HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
CHAPTER VII.
THE CRUSADES.
"No idle fancy
was it when of yore
Pilgrims in countless numbers braved the seas,
And legions battled on the farthest shore,
Only to pray at Thy
sepulchral bed,
Only in pious gratitude to kiss
The sacred earth on which Thy feet did tread."
Uhland, An den Unsichtbaren.
§ 47. Literature on the Crusades as a Whole.
Sources._First
printed collection of writers on the Crusades by Jac. Bongars: Gesta Dei (and it might be added, et
diaboli) per Francos, sive orientalium expeditionum, etc., 2 vols.
Hanover, 1611. Mostly reports of the First Crusade and superseded._The most
complete collection, edited at great expense and in magnificent style, Recueil
des Historiens des Croisades publié par l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, viz. Historiens Occidentaux, 5 vols. Paris,
1841-1895; Histt. Orientaux, 4 vols. 1872-1898; Histt. Grecs, 2
vols. 1875-1881; Documents Arméniens, 1869. The first series contains,
in vols. I., II., the Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum of
William of Tyre and the free reproduction in French entitled L’Estoire de
Eracles Empéreur et la Conqueste de la terre d’ Outremer. Vol. III.
contains the Gesta Francorum; the Historia de Hierolosymitano itinere
of Peter Tudebodus, Hist.
Francorum qui ceperunt Jherusalem of Raymund
of Aguilers or Argiles; Hist. Jherusolymitana or Gesta
Francorum Jherusalem perigrinantium 1095-1127, of Fulcher of Chartres; Hist. Jherusol. of Robert the Monk, etc. Vol. IV. contains
Hist. Jherusolem. of Baldric of
Dol (Ranke, VIII 82, speaks highly of Baldric as an authority); Gesta
Del per Francos of Guibert of Nogent;
Hist. Hier. of Albert of Aachen,
etc. Vol. V. contains Ekkehardi Hierosolymita and a number of other
documents. Migne’s Latin Patrology gives a number of these authors, e.g.,
Fulcher and Petrus Tudebodus, vol. 155; Guibert, vol. 156; Albert of Aachen and
Baldric, vol. 166; William of Tyre, vol. 201._Contemporary Chronicles of Ordericus Vitalis, Roger of Hoveden, Roger of
Wendover, M. Paris, etc._Reports of Pilgrimages, e.g., Count Riant: Expéditions et
pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte au temps des Croisades, Paris,
1865, 1867; R. Röhricht: Die
Pilgerfahrten nach d. heil. Lande vor den KreuzzĂĽgen, 1875; Deutsche Pilgerreisen
nach dem heil. Lande, new ed. Innsbruck, 1900; H. Schrader: D. Pilgerfahrten nach. d. heil. Lande im
Zeitalter vor den Kreuzzügen, Merzig, 1897. Jaffé: Regesta._Mansi:
Concilia._For criticism of the contemporary writers see Sybel, Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzugs,
2d ed. 1881, pp. 1-143._H. Prutz (Prof.
in Nancy, France): Quellenbeiträge zur Gesch. der Kreuzzüge, Danzig,
1876._R. Röhricht: Regesta
regni Hierosolymitani 1097-1291, Innsbruck, 1904, an analysis of 900
documents.
Modern Works._*Friedrich Wilken (Libr. and Prof. in
Berlin, d. 1840): Gesch. der KreuzzĂĽge, 7 vols. Leipzig, 1807-1832._J. F. Michaud: Hist. des croisades,
3 vols. Paris, 1812, 7th ed. 4 vols. 1862. Engl. trans. by W. Robson, 3 vols., London, 1854, New
York, 1880._*Röhricht (teacher in
one of the Gymnasia of Berlin, d. 1905; he published eight larger works on the
Crusades): Beitäge zur Gesch. der Kreuzzüge, 2 vols. Berlin, 1874-1878; D.
Deutschen im heil. lande, Innsbruck, 1894; Gesch. d. KreuzzĂĽge,
Innsbruck, 1898._B. Kugler (Prof.
in TĂĽbingen): Gesch. der KreuzzĂĽge, illustrated, Berlin, 1880, 2d ed.
1891._A. De Laporte: Les
croisades et le pays latin de JĂ©rusalem, Paris, 1881._*Prutz: Kulturgesch. der KreuzzĂĽge,
Berlin, 1883._Ed. Heyck: Die KreuzzĂĽge und das heilige
Land, Leipzig, 1900._Histories in English by Mills, London, 1822, 4th ed. 2 vols. 1828; Keightley, London. 1847; Proctor, London, 1858; Edgar, London, 1860; W. E. Dutton, London, 1877; G. W. Cox, London, 1878; J. I. Mombert, New York, 1891; *Archer and Kingsford: Story of the
Crus., New York, 1895; J. M. Ludlow:
Age of the Crusades, New York, 1896; Art. KreuzzĂĽge by Funk in Wetzer-Welte, VII. 1142-1177._Ph. Schaff in "Ref. Quarterly
Rev." 1893, pp. 438-459._J. L. Hahn:
Ursachen und Folgen der Kreuzzüge, Greifswald, 1859._Chalandon: Essai sur le régne
d’Alexis Comnène, Paris, 1900._*A.
Gottlob: D. päpstlichen Kreuzzugs-Steuren des 13. Jahrhunderts, Heiligenstadt,
1892, pp. 278; Kreuzablass und Almosenablass, Stuttgart, 1906, pp. 314._Essays
on the Crusades by Munro, Prutz,
Diehl, Burlington, 1903._H. C.
Lea: Hist. of Auric. Confession and Indulgences, vol. III._See
also *Gibbon, LVIII-LIX; Milman; Giesebrecht: Gesch. d.
deutschen Kaiserzeit; Ranke: Weltgesch.,
VIII. pp. 88-111, 150-161, 223-262, 280-307; IX. 93-98; Finlay: Hist. of the Byznt. and Gr. Empires,
1057-1453; Hopf: Gesch.
Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters, etc., Leipzig, 1868; Besant And Palmer: Hist. of
Jerusalem, London, 1890; Guy Le
Strange: Palestine under the Moslems, London, 1890.
The Poetry of the
Crusades is represented chiefly by Raoul
De Caen in Gestes de Tancrède; Torquato
Tasso, the Homer of the Crusades, in La Jerusalemme liberata; Walter Scott: Tales of the Crusades,
Talisman, Quentin Durward, etc. The older literature is given in full by
Michaud; Bibliographie des
Croisades, 2 vols. Paris, 1822, which form vols. VI., VII, of his
Histoire des Croisades.
The
First Crusade.
Sources._See
Literature above. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitorum by an
anonymous writer who took part in the First Crusade, in Bongars and Recueil
des Croisades. See above. Also Hagenmeyer’s critical edition, Anonymi
Gesta Francorum, Heidelberg, 1890._Robertus,
a monk of Rheims: Hist. Hierosolymitana, in Bongars, Rec., and
Migne, vol. 155._Baldrich, abp.
of Dol: Hist. Hierosol., in Bongars, and Rec._Raymund de Aguilers, chaplain to the
count of Toulouse: Hist. Francorum, 1095-1099, in Bongars, Rec.,
and Migne, vol. 155. See Clem. Klein:
Raimund von Aguilers, Berlin, 1892._Fulcher,
chaplain to the count of Chartres and then to Baldwin, second king of
Jerusalem: Gesta Francorum Jerusalem perigrinantium to 1125, in Bongars,
Rec., and Migne, vol. 155._Guibert,
abbot of Nogent: Gesta Dei per Francos, to 1110, in Bongars, Rec.,
Migne, vol. 156._Albertus of Aachen (Aquensis): Hist. Hierosol.
expeditionis, to 1121, in Bongars, Rec., Migne, vol. 166. See B. Kugler: Albert von Aachen,
Stuttgart, 1885._William of Tyre,
abp. of Tyre, d. after 1184: Hist. rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum,
Basel, 1549, under the title of belli sacri historia, in Bongars, Rec.,
Migne, vol. 201, Engl. trans. by Wm.
Caxton, ed. by Mary N. Colvin,
London, 1893._Anna Comnena (1083-1148):
Alexias, a biogr. of her father, the Greek emperor, Alexis I., in Rec.,
Migne, Pat. Graeca, vol. 131; also 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884, ed. by Reifferscheid; also in part in Hagenmeyer, Peter der Eremite,
pp. 303-314._Ekkehard of Urach: Hierosolymita
seu libellus de oppressione, liberatione ac restauratione sanctae Hierosol.,
1095-1187, in Rec., and Migne, vol. 154, and Hagenmeyer: Ekkehard’s Hierosolymita, Tübingen, 1877,
also Das Verhältniss der Gesta Francorum zu der Hiersol. Ekkehards in
"Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch.," Göttingen, 1876, pp. 21-42._Petrus Tudebodus, of the diocese of
Poitiers: Hist. de Hierosolymitano itinere, 1095-1099, largely copied
from the Gesta Francorum, in Migne, vol. 155, and Recueil._Radulphus Cadomensis (Raoul of Caen): Gesta
Tancredi, 1099-1108, Migne, vol. 155, and Recueil._Riant: Inventaire critique des
lettres Hist. des croisades, I., II., Paris, 1880._H. Hagenmeyer: Epistulae et chartae ad
historiam primi belli sacri spectantes quae supersunt, etc., 1088-1100,
Innsbruck, 1901. See the translation of contemporary documents in Trans. and
Reprints, etc., published by Department of History of Univ. of Penn., 1894.
The Poetry of the
First Crusade: La Chanson d’Antioche, ed. by Paulin Paris, 2 vols. Paris, 1848. He dates the poem
1125-1138, and Nouvelle Étude sur la Chanson d’Antioche, Paris, 1878._La
ConquĂŞte de JĂ©rusalem, ed. by C. Hippeau,
Paris, 1868. _ Roman du Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroi de Bouillon.
Modern Works._*H. Von Sybel: Gesch. des ersten
Kreuzzugs, DĂĽsseldorf, 1841, 3d ed. Leipzig, 1900. The Introduction
contains a valuable critical estimate of the contemporary accounts. Engl.
trans. of the Introd. and four lectures by Sybel in 1858, under the title, The
Hist. and Lit. of Crusades, by Lady
Duff Gordon, London, 1861._J. F.
A. Peyre: Hist. de la première croisade, Paris, 1859._*Hagenmeyer: Peter der Eremite,
Leipzig, 1879; Chron. de la premiére croisade, 1094-1100, Paris, 1901._Röhricht: Gesch. des ersten
Kreuzzuges, Innsbruck, 1901._F.
Chalandon: Essai sur le règne d’Alexis I. Comnène, 1081-1118,
Paris, 1900._Paulot: Un pape
Français, Urbain II., Paris, 1902._D.
C. Munro: The Speech of Urban at Clermont. "Am. Hist.
Rev." 1906, pp. 231-242._Art. in Wetzer-Welte, by Funk, Petrus von Amiens, Vol. IX.
§ 48. Character and Causes of the Crusades.
"’O, holy
Palmer!’ she began, _
For sure he must be
sainted man
Whose blessed feet
have trod the ground
Where the Redeemer’s
tomb is found."
Marmion, V. 21.
The Crusades were armed
pilgrimages to Jerusalem under the banner of the cross. They form one of the
most characteristic chapters of the Middle Ages and have a romantic and
sentimental, as well as a religious and military, interest. They were a sublime
product of the Christian imagination, and constitute a chapter of rare interest
in the history of humanity. They exhibit the muscular Christianity of the new
nations of the West which were just emerging from barbarism and heathenism.
They made religion subservient to war and war subservient to religion. They
were a succession of tournaments between two continents and two religions, struggling
for supremacy,_Europe and Asia, Christianity and Mohammedanism. Such a
spectacle the world has never seen before nor since, and may never see again.295
These expeditions occupied the
attention of Europe for more than two centuries, beginning with 1095. Yea, they
continued to be the concern of the popes until the beginning of the sixteenth
century. Columbus signed an agreement April 17, 1492, to devote the proceeds of
his undertaking beyond the Western seas to the recovery of the holy sepulchre.
Before his fourth and last journey to America he wrote to Alexander VI.,
renewing his vow to furnish troops for the rescue of that sacred locality.296 There were seven greater Crusades, the first beginning in 1095,
the last terminating with the death of St. Louis, 1270. Between these dates and
after 1270 there were other minor expeditions, and of these not the least
worthy of attention were the tragic Crusades of the children.
The most famous men of their age
were identified with these movements. Emperors and kings went at the head of
the armies,_Konrad III., Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick II., Richard I. of
England, Louis VII., Philip Augustus and Louis IX. of France, Andrew of
Hungary. Fair women of high station accompanied their husbands or went alone to
the seats of war, such as Alice of Antioch, Queen Eleanor of France, Ida of
Austria, Berengaria, wife of Richard, and Margaret, queen of Louis IX. Kings’
sons shared the same risks, as Frederick of Swabia, Sigurd, and Edward, son of Henry
III., accompanied by Eleanor, his wife. Priests, abbots, and higher
ecclesiastics fought manfully in the ranks and at the head of troops.297 The popes stayed at home, but were tireless in their appeals to
advance the holy project. With many of the best popes, as Honorius III. and
Gregory X., the Crusades were their chief passion. Monks, like Peter the
Hermit, St. Bernard, and Fulke of Neuilly, stirred the flames of enthusiasm by
their eloquence. But if some of the best men of Europe and those most eminent
in station went on the Crusades, so also did the lowest elements of European
society,_thieves, murderers, perjurers, vagabonds, and scoundrels of all sorts,
as Bernard bears witness.298 So it has
been in all wars.
The crusading armies were
designated by such titles as the army "of the cross," "of
Christ," "of the Lord," "of the faith."299 The cross was the badge of the Crusaders and gave to them their
favorite name. The Crusaders were called the soldiers of Christ300 pilgrims, peregrini, and
"those signed with the cross," crucisignati or signatores.
Determining to go on a crusade was called, "taking the cross" or,
"taking the sign of the cross."301
Contemporaries had no doubt of
the Crusades being a holy undertaking, and Guibert’s account of the First
Crusade is called, "The Deeds of God, accomplished through the
Franks," Gesta Dei per Francos.
Those who fell under Eastern
skies or on their way to the East received the benefits of special indulgence
for sins committed and were esteemed in the popular judgment as martyrs. John
VIII., 872-882, pressed by the Saracens who were devastating Italy, had
promised to soldiers fighting bravely against the pagans the rest of eternal
life and, as far as it belonged to him to give it, absolution from sins.302 This precedent was followed by Urban II., who promised the first
Crusaders marching to Jerusalem that the journey should be counted as a
substitute for penance.303 Eugenius,
1146, went farther, in distinctly promising the reward of eternal life. The
virtue of the reward was extended to the parents of those taking part in
Crusades. Innocent III. included in the plenary indulgence those who built
ships and contributed in any way, and promised to them "increase of
eternal life." God, said the abbot Guibert, chronicler of the First
Crusade, invented the Crusades as a new way for the laity to atone for their
sins, and to merit salvation.304
The rewards were not confined to
spiritual privileges. Eugenius III., in his exhortations to the Second Crusade,
placed the Crusaders in the same category with clerics before the courts in the
case of most offences.305 The kings
of France, from 1188 to 1270 joined with the Holy See in granting to them
temporal advantages, exemption from debt, freedom from taxation and the payment
of interest. Complaint was frequently made by the kings of France that the
Crusaders committed the most offensive crimes under cover of ecclesiastical
protection. These complaints called forth from Innocent IV., 1246, and
Alexander IV., 1260, instructions to the bishops not to protect such offenders.
William of Tyre, in his account of the First Crusade, and probably reading into
it some of the experiences of a later date, says (bk. I. 16), "Many took
the cross to elude their creditors."306
If it is hard for us to unite
the idea of war and bloodshed with the achievement of a purely religious
purpose, it must be remembered that no such feeling prevailed in the Middle
Ages. The wars of the period of Joshua and the Judges still formed a
stimulating example. Chrysostom, Augustine, and other Church Fathers of the
fifth century lifted up their voices against the violent destruction of heathen
temples which went on in Egypt and Gaul; but whatever compunction might have
been felt for the wanton slaying of Saracens by Christian armies in an attitude
of aggression, the compunction was not felt when the Saracens placed themselves
in the position of holding the sacred sites of Palestine.
Bernard of Clairvaux said,
pagans must not be slain if they may by other means be prevented from
oppressing the faithful. However, it is better they should be put to death than
that the rod of the wicked should rest on the lot of the righteous. The
righteous fear no sin in killing the enemy of Christ. Christ’s soldier can
securely kill and more safely die. When he dies, it profits him; when he slays,
it profits Christ. The Christian exults in the death of the pagan because
Christ is glorified thereby. But when he himself is killed, he has reached his
goal.307 The
conquest of Palestine by the destruction of the Saracens was considered a legal
act justified by the claim which the pope had by reason of the preaching of the
Apostles in that country and its conquest by the Roman empire.308
In answer to the question
whether clerics might go to war, Thomas Aquinas replied in the affirmative when
the prize was not worldly gain, but the defence of the Church or the poor and
oppressed.309
To other testimonies to the
esteem in which the Crusaders were held may be added the testimony of Matthew
Paris. Summing up the events of the half-century ending with 1250, he says:310 "A great multitude of
nobles left their country to fight faithfully for Christ. All of these were
manifest martyrs, and their names are inscribed in indelible characters in the
book of life." Women forced their husbands to take the cross.311 And women who attempted to hold their husbands back suffered evil
consequences for it.312 Kings who
did not go across the seas had a passion for the holy sepulchre. Edward I.
commanded his son to take his heart and deposit it there, setting apart Ł2000
for the expedition. Robert Bruce also wanted his heart to find its last earthly
resting-place in Jerusalem.
The Crusades began and ended in
France. The French element was the ruling factor, from Urban II., who was a
native of Châtillon, near Rheims, and Peter of Amiens, to St. Louis.313 The contemporary accounts of the Crusades are for the most part
written by Frenchmen. Guibert of Nogent and other chroniclers regard them as
especially the work of their countrymen. The French expression, outre-mer,
was used for the goal of the Crusades.314 The movement spread through all Europe from Hungary to Scotland.
Spain alone forms an exception. She was engaged in a crusade of her own against
the Moors; and the crusades against the Saracens in the Holy Land and the Moors
in Spain were equally commended by an oecumenical council, the First Lateran (can.
13). The Moors were finally expelled from Granada under Ferdinand and Isabella,
and then, unwearied, Spain entered upon a new crusade against Jews and heretics
at home and the pagan Indians of Mexico and Peru. In Italy and Rome, where
might have been expected the most zeal in the holy cause, there was but little
enthusiasm.315
The aim of the Crusades was the
conquest of the Holy Land and the defeat of Islam. Enthusiasm for Christ was
the moving impulse, with which, however, were joined the lower motives of
ambition, avarice, love of adventure, hope of earthly and heavenly reward. The
whole chivalry of Europe, aroused by a pale-faced monk and encouraged by a
Hildebrandian pope, threw itself steel-clad upon the Orient to execute the
vengeance of heaven upon the insults and barbarities of Moslems heaped upon
Christian pilgrims, and to rescue the grave of the Redeemer of mankind from the
grasp of the followers of the False Prophet. The miraculous aid of heaven
frequently intervened to help the Christians and confound the Saracens.316
The Crusaders sought the living
among the dead. They mistook the visible for the invisible, confused the
terrestrial and the celestial Jerusalem, and returned disillusioned.317 They learned in Jerusalem, or after ages have learned through
them, that Christ is not there, that He is risen, and ascended into heaven,
where He sits at the head of a spiritual kingdom. They conquered Jerusalem,
1099, and lost it, 1187; they reconquered, 1229, and lost again, 1244, the city
in which Christ was crucified. False religions are not to be converted by
violence, they can only be converted by the slow but sure process of moral
persuasion. Hatred kindles hatred, and those who take the sword shall perish by
the sword. St. Bernard learned from the failure of the Second Crusade that the
struggle is a better one which is waged against the sinful lusts of the heart
than was the struggle to conquer Jerusalem.
The immediate causes of the
Crusades were the ill treatment of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem and the appeal
of the Greek emperor, who was hard pressed by the Turks. Nor may we forget the
feeling of revenge for the Mohammedans begotten in the resistance offered to
their invasions of Italy and Gaul.318 In 841 they sacked St. Peter’s, and in 846 threatened Rome for the
second time, and a third time under John VIII. The Normans wrested a part of
Sicily from the Saracens at the battle of Cerame, 1063, took Palermo, 1072,
Syracuse, 1085, and the rest of Sicily ten years later. A burning desire took
hold of the Christian world to be in possession of _
"those holy
fields
Over whose acres
walked those blessed feet
Which fourteen
hundred years ago were nail’d
For our advantage on
the bitter cross."
Shakespeare.
From an early day Jerusalem was
the goal of Christian pilgrimage. The mother of Constantine, Helena, according
to the legend, found the cross and certainly built the church over the supposed
site of the tomb in which the Lord lay. Jerome spent the last period of his
life in Bethlehem, translating the Scriptures and preparing for eternity. The
effect of such examples was equal to the station and fame of the pious empress
and the Christian scholar. In vain did such Fathers as Gregory of Nyssa,319 Augustine, and even Jerome
himself, emphasize the nearness of God to believers wherever they may be and
the failure of those whose hearts are not imbued with His spirit to find Him
even at Jerusalem.
The movement steadily grew. The Holy Land became to the
imagination a land of wonders, filled with the divine presence of Christ. To
have visited it, to have seen Jerusalem, to have bathed in the Jordan, was for
a man to have about him a halo of sanctity. The accounts of returning pilgrims
were listened to in convent and on the street with open-mouthed curiosity. To
surmount the dangers of such a journey in a pious frame of mind was a means of
expiation for sins.320 Special
laws were enacted in the pilgrim’s behalf. Hospitals and other beneficent
institutions were erected for their comfort along the main route and in
Jerusalem.
Other circumstances gave additional impulse to the movement, such
as the hope of securing relics of which Palestine and Constantinople were the
chief storehouses; and the opportunity of starting a profitable trade in silk,
paper, spices, and other products of the East.
These pilgrimages were not
seriously interrupted by the Mohammedans after their conquest of Jerusalem by
Omar in 637, until Syria and Palestine passed into the hands of the sultans of
Egypt three centuries later. Under Hakim, 1010, a fierce persecution broke out
against the Christian residents of Palestine and the pilgrims. It was, however,
of short duration and was followed by a larger stream of pilgrims than before.
The favorite route was through Rome and by the sea, a dangerous avenue, as it
was infested by Saracen pirates. The conversion of the Hungarians in the tenth
century opened up the route along the Danube. Barons, princes, bishops, monks
followed one after the other, some of them leading large bodies of pious
tourists. In 1035 Robert of Normandy went at the head of a great company of
nobles. He found many waiting at the gates of Jerusalem, unable to pay the gold
bezant demanded for admission, and paid it for them. In 1054 Luitbert, bishop
of Cambray, is said to have led three thousand pilgrims. In 1064 Siegfried,
archbishop of Mainz, was accompanied by the bishops of Utrecht, Bamberg, and
Regensburg and twelve thousand pilgrims.321 In 1092 Eric, king of the Danes, made the long journey. A sudden
check was put upon the pilgrimages by the Seljukian Turks, who conquered the
Holy Land in 1076. A rude and savage tribe, they heaped, with the intense
fanaticism of new converts, all manner of insults and injuries upon the
Christians. Many were imprisoned or sold into slavery. Those who returned to
Europe carried with them a tale of woe which aroused the religious feelings of
all classes.
The other appeal, coming from
the Greek emperors, was of less weight.322 The Eastern empire had been fast losing its hold on its Asiatic
possessions. Romanus Diogenes was defeated in battle with the Turks and taken
prisoner, 1071. During the rule of his successor, an emir established himself
in Nicaea, the seat of the council called by the first Constantine, and
extended his rule as far as the shores of the sea of Marmora. Alexius Comnenus,
coming to the throne 1081, was less able to resist the advance of Islam and
lost Antioch and Edessa in 1086. Thus pressed by his Asiatic foes, and seeing
the very existence of his throne threatened, he applied for help to the west.
He dwelt, it is true, on the desolations of Jerusalem; but it is in accordance
with his imperial character to surmise that he was more concerned for the
defence of his own empire than for the honor of religion.
This dual appeal met a response,
not only in the religious spirit of Europe, but in the warlike instincts of
chivalry; and when the time came for the chief figure in Christendom, Urban
II., to lift up his voice, his words acted upon the sensitive emotions as
sparks upon dry leaves.323
Three routes were chosen by the
Crusaders to reach the Holy Land. The first was the overland route by way of
the Danube, Constantinople, and Asia Minor. The second, adopted by Philip and
Richard in the Third Crusade, was by the Mediterranean to Acre. The route of
the last two Crusades, under Louis IX., was across the Mediterranean to Egypt,
which was to be made the base of operations from which to reach Jerusalem.
§ 49. The Call to the Crusades.
"the romance
Of many colored Life
that Fortune pours
Round the
Crusaders."
Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Sonnets.
The call which resulted in the
first expedition for the recovery of Jerusalem was made by Pope Urban II. at
the Council of Clermont, 1095. Its chief popular advocate was Peter the Hermit.
The idea of such a movement was
not born at the close of the eleventh century. Gregory VII., appealed to by
Michael VII. of Constantinople, had, in two encyclicals, 1074,324 urged the cause upon all
Christians, and summoned them to go to the rescue of the Byzantine capital. He
reminded them that the pagans had forced their way almost up to the walls of
the city and killed many thousands of their brethren like cattle.325 He also repeatedly called attention to the project in letters to
the counts of Burgundy and Poitiers and to Henry IV. His ulterior hope was the
subjection of the Eastern churches to the dominion of the Apostolic see. In the
year 1074 he was able to announce to Henry IV. that fifty thousand Christian
soldiers stood ready to take up arms and follow him to the East, but Gregory
was prevented from executing his design by his quarrel with the emperor.
There is some evidence that more
than half a century earlier Sergius IV., d. 1012, suggested the idea of an
armed expedition against the Mohammedans who had "defiled Jerusalem and
destroyed the church of the Holy Sepulchre." Earlier still, Sylvester II.,
d. 1003, may have urged the same project.326
Peter the Hermit, an otherwise
unknown monk of Amiens, France, on returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem,
spread its tale of woes and horrors.327 In Jerusalem he had seen the archbishop, Simeon, who urged him to
carry to Europe an appeal for help against the indignities to which the
Christians were subjected. While asleep in the church of the Holy Sepulchre and
after prayer and fasting, Peter had a dream in which Christ appeared to him and
bade him go and quickly spread the appeal that the holy place might be purged.328 He hurried westward, carrying a letter from Simeon, and secured
the ear of Urban at Rome. This is the story as told by William of Tyre and by
Albert of Aachen before him. Alleged dreams and visions were potent forces
during the First Crusade, and it is altogether likely that many a pilgrim,
looking upon the desolation of Jerusalem, heard within himself the same call
which Peter in imagination or in a real dream heard the Lord making to him.
Urban listened to Peter’s
account as he had listened to the accounts of other returning pilgrims. He had
seen citizens of Jerusalem itself with his own eyes, and exiles from Antioch,
bewailing the plight of those places and begging for alms.329 Peter, as he journeyed through Italy and across the Alps,330 proclaimed the same message. The
time for action had come.
At the Council of Piacenza, in
the spring of 1095, envoys were present from the emperor Alexius Comnenus and
made addresses, invoking aid against the advancing Turks.331 In the following November the famous Council of Clermont, Southern
France, was held, which decreed the First Crusade.332 The council comprised a vast number of ecclesiastics and laymen,
especially from France. Urban II. was present in person. On the day of the
opening there were counted fourteen archbishops, two hundred and fifty bishops,
and four hundred abbots. Thousands of tents were pitched outside the walls. On
the ninth day, the pope addressed the multitude from a platform erected in the
open air. It was a fortunate moment for Urban, and has been compared to
Christmas Day, 800, when Charlemagne was crowned.333 The address was the most effective sermon ever preached by a pope
or any other mortal. It stirred the deepest feelings of the bearers and was
repeated throughout all Europe.334
At Clermont, Urban was on his
native soil and probably spoke in the Provençal tongue, though we have only
Latin reports. When we recall the general character of the age and the
listening throng, with its mingled feelings of love of adventure and credulous
faith, we cannot wonder at the response made to the impassioned appeals of the
head of Christendom. Urban reminded his hearers that they, as the elect of God,
must carry to their brethren in the East the succor for which they had so often
cried out. The Turks, a "Persian people, an accursed race,"335 had devastated the kingdom of
God by fire, pillage, and sword and advanced as far as the Arm of St. George
(the Hellespont). Jerusalem was laid waste. Antioch, once the city of Peter,
was under their yoke. As the knights loved their souls, so they should fight
against the barbarians who had fought against their brothers and kindred.336 Christ himself would lead the advancing warriors across sea and
mountains. Jerusalem, "the navel of the world," and the land fruitful
above all others, a paradise of delights, awaited them.337 "The way is short, the toil will be followed by an incorruptible
crown."338
A Frenchman himself, Urban
appealed to his hearers as Frenchmen, distinguished above all other nations by
remarkable glory in arms, courage, and bodily prowess. He appealed to the deeds
of Charlemagne and his son Lewis, who had destroyed pagan kingdoms and extended
the territory of the Church.
To this moving appeal the answer
came back from the whole throng, "God will sit, God will sit."339 "It is," added the pope, "it is the will of God.
Let these words be your war-cry when you unsheathe the sword. You are soldiers
of the cross. Wear on your breasts or shoulders the blood-red sign of the
cross. Wear it as a token that His help will never fail you, as the pledge of a
vow never to be recalled."340 Thousands at once took the vow and sewed the cross on their
garments or branded it upon their bare flesh. Adhemar, bishop of Puy, knelt at
Urban’s feet, asking permission to go, and was appointed papal legate. The next
day envoys came announcing that Raymund of Toulouse had taken the vow. The
spring of 1096 was set for the expedition to start. Urban discreetly declined
to lead the army in person.341
The example set at Clermont was
followed by thousands throughout Europe. Fiery preachers carried Urban’s
message. The foremost among them, Peter the Hermit, traversed Southern France
to the confines of Spain and Lorraine and went along the Rhine. Judged by results,
he was one of the most successful of evangelists. His appearance was well
suited to strike the popular imagination. He rode on an ass, his face emaciated
and haggard, his feet bare, a slouched cowl on his head,342 and a long mantle reaching to
his ankles, and carrying a great cross. In stature he was short.343 His keen wit,344 his fervid and ready, but rude and unpolished,
eloquence,345 made a profound impression upon the throngs which
gathered to hear him.346 His
messages seemed to them divine.347 They plucked the very hairs from his ass’ tail to be preserved as
relics. A more potent effect was wrought than mere temporary wonder.
Reconciliations between husbands and wives and persons living out of wedlock
were effected, and peace and concord established where there were feud and
litigation. Large gifts were made to the preacher. None of the other preachers
of the Crusade, Volkmar, Gottschalk, and Emich,348 could compare with Peter the
Hermit for eloquence and the spell he exercised upon the masses. He was held in
higher esteem than prelates and abbots.349 And Guibert of Nogent says that he could recall no one who was
held in like honor.350
In a few months large companies
were ready to march against the enemies of the cross.
A new era in European history
was begun.351 A new
passion had taken hold of its people. A new arena of conquest was opened for
the warlike feudal lord, a tempting field of adventure and release for knight
and debtor, an opportunity of freedom for serf and villein. All classes, lay
and clerical, saw in the expedition to the cradle of their faith a solace for
sin, a satisfaction of Christian fancy, a heaven appointed mission. The
struggle of states with the papacy was for the moment at an end. All Europe was
suddenly united in a common and holy cause, of which the supreme pontiff was
beyond dispute the appointed leader.
§ 50. The First Crusade and the Capture of Jerusalem.
"And what if my
feet may not tread where He stood,
Nor my ears hear the
dashing of Galilee’s flood,
Nor my eyes see the
cross which He bowed Him to bear,
Nor my knees press
Gethsemane’s garden of prayer,
Yet, Loved of the
Father, Thy Spirit is near
To the meek and the
lowly and penitent here;
And the voice of Thy
Love is the same even now,
As at Bethany’s tomb
or on Olivet’s brow."
Whittier.
The 15th of August, 1096, the
Feast of the Assumption, fixed by the Council of Clermont for the departure of
the Crusaders, was slow in coming. The excitement was too intense for the
people to wait. As early as March throngs of both sexes and all ages began to
gather in Lorraine and at Treves, and to demand of Peter the Hermit and other
leaders to lead them immediately to Jerusalem.352 It was a heterogeneous multitude of devout enthusiasts and idle
adventurers, without proper preparation of any kind. The priest forsook his cell,
the peasant left his plough and placed his wife and children on carts drawn by
oxen, and thus went forth to make the journey and to fight the Turk. At the
villages along the route the children cried out, "Is this Jerusalem, is
this Jerusalem?" William of
Malmesbury wrote (IV. 2), "The Welshman left his hunting, the Scot his
fellowship with lice, the Dane his drinking party, the Norwegian his raw fish.
Fields were deserted of their husbandmen; whole cities migrated .... God alone
was placed before their eyes."
The unwieldy bands, or swarms,
were held together loosely under enthusiastic but incompetent leaders. The
first swarm, comprising from twelve thousand to twenty thousand under Walter
the Penniless,353 marched safely through Hungary, but was cut to
pieces at the storming of Belgrade or destroyed in the Bulgarian forests. The
leader and a few stragglers were all that reached Constantinople.
The second swarm, comprising
more than forty thousand, was led by the Hermit himself. There were knights not
a few, and among the ecclesiastics were the archbishop of Salzburg and the
bishops of Chur and Strassburg. On their march through Hungary they were
protected by the Hungarian king; but when they reached the Bulgarian frontier,
they found one continuous track of blood and fire, robbery and massacre,
marking the route of their predecessors. Only a remnant of seven thousand
reached Constantinople, and they in the most pitiful condition, July, 1096.
Here they were well treated by the Emperor Alexius, who transported them across
the Bosphorus to Asia, where they were to await the arrival of the regular
army. But they preferred to rove, marauding and plundering, through the rich
provinces. Finally, a false rumor that the vanguard had captured Nicaea, the
capital of the Turks in Asia Minor, allured the main body into the plain of
Nicaea, where large numbers were surrounded and massacred by the Turkish
cavalry. Their bones were piled into a ghastly pyramid, the first monument of
the Crusade. Walter fell in the battle; Peter the Hermit had fled back to
Constantinople before the battle began, unable to control his followers. The
defeat of Nicaea no doubt largely destroyed Peter’s reputation.354
A third swarm, comprising
fifteen thousand, mostly Germans under the lead of the monk Gottschalk, was
massacred by the Hungarians.
Another band, under count Emich
of Leiningen, began its career, May, 1096, by massacring and robbing the Jews
in Mainz and other cities along the Rhine. Albert of Aachan,355 who describes these scenes, does
not sympathize with this lawlessness, but saw a divine judgment in its almost
complete annihilation in Hungary. This band was probably a part of the swarm,
estimated at the incredible number of two hundred thousand,356 led by banners bearing the
likeness of a goose and a goat, which were considered as bearers of the divine
Spirit.357 Three
thousand horsemen, headed by some noblemen, attended them, and shared the
spoils taken from the Jews.358 When they arrived at the Hungarian frontier they had to encounter
a regular army. A panic seized them, and a frightful carnage took place.
These preliminary expeditions of
the first Crusade may have cost three hundred thousand lives.
The regular army consisted,
according to the lowest statements, of more than three hundred thousand. It
proceeded through Europe in sections which met at Constantinople and Nicaea.
Godfrey, starting from lower Lorraine, had under him thirty thousand men on
foot and ten thousand horse. He proceeded along the Danube and by way of Sofia
and Philipoppolis, Hugh of Vermandois went by way of Rome, where he received
the golden banner, and then, taking ship from Bari to Durazzo, made a junction
with Godfrey in November, 1096, under the walls of Constantinople. Bohemund,
with a splendid following of one hundred thousand horse and thirty thousand on
foot,359 took the same route from Bari across the
Adriatic. Raymund of Toulouse, accompanied by his countess, Elvira, and the
papal legate, bishop Adhemar,360 traversed Northern Italy on his
way eastward. The last of the main armies to start was led by Robert, duke of
Normandy, and Stephen of Blois, who crossed the Alps, received the pope’s
blessing at Lucca, and, passing through Rome, transported their men across the
Adriatic from Bari and Brindisi.
Godfrey of Bouillon361 was accompanied by his brothers,
Baldwin and Eustace. Hugh, count of Vermandois, was a brother of Philip I. of
France. Robert of Normandy was the eldest son of William the Conqueror, and had
made provision for his expedition by pledging Normandy to his brother, William
Rufus, for ten thousand marks silver. Raymund, count of Toulouse, was a veteran
warrior, who had a hundred thousand horse and foot at his command, and enjoyed
a mingled reputation for wealth, wisdom, pride, and greed. Bohemund, prince of
Tarentum, was the son of Robert Guiscard. His cousin, Tancred, was the model
cavalier. Robert, count of Flanders, was surnamed, "the Sword and Lance of
the Christians." Stephen, count of Chartres, Troyes, and Blois, was the
owner of three hundred and sixty-five castles. These and many other noblemen
constituted the flower of the French, Norman, and Italian nobility.
The moral hero of the First
Crusade is Godfrey of Bouillon, a descendant of Charlemagne in the female line,
but he had no definite command. He had fought in the war of emperor Henry IV.
against the rebel king, Rudolf of Swabia, whom he slew in the battle of Mölsen,
1080. He had prodigious physical strength. With one blow of his sword he clove
asunder a horseman from head to saddle. He was as pious as he was brave, and
took the cross for the single purpose of rescuing Jerusalem from the hands of
the infidel. He used his prowess and bent his ancestral pride to the general
aim. Contemporary historians call him a holy monk in military armor and ducal
ornament. His purity and disinterestedness were acknowledged by his rivals.
Tancred, his intimate friend,
likewise engaged in the enterprise from pure motives. He is the poetic hero of
the First Crusade, and nearly approached the standard of "the parfite
gentil knyght" of Chaucer. He distinguished himself at Nicaea, Dorylaeum,
Antioch, and was one of the first to climb the walls of Jerusalem. He died in
Antioch, 1112. His deeds were celebrated by Raoul de Caen and Torquato Tasso.362
The emperor Alexius, who had so
urgently solicited the aid of Western Europe, became alarmed when he saw the
hosts arriving in his city. They threatened to bring famine into the land and
to disturb the order of his realm. He had wished to reap the benefit of the
Crusade, but now was alarmed lest he should be overwhelmed by it. His subtle
policy and precautions were felt as an insult by the Western chieftains. In
diplomacy he was more than their match. They expected fair dealing and they
were met by duplicity. He held Hugh of Vermandois in easy custody till he
promised him fealty. Even Godfrey and Tancred, the latter after delay, made the
same pledge. Godfrey declined to receive the emperor’s presents for fear of
receiving poison with his munificence.
The Crusaders had their
successes. Nicaea was taken June 19, 1097, and the Turks were routed a few
weeks later in a disastrous action at Dorylaeum in Phrygia, which turned into a
more disastrous flight. But a long year elapsed till they could master Antioch,
and still another year came to an end before Jerusalem yielded to their arms.
The success of the enterprise was retarded and its glory diminished by the
selfish jealousies and alienation of the leaders which culminated in
disgraceful conflicts at Antioch. The hardships and privations of the way were
terrible, almost beyond description. The Crusaders were forced to eat horse
flesh, camels, dogs, and mice, and even worse.363 The sufferings from thirst exceeded, if possible, the sufferings from
hunger. To these discouragements was added the manifest treachery of the Greek
emperor at the capture of Nicaea.364
During the siege of Antioch,
which had fallen to the Seljuks, 1084, the ranks were decimated by famine,
pestilence, and desertion, among the deserters being Stephen of Chartres and
his followers. Peter the Hermit and William of Carpentarius were among those
who attempted flight, but were caught in the act of fleeing and severely
reprimanded by Bohemund.365 Immediately after the first recapture of the city, through the
treachery of Phirouz, an Armenian, the Crusaders were themselves besieged by an
army of two hundred thousand under Kerboga of Mosul. Their languishing energies
were revived by the miraculous discovery of the holy lance, which pierced the
Saviour’s side. This famous instrument was hidden under the altar of St.
Peter’s church. The hiding place was revealed in a dream to Peter Barthelemy,
the chaplain of Raymund of Toulouse.366 The sacred weapon was carried in front of the ranks by Raymund of
Agiles, one of the historians of the Crusade, and it aroused great enthusiasm.
Kerboga withdrew and the city fell into the Crusaders’ hands, June 28, 1098.367 Bohemund appropriated it to himself as his prize. Baldwin, after
the fall of Nicaea, had done the same with Edessa, which became the easternmost
citadel of the Crusaders. Others followed the examples of these leaders and
went on independent expeditions of conquest. Of those who died at Antioch was
Adhemar.
The culmination of the First Crusade
was the fall of Jerusalem, July 15, 1099. It was not till the spring following
the capture of Antioch, that the leaders were able to compose their quarrels
and the main army was able again to begin the march. The route was along the
coast to Caesarea and thence southeastward to Ramleh. Jerusalem was reached
early in June. The army was then reduced to twenty thousand fighting men.368 In one of his frescos in the museum at Berlin, representing the
six chief epochs in human history, Kaulbach has depicted with great effect the
moment when the Crusaders first caught sight of the Holy City from the western
hills. For the religious imagination it was among the most picturesque moments
in history as it was indeed one of the most solemn in the history of the Middle
Ages. The later narratives may well have the essence of truth in them, which
represent the warriors falling upon their knees and kissing the sacred earth.
Laying aside their armor, in bare feet and amid tears, penitential prayers, and
chants, they approached the sacred precincts.369
A desperate but futile assault
was made on the fifth day. Boiling pitch and oil were used, with showers of
stones and other missiles, to keep the Crusaders at bay. The siege then took
the usual course in such cases. Ladders, scaling towers, and other engines of war
were constructed, but the wood had to be procured at a distance, from Shechem.
The trees around Jerusalem, cut down by Titus twelve centuries before, had
never been replaced. The city was invested on three sides by Raymund of
Toulouse, Godfrey, Tancred, Robert of Normandy, and other chiefs. The suffering
due to the summer heat and the lack of water was intense. The valley and the
hills were strewn with dead horses, whose putrefying carcasses made life in the
camp almost unbearable. In vain did the Crusaders with bare feet, the priests
at their head, march in procession around the walls, hoping to see them fall as
the walls of Jericho had fallen before Joshua.370 Help at last came with the arrival of a Genoese fleet in the
harbor of Joppa, which brought workmen and supplies of tools and food.
Friday, the day of the
crucifixion, was chosen for the final assault. A great tower surmounted by a
golden cross was dragged alongside of the walls and the drawbridge let down. At
a critical moment, as the later story went, a soldier of brilliant aspect371 was seen on the Mount of Olives,
and Godfrey, encouraging the besiegers, exclaimed: "It is St. George the
martyr. He has come to our help." According to most of the accounts,
Letold of Tournay372 was the
first to scale the walls. It was noticed that the moment of this crowning feat
was three o’clock, the hour of the Saviour’s death.
The scenes of carnage which
followed belong to the many dark pages of Jerusalem’s history and showed how,
in the quality of mercy, the crusading knight was far below the ideal of
Christian perfection. The streets were choked with the bodies of the slain. The
Jews were burnt with their synagogues. The greatest slaughter was in the temple
enclosure. With an exaggeration which can hardly be credited, but without a
twinge of regret or a syllable of excuse, it is related that the blood of the
massacred in the temple area reached to the very knees and bridles of the
horses.373 "Such a slaughter of the pagans had never been seen or heard
of. The number none but God knew."374
Penitential devotions followed
easily upon the gory butchery of the sword. Headed by Godfrey, clad in a suit
of white lined, the Crusaders proceeded to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and
offered up prayers and thanksgivings. William of Tyre relates that Adhemar and
others, who had fallen by the way, were seen showing the path to the holy
places. The devotions over, the work of massacre was renewed. Neither the tears
of women, nor the cries of children, nor the protests of Tancred, who for the
honor of chivalry was concerned to save three hundred, to whom he had promised
protection_none of these availed to soften the ferocity of the conquerors.
As if to enhance the spectacle
of pitiless barbarity, Saracen prisoners were forced to clear the streets of
the dead bodies and blood to save the city from pestilence. "They wept and
transported the dead bodies out of Jerusalem," is the heartless statement
of Robert the Monk.375
Such was the piety of the
Crusaders. The religion of the Middle Ages combined self-denying asceticism
with heartless cruelty to infidels, Jews, and heretics. "They cut down
with the sword," said William of Tyre, "every one whom they found in
Jerusalem, and spared no one. The victors were covered with blood from head to
foot." In the next breath, speaking of the devotion of the Crusaders, the
archbishop adds, "It was a most affecting sight which filled the heart
with holy joy to see the people tread the holy places in the fervor of an excellent
devotion." The Crusaders had won the tomb of the Saviour and gazed upon a
fragment of the true cross, which some of the inhabitants were fortunate enough
to have kept concealed during the siege.
Before returning to Europe,
Peter the Hermit received the homage of the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem,
who remembered his visit as a pilgrim and his services in their behalf. This
was the closing scene of his connection with the Crusades.376 Returning to Europe, he founded the monastery at Huy, in the
diocese Liège, and died, 1115. A statue was dedicated to his memory at Amiens,
June 29, 1854. He is represented in the garb of a monk, a rosary at his waist,
a cross in his right hand, preaching the First Crusade.
Urban II. died two weeks after
the fall of Jerusalem and before the tidings of the event had time to reach his
ears.
No more favorable moment could
have been chosen for the Crusade. The Seljukian power, which was at its height
in the eleventh century, was broken up into rival dynasties and factions by the
death of Molik Shah, 1092. The Crusaders entered as a wedge before the new era
of Moslem conquest and union opened.
Note on
the Relation of Peter the Hermit to the First Crusade.
The view of Peter the Hermit,
presented in this work, does not accord with the position taken by most of the
modern writers on the Crusades. It is based on the testimony of Albert of
Aachen and William of Tyre, historians of the First Crusade, and is, that Peter
visited Jerusalem as a pilgrim, conversed with the patriarch Simeon over the
desolations of the city, had a dream in the church of the Holy Sepulchre,
returned to Europe with letters from Simeon which he presented to the pope, and
then preached through Italy and beyond the Alps, and perhaps attended the
Council of Clermont, where, however, he took no prominent part.
The new view is that there
occurrences were fictions. It was first set forth by von Sybel in his work on
the First Crusade, in 1841. Sybel’s work, which marks an epoch in the treatment
of the Crusades, was suggested by the lectures of Ranke, 1837.377 Its author, after a careful comparison of the earliest accounts,
announced that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was the immediate
instigator of the First Crusade, and that not to him but to Urban II. alone
belongs the honor of having originated the movement. Peter did not make a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, meet Urban, or preach about the woes of the Holy City
prior to the assembling of the Synod of Clermont.
These views, with some
modification, have been advocated by Hagenmeyer in his careful and scholarly
work on Peter the Hermit and in other writings on the First Crusade.378 In our own country the same view has been set forth by eminent
scholars. Professor Oliver J. Thatcher, in an article on the Latin Sources
of the First Crusade,379 says, "The stories about Peter the Hermit,
his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his visions there, his journey to the pope at
Rome, his successful appeals to Urban to preach a crusade, and Peter’s commanding
position as one of the great preachers and leaders of the Crusade, all are
found to be without the least foundation in fact." Dr. Dana C. Munro has
recently declared that the belief that Peter was the instigator of the First
Crusade has long since been abandoned.380
It is proper that the reasons
should be given in brief which have led to the retention of the old view in
this volume. The author’s view agrees with the judgment expressed by Archer, Story
of the Crusades, p. 27, that the account of Albert of Aachen "is no
doubt true in the main."
Albert of Aachen wrote his
History of Jerusalem about 1120-1125,381 that is, while many of the
Crusaders were still alive who took part in the siege of Jerusalem, 1099.
William, archbishop of Tyre, was born probably in Jerusalem about 1130. He was
a man of learning, acquainted with Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic; well read
in the Bible, as his quotations show, and travelled in Europe. He is one of the
ablest of the mediaeval historians, and his work is the monumental history of
the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. He was by his residence thoroughly acquainted
with Palestine. It is not unworthy of mention that William’s History represents
the "office of the historian to be not to write what pleases him, but the
material which the time offers," bk. XXIII. From the sixteenth to the
twenty-third book he writes from personal observation. William stands between
the credulous enthusiasm of the first writers on the Crusades and the cold
scepticism of some modern historians.
The new view, setting aside
these two witnesses, bases its conclusion on the strictly contemporary
accounts. These are silent about any part Peter took in the movement leading to
the First Crusade prior to the Council of Clermont. They are: (1) the Gesta
Francorum, written by an unknown writer, who reached Jerusalem with the
Crusaders, wrote his account about 1099, and left the original, or a copy of
it, in Jerusalem. (2) Robert the Monk, who was in Jerusalem, saw a copy of the Gesta,
and copied from it. His work extends to 1099. He was present at the Council of
Clermont. (3) Raymund, canon of Agiles, who accompanied the Crusaders to
Jerusalem. (4) Fulcher of Chartres, who was present at Clermont, continued the
history to 1125, accompanied the Crusaders to Jerusalem, and had much to do
with the discovery of the holy lance. (5) The priest Tudebodus, who copied from
the Gesta before 1111 and added very little of importance. (6) Ekkehard
of Urach, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 1101. (7) Radulph of Caen, who in
1107 joined Tancred and related what he heard from him. (8) Guibert of Nogent,
who was present at Clermont and wrote about 1110. (9) Baldric of Dol, who was
at Clermont and copied from the Gesta in Jerusalem.
Another contemporary, Anna
Comnena, b. 1083, is an exception and reports the activity of Peter prior to
the Council of Clermont, and says he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but was
not permitted by the Turks to enter. He then hastened to Europe and preached
about the woes of the city in order to provide a way to visit it again.
Hagenmeyer is constrained by Anna’s testimony to concede that Peter actually
set forth on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but did not reach the city.
The silence of nine contemporary
writers is certainly very noticeable. They had the means of knowing the facts.
Why, then, do we accept the later statements of Albert of Aachen and William of
Tyre? These are the considerations.
1. The silence of contemporary
writers is not a final argument against events. Eusebius, the chief historian
of the ancient Church, utterly ignores the Catacombs. Silence, said Dr. Philip
Schaff, referring to the Crusades, "is certainly not conclusive,"
"Reformed Ch. Rev." 1893, p. 449. There is nothing in the earlier
accounts contradictory to Peter’s activity prior to the Clermont synod. One and
another of the writers omit important events of the First Crusade, but that is
not a sufficient reason for our setting those events aside as fictitious. The Gesta
has no account of Urban’s speech at Clermont or reference to it. Guibert
and Fulcher leave out in their reports of Urban’s speech all reference to the
appeal from Constantinople. Why does the Gesta pass over with the
slightest notice Peter’s breaking away from Germany on his march to
Constantinople? This author’s example
is followed by Baldric, Tudebod, Fulcher, and Raymund of Agiles. These writers
have not a word to say about Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emich. As Hagenmeyer
says, pp. 129, 157, no reason can be assigned for these silences, and yet the
fact of these expeditions and the calamities in Hungary are not doubted.
2. The accounts of Albert of
Aachen and of William of Tyre are simply told and not at all unreasonable in
their essential content. William definitely makes Peter the precursor of Urban.
He was, he said, "of essential service to our lord the pope, who
determined to follow him without delay across the mountains. He did him the
service of a forerunner and prepared the minds of men in advance so that he
might easily win them for himself." There is no indication in the
archbishop’s words of any purpose to disparage Urban’s part in preparing for
the Crusade. Urban followed after John the Baptist. William makes Urban the
centre of the assemblage at Clermont and gives to his address great space, many
times the space given to the experiences of Peter, and all honor is accorded to
the pope for the way in which he did his part, bk. I. 16.
3. Serious difficulties are
presented in the theory of the growth of the legend of Peter’s activity. They
are these: (1) Albert of Aachen lived close to the events, and at the most
twenty-five years elapsed between the capture of Jerusalem and his writing. (2)
There is nothing in Peter’s conduct during the progress of the Crusade to
justify the growth of an heroic legend around him. The very contrary was the
case. Moreover, neither Albert nor William know anything about Peter before his
pilgrimage. Hagenmeyer has put the case in the proper light when he says,
"Not a single authority suggests that Peter enjoyed any extraordinary
repute before his connection with the Crusade. On the contrary, every one that
mentions his name connects it with the Crusade," p. 120. (3) It is
difficult to understand how the disposition could arise on the part of any
narrator to transfer the credit of being the author of the Crusade from a pope
to a monk, especially such a monk as Peter turned out to be. In reference to
this consideration, Archer, p. 26, has well said, "There is little in the
legend of Peter the Hermit which may not very well be true, and the story, as
it stands, is more plausible than if we had to assume that tradition had
transferred the credit from a pope to a simple hermit." (4) We may very
well account for Anna Comnena’s story of Peter’s being turned back by the Turks
by her desire to parry the force of his conversation with the Greek patriarch
Simeon. It was her purpose to disparage the Crusade. Had she admitted the
message of Simeon through Peter to the pope, she would have conceded a strong
argument for the divine approval upon the movement. As for Anna, she makes
mistakes, confusing Peter once with Adhemar and once with Peter Barthelemy.
(5) All the accounts mention
Peter. He is altogether the most prominent man in stirring up interest in the
Crusade subsequent to the council. Hagenmeyer goes even so far as to account
for his success by the assumption that Peter made telling use of his abortive pilgrimage,
missglĂĽckte Pilgerfahrt. As already stated, Peter was listened to by
"in immense throngs;" no one in the memory of the abbot of Nogent had
enjoyed so much honor. "He was held in higher esteem than prelates and
abbots," says Robert the Monk. As if to counteract the impression upon the
reader, these writers emphasize that Peter’s influence was over the rude and
lawless masses, and, as Guibert says, that the bands which followed him were
the dregs of France. Now it is difficult to understand how a monk, before
unknown, who had never been in Jerusalem, and was not at the Council of
Clermont, could at once work into his imagination such vivid pictures of the
woe and wails of the Christians of the East as to attain a foremost
pre-eminence as a preacher of the Crusade.
(6) Good reasons can be given
for the omission of Peter’s conduct prior to the Council of Clermont by the
earliest writers. The Crusade was a holy and heroic movement. The writers were
interested in magnifying the part taken by the chivalry of Europe. Some of them
were with Peter in the camp, and they found him heady, fanatical,
impracticable, and worse. He probably was spurned by the counts and princes.
Many of the writers were chaplains of these chieftains, -Raymund, Baldwin,
Tancred, Bohemund. The lawlessness of Peter’s bands has been referred to. The
defeat at Nicaea robbed Peter of all glory and position he might otherwise have
had with the main army when it reached Asia.382 In Antioch he brought upon himself disgrace for attempting flight,
being caught in the act by Tancred and Bohemund. The Gesta gives a
detailed account of this treachery, and Guibert383 compares his flight to an angel
falling from heaven. It is probably with reference to it that Ekkehard says,
"Many call him hypocrite."384 Strange to say, Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre omit all
reference to his treacherous flight.385 It is not improbable that, after the experiences they had of the
Hermit in the camp, and the disregard and perhaps the contempt in which he was
held by the princes, after his inglorious campaign to Constantinople and
Nicaea, the early writers had not the heart to mention his services prior to
the council. Far better for the glory of the cause that those experiences
should pass into eternal forgetfulness.
Why should legend then come to
be attached to his memory? Why should
not Adhemar have been chosen for the honor which was put upon this unknown monk
who made so many mistakes and occupied so subordinate a position in the main
crusading army? Why stain the origin of
so glorious a movement by making Peter with his infirmities and ignoble birth
responsible for the inception of the Crusade?
It would seem as if the theory were more probable that the things which
led the great Crusaders to disparage, if not to ridicule, Peter induced the
earlier writers to ignore his meritorious activity prior to the Council of
Clermont. After the lapse of time, when the memory of his follies was not so
fresh, the real services of Peter were again recognized. For these reasons the
older portrait of Peter has been regarded as the true one in all its essential
features.
§ 51. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. 1099-1187.
Literature._G. T. De Thaumassière: Assises et
bons usages du royaume de JĂ©rusalem, etc., Paris, 1690, 1712; Assises de
JĂ©rusalem, in Recueil des Historiens des croisades, 2 vols., Paris,
1841-1843._Hody: Godefroy de
Bouillon et les rois Latins de Jérus., 2d ed., Paris, 1859._Röhricht: Regesta Regni
Hierosolymitani, Innsbruck, 1893; Gesch. des Königreichs Jerus.
1100-1291, Innsbruck, 1898._Lane-Poole:
Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerus., N. Y., 1898. The first
biography of Saladin in English, written largely from the standpoint of the
Arab historians._C. R. Conder: The
Latin Kingd. of Jerus., London, 1899._F.
KĂĽhn: Gesch. der ersten Patriarchen von Jerus., Leipzig, 1886._Funk: art. Jerusalem, Christl.
Königreich, in "Wetzer-Welte," VI. p. 1335 sqq.
Eight days after the capture of
the Holy City a permanent government was established, known as the Latin
kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey was elected king, but declined the title of
royalty, unwilling to wear a crown of gold where the Saviour had worn a crown
of thorns.386 He
adopted the title Baron and Defender of the Holy Sepulchre. The kingdom from
its birth was in need of help, and less than a year after the capture of the
city the patriarch Dagobert made an appeal to the "rich" German
nation for reënforcements.387 It had a
perturbed existence of less than a century, and in that time witnessed a
succession of nine sovereigns.
Godfrey extended his realm, but
survived the capture of Jerusalem only a year, dying July 18, 1100. He was
honored and lamented as the most disinterested and devout among the chieftains
of the First Crusade. His body was laid away in the church of the Holy
Sepulchre, where his reputed sword and spurs are still shown. On his tomb was
the inscription:, Here lies Godfrey of Bouillon, who conquered all this
territory for the Christian religion. May his soul be at rest with
Christ."388
With the Latin kingdom was
established the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem. The election of Arnulf,
chaplain to Robert of Normandy, was declared irregular, and Dagobert, or
Daimbert, archbishop of Pisa, was elected in his place Christmas Day, 1099.389 Latin sees were erected throughout the land and also a Latin
patriarchate of Antioch. Dagobert secured large concessions from Godfrey,
including the acknowledgment of his kingdom as a fief of the patriarch. After
the fall of Jerusalem, in 1187, the patriarchs lived in Acre.390
The constitution and judicial
procedure of the new realm were fixed by the Assizes of Jerusalem. These were
deposited under seal in the church of the Holy Sepulchre and are also called
the Letters of the Holy Sepulchre.391 They were afterwards lost, and our knowledge of their contents is
derived from the codes of Cyprus and the Latin kingdom of Constantinople, which
were founded upon the Jerusalem code.
These statutes reproduced the
feudal system of Europe. The conquered territory was distributed among the
barons, who held their possessions under the king of Jerusalem as overlord. The
four chief fiefs were Jaffa and Ascalon, Kerat, east of the Jordan, Galilee,
and Sidon. The counts of Tripoli and Edessa and the prince of Antioch were
independent of the kingdom of Jerusalem. A system of courts was provided, the
highest being presided over by the king. Trial by combat of arms was
recognized. A second court provided for justice among the burgesses. A third
gave it to the natives. Villeins or slaves were treated as property according
to the discretion of the master, but are also mentioned as being subject to the
courts of law. The slave and the falcon were estimated as equal in value. Two
slaves were held at the price of a horse and three slaves at the price of
twelve oxen. The man became of age at twenty-five, the woman at twelve. The
feudal system in Europe was a natural product. In Palestine it was an exotic.
The Christian occupation of
Palestine did not bring with it a reign of peace. The kingdom was torn by the
bitter intrigues of barons and ecclesiastics, while it was being constantly
threatened from without. The inner strife was the chief source of weakness. The
monks settled down in swarms over the country, and the Franciscans became the
guardians of the holy places. The illegitimate offspring of the Crusaders by
Moslem women, called pullani, were a degenerate race, marked by avarice,
faithlessness, and debauchery.392
Godfrey was succeeded by his
brother Baldwin, count of Edessa, who was crowned at Bethlehem. He was a man of
intelligence and the most vigorous of the kings of Jerusalem. He died of a
fever in Egypt, and his body was laid at the side of his brother’s in
Jerusalem.
During Baldwin’s reign,
1100-1118, the limits of the kingdom were greatly extended.393 Caesarea fell in 1101, St. Jean d’Acre, otherwise known as
Ptolemais, in 1104, and Berytus, or Beyrut, in 1110. Sidon capitulated to
Sigurd, son of the king of Norway, who had with him ten thousand Crusaders.
One-third of Asia Minor was reduced, a part of the territory reverting to the Greek
empire. Damascus never fell into European hands. With the progress of their
arms, the Crusaders reared strong castles from Petra to the far North as well
as on the eastern side of the Jordan. Their ruins attest the firm purpose of
their builders to make their occupation permanent. "We who were
Westerners," said Fulcher of Chartres, "are now Easterners. We have
forgotten our native land." It is proof of the attractiveness of the
cause, if not also of the country, that so many Crusaders sought to establish
themselves there permanently. Many who went to Europe returned a second time,
and kings spent protracted periods in the East.
During Baldwin’s reign most of
the leaders of the First Crusade died or returned to Europe. But the ranks were
being continually recruited by fresh expeditions. Pascal II., the successor of
Urban II., sent forth a call for recruits. The Italian cities furnished fleets,
and did important service in conjunction with the land forces. The Venetians,
Pisans, and Genoese established quarters of their own in Jerusalem, Acre, and
other cities. Thousands took the cross in Lombardy, France, and Germany, and
were led by Anselm, archbishop of Milan, Stephen, duke of Burgundy, William,
duke of Aquitaine, Ida of Austria, and others. Hugh of Vermandois, who had gone
to Europe, returned. Bohemund likewise returned with thirty-four thousand men,
and opposed the Greek emperor. At least two Christian armies attempted to
attack Islam in its stronghold at Bagdad.
Under Baldwin II., 1118-1131,
the nephew of Baldwin I., Tyre was taken, 1124. This event marks the apogee of
the Crusaders’ possessions and power.
In the reign of Fulke of Anjou,
1131-1143, the husband of Millicent, Baldwin II.’s daughter, Zengi, surnamed
Imaded-din, the Pillar of the Faith, threatened the very existence of the
Frankish kingdom.
Baldwin III., 1143-1162, came to
the throne in his youth.394 His reign
witnessed the fall of Edessa into Zengi’s hands, 1144, and the progress of the
Second Crusade, as also the rise of Zengi’s son, Nureddin, the uncle of
Saladin, who conquered Damascus, 1154.
Amalric, or Amaury, 1162-1173,
carried his arms and diplomacy into Egypt, and saw the fall of the Fatimite
dynasty which had been in power for two centuries. The power in the South now
became identified with the splendid and warlike abilities of Saladin, who, with
Nureddin, healed the divisions of the Mohammedans, and compacted their power
from Bagdad to Cairo. Henceforth the kingdom of Jerusalem stood on the
defensive. The schism between the Abassidae and the Fatimites had made the
conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 possible.
Baldwin IV., 1173-1184, a boy of
thirteen at his accession, was, like Uzziah, a leper. Among the regents who conducted
the affairs of the kingdom during his reign was the duke of Montferrat, who
married Sybilla, the king’s sister. In 1174 Saladin, by the death of Nureddin,
became caliph of the whole realm from Damascus to the Nile, and started on the path
of God, the conquest of Jerusalem.
Baldwin V., 1184-1186, a child
of five, and son of Sybilla, was succeeded by Guy of Lusignan, Sybilla’s second
husband. Saladin met Guy and the Crusaders at the village of Hattin, on the
hill above Tiberius, where tradition has placed the delivery of the Sermon on
the Mount. The Templars and Hospitallers were there in force, and the true
cross was carried by the bishop of Acre, clad in armor. On July 5, 1187, the
decisive battle was fought. The Crusaders were completely routed, and thirty
thousand are said to have perished. Guy of Lusignan, the masters of the Temple395 and the Hospital, and Reginald
of Châtillon, lord of Kerak, were taken prisoners by the enemy. Reginald was
struck to death in Saladin’s tent, but the king and the other captives were
treated with clemency.396 The true
cross was a part of the enemy’s booty. The fate of the Holy Land was decided.
On Oct. 2, 1187, Saladin entered
Jerusalem after it had made a brave resistance. The conditions of surrender
were most creditable to the chivalry of the great commander. There were no
scenes of savage butchery such as followed the entry of the Crusaders ninety
years before. The inhabitants were given their liberty for the payment of
money, and for forty days the procession of the departing continued. The relics
stored away in the church of the Holy Sepulchre were delivered up by the
conqueror for the sum of fifty thousand bezants, paid by Richard I.397
Thus ended the Latin kingdom of
Jerusalem. Since then the worship of Islam has continued on Mount Moriah
without interruption. The Christian conquests were in constant danger through
the interminable feuds of the Crusaders themselves, and, in spite of the
constant flow of recruits and treasure from Europe, they fell easily before the
unifying leadership of Saladin.
After 1187 a line of nominal
kings of Jerusalem presented a romantic picture in European affairs. The last
real king, Guy of Lusignan, was released, and resumed his kingly pretension
without a capital city. Conrad of Montferrat, who had married Isabella,
daughter of Amalric, was granted the right of succession. He was murdered
before reaching the throne, and Henry of Champagne became king of Jerusalem on
Guy’s accession to the crown of Cyprus. In 1197 the two crowns of Cyprus and
Jerusalem were united in Amalric II. At his death the crown passed to Mary,
daughter of Conrad of Montferrat. Mary’s husband was John of Brienne. At the marriage
of their daughter, Iolanthe, to the emperor Frederick II., that sovereign
assumed the title, King of Jerusalem.
§ 52. The Fall of Edessa and the Second Crusade.
Literature._Odo of Deuil (near Paris), chaplain of
Louis VII.: De profectione Ludovici VII. in Orientem 1147-1149 in Migne,
185, translated by Guizot: Collection,
XXIV. pp. 279-384._Otto of Freising,
d. 1158, half brother of Konrad III. and uncle of Fred. Barbarossa: Chronicon,
bk. VII., translated in Pertz-Wattenbach, Geschichtschreiber der Deutschen
Vorzeit, Leipzig, 1881. Otto accompanied the Crusade._Kugler: Gesch. des 2ten
Kreuzzuges, Stuttgart, 1866._The De consideratione and De
militibus Christi of Bernard and the Biographies of Bernard by Neander, ed. by Deutsch, II. 81-116; Morison,
Pp. 366-400; Storrs, p. 416 sqq.;
Vacandard, II. 270-318, 431 sqq. F. Marion Crawford has written a novel
on this Crusade: Via Crucis, a Story of the Second Crusade, N.
Y., 1899.
The Second Crusade was led by
two sovereigns, the emperor Konrad III. and Louis VII. of France, and owed its
origin to the profound impression made in Europe by the fall of Edessa and the
zealous eloquence of St. Bernard. Edessa, the outer citadel of the Crusader’s
conquests, fell, December, 1144. Jocelyn II., whose father, Jocelyn I.,
succeeded Baldwin as proprietor of Edessa, was a weak and pleasure-loving
prince. The besiegers built a fire in a breach in the wall, a piece of which, a
hundred yards long, cracked with the flames and fell. An appalling massacre
followed the inrush of the Turks, under Zengi, whom the Christians called the
Sanguinary.398
Eugenius III. rightly regarded
Zengi’s victory as a threat to the continuance of the Franks in Palestine, and
called upon the king of France to march to their relief. The forgiveness of all
sins and life eternal were promised to all embarking on the enterprise who
should die confessing their sins.399 The pope also summoned Bernard to leave his convent, and preach
the crusade. Bernard, the most conspicuous personage of his age, was in the
zenith of his fame. He regarded the summons as a call from God,400 and proved to be a leader worthy
of the cause.
At Easter tide, 1146, Louis, who
had before, in remorse for his burning the church at Vitry with thirteen
hundred persons, promised to go on a crusade, assembled a great council at
VĂ©zelai. Bernard was present and made such an overpowering impression by his
address that the bearers pressed forward to receive crosses. He himself was
obliged to out his robe to pieces to meet the demand.401 Writing to Eugenius, he was able to say that the enthusiasm was so
great that "castles and towns were emptied of their inmates. One man could
hardly be found for seven women, and the women were being everywhere widowed
while their husbands were still alive."
From France Bernard proceeded to
Basel and Constance and the cities along the Rhine, as far as Cologne. As in
the case of the First Crusade, a persecution was started against the Jews on
the Rhine by a monk, Radulph. Bernard firmly set himself against the fanaticism
and wrote that the Church should attempt to gain the Jews by discussion, and
not destroy them by the sword.
Thousands flocked to hear the
fervent preacher, who added miraculous healings to the impression of his
eloquence. The emperor Konrad himself was deeply moved and won. During
Christmas week at Spires, Bernard preached before him an impassionate
discourse. "What is there, O man," he represented Christ as saying,
seated in judgment upon the imperial hearer at the last day,_"What is
there which I ought to have done for thee and have not done?" He contrasted the physical prowess,402 the riches, and the honors of
the emperor with the favor of the supreme judge of human actions. Bursting into
tears, the emperor exclaimed: "I shall henceforth not be found ungrateful
to God’s mercy. I am ready to serve Him, seeing I am admonished by Him."
Of all his miracles Bernard esteemed the emperor’s decision the chief one.
Konrad at once prepared for the
expedition. Seventy thousand armed men, seven thousand of whom were knights,
assembled at Regensburg, and proceeded through Hungary to the Bosphorus,
meeting with a poor reception along the route. The Greek emperor Manuel and
Konrad were brothers-in-law, having married sisters, but this tie was no
protection to the Germans. Guides, provided by Manuel, "children of Belial"
as William of Tyre calls them, treacherously led them astray in the Cappadocian
mountains.403 Famine,
fever, and the attacks of the enemy were so disastrous that when the army fell
back upon Nicaea, not more than one-tenth of its original number remained.
Louis received the oriflamme
from Eugenius’s own hands at St. Denis, Easter, 1147, and followed the same
route taken by Konrad. His queen, Eleanor, famed for her beauty, and many
ladies of the court accompanied the army. The two sovereigns met at Nicaea and
proceeded together to Ephesus. Konrad returned to Constantinople by ship, and
Louis, after reaching Attalia, left the body of his army to proceed by land,
and sailed to Antioch.
At Antioch, Eleanor laid herself
open to the serious charge of levity, if not to infidelity to her marriage vow.
She and the king afterward publicly separated at Jerusalem, and later were
divorced by the pope. Eleanor was then joined to Henry of Anjou, and later
became the queen of Henry II. of England. Konrad, who reached Acre by ship from
Constantinople, met Louis at Jerusalem, and in company with Baldwin III. the
two sovereigns from the West offered their devotions in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.
At a council of the three held under the walls of Acre,404 they decided to direct their
arms against Damascus before proceeding to the more distant Edessa. The route
was by way of Lake Tiberias and over the Hermon. The siege ended in complete
failure, owing to the disgraceful quarrels between the camps and the leaders,
and the claim of Thierry, count of Flanders, who had been in the East twice
before, to the city as his own. Konrad started back for Germany, September,
1148. Louis, after spending the winter in Jerusalem, broke away the following
spring. Bernard felt the humiliation of the failure keenly, and apologized for
it by ascribing it to the judgment of God for the sins of the Crusaders and of
the Christian world. "The judgments of the Lord are just," he wrote,
"but this one is an abyss so deep that I dare to pronounce him blessed who
is not scandalized by it."405 As for the charge that he was responsible for the expedition,
Bernard exclaimed, "Was Moses to blame, in the wilderness, who promised to
lead the children of Israel to the Promised Land? Was it not rather the sins of the people which interrupted the
progress of their journey?"
Edessa remained lost to the
Crusaders, and Damascus never fell into their power.
§ 53. The Third Crusade. 1189-1192.
For Richard I.: Itinerarium
perigrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi, ed. by Stubbs, London, 1864, Rolls
Series, formerly ascribed to Geoffrey de Vinsauf, but, since Stubbs, to Richard
de Templo or left anonymous. Trans. in Chronicles of the Crusades,
Bohn’s Libr., 1870. The author accompanied the Crusade._De Hoveden, ed. by Stubbs, 4 vols., London, 1868-1871; Engl.
trans. by Riley, vol. II. pp. 63-270._Giraldus
Cambrensis: Itinerarium Cambriae, ed. by Brewer and Dimock,
London, 7 vols. 1861-1877, vol. VI., trans. by R. C. Hoare, London, 1806._Richard
De Devizes: Chronicon de rebus gestis Ricardi, etc., London,
1838, trans. in Bohn’s Chron. of the Crusades._Roger Wendover._De
Joinville: Crusade of St. Louis, trans. in Chron. of the Crus.
For full list of
authorities on Richard see art. Richard by Archer in Dict. of Vat. Biog. _ G. P. R. James: Hist. of the Life of
B. Coeur de Lion, new ed. 2 vols. London, 1854. _T. A. Archer: The Crusade of Richard I., being a
collation of Richard de Devizes, etc., London, 1868._Gruhn: Der Kreuzzug Richard I., Berlin, 1892.
For Frederick
Barbarossa: Ansbert, an
eye-witness: Hist. de expeditione Frid., 1187-1196, ed. by Jos.
Dobrowsky, Prague, 1827._For other sources, see Wattenbach: Deutsche Geschichtsquellen, II. 303 sqq.,
and Potthast: Bibl. Hist.,
II. 1014, 1045, etc._Karl Fischer:
Gesch. des Kreuzzugs Fried. I., Leipzig, 1870._H. Prutz: Kaiser Fried. I., 3 vols.
Dantzig, 1871-1873._Von Raumer: Gesch.
der Hohenstaufen, vol. II. 5th ed. Leipzig, 1878._Giesebrecht: Deutsche Kaiserzeit, vol. V.
For Saladin: Baha-ed-din, a member of Saladin’s
court, 1145-1234, the best Arabic Life, in the Recueil, Histt. Orientaux,
etc., III., 1884, and in Palestine, Pilgrim’s Text Soc., ed. by Sir C. W.
Wilson, London, 1897._Marin: Hist.
de Saladin, sulthan d’Égypte et de Syrie, Paris, 1758._Lane-Poole: Saladin and the Fall of
Jerusalem, New York, 1898, a full list and an estimate of Arab authorities
are given, pp. iii-xvi.
See also the general Histories
of the Crusades and Ranke: Weltgesch.,
VIII.
The Third Crusade was undertaken
to regain Jerusalem, which had been lost to Saladin, 1187. It enjoys the
distinction of having had for its leaders the three most powerful princess of
Western Europe, the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Philip Augustus, king of
France, and the English king Richard I., surnamed Coeur de Lion, or the
Lion-hearted.406 It
brought together the chivalry of the East and the West at the time of its
highest development and called forth the heroism of two of the bravest soldiers
of any age, Saladin and Richard. It has been more widely celebrated in romance
than any of the other Crusades, from the songs of the mediaeval minstrels to
Lessing in his Nathan the Wise and Walter Scott in Talisman. But
in spite of the splendid armaments, the expedition was almost a complete failure.
On the news of Saladin’s
victories, Urban III. is alleged to have died of grief.407 An official summons was hardly necessary to stir the crusading
ardor of Europe from one end to the other. Danes, Swedes, and Frisians joined
with Welshmen, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans in readiness for a new
expedition. A hundred years had elapsed since the First Crusade, and its leaders
were already invested with a halo of romance and glory. The aged Gregory VIII.,
whose reign lasted less than two months, 1187, spent his expiring breath in an
appeal to the princes to desist from their feuds. Under the influence of
William, archbishop of Tyre, and the archbishop of Rouen, Philip Augustus of
France and Henry II. of England laid aside their quarrels and took the cross.
At Henry’s death his son Richard, then thirty-two years of age, set about with
impassioned zeal to make preparations for the Crusade. The treasure which Henry
had left, Richard augmented by sums secured from the sale of castles and
bishoprics.408 For ten
thousand marks he released William of Scotland from homage, and he would have
sold London itself, so he said, if a purchaser rich enough had offered himself.409 Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, supported his sovereign,
preaching the Crusade in England and Wales, and accompanied the expedition.410 The famous Saladin tax was levied in England, and perhaps also in
France, requiring the payment of a tithe by all not joining the Crusade.
Richard and Philip met at
VĂ©zelai. Among the great lords who joined them were Hugh, duke of Burgundy,
Henry II., count of Champagne, and Philip of Flanders. As a badge for himself
and his men, the French king chose a red cross, Richard a white cross, and the
duke of Flanders a green cross.
In the meantime Frederick
Barbarossa, who was on the verge of seventy, had reached the Bosphorus. Mindful
of his experiences with Konrad III., whom he accompanied on the Second Crusade,
he avoided the mixed character of Konrad’s army by admitting to the ranks only
those who were physically strong and had at least three marks. The army
numbered one hundred thousand, of whom fifty thousand sat in the saddle.
Frederick of Swabia accompanied his father, the emperor.
Setting forth from Ratisbon in
May, 1189, the German army had proceeded by way of Hungary to Constantinople.
The Greek emperor, Isaac Angelus, far from regarding the Crusaders’ approach
with favor, threw Barbarossa’s commissioners into prison and made a treaty with
Saladin.411 He coolly
addressed the western emperor as "the first prince of Germany." The
opportunity was afforded Frederick of uniting the East and West once more under
a single sceptre. Wallachians and Servians promised him their support if he
would dethrone Isaac and take the crown. But though there was provocation
enough, Frederick refused to turn aside from his purpose, the reconquest of
Jerusalem,412 and in March, 1190, his troops were transferred
across the Bosphorus. He took Iconium, and reached Cilicia. There his career
was brought to a sudden termination on June 10 in the waters of the Kalycadnus
river into which he had plunged to cool himself.413 His flesh was buried at Antioch, and his bones, intended for the
crypts of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were deposited in the church of St.
Peter, Tyre. A lonely place, indeed, for the ashes of the mighty monarch, and
far removed from those of his great predecessor, Charlemagne at Aachen! Scarcely ever has a life so eminent had such
a tragic and deplored ending. In right imperial fashion, Frederick had sent
messengers ahead, calling upon Saladin to abandon Jer
