with the crusade all the way to Jerusalem also went home; according to Fulcher of Chartres there were only a few hundred knights left in the newfound kingdom in 1100.

In 1101, another crusade set out, including Stephen of Blois and Hugh of Vermandois, both of whom had returned home before reaching Jerusalem. This crusade was almost annihilated in Asia Minor by the Seljuks, but the survivors helped reinforce the kingdom when they arrived in Jerusalem.^[81] In the following years, assistance was also provided by Italian merchants who established themselves in the Syrian ports, and from the religious and military orders of the Knights Templars and the Knights Hospitaller which were created during Baldwin I's reign.

Analysis of the First Crusade

Aftermath

The success of the First Crusade was unprecedented. Newly achieved stability in the west left a warrior aristocracy in search of new conquests and patrimony, and the new prosperity of major towns also meant that money was available to equip expeditions. The Italian maritime city states, in particular Venice and Genoa, were interested in extending trade. The Papacy saw the Crusades as a way to assert Catholic influence as a unifying force, with war as a religious mission. This was a new attitude to religion: it brought religious discipline, previously applicable only to monks, to soldiery—the new concept of a religious warrior and the chivalric ethos.

The First Crusade succeeded in establishing the "Crusader States" of Edessa, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Tripoli in Palestine and Syria (as well as allies along the Crusaders' route, such as the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia).

Back at home in western Europe, those who had survived to reach Jerusalem were treated as heroes. Robert of Flanders was nicknamed "Hierosolymitanus" thanks to his exploits. The life of Godfrey of Bouillon became legendary even within a few years of his death. In some cases, the political situation at home was greatly affected by crusader absences: while Robert Curthose was away, England had passed to his brother Henry I of England, and their conflict resulted in the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Meanwhile the establishment of the crusader states in the east helped ease Seljuk pressure on the Byzantine Empire, which had regained some of its Anatolian territory with crusader help, and experienced a period of relative peace and prosperity in the 12th century. The effect on the Muslim dynasties of the east was gradual but important. In the wake of the death of Malik Shah I in 1092 the political instability and the division of Great Seljuk, that had pressed the Byzantine call for aid to the Pope, meant that it had prevented a coherent defense against the aggressive and expansionist Latin states. Cooperation between them remained difficult for many decades, but from Egypt to Syria to Baghdad there were calls for the expulsion of the crusaders, culminating in the recapture of Jerusalem under Saladin later in the century when the Ayyubids had united the surrounding areas.

Pope Urban II’s reasons for calling for a Crusade to the Holy Land were to regain Papacy supreme spiritual authority in Latin Christendom while expanding his realpolitik power. He failed to bridge the growing schism between the East and West and inadvertently, with the sacking of Constantinople during the later crusades, actually solidified the schism. The Crusades also militarily assisted the weakening Byzantine Empire by repulsing the growing Seljuk menace from the Holy Lands and setting up small individual kingdoms.

Pilgrims

Although it is called the First Crusade, no one saw himself as a "crusader". The term crusade is an early 13th century term that first appears in Latin over 100 years after the first crusade. Nor did the crusaders see themselves as the first, since they did not know there would be later crusades. They saw themselves simply as pilgrims (peregrinatores) on a journey (iter), and were referred to as such in contemporary accounts.

Taking an oath to the church to complete the journey, and punishment by excommunication if one failed to do so, were the solidifying factors of making the crusade an official pilgrimage. Crusaders were to swear that their journey would only be complete once they set foot inside the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Pilgrimages were open to all those who wished to take part; undesirable candidates, women, the elderly and the infirm, were discouraged from joining but there was no way to stop them.

Popularity of the Crusade

The first Crusade attracted the largest number of peasants and what started as a minor call for military aid turned into a mass migration of peoples. The call to go on crusade was very popular. Two medieval roles, holy warrior and pilgrim, were merged into one. Like a holy warrior in a holy war, one would carry a weapon and fight for the Church with all its spiritual benefits, including the privilege of an indulgence or martyrdom if one died in battle.

Just like a pilgrim on a pilgrimage, a crusader would have the right to hospitality and personal protection of self and property by the Church. The benefits of the indulgence were therefore twofold, both for fighting as a warrior of the Church and for traveling as a pilgrim. Thus, an indulgence would be granted regardless of whether one lived or died. But the crusade was not an indulgence in the medieval sense, medieval indulgences were bought and sold. The crusade was not an easy absolution of sins but a form of penitence because it was undertaken voluntarily and was a type of self-inflicted punishment. This crucial difference separates the medieval indulgence and the original crusade idea.

In addition there were feudal obligations because many crusaders went because they were required to do so by their lord. The poorer classes looked to local nobility for guidance and a powerful aristocrat could motivate others to join the cause as well. The connection to a wealthy leader allowed the average peasant to contribute and have some sort of protection on the journey, unlike those who undertook the vow alone. There were also family obligations, with many people joining the crusade in order to support relatives who had also taken the crusading vow. Some nobility, including several kings and heirs, were prohibited to join because of their position. All of these factors motivated different people for different reasons and contributed to the popularity of the crusade.

Spiritual versus earthly rewards

The call to crusade came at a time when years of good harvests had increased the Western European population allowing larger armies of Christendom to initiate the reconquista and this Crusade. Nonetheless, the attraction of trying to start a new life in the far more successful East caused many people to leave their lands. The expanding population meant that Europe was not a place of great opportunity anymore and the possibility of gaining something, whether spiritual, political or economic, was tempting to countless participants.

Older scholarship on this issue asserts that the bulk of the participants were likely younger sons of nobles who were dispossessed of land and influenced by the practise of primogeniture, and poorer knights who were looking for a new life in the wealthy east. Many had fought in order to drive out the Muslim armies in Southern Spain, or had relatives who had done so. The rumours of treasures that were discovered there may have been an attractive feature, for if there was such treasure in Spain there must have been even more in Jerusalem. Most didn't find this type of treasure, mostly insignificant relics were uncovered. While this is true in some respect it cannot be the only motivation for so many.

However, current research suggests that although Urban promised crusaders spiritual as well as material benefit, the primary aim of most crusaders was spiritual rather than material gain. Moreover, recent research by Jonathan Riley-Smith instead shows that the crusade was an immensely expensive undertaking, affordable only to those knights who were already fairly wealthy, such as Hugh of Vermandois and Robert Curthose, who were relatives of the French and English royal families, and Raymond of Toulouse, who ruled much of southern France. Even then, these wealthy knights had to sell much of their land to relatives or the church before they could afford to participate. Their relatives, too, often had to impoverish themselves in order to raise money for the crusade. As Riley-Smith says, "there really is no evidence to support the proposition that the crusade was an opportunity for spare sons to make themselves scarce in order to relieve their families of burdens".^[82]

As an example of spiritual over earthly motivation, Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin settled previous quarrels with the church by bequeathing their land to local clergy. The charters denoting these transactions were written by clergymen, not the knights themselves, and seem to idealize the knights as pious men seeking only to fulfill a vow of pilgrimage.

Further, poorer knights (minores, as opposed to the greater knights, the principes) could go on crusade only if they expected to survive off almsgiving, or if they could enter the service of a wealthier knight, as was the case with Tancred, who agreed to serve his uncle Bohemond. Later crusades would be organized by wealthy kings and emperors, or would be supported by special crusade taxes.

In arts and literature

The success of the crusade inspired the literary imagination of poets in France, who, in the 12th century, began to compose various chansons de geste celebrating the exploits of Godfrey of Bouillon and the other crusaders. Some of these, such as the most famous, the Chanson d'Antioche, are semi-historical, while others are completely fanciful, describing battles with a dragon or connecting Godfrey's ancestors to the legend of the Swan Knight. Together, the chansons are known as the crusade cycle.

The First Crusade was also an inspiration to artists in later centuries. In 1580, Torquato Tasso wrote Jerusalem Delivered, a largely fictionalized epic poem about the capture of Jerusalem. George Frideric Handel composed music based on Tasso's poem in his opera, Rinaldo. The 19th century poet Tommaso Grossi also wrote an epic poem, which was the basis of Giuseppe Verdi's opera I Lombardi alla prima crociata.

Gustave Doré made a number of engravings based on episodes from the First Crusade.

Stephen J Rivelle has written a largely fictional account of the First Crusade, in his book A Booke of Days, as has Stephen R Lawhead, with the first of a trilogy, named 'The Celtic Crusades: Book 1: The Iron Lance'

According to Ming and Qing dynasty stone monuments, a Jewish community has existed in China since the Han Dynasty, but a majority of scholars cite the early Song Dynasty (roughly a century before the First Crusade).^[83] A legend common among the modern-day descendants of the Kaifeng Jews states they reached China after fleeing Bodrum from the invading crusaders. A section of the legend reads, “The Jews became merchants and traders in the region, but new troubles came in the 1090s. Life became difficult and dangerous. The first bad news was heralded by a word they had never heard before: 'Crusade,' the so-called Holy War...Jews were warned; "Convert to Christianity or die!"^[84]

References

Sources

Primary sources

Primary sources online

Secondary sources

Bibliographies