Peter in Jerusalem

When the main body of the First Crusade reached the Holy Land, Peter the Hermit joined them as a member of the council that made decisions. Peter had drummed up so much support for the Crusade that he was welcome, even though his "People's Crusade" (see the last few posts) had gone spectacularly off the rails.

In fact, Guibert of Nogent, a contemporary of the Crusade who wrote a chronicle of it, refers to Peter's status in 1098 as a "fallen star." His preaching continued, however. During the Siege of Antioch, for instance, Guibert gives Peter credit for making a stirring speech to the starving Crusaders that inspired them to leave the city and attack the larger Muslim force and achieve victory. (Part of that inspiration may have been from the discovery of the Holy Lance.)

The march to Jerusalem included besieging the town of Arqa, during which it is recorded that Peter was given responsibility as treasurer of alms.

Peter was present at Jerusalem when the Crusade captured the city, and spent some time there. According to The Alexiad, the account written by Anna Comnena of that time from the viewpoint of the reign of her father, Alexios I:

He saw many forbidden and wicked things occurring there… so he sought out the patriarch of the holy church of Jerusalem and asked why gentiles and evil men were able to pollute holy places and steal away offerings from the faithful, using the church as if a stable, beating up Christians, despoiling pilgrims through unjust fees, and inflicting on them many sufferings." The frustrated patriarch threw up his hands in exasperation: "Why do you reprimand me and disturb me in the midst of my fatherly cares? I have but the strength and power of a tiny ant when compared to those proud men. We have to redeem our lives here by regular tribute payments or else face death-dealing punishment."

Perhaps he was discouraged by what he saw in Jerusalem. In 1099 he went to Latakia (Laodicea) in Syria, and from there sailed west and home. On his way home, with Count Conon of Montaigou, a storm threatened their ship, but subsided when they prayed and promised to found a church if they survived. The two later founded Neufmoustier Abbey in Huy.

It seems he founded an Augustinian monastery in France, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The contemporary Albert of Aachen claims Peter died there in 1131 as its prior, but this must be a fabrication. In the records of Neufmoustier Abbey we find an entry for 8 July 1115:

...the death of Dom Pierre, of pious memory, venerable priest and hermit, who deserved to be appointed by the Lord to announce the first to the holy Cross.

We assume this is more accurate than Albert, especially since Albert had a tendency to presume things that suited him. And because Neufmoustier contains Peter's tomb (see illustration).

One item attributed to Peter that cannot be proven is that he invented the rosary, presumably as a guide for the illiterate in their prayers. Tomorrow we'll look at what history we know about the rosary.

The People's Crusade Continues

After the Rhineland Massacres, the People's Crusade continued from Cologne toward the Holy Land. Some took boats down the Danube. Some marched over land into and through Hungary, meeting up again at the Danube on the borders of the Byzantine Empire, at a town called Zemun.

A dispute over prices turned into a riot between the Crusaders and the townspeople, in which 4000 Hungarians were killed. The Crusaders crossed into Belgrade, pillaging and burning the city. Days later, at the town of Niš, its commander promised Peter the Hermit that he would provide food and an escort to Constantinople if the Crusaders would depart immediately.

This was agreed to, and all would have been well if some Germans in the group had not started a fight with some locals and set fire to a mill. The garrison of Niš came out and attacked the Crusaders, supposedly killing about 25% of the 40,000-person contingent. (The illustration shows the fighting at Niš.)

They regrouped and arrived on 12 July at Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, where a Byzantine escort met them and led them without further incident to Constantinople on 1 August.

Emperor Alexios I, whose initial request for aid from the West motivated the Crusade, now had 30,000 extra people on his hands. He may have had news of their prior behavior. He ferried them immediately across the Bosphorus, but warning Peter not to engage the Turks until the main (and better armed) army showed up.

The group was eager to push on to the Holy Land, however, and harassed towns along the way, finally reaching the suburbs of Nicaea. A 6,000-strong contingent of Germans marched on the castle of Xerigordos and occupied it. (Xerigordos' exact location is not known. Guibert of Nogent said it was four days' journey from Nicaea.)

They were now firmly in Seljuk Turk territory, and one of the generals of Kilij Arslan laid siege to Xerigordos. The water supply was insufficient, and there are reports that the Crusaders drank their own urine and the blood of donkeys to survive. The Turks prevailed, and the occupiers of Xerigordos were forced to either convert to Islam or be killed.

I wish I could say that this was the worst of their problems, and the rest of the People's Crusade went smoothly. Unfortunately, there was more to come. See you next time.

Peter the Hermit

After the announcement of the First Crusade, a French Roman Catholic priest from Amiens named Pierre took it upon himself to preach the Crusade around the countryside. He chose to go about in a long coarse robe, forsaking shoes and hat. Riding a donkey, he preached all over Italy. Outside Italy, he preached around Huy in Lower Lotharingia. In fact, tradition in Huy says he was there when the word came (not at Clermont for the announcement, as some historians reported), and immediately started preaching to anyone who would listen of the need to join up.

His mother's name was Alide Montaigu, so he may have been related—albeit distantly—to the Counts of Montaigou. He certainly traveled with Count Conon on the Crusade itself, as seen in yesterday's post.

He tried to get to Jerusalem on his own, not waiting for the Crusading army called by Pope Urban II. He persuaded thousands of lower-class folk to follow him to the Holy Land. The result was thousands of  unskilled men and women with little means to pay their way across Europe (and some knights as well). This "pre-Crusade" is known as the People's Crusade, as I explained 13 years ago.

Why did many thousands of poorer people join? Millenarianism, the belief that the Year 1000 could bring the Apocalypse, may have been a concern for people who wanted to expiate their sins with a grand gesture. There had been a recent outbreak of ergot poisoning that seemed like an end-time sign. Sights in the sky recently—a meteor shower, a lunar eclipse, the Aurora Borealis, a comet—also created fear.

Peter claimed a divine mandate from Christ to preach the Crusade, and even claimed he had a letter to prove it. He had everyone to whom he preached agree to meet at Cologne in Germany, which they did on 12 April 1096, Holy Saturday.

Their religious fervor became indiscriminate in their choice of enemy, finding people to kill before they ever left Germany. Tomorrow we'll learn about the shameful Rhineland Massacres.

Count of Montaigou

When Huy became the first municipality north of the Alps to be granted city rights, its right to some self-governance meant Conon, Count of Montaigou, lost some of his rights over it.

Conon was connected to Huy from an early age. His parents were Gozelon of Montaigou and Ermengarde de Grandpré. Ermengarde's father was Count of Clermont, and after his death that title passed through Ermengarde to her son. Count Gozelon died in 1064, succeeded by his eldest, Conon, a couple years before Huy's city rights charter. Conon up to that time was a knight who had only appeared as witness to a few royal charters.

Records are scarce for that part of Lotharingia, but a 1 January 1071 document confirms that he was then known as Count Conon, whose liege lords were Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and the Duke of Lower Lotharingia, Godfrey IV "The Hunchback." (Godfrey has appeared a few times in this blog, as godfather to Godfrey of Bouillon and as former husband of the widowed Matilda of Tuscany.)

Conon and his wife, Ida, had four sons: Gozelon, Lambert, Henry, and Theobald. Theobald died young. Henry became an archdeacon and provost. Lambert became count of Montaigou and Clermont after his father's death. Gozelon's fate? You'll see shortly.

Conon was one of the nobles who agreed to the Treuga Dei, the Truce of God. Conon loved justice. When Bishop Otbert of Liège tried to depose Abbot Theodoric II of the monastery of Saint Hubert, Conon supported Theodoric.

When the First Crusade came along, Conon went along with his two eldest sons under Godfrey of Bouillon's banner. Among the first to arrive at Constantinople, Conon was one of the men negotiating with the representative of Emperor Alexios I. Gozelon died before reaching Jerusalem, but Conon and Lambert fought in Jerusalem and lived.

While Conon was returning home (a legend says) with Peter the Hermit and some men of Huy, a storm endangered their ship. They prayed that they would build a church if they survived, at which the storm immediately subsided. Conon and Peter founded the Augustinian canonry of Neufmoustier in Huy, where (according to tradition), Peter lived until his death in 1115 and was buried there. It was said that if you could not make it to Jerusalem after vowing to go, a pilgrimage to the abbey was sufficient to fulfill the vow. (Some of the ruins are shown above.)

Conon himself died on 1 May 1106, succeeded by Lambert, who lived at least until 1140.

Peter the Hermit, although he has cropped up in a few blog posts over the years, has never been fully discussed. Let's resolve that next time.

Medieval Forgeries, Part 3

In Parts One and Two we get the feeling that forgeries were quite common, and used to "alter history" to the benefit of an institution. One of the most famous was the Donation of Constantine, first mentioned here. It was a document from the Emperor Constantine giving the popes authority over the Western Roman Empire, until a scholar named Lorenzo Valla looked more closely and realized it was written not in 4th-century Latin but in 8th-century informal Latin. The Donation of Constantine did not work to give the popes more power.

A supposed forgery that did have a strong impact was The Ordinance of Normandy. After the Battle of Caen in 1346 (part of the Hundred Years War), the victorious English supposedly found a document that was supposedly written by Philip VI in 1338 (the year the Hundred Years War is considered to have begun).

In it, the plan for Philip and his son (later King John II) to conquer England and destroy it completely is explained. They would give all its land to French lords. This was read out in public at St. Paul's Cathedral for maximum effect and then taken to Parliament. The outrage it created among the English population helped fuel support for Edward's military plans. In our modern times, calls would be made to French officials to deny or repudiate the contents of such a document, but in 1346, it was taken at its word.

There is no evidence that this was an official French policy or plan. No originals exist in French royal records. It was a useful tool of propaganda for the English, uniting the country against its enemy across the Channel.

There was a similar document connected to the crusades. Many copies exist of a popular letter written supposedly by Emperor Alexios I Comnenos to Count Robert I of Flanders, asking for help from Western Europe against the Turks. It describes all manner of horrible acts by the Turks. There is no indication that those acts took place, or that it was composed and sent prior to Urban's calling of the First Crusade, and is most likely to have been written afterward to help keep "Crusade Fever" going.

There will be a few more examples of medieval forgeries tomorrow, then we'll move on to a related topic.

The Tower of David

Yesterday's post mentioned that the first queen of Jerusalem, Melisende, was besieged in the Tower of David by her son, Baldwin III, who objected to the kingdom being divided between them and wanted the whole place to himself.

The original tower—a palace complex, actually—was begun in the 2nd century BCE by the Hasmonean dynasty. King Herod in 37-34BCE expanded it greatly with three large towers, which he named Phasael, Mariamne, and Hippicus (respectively after his deceased brother, his executed wife, and a friend). Josephus wrote that the place was so lavish and grand that “[It] exceeds all my ability to describe it.”

As the largest administrative complex in Jerusalem, it was desirable and useful property. After Herod's death in 6CE, the Romans chose it for their procurators. Pontius Pilate would have lived and worked there. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70CE, the towers were left standing and the place was used to house Roman soldiers.

In the 4th century CE, when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, the complex became home to a community of monks. At this time it was not named after David. That was an error that came later.

Byzantine Christians in the 5th century, who believed it was the site of King David's palace, named one of the towers the Tower of David, based on a reference in Solomon's Song of Songs: "Thy neck is like the tower of David built for an armory."

After the Siege of Jerusalem, Muslim rulers took over the citadel in 637. They fortified it sufficiently that it held up to the assault by the First Crusade. It was handed over to the Crusaders, however, once the Muslims inside were granted safe passage. Only a generation after Melisende took refuge there, Saladin recaptured the city of Jerusalem and the citadel in 1187.

The Tower of David was destroyed several times in the roughly 2000 years since a structure was first established on the site. It is now a museum, and its present form is due to the rebuilding by a Mamluk sultan, Al-Nasir Muhammad. Like the destruction and rebuilding of the Tower of David, Al-Nasir also had his ups and downs, becoming Sultan of Egypt, then losing the position, only to regain it, and lose it again, then to regain it, ... but I guess we can wait until next time to see how that happened.

Edgar Ætheling, Part 3

Edgar Ætheling had been through many ups and downs. For the trouble he had caused for William II of Normandy as an "alternate choice" for king of England, he might have been executed, but he was allowed to live, given his freedom, and also given some estates.

When William died in 1087, Edgar threw his support to William's eldest son, Robert Curthose, to whom William had left the dukedom of Normandy. The second son, William Rufus, succeeded as King of England. Robert felt he should have England, and tried to overthrow William in a conflict that was not resolved until 1091.

Part of the resolution was that Edgar be stripped of lands given to him in Normandy. Edgar fell back on an old habit: going to stay with King Malcolm III in Scotland (now Edgar's brother-in-law), who also happened to be preparing war with William Rufus. Significantly, when the two armies met, they did not fight. They decided to talk things over, and whom did the kings pick to conduct negotiations? Malcolm sent Edgar, William sent Robert. Since Edgar had been one of Robert's chief advisors, the two would be able to talk amicably.

One result of the negotiation was a reconciliation between Edward and William, that made it safe for Edgar to return to England. The peace between the two countries began to break down, however, and eventually he left England for Normandy with Robert. In 1093 Edgar was back in Scotland to speak to Malcolm at William's request: the peace treaty wasn't working, and war was unavoidable. That war killed Malcolm and his heir, Edward, Edgar's nephew. (Edward was not his eldest; that was Duncan, who was kept at William's court.) Another army against Scotland had Edgar at its head in 1097 and helped to establish another son of Malcolm, Edgar, on the Scottish throne.

Orderic Vitalis wrote that Edgar Ætheling was the leader of an English fleet in support of the First Crusade. Orderic must be wrong, since the English supporting fleet reached Syria in March 1098, and Edgar was known to be in Scotland in late 1097. There was no time between the two events for him to reach Syria. William of Malmesbury said that Edgar made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and Orderic may just be confused about the reason and timing for Edgar's trip.

After Jerusalem, William Rufus died when Robert Curthose was too far away to claim the throne, which was grabbed by their younger brother, who became King Henry I. Naturally, Robert went to war over this, and naturally, Edgar joined him. Naturally, they failed again; Robert was imprisoned for the rest of his life, and Edgar was let go, since by this time Henry had married a daughter of Malcolm and Edgar's sister, making Edgar his uncle by marriage.

William of Malmesbury wrote that, in 1125, Edgar was still alive and growing old in privacy and quiet. A tumultuous life came to a peaceful end, but we do not know where or when.

Next I want to turn to Malcolm III "Canmore" who was a significant player in these events.

The Mugging of Bishop Adhemar

Besides sharing the story of Peter Bartholomew and his finding of the Holy Lance and his subsequent Trial by Ordeal, Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem ("History of the Franks who captured Jerusalem") offers so much more. He was attached to the retinue of Bishop of Le Puy, Adhemar, who was named papal legate and responsible for the spiritual guidance of the First Crusade. Adhemar (and Raymond) followed the army of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse.

Many Crusaders chose to head to the Holy Land by water, potentially a faster route, but prone to the changeability of the weather and severe storms. Many ships of Crusaders were lost at sea. Traveling over land had its own dangers. One was finding supplies, another was meeting up with hostile folk.

A third was meeting up with folk made hostile because you were an army that was commandeering supplies from them. The "People's Crusade," an enthusiastic and less-organized group led by Peter the Hermit—that started out early without waiting for the nobles and their armies to make better plans—alienated many of the people whose countries had to be crossed: they thought their cause would mean being welcomed and provisioned by any and all.

Count Raymond and Bishop Adhemar took the land route and had to deal with populations who were therefore understandably wary of these large Western European armies marching through their homeland. Fortunately, compared to the People's Crusade, Count Raymond's army was better able to handle opposition. That did not mean complete freedom from hostile actions, however. As Raymond records:

On a certain day, moreover, when we were in the valley of Pelagonia, the Bishop of Puy, who, in order to find a comfortable resting place, had withdrawn a little distance from the camp, was captured by the Patzinaks. They knocked him down from his mule, robbed him, and beat him severely on the head. But since so great a pontiff was still necessary to the people of God, through God’s mercy he was saved to life. For one of the Patzinaks, in order to obtain gold from him, protected him from the others. Meanwhile, the noise was heard in the camp; and so, between the delay of the enemy and the attack of his friends, he was rescued.

Adhemar survived, and reached Constantinople where Alexios I was emperor. Alexios was also very concerned about the large groups marching through his lands, even though his request to Pope Urban II for help with the Turks had been the catalyst for the Crusade. Adhemar went on to Nicaea and Antioch, where he died on 1 August 1098, never living to see Jerusalem conquered by the Europeans.

Who were the Patzinaks that attacked him? We more commonly call them the Pechenegs, and they were a thorn in the side of the Byzantine Empire in which they lived. I'll tell you who they were next time.

The Holy Lance, Part Three

So Peter Bartholomew was about to undergo Trial by Ordeal to verify whether he was being honest about his visions and  discovering the Holy Lance. Two fires had been lit, each 13 feet long and four feet high with a single foot of space between them. Peter, carrying the "lance" and wearing only a light tunic, would walk between them. If he and the lance were unharmed, then it could truly be believed that his visions were real and this was the spear that had pierced the side of Jesus while on the Cross. It was 8 April 1099, Good Friday.

Raymond of Aguilers, from whom we have the details of this entire incident regarding Peter Bartholomew, was the "master of ceremonies." He announced the purpose of the test to the crowd, that Peter and the lance would be consumed if Peter were lying. To this the crowd responded "Amen."

When the flames were 40 feet high, Peter bowed before Bishop Peter of Narbonne and again swore that his visions were true. The bishop handed him the lance, and Peter walked through the flames, although at one point inside he stopped briefly.

(The illustration here is by Gustave Doré, showing he moment when Peter approaches the waiting crowd and a bishop—probably Peter of Narbonne—with the fire behind him.)

Once through, he shouted Deus adjuva! "God help (me)." The crowd was amazed and elated, and rushed toward him. Some rushed to grab sticks from the fire as souvenirs of the miracle. He was surrounded by a mass of supporters.

He was dead by 20 April.

What happened? According to Raymond of Aguilers, the burns were minimal. He was, however, physically wounded in the crowd that surrounded him after the ordeal. Was it accidental? Crushed in the throng? Raymond says his spine was shattered; also, that his legs were cut three or four times. The theory is that, even though the trial was doable—the pause inside the flames, Peter says, was because Christ spoke to him—he had detractors among the nobles because of the way he tried to trade on his popularity and criticize the Crusade's leaders and take over the spiritual leadership. These detractors had their agents in the crowd, with the intent to make sure he did not survive the day, even if he survived the ordeal. Maybe God was on his side, but he had made human enemies that were determined to eliminate him. In the crowd that rushed to him after he came through the fire there were men with knives who cut him.

We have this story in far more detail than I have shared here thanks to Raymond of Aguilers, who wrote a history of this part of the Crusade. I want to talk more about his role as a historian and participant, next time.

The Holy Lance, Part Two

After the "finding" of the Holy Lance, the Crusaders in Antioch felt emboldened to break the siege around the city by Kerbogha, the atabeg of Mosul.

Peter the Hermit was sent to Kerbogha to suggest settling the conflict with a duel, but Kerbogha declined. A different Peter, Peter Bartholomew, whose "visions" led to the "buried" "Lance," joined the fight against the Muslims. Unknown to the Crusaders, Kerbogha's army had some internal conflicts and was not as powerful as it appeared. His superiors decided to teach the arrogant Kerbogha a lesson by not sending reinforcements. Kerbogha was forced to retreat to Mosul.

Inside Antioch afterward, the issue of the Holy Lance was re-examined, even though some attributed their military victory to its presence. Peter Bartholomew's vision of the Lance suggested it was buried just below the surface, but teams of men dug far down without success, until Peter went alone into the hole and "found" the lance point sticking up from the ground. Even though Peter's vision predicted a win against the Muslims, there were those who questioned Peter's truthfulness. One was papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, who may have already been aware that a piece of the Lance was said to be in Constantinople. 

Then, Adhemar died from plague on 1 August 1098, and Peter put himself forward as the spiritual leader on the Crusade. Peter actually claimed that Adhemar appeared to him in a vision and said he had suffered in Hell for three days because he had doubted the discovery of the Lance.

Peter claimed that Christ told him the Crusaders must march barefoot to Jerusalem, and other visions from Jesus and St. Andrew expressed anger at the sins of the Crusaders. When his further visions were ignored, and the veracity of the Lance was questioned, Peter volunteered to submit to a Trial by Ordeal to prove his innocence.

As a result, he went through trial by fire on 8 April 1099, which was Good Friday*. Peter would walk through a fire. Two piles of dry olive branches were made, four feet high and 13 feet long, with a one-foot space between them for Peter to walk through. Peter came to the trial wearing a simple tunic and prepared to walk through, carrying the Lance. If both appeared unharmed after the ordeal, he would be vindicated.

..and I will leave you there until tomorrow.

*Coincidentally this post has been made on Good Friday in 2024.

The Holy Lance, Part One

One of the "side-effects" of the Crusades was allowing Western Europeans to look for artifacts connected to the Bible and the life of Jesus. One member of the First Crusade claimed to have found one of those artifacts.

Peter Bartholomew was a French peasant from Provençe who, while on Crusade, began having visions. He functioned as a soldier after the capture of Antioch on 10 June 1098 when reinforcements came from Muslims, and in the ensuing siege of the city, suffered from famine like the rest of the Christian occupiers. In this weakened state, he had visions of St. Andrew, which he shared with the Crusade's leaders.

In the visions, St. Andrew took him to the Church of St. Peter inside Antioch and showed him the resting place of the Holy Lance. This was the spear of the Roman soldier called Longinus who used it to pierce the side of Jesus while on the Cross. (The True Cross was another relic that was found in the east.) The leaders were skeptical, and Peter warned them that their disbelief would cost them three days in hell's fires. As Peter's news spread to the rest of the army, excitement grew, and the boost in morale was seen as a good thing, so Peter's story wasn't challenged. The visions also singled Raymond of Toulouse out for a special role in the Crusade. (Although Raymond would make a more humble decision later.)

Raymond and 12 select men went to the place where the Lance was supposedly buried and began digging. After a day of digging, they found nothing. Peter's vision claimed that he had seen St. Andrew place the lance in the ground; it should have been closer to the surface, but a day's worth of digging found nothing. Another twelve were chosen to continue digging, but they found nothing.

Peter was then dropped into the hole to see for himself. He urged everyone above to pray, and while they were praying and no one could see him clearly, Peter shouted the discovery of the Lance, its point sticking up from the earth.

This was fortuitous, but also questionable. As with the visions themselves initially, the sudden discovery by Peter alone was hard to believe and yet a source of great joy and morale for the troops. A letter was even sent to Pope Urban II from Bohemund of Taranto mentioning the Lance and that its presence emboldened the troops.

This morale boost was important, because Antioch was surrounded by the forces of Kerbogha, the atabeg of Mosul. The next step for the Crusaders (and a test for the importance of the finding of the Lance), came next. I'll tell you about it tomorrow. And we are not done with Peter Bartholomew.

Adela of Normandy

Recent posts have mentioned three of William of Normandy's sons who had claims (some of them realized) to the throne of England. The Conqueror had several children with his wife, Matilda of Flanders. One of his daughters was known as Adela of Normandy, named for her maternal grandfather.

She has been called Henry I's favorite sister. She was born c.1067, a year before Henry, and so was close to him growing up, receiving a similar education. She was probably educated at the Abbey of Sainte-Trinité, a Benedictine nunnery in Caen founded by her father. (Her mother would be buried there after her death in 1083.) Although she would not be in a position to inherit anything from her father, her parentage made her a valuable political asset as a bride.

About her 15th birthday, therefore, she was married at Chartres Cathedral to the son and heir to Count Theobald III of Blois, Stephen-Henry. Stephen-Henry was well into his 30s at the time. The marriage linked two powerful families of northern France. They had several children, a few of whom (William, Theobald, and Philip) are seen in the above illustration with their mother.

Stephen became Count of Blois at his father's death in 1089. When the First Crusade was announced, Stephen became one of tis leaders, using money from Adela. He was present at the Siege of Nicaea, writing letters to Adela about the events. His later actions were less than noble, a fact that disturbed his wife deeply and caused her to mock him.

Adela was regent whenever he was away, showing his trust in her and her administrative ability. She made grants to build new churches, and worked with St. Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, concerning misbehavior of nuns. She made sure her children were educated, since they were likely to have illustrious political careers—except, of course, for the ones she wanted to see enter Holy Orders, like her youngest, Henry, whom she dedicated to a religious life.

She became ill in 1105, and was visited by Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently exiled to the continent because of disputes with Adela's brother, Henry. In their conversations, Anselm made clear that excommunication of Henry was a possible next step to force Henry to comply with Anselm's demands for church autonomy. It is believed that she had a large part in convincing Henry to work with Anselm instead of against him.

She retired in 1120 to a prestigious convent at Marcigny near Cluny Abbey, where her son Henry was living. She died in 1137. Her financial support of churches and her devotion caused her to be named a saint.

Her persuasion of her brother to work with Anselm was a continuation of her support for the Church. Let us return to Anselm's story tomorrow.

The Siege of Nicaea

When the First Crusade was on their way to free the Holy land from the "infidel," they passed through Constantinople and asked for help from Emperor Alexios I. They left Constantinople in stages, starting in April 1097. Their first target was the city of Nicaea (now İznik), held by Seljuk Turks on the shore of Lake Ascania in Turkey.

Godfrey of Bouillon arrived first on 6 May, followed by other parts of the army including Raymond IV of Toulouse, Tancred, and Peter the Hermit with the remains of the People's Crusade.

The ruler of Nicaea, Sultan Kilij Arslan, was away, but rushed back when he got word the siege, but he was unsuccessful in breaking through the Crusaders. Nicaea had to make a decision.

Alexios had not joined the Crusading army for the siege, but stationed his forces at a nearby town. He had boats transported over land to the Crusaders to aid in a blockade on Lake Ascania, to prevent the Turks from getting food. The boats were sent with general Manuel Boutoumites. Following them was general Tatikios with 2000 foot soldiers. This was not simple support of the siege, however. Alexios instructed Tatikios to join the assault on the walls while Boutoumites from the lake side of the city secretly negotiated with Nicaea to surrender, making it appear that the Byzantines had captured Nicaea themselves and could dictate what happened in the aftermath. Here's how they pulled it off.

Boutoumites sent messages to the city rulers, offering them amnesty for surrender but promising destruction if they did not. Boutoumites was even allowed into the city (all out of sight from the land-side Crusaders). When Nicaea learned that Kilij Arslan was on his way, they forced Boutoumites out, but with the failure of Arslan's attack, they re-considered the Greek's offer. On the morning of 19 June, when the Crusading army prepared a large assault, the Byzantines on the lake-side were allowed into Nicaea; they raised their standard above the city walls, showing that they—not the Western Europeans—had control of the city.

Nicaea surrendered peacefully to Boutoumites, who as its new leader protected the city by forbidding plundering. Groups of Crusaders were allowed in of no more than 10 at a time. Arslan's family were sent to Constantinople, but were released with ransom once the Crusaders had moved on from Nicaea. Alexios did supply the Crusade with money and horses, but the wealth they might have had by ransacking Nicaea was denied them.

Part of Boutoumites' negotiation included showing Nicaea the chrysobull, which I suppose needs some explanation. I'll be happy to do that...tomorrow.

John Axouch, from War Prize to Commander

In June of 1097, the First Crusade captured Nicaea, at that time under the control of the Seljuk Turks. An attempt at defense by Kilij Arslan failed, after which Nicaea surrendered rather than allow the Crusaders to break the walls. (There is much more to that surrender that needs addressing soon.)

As in many such cases, captives from noble families were taken in order to guarantee good behavior on the part of the conquered. One of these was John Axouch, given to Emperor Alexios I as a present. Alexios took him to Constantinople where Axouch became a companion to Alexios' son John Comnenos (shown above; there are no available representations of John Axouch).

The two were constant companions and close friends. When Alexios died and his son became Emperor John II Comnenos, he appointed his close friend megas domestikos, essentially commander-in-chief of the army. Axouch was also given the court title of sebastos, equivalent to the Roman augustus, meaning "venerable one." Members of the imperial family were required to treat him with the greatest respect.

This generated hostility among the royal family, which Axouch wisely tried to ameliorate. When a plot against John by his sister Anna was foiled, John wanted to give Axouch all her properties, but Axouch refused, knowing how much the action would increase the enmity felt towards him by the royals. He also (we are told) persuaded John to reconcile with his sister and let her keep her property.

John liked to be personally involved in military campaigns, and the two worked well together. For example, Axouch would be sent ahead to begin a siege, and John would follow up with more of the army to swiftly conclude the taking of a city.

John died after being wounded while hunting on a campaign in Cilicia. Axouch quickly traveled back to Constantinople in order to reach it before news of the death did. The urgency was to ensure that John's younger son Manuel succeeded him, rather than the older Isaac. This may have had something to do with Isaac's reputation for being irascible, or perhaps in order to fulfill a prophecy. Some historians of the time claim that Axouch was close to Isaac, and tried to persuade John that the elder son was a better candidate. They also say Manuel was suspicious of the friendship between Axouch and Isaac.

Whatever the case, the truth is that Manuel became emperor and confirmed Axouch in his position as megas domestikos. There were troubles ahead, however, which I will tell you about tomorrow.

The Alexiad

Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062 - 1137) was a Byzantine noble. As a general, he defended Constantinople when the army of Godfrey of Bouillon attacked in 1097 during the First Crusade. He was also the second husband of Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos.

Anna's mother Irene Doukaina suggested he write a political history of the quarter century leading up to the coronation of his father-in-law, Alexios. It would largely be a "family history" of the Comnenos clan, and he gathered information for his "Material for a History." He drew on writings of contemporary historians such as Michael Psellos, John Skylitzes and Michael Attaleiates, covering many topics of which he would have no personal experience

Before the work was finished, Nikephoros died after becoming ill while on a military campaign in Syria. His widow, Anna, took the notes and turned them into The Alexiad, with a large focus on exalting her father:

I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpractised in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, ...

However, to resume—I intend in this writing of mine to recount the deeds done by my father for they should certainly not be lost in silence, or swept away, as it were, on the current of time into the sea of forgetfulness, and I shall recount not only his achievements as Emperor, but also the services he rendered to various Emperors before he himself received the sceptre.

The 15 chapters include not only the political rise and fall of emperors, but also the encounter with the "Frankish barbarians" of the Crusade, with details useful to modern historians:

For the Frankish weapon of defence is this coat of mail, ring plaited into ring[s], and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt. An additional weapon of defence is a shield which is not round, but a long shield, very broad at the top and running out to a point, hollowed out slightly inside, but externally smooth and gleaming with a brilliant boss of molten brass.

About 10 manuscripts of the finished work survive, some of them complete. Written in Attic Greek, The Alexiad gives us another version of the time period for scholars to study with some unusual traits. It is the only historical work written by a woman, and it differs radically from other histories because the author acknowledges feelings and opinions of the events discussed.

She virtually ignores her brother, John II Comnenos, who became emperor after Alexios. Anna, of course, wanted Nikephoros to succeed her father. Was John that bad an emperor? Was his reign worthy of being ignored in The Alexiad? Let's look at John II Comnenos next time.

Emperor Alexios I Comnenos

Alexios I Comnenos (1057 - 1118) was the Byzantine emperor during the start of the Crusades. Since the Byzantines were a part of the old Roman Empire, and Christian, and a well-populated and economically significant city at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, Europeans saw them as allies and the gateway to the lands of the infidels who held the Holy Land.

The Crusades were not his only concern, however. As a young man, he and his brother, Manuel Comnenos, served with distinction against the Seljuk Turks, whose territory was right across the Bosporus. The empire also had trouble with Normans in the western Balkans. At one point, he refused to fight against a kinsman who was seizing control of Byzantine territory in Asia Minor for himself. This did not count against Alexios, however, because his abilities were too valuable, and he was needed to help deal with Robert Guiscard.

His father, John Comnenos, had refused the throne when the previous ruler, Isaac I Comnenos, abdicated to become a monk. The throne therefore went to Constantine X Doukas, followed by Romanos IV Diogenes, then Michael VII Doukas, then Nikephoros III Botaneiates, against whom Alexios conspired to take the throne himself. Alexios surrounded Constantinople with his troops, broke through the walls on 1 April 1081, and was crowned on 4 April. Nikephoros fled, but was captured and forced into monk-hood.

Alexios took on an empire that was in decline and face with content military threats at the edge of its borders. Alexios' military skills enabled him to strengthen the empire and recover lost territory. The First Crusade was sparked by his requests for aid against the Turks, as mentioned in this 2012 post. He got the help (some of which was better than others), but the Seljuks continued to be a problem throughout his reign. He was also plagued by the question of succession, his preference being for his son John II Comnenos, while his wife pushed for their daughter Anna and her husband.

I might get to the resolution of who succeeded Alexios, John or Anna, but I want to talk about another Anna: Alexios' mother. She was an important figure who had a significant role in helping his rebellion succeed, and we should look at her next.

Kilij Arslan I

Kilij Arslan I (1079 - 1107) was the Sultan of Rum; it was he who had to deal with the Europeans of the First Crusade when they attempted to "free" the Holy Land from non-Christians in the late 1090s.

Prior to the First Crusade, however, he had his own set of difficulties. The Turks were organized in several different tribes that saw each other as rivals: Seljuks (Aslan's tribe), Danishmends, Mangujekids, Saltuqids, Tengribirmish, Artuqids, and Akhlat-Shahs. Upon the death of Arslan's father, Suleyman (d.1086), the Sultan Malik Shah I of Isfahan imprisoned him, seeing him as a potential rival. When Malik died in 1092, a quarrel among his jailers allowed him to escape, after which he assembled an army and set up a capital for himself in Nicaea.

In times of political rivalry, carefully chosen alliances become vital. A non-Turkish complication in this part of the world was the size and proximity of the Byzantine Empire. Nicaea was in Byzantine Territory, and Arslan was able to set up his capital there (relatively safe from his Turkish rivals) because of a strategic alliance.

Arslan married the daughter of Emir Tzachas, a Seljuk Turkish military commander. Tzachas had earlier in life become a significant member of Byzantine society, until he lost his position when Emperor Alexios Comnenos I came to power and dismissed him. He then became an enemy of the Byzantines. Arslan married the daughter, Ayşe Hatun, to strengthen his own power against the Byzantines.

Then there was a twist: Arslan received a communication from Alexios, claiming that Tzachas intended to usurp him. Arslan marched his army to Tzachas' location, invited his father-in-law to a banquet, and killed him. This simple act ingratiated him to Alexios. When the Crusade of 1101 captured Nicaea and sent Ayşe Hatun to Costantinople to be held for ransom, Alexios sent her back without a ransom, in order to honor his alliance with Arslan.

Kilij Arslan, whose name means literally "sword lion," drowned in 1107 while crossing the Khabur River to escape a losing battle against a rival. In January 2021, archaeologists found his grave in Silvan, in Turkey.

Emperor Alexios Comnenos' name keeps cropping up in discussions of the Crusades, and he should probably be discussed a little more, but that's for tomorrow.

The Sword of the Lion

When the First Crusade approached the Holy Land, they were met by the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, Kilij Arslan I. His first encounter with the Europeans came when the Peasants' Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, overran the castle of Xerigordon at Nicaea. They did so because Arslan sent his spies to give them the impression that the castle was easy pickings. In fact, it was inconsequential to him, but a German contingent raced to take their prize. Once they were settled in it, Arslan sent a force to besiege it and starve them out, knowing that the place had few supplies. He offered a choice: renounce Christianity and become captives, or be put to death.

The tables turned on Arslan after this, because the easy victory led him to believe that all the Crusaders would be easily handled. Unfortunately for him, a far more organized and strategy-oriented army was headed his way. He decided to refocus his attention on his rivalry with the Danishmend Turks, ignoring the soon-to-arrive actual First Crusade. 

As a result, he was away from Nicaea when the Crusaders besieged it in May 1097. Returning to Nicaea, he was defeated by the Crusaders on 21 May. Nicaea was then held by the Byzantines, and Arslan's wife and family were taken captive. She was sent to Constantinople to be held for ransom, but was returned without ransom (for reasons which are a separate chapter of Arslan's story).

Kilij Arslan means "sword lion," and he had a reputation for being a great soldier and leader, but in this case he decided not to go it alone and to ally himself with his Danishmend rivals (as he would later to deal with the Crusade of 1101), attempting to ambush the Crusaders at the end of June near Dorylaeum. The defensive line created by the disciplined Europeans, however, proved too strong for the Turkish mounted archers. The Turkish camp was captured on 1 July by the arrival of Bohemond with reinforcements. According to the Gesta Francorum, the Europeans gained respect for Aslan's tactics and soldiers, claiming "had the Turks been Christian, they would be the finest of all races."

Realizing he could not stop the conquest of the Holy Land, Arslan decided to spend his time on hit-and-run attempts on the Europeans. He also destroyed crops and water supplies in their path, but could not stop them. His experience here is what made him take the approach of the Crusade of 1101 much more seriously, but in that case he was facing a less-organized group that was easier to defeat.

Why, however, was his wife returned from Constantinople without the ransom the Europeans demanded? There were Byzantines in the Crusade, so clearly the Byzantines were enemies of Arslan. Or were they? I'll explain in the next post.

Deeds of the Franks

Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (Latin: "Deeds of the Franks and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem"), also known simply as Gesta Francorum (you can figure it out), is an account of the First Crusade, from the viewpoint of an anonymous member of the group following Bohemund of Taranto who later joined Raymond of Toulouse. This account gives us many details not always available elsewhere.

As well as accounts of some specific sieges and battles, there are details of some of the more mundane trials and tribulations. One anecdote is about the arrival of the "People's Crusade" led by Peter the Hermit, who departed early with a band of common people and families:

The Emperor had ordered such a market as was in the city to be given to these people. And he said to them, "Do not cross the Strait until the chief host of the Chritians has come, for you are not so strong that you can do battle with the Turks." The Christians conducted themselves badly, inasmuch as they tore down and burned buildings of the city and carried off the lead with which the churches were constructed sold it to the Greeks. The Emperor was enraged thereat and ordered them to cross the Strait. After they bad crossed, they did not cease doing all manner of evil, burning and plundering houses and churches.

Ultimately, these pre-crusaders were destroyed by the Turks. Part of their problem was not being wealthy enough to provision themselves, and winding up in a land where they had no access to resources. Locals, knowing their great need, were quick to take economic advantage:

When the Armenians and Syrians, however, saw that our men were returning utterly empty-handed, they counselled together and went away through the mountains and places of which they had previous knowledge, making subtle inquiry and buying grain and other bodily sustenance. This they brought to the camp, in which hunger was great beyond measure, and they sold a single assload for eight perpre, which is worth one hundred and twenty solidi of denarii. There, indeed, many of our men died because they did not have the means wherewith to buy at such a dear price.

Crusading was not an easy undertaking. Strange lands, no support,y chain, constantly being attacked (or attacking); it is astounding that they managed to accomplish any of their goals.

It occurs to me that readers of this blog will have no modern point of reference for a solidi, so I think it's time to talk about money next.

Guibert of Nogent

Guibert of Nogent, a Benedictine  was not remarkable in his time, but his extensive writings and autobiography have more recently provided insight into daily life in the Middle Ages.

Born c.1055 to minor nobility, his was a breech birth. His family made an offering to the Virgin Mary the he would be dedicated to a religious life if he survived. Guibert's father (according to his autobiography) was violent man who died while Guibert was still young. Guibert believed his father would have broken the vow and would have tried to get Guibert to become a knight.

At the age of 12, after six years of a strict tutor for the boy, his mother retired to an abbey near saint-Germer-de-Fly. Soon after, Guibert entered the Order of Saint-Germer, studying classical works. The influence of Anselm of Bec inspired him to change his focus to theology.

The first major literary work of his was the Dei gesta per Francos ("God's deeds through the Franks"). It is a more polished version of the anonymous Gesta Francorum. His additions give us more information about the reaction to the Crusade in France.

His autobiography is also patterned after another work, the Confessions of St. Augustine. It is a lengthy work dealing with his youth and upbringing and his life in a monastery. There are references that give us insight into daily life, such as when he denigrates someone for their manner of dress:

But because there are no good things, that do not at times give occasion to some wickedness, when he was one day in a village engaged on some business or other, behold there stood before him a man in a scarlet cloak and silken hose that had the soles cut away in a damnable fashion, with hair effeminately parted in front and sweeping the tops of his shoulders looking more like a lover than a traveller.

Guibert's criticisms tell us something about attitude toward certain fashions. 

He had a skeptical view on saints:

I have indeed seen, and blush to relate, how a common boy, nearly related to a certain most renowned abbot, and squire (it was said) to some knight, died in a village hard by Beauvais .on Good Friday, two days before Easter. Then, for the sake of that sacred day whereon he had died, men began to impute a gratuitous sanctity to the dead boy. When this had been rumoured among the country-folk, all agape for something new, then forthwith oblations and waxen tapers were brought to his tomb by the villagers of all that country round. What need of more words? A monument was built over him, the pot was hedged in with a stone building, and from the very confines of Brittany there came great companies of country-folk, though without admixture of the higher sort. That most wise abbot with his religious monks, seeing this, and being enticed by the multitude of gifts that were brought, suffered the fabrication of false miracles. [Treatise on Relics]

...and on saints' relics:

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, eagerly desired the body of St Exuperius, his predecessor, who was honoured with special worship in the town of Corbeil. He paid, therefore, the sum of one hundred pounds to the sacristan of the church which possessed these relics that he might take them for himself. But the sacristan cunningly dug up the bones of a peasant named Exuperius and brought them to the Bishop. The Bishop, not content with assertion, exacted from him an oath that these bones brought were those of Saint Exuperius. "I swear," replied the man, "that these are the bones of Exuperius: as to his sanctity I cannot swear, since many earn the title of saints are far indeed from holiness." [Treatise on Relics]

He died in 1124.

Speaking of deeds of the Franks, there should be some interesting items to glean from the aforementioned Gesta Francorum. Stay tuned.