Saint Christopher

The patron saint of travelers, popular with surfers and anyone making a journey. His medals are still sold all over; if you check Amazon, you'll see several versions with many happy reviews. In the United Kingdom, wall paintings of Christopher outnumber any other religious figure [link]. But it's time to talk about some hard truths about Christopher:

It is possible he did not exist.

And why was he pictured with a dog's head?

If you know one thing about St. Christopher, it is the story that he helped carry a child across a river, only to find later that the child was Christ. The fact that his name actually means "Christ-bearer" suggests that this was a made-up example of Christian charity. (Consider as well the story of Jesus on his way to Calvary and the woman who wipes his face, only to find his image on the cloth; her name is Veronica, "true image.")

There was supposedly a martyr named Christopher who was killed in either the reign of Emperor Decius (249-251) or Emperor Maximus Daia (308-313). The fact that churches were dedicated to him does not prove his historicity. Pope Paul

But why the dog head? Well, a thousand years after the martyr first lived, the Legenda Aurea (The Golden Legend, a book of saints' tales) says he was a Canaanite originally known as Reprobus (again, a suspiciously apt name meaning "rogue" or "unprincipled person"). Reprobus strove to serve the mightiest lord available, and even served the devil, until at last he found Christ and converted. Then...

The pagan king of Lycia took him as a fool and beheaded him after torturing him. Before his ordeal, however, St Christopher instructed the king to make a little clay mixed with his blood to rub on his eye (which was blinded by an arrow that had been meant for St Christopher). The king did as he was told and said, ‘in the name of God and St Christopher!’ He was healed immediately and was converted to Christianity. St. Christopher performed his miracle in martyrdom. [link]

And this is why he is depicted with a dog's head in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, because they mis-read "Canaanite" for canineus (canine), and assumed he was a member of the race of Cynocephali, the dog-headed people.

And we will learn about them tomorrow.

The Canine Saint

A 1987 film, Le Moine et la sorcière (released in the USA as The Sorceress), tells the story of a Dominican Friar, Etienne de Bourbon, in search of heretics. In a small village he learns that women having difficulty with their pregnancy go to a woman who lives alone in the forest. She treats them with herbs, etc., and takes them to a place in the forest where there is a shrine to Saint Guinefort, where they undertake a ritual to promote safe childbirth. In death, Guinefort became a patron of babies.

In life, Guinefort was a greyhound.

The story is brought to us by Dominican monk Stephen of Bourbon (1180 - 1261) in 1250. A knight in Lyon left his baby to go hunting, secure that his faithful dog, Guinefort, would guard the child. When he returned, the dog's mouth was all bloody, the room a mess, the crib overturned, and the baby nowhere to be found. In a fit of sudden rage, the knight cut off Guinefort's head. Hearing a child's cries, they discovered him under the cradle, surrounded by the bloody body of a viper with dog bites all over it. Regretting his killing of Guinefort, they made a grave of stones surrounded with a grove.

Locals, learning of the dog's actions and martyrdom, visited the site more and more. It became a place to bring ill children, or mothers worried about the outcome of their pregnancy, to pray for the intercession of "Saint" Guinefort.

Finding this, Stephen of Bourbon records that he had the dog's bones disinterred and destroyed; the trees were burned down. He shows sympathy for the heroic dog so unjustly killed, but a dog saint? Not on his watch!

It was not allowed for a dog to become a saint, but was it possible for a saint to be a dog? Let me tell you about St. Christopher (yes, that one) tomorrow.

The Tridentine Calendar

The term "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent (1545 through 1563), the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church convened in response to the Protestant Reformation. 

Among other things, Trent determined the liturgical calendar (see illustration). Part of this process involved establishing definitive feast days for saints, which may not be altered or added to except by the pope.

In the process, it was necessary to decide definitively which saints deserved feast days or other types of mention. Pope Pius V (ruled 1566 to 1572) removed some names he considered insignificant, such as St. Elizabeth of Hungary (mentioned here) and St. Anthony of Padua (mentioned here). How to determine of saints were worthy of inclusion in the liturgical year, with their names to be specifically mentioned at Mass, was to rank them. The 13th century created a ranking system of Double, Semidouble, and Simple. Pope Clement VIII created the rank of Major Double in 1602. Over the centuries, popes added or subtracted (mostly added) saints' rankings to the calendar. What do these terms signify about the saint in question?

As it happens, we do not know why the word "double" is used; it may have to do with the antiphon (a chant used as a refrain) were doubled before and after the psalms. Another theory is that in Rome before the 9th century it was customary to have two sets of Matins (prayers at dawn) on major feast days. Whatever the origin, the importance of a saint's feast day could be designated (in ascending order) as Simple, Semidouble, and Double; the Double rank included further strata (in ascending order) of Double, Greater/major Double, Double of the II Class, Double of the I Class.

With "semantic satiation" occurring by now, and the word "double" looking and sounding strange to the reader, we have to ask "Why?" What need was satisfied by ranking saints' days?

Well, a saint's feast day had its own liturgy, unique from the ordinary Sunday Mass. If a saint's day feel on Sunday, which Mass do you celebrate? Easter had a special Mass; what do you do if Easter Sunday happens to fall on 17 April, the Feast Day of the 2nd century Pope Anicetus? Sure, he fought against Gnosticism and was (supposedly) martyred—and already has more than one mention in this blog—but is he worth more than Easter? Well, his rank is Simple, so no, Easter liturgy takes precedence. (Actually, Easter takes precedence over every saint; I just wanted an example of a floating holiday.) This overlapping of important days was called an "occurrence"; the lower-ranking day could be referred to as a "commemoration" during the liturgy of the higher-ranking day.

On an ordinary weekday, the priest celebrating Mass can choose to use a liturgy of his choice: either a normal "votive Mass" or Mass for the dead (if a funeral was needed), or he could choose the liturgy for martyrs Cosmas and Damian on 27 September.

There were so many changes to this system that going into more detail would require listing all the revisions over the years, so we will just jump to the later 20th century. Pope Pius XII in 1955 abolished the Semidouble rank, turning them all to Simples (making the choice of which liturgy to perform easier), and reduced all Simples to Commemorations (so no liturgy, just an "honorable mention" during Mass if desired). Pope Paul VI in 1969 further simplified the liturgical choices, eliminating Commemorations and reforming other ranks to Solemnities (truly important days involving the Trinity, or Jesus, Mary, Joseph, or VIP saints; these days include a Vigil), Feasts (pretty much just the Nativity and the Resurrection), and Memorials, most of which were optional.

Thousands of men and women were designated saints in the first 1400 years of Christianity, and at least one dog. Recent centuries trimmed down that list, recognizing that many were likelynot real people, but simply anecdotes intended to teach a moral lesson.

Except the dog; that one happened. You probably want that one explained.

The Saint Beneath the Stairs

The inspiration for the Waldensians was when Waldes heard a troubadour sing about St. Alexius of Rome, a man whose situation was similar to that of Waldes. Both were well-to-do, Alexius even more so.

The story goes that Alexius was born into one of the most prominent families in Rome in the 4th century, the son of Euphemianus, a Christian. The family was liberal with its wealth, with many offerings to the poor. Alexius grew up well-educated, steeped in a tradition of generosity, wanting for nothing; in turn, he was the pride and joy of his family.

By and by, his parents arranged a marriage to a young woman of great virtue and wealth. The wedding was grand and the wedding feast lavish. Later that day, however, Alexius was overcome with the urge to give up his wealth, his home, and his new bride. He went to her, giving her to take as tokens of his love jewels and riches. He then went to his own room, changed out of his sumptuous wedding garb, and left the household secretly. He went straight to the harbor and took the first ship to Edessa in Syria.

His disappearance caused his parents to send searchers high and low for him, but of course they never found him. He was living in voluntary poverty in Edessa, giving away all he had and clothing himself in rags. He fasted, slept for a few hours in the vestibule of a church dedicated to Mary, prayed all night, and spent an hour each day begging for alms. This style of living altered him so much that his friends and family would not recognize him. In fact, his parents' servants traveled as far as Edessa in search of the young man, and he was able to beg for alms from them without them recognizing him.

One day, the curate of the church where he resided heard a voice coming from the statue of Mary saying that the poor man in the vestibule was a servant of the Almighty whose prayers were very agreeable to God. The curate spread the word of this, and Alexius began to be visited and praised. This was the opposite of the humility he sought, and so he determined to leave Edessa. The first ship he took went to Rome. He was inspired by God to go to his father's house where, upon encountering his father, he said “Lord, for the sake of Christ, have compassion on a poor pilgrim, and give me a corner of your palace to live in.” Euphemianus, a pious man, took in the unrecognized son, instructing his servants to give him a place to stay and daily food. He was given a cubby under the stairs, where he stayed for 17 years, except for visits to church. Seeing his parents and bride still grieving for him was torturous, but he determined to remain anonymous, lest he be unwillingly returned to a life of luxury and leisure. When he felt his death was near, he went to Mass and Communion, went back home and wrote a brief biography of his years since his wedding night, folded it and held it in his hand. He then died peacefully.

Meanwhile, at Mass attended by Euphemianus and Emperor Honorius(384 - 423), and celebrated by Pope Innocent I (d.417), a voice was heard proclaiming that the servant of God at the house of Euphemianus was dead. The Pope and the Emperor accompanied Euphemianus to his house where they found the holy man dead, the paper held tightly in his hand until by praying the Pope was able to take it from him. They were all astonished at the reading. The house of Euphemianus was turned into the first church dedicated to Alexius.

Of course, as "detailed" as a story of a saint's life may be from 1600 years ago, we have to cast some doubt on it. There are several versions of this story. This is the Greek version. There I a Syriac version, and it seems likely that in Edessa there was a pious Roman-born beggar who was known to have given up a life of luxury. His legend grew over time and the Greek (Byzantine Church) version made Rome more prominent in the telling. The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates him on 17 July. The Tridentine Calendar of Saints in the liturgical year, however, however, has reduced the importance of his feast day over time from a Simple to a Semidouble, then a Double, and finally a Simple again in 1955. Now (as of 1960) it is a Commemoration.

...and since I assume you'd like to understand what all those terms mean, I suggest you come back to this blog tomorrow.

"Peter" Waldo

The first thing you'll notice is quotation marks around the "Peter" in the title. That is because Peter was likely not his name. For a long time after the founding of the Waldensians he was known only as Waldo, or Waldes, or Valdo, Valdes, Vaudès, de Vaux—there were numerous interpretations of the name. The first name was attached at least a couple hundred years after the Waldensians came to be, possibly because Peter in the New Testament is named by Jesus to take care of his followers.

An anonymous chronicle of about 1218 (so not too long after the founding of the group c.1173, and only a few years after Waldo dies in 1205, so perhaps fairly accurate), gives more detail regarding the founding:

And during the same year, that is the 1173rd since Lord's Incarnation, there was at Lyons in France a certain citizen, Waldo by name, who had made himself much money by wicked usury. One Sunday, when he had joined a crowd which he saw gathered around a troubadour, he was smitten by his words and, taking him to his house, he took care to hear him at length. ... When morning had come the prudent citizen hurried to the schools of theology to seek counsel for his soul, and when he was taught many ways of going to God, he asked the master what way was more certain and more perfect than all others. The master answered him with this text: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast," etc.

Then Waldo went to his wife and gave her the choice of keeping his personal property or his real estate, namely, he had in ponds, groves and fields, houses, rents, vineyards, mills, and fishing rights. She was much displeased at having to make this choice, but she kept the real estate. From his personal property he made restitution to those whom he had treated unjustly; a great part of it he gave to his little daughters, who, without their mother's knowledge he placed in the convent of Font Evrard; but the greatest of his money he spent for the poor. A very great famine was then oppressing France and Germany. The prudent citizen, Waldo, gave bread, with vegetables and meat to every one who came to him for three days in every week from Pentecost to the feast of St. Peter's bonds.

At the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, casting some money among the village poor, he cried, "No man can serve two masters, God and mammon." Then his fellow-citizens ran up, thinking he had lost his mind. But ... he said. "My fellow-citizens and friends, I am not insane, as you think, but I am avenging myself on my enemies, who made me a slave, so that I was always more careful of money than of God, and served the creature rather than the Creator. I know that many will blame me that I act thus openly. But I do it both on my own account and on yours; on my own, so that those who see me henceforth possessing any money may say that I am mad, and on yours, that you may learn to place hope in God and not in riches."

Other sources say the troubadour was singing a song about St. Alexius, who gave up his wealth to live in poverty like Jesus. Waldo puts is daughters into a convent, leaves his possessions to his wife, and began to travel Lombardy preaching the importance of poverty. He began to attract followers, and he and one of them traveled to Rome in 1179 to meet with Pope Alexander III. Waldo explained his primary beliefs: the value of voluntary poverty, the need for the Gospel to be in local languages, the belief in universal priesthood (that all men and women can preach the scriptures). Alexander approved the poverty, but not the preaching.

Waldo rejected the pope's declaration, and Waldensians continued to preach and grow followers, speaking out against other practices not found in the Bible: purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead. They were persecuted for centuries for their beliefs—tortured, imprisoned, and killed—but they persevered to this day.

Who was this St. Alexius whose example inspired a successful merchant to make such a radical change? His story comes next.

The Waldensian Movement

The Waldensians are a Christian protestant group that originated in the Middle Ages and still exists, having survived—sometimes through severe persecution—for 800 years.

There was a time when they claimed to be older, claiming that they were established when St. Paul traveled to Spain. (Romans 15:15:23-28: “But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions , and since I have been longing for many years to visit you,  I plan to do so when I go to Spain.") Some Waldensian groups believed they were founded in the tome of Constantine. Others claimed their origin with certain known reformers such as Claudius of Turin (a Carolingian reformer and iconoclast) or Berengarius of Tours, an intellectual at the cathedral school of Chartres in the 11th century. These have been debunked in favor of the real founder, Peter Waldes (although there are questions about him, as well).

Waldensians started in the 1170s in Lyon in France, supposedly when Waldes, a wealthy merchant, had a personal conversion moment and decided to give away all his personal property and started preaching "apostolic poverty" as the true way to perfection in Christianity. The Church agreed with their choice of poverty, but did not like that Waldensians rejected the authority of local bishops. Nor did Waldensians care for the Church's opinion on who was fit to preach. They also rejected many of the trappings of the Church not found in the Bible: indulgences, the Mass, purgatory, and the papacy.

The Waldensians were declared heretical by 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 3 of the Council was about them and the Albigensians and Cathars). Persecution had already: more than 80 of the sect had been burned in Strasbourg. Pope Innocent III offered them (and the Cathars) to return to the Church's good graces by giving up some of their more radical ideas; those who did were renamed "Poor Catholics." Those who did not were subject to persecution, along with any other reform-based movement that did not conform.

1251 saw Waldensians in Toulouse massacred and the town burned down. Twenty-two villages in Provence were massacred when King Francis I of France decided to punish religious dissenters.

Later centuries saw worse treatment of the Waldensians. Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull for their extermination in 1487. The archdeacon of Cremona organized a crusade in the Piedmont that devastated the area and caused many to flee, until the Duke of Savoy intervened to prevent the further turmoil in his lands.

Besides persecution, however, they also embodied perseverance. These "proto-Protestants" are distinguished from the Protestant movements o the Renaissance because they did not record formal arguments against established Church doctrine, choosing to keep their practices simple and Bible-based. They persisted, and the 16th century found them most closely aligned with Calvinism.

Even after that, in January 1655, a less-admirable Duke of Savoy tortured and killed hundreds of Waldensians in what is called the Piedmont Easter. Twenty years later Louis XIV of France began a campaign to force Waldensians to become Catholics. A few years later, three days of combat resulted in 8000 surviving Waldensians (2000 were killed) thrown into prison.

It was not until 1848 that the Edict of Emancipation gave the Waldensian Church legal and political freedom. Pope Francis visited the Waldensian Church in Turin, Italy and apologized for the past actions of the Church.

Their logo (shown here) has a Latin motto that means "a light shining in darkness."

Tomorrow I want to tell you more about their origin, and their founder.

Medieval Sociology

Sociology, the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society, is probably best done when the sociologist can observe the society in question. Studying societies from centuries ago relies on written records—which are not always accurate or objective—and on assumptions. Different historians and sociologists, therefore, described the social and political structure of the Middle Ages from their own points of view.

Karl Marx, for instance, considered the Middle Ages significant as a step in social evolution: the social relations stablished through the feudal system determined modes of production. Max Weber (1864 - 1920, German sociologist), on the other hand, saw the feudal relationship to a lord as less important than the rise of the "occidental city" which developed in the West.

[Weber] saw in the history of medieval European cities the rise of a unique form of "non-legitimate domination" that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination [such as lords and kings—Tim] that had prevailed until then in the Medieval world. This new domination was based on the great economic and military power wielded by the organised community of city-dwellers ("citizens"). [The Max Weber dictionary: key words and central concepts]

(Much of sociology, after all, refers to "in-groups" and "out-groups." It may be of interest while discussing the rise of cities to note the difference between the terms citizen and denizen. The former comes into use in c.1275-1325 and refers to a native of a nation or city. The latter does not appear until c.1425-1475 and refers to a non-native inhabitant, suggesting a distinction being made in city-dwellers to those who "belonged" and those who did not.)

A 1995 article points out that these two opinions "marked simultaneously the begin­ning and the end of sociological inquiries into medieval culture, since sociologists have shown little interest ever since." [link] The author claims the period between 500 CE and 1500 CE was remarkable for many changes, not least of which was the shift from a "gift and barter" system to a profit-based economy that led to "the splendid display of wealth and powering the urban centers of trade." Also, that the rule in cities was far more stable than the previous rule by what Weber called "legitimate" systems.

The article outlines one of the issues with sociological study of the Middle Ages being that the chief source of records has a clerical bias, and offers no information on the everyday lives of ordinary men and women. The author uses the Waldensians to illustrate. The Waldensian movement was a lay religious movement of those aforementioned ordinary men and woman. What we learn about them, however, comes from clerical references that focus on the leaders of the movement, not the rank and file, and from to their "peculiarities," and from the records of the Inquisition that are designed to underscore practices considered vulgar and heretical.

The sociological study of the Middle Ages is fraught with error caused by assumptions due to the enormous gaps in information and understanding. This can also offer the would-be scholar a chance to treat it as clay to be molded according to his or her whims and interests, which can be tempting, but ultimately must be viewed with a critical eye.

I producing this post, I realized that I have hardly explained the Waldensians, a widespread lay religious movement that lasted centuries after its founding. I shall rectify this omission next time.

Ibn Khaldun

Ibn Khaldun (alias Abū Zayd ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī) was born 27 May 1332 in Tunis. He was a Muslim Arab from a well-to-do family whose later works, both autobiographical and historical, provide modern scholars with some of the best available information on his time and the Ottoman Empire. When he was 17 years old, his parents both died from the Black Death. They had enabled him, however, to study with some of the finest teachers available, which helped determine the course of his life.

Part of that life was spent in government service, as described in this post from a few months ago. He wrote about the world around him, giving us insight into the history of his part of the world here.

His most enduring contribution to scholarship may have been the Muqaddimah, (Arabic "Prologue"). In it we find the first literature on sociology. He introduces the concept of social asabiyyah, (Arabic "tribalism" or "social cohesion" or "nationalism"); asabiyyah is either rising or falling, and societies go through these cycles. He points out that dynasties usually have the seeds of their own downfall, becoming complacent in their power and authority, allowing a peripheral asabiyyah unit to eventually take over. (A good example of this is how the "Mayors of the Palace" grew more powerful than their bosses, the Merovingian kings, and became the Carolingian dynasty.)

He also wrote about the relationship population growth and economic growth:

When civilization [population] increases, the available labor again increases. In turn, luxury again increases in correspondence with the increasing profit, and the customs and needs of luxury increase. Crafts are created to obtain luxury products. The value realized from them increases, and, as a result, profits are again multiplied in the town. Production there is thriving even more than before. And so it goes with the second and third increase. All the additional labor serves luxury and wealth, in contrast to the original labor that served the necessity of life. [source]

He also explained the basis of supply and demand:

The inhabitants of a city have more food than they need. Consequently, the price of food is low, as a rule, except when misfortunes occur due to celestial conditions that may affect [the supply of] food. [source]

Supply-side economics, the idea that lower taxes will lead to economic growth, also shows up in his theories:

It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments. [Laffer Associates (November 11, 2003)]

This is known in modern times as the Laffer Curve, but even Arthur Laffer gives credit to Ibn Khaldun!

He spent much of his later life teaching. In 1384, the Egyptian sultan named him the Grand qadi (judge of Sharaia law) in Western Africa. Sadly, in that same year his wife and children died when their ship sank off Alexandria. His final years were spent writing his autobiography and teaching in Cairo. He died 17 March 1406.

All this talk of sociology brings up the question: what do sociologists think of the Middle Ages? How do they analyze cultural trends and practices centuries removed from being able to observe medieval society? There are different approaches, which I'll talk about next.

The Richest Man of All Time

Current estimates of the richest people living today show Elon Musk topping the chart at 200+ billion dollars, but I'm going to tell you about someone who had twice that (adjusted for modern values).

Mansa Musa (reigned 1312 - 1337) was the ninth mansa (Mandinka word, generally translated "king") of the Mali Empire. The Mali Empire of West Africa thrived from 1235 - 1670 and included what is now Gambia, Guinea, Mauritania, Senegal, and of course Mali.

Much of the history and lore that has come down to us about the Mali Empire is from the 14th century North African traveler Ibn Khaldun and 14th century Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta.

Mali had two resources for which the world hungered: salt and gold (and to a certain extent, copper). Salt was sometimes more important than gold, especially south of Mali where it was scarce and needed for people's diet. Ibn Battuta reported that the salt mines were in the desert where there was nothing else, no trees. Those who worked the mines cut the salt into slabs from which they built their huts, roofed over with camel skins. Salt was sold in slabs—two slabs per camel—and cost more the further it had to be transported.

All gold mined or found was legally the property of the mansa; it was illegal to trade gold within the borders, and all gold had to be turned over to the Mali imperial treasury. Gold as converted to gold dust, carefully measured and bagged and counted as a mithqal, equivalent to 4.5 grams. Mithqal was used interchangeably with dinar, although dinar usually referred to a coin. There are no Mali coins.

Mansa Musa became well-known across Northern Africa and the Middle East for his generosity when he, a faithful Muslim, made a pilgrimage to Mecca. This hajj covered 2700 miles between 1324 and 1325, and supposedly consisted of 60,000 men in fine clothing, accompanied by 12,000 slaves, each of whom carried four pounds of gold bars, and 80 camels, each of which carried up to 300 pounds of gold dust.

Along the way, Musa paid for all the necessary provisions for his caravan. He also (it is reported) built a mosque each Friday, and gave gold and gifts to the poor and cities as he passed. He also bought souvenirs. Once reaching Medina and Mecca, he continued to give gifts of gold everywhere, knowing that he had plenty at home.  Unfortunately, he gave so much gold along the way that it became devalued, inflation rose, and it took awhile for prices of gold to increase again.

His generosity also meant that, on the way back home, he ran out of money and had to sell many of his possessions and souvenirs to get back to Mali.

The date of his death is recorded by Ibn Khaldun, but there is some confusion  when comparing it to other sources. It seems likely that his reign ended in 1337, and that is the likeliest year of his death. Khaldun was writing years later and doing his best from the available sources, most of which was oral stories from those who knew Musa.

Still, Ibn Khaldun was known for his contractions to philosophy and history, etc., and worth a closer look...next time

The Rammelsberg Mine

It all started when a knight, Ritter Ramm, was sent by Emperor Otto I to find game while visiting Harzburg. It was winter, with snow everywhere, but Ramm saw a track to follow. The track went high up a mountain into dense forest. When the trail became too steep for the safety of his horse, he decided to go on foot, tying the horse to a tree. Ramm found plenty of game, and returned to his horse. The horse, restless, had scraped the ground with its hoof, exposing a vein of something shiny. Ramm dug up a few pieces of the ore to take back to the Emperor. (Not the first time a horse led to an important place.)

Otto sent miners to to dig and open shafts; they settled in Goslar, the town just north of the mountain. Thus were the silver mines of Rammelsberg established in 968 (according to Widukind of Corvey, a Saxon historian). The mine became such an important source of imperial wealth that Henry II of Germany in 1005 had an Imperial Palace built in Goslar. The mines were used as an imperial bargaining chip and captured/destroyed/rebuilt over the years during different political disputes, but eventually became the responsibility of Goslar in 1359. Possession/control would keep changing over the centuries, including by the Hanseatic League, the Margraviate of Brandenburg, Henry V of Brunswick, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Nazis in the 1930s.

The ores from Rammelsberg produced silver, lead, copper, and zinc. An estimated 30 million tons was extracted over the thousand-year period since its discovery, providing the silver for countless millions of coins, etc. It was closed down on 30 June 1988. Goslar has turned the Rammelsberg mine complex into a museum.

While on the subject of precious metals and coins, I said yesterday that I would tell you about a man with "too much" gold, and I will: tomorrow.

Silver and Gold

The Roman Empire was a far-reaching entity that gave the northern Mediterranean and Western Europe access to resources from the East and Africa. Spices come to mind, but gold is another resource that became more scarce after the Roman Empire started to crumble and its territories further from Rome became independent kingdoms. A lot of gold came from Nubia in the upper reaches of the Nile. Egypt was an enormous source of gold for the ancient world. (By far the most gold mined these days comes from North and South America.)

Europe hungered for gold, but did not have mines in which to find it. It did exist, however, in smaller amounts in rivers, where it could be panned.

What Europe and Britain did have was silver, and so silver coins dominated Western European currencies, especially after the 938CE discovery of enormous deposits of silver (along with lead and copper) in Rammelsberg in eastern Germany. Further discoveries of silver in the Black Forest, Freiberg, Bohemia, and the Alps fed the appetite for coins and jewelry for much of the Middle Ages, boosting the economy. It is estimated that in the 1220s, England minted 4,000,000 silver pennies, rising to 40,000,000 between 1279 and 1281.

Gold was found in 1320 in Slovakia, and smaller amounts were found later in France, Germany, and Britain. The High Middle Ages began to see gold used for more artwork, particularly ecclesiastical items, chalices, reliquaries, etc. Gold coins could also be minted outside of the Byzantine Empire.

Too much gold, however, can be a problem for the economy. Soon I'll tell you about a man who had too much gold. First, however, a little more about Rammelsberg.

Other French Currency

The franc was coined by King John the Good in 1360 to help stabilize the currency in France and try to generate the millions he needed to pay off Edward III of England for his ransom (he had been captured during the Battle of Poitiers). It was used for almost 300 years, then reintroduced post-Revolution (in 1795) in decimal form, remaining popular up to (and including) the introduction of the euro. In 1960, the unit of currency was re-named "new franc" and declared worth 100x the "old" franc. Eventually "new" was dropped and it was simply "franc" again.

Prior to the franc, there were many currencies used in France, many of them based on the livre tournois (the "Tours pound"). There was no livre tournois coin, because it was the equivalent of one pound of silver; it was used as a unit of measurement for accounting purposes. Pepin the Short, father of Charlemagne, created a long-standing system of currency for the French (and English) when he made the livre (pound) equivalent to 20 sous or sols (shillings), each of which was divided into 12 denier (pennies, seen in the illustration). The only coin minted in this system was the denier; the other two "coins" were simply used for convenience to describe larger numbers of denier.

Around 1000 CE the Capetians introduced the French Mark as a unit equivalent to 16 sols or 192 denier. Kings tried to establish a fixed standard for the livre and the Paris pound or livre Parisi was born, but the livre tournois became the standard for accounting during the reign of Louis IX in 1266.

The Hundred Years War saw the livre depreciating, and King John tried to correct this with the franc. It was called that as the short form of the inscription Johannes Dei Gratia Francorum Rex (Latin: "John by the grace of God king of the French"). The franc was now worth an entire livre tournois.

For most of the history of French currency, silver was used, while gold was more common in Byzantine currency. Did Western Europe have less accessibility to gold than other parts of the world? Let's talk about getting gold next time.

King John the Hostage

King John the Good of France was captured during the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 and taken to England as a hostage, hosted by King Edward. He was given grand lodgings along with his son Philip, where he could have horses and pets, travel the country, dine in grand style, and have a court astrologer and musicians. As a king and peer of Edward, he was going to be treated royally.

The Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 exchanged John for 83 other hostages while waiting for cash payments totaling three million écus. Edward would renounce his claim to the French throne, and France would allow him to hold several areas without owing allegiance to the French throne. John also gave over to England two of his sons: Louis I the Duke of Anjou, and John, Duke of Berry; they were held in Calais, under English control.

In 1362, Louis of Anjou decided he had enough and escaped captivity, against the terms of the treaty. King John was appalled, and felt honor-bound to return to captivity in England. He ultimately was hosted at the Tower of London, where he died in 1364.

Every account of John's captivity and freedom and return mentions that he minted the franc when he first was released in order to stabilize the French economy. Since I've been talking about currency recently, I suppose it's fair to give the franc its moment in the spotlight. See you next time.

The Give and Take of Hostages

Probably the easiest way to sum up the medieval view of hostages is a line from Adam Costa's Hostages in the Middle Ages:

In medieval Europe, hostages were given, not taken. They were a means of guarantee used to secure transactions ranging from treaties to wartime commitments to financial transactions.

The word itself has caused debate among etymologists. Some sources think it is related to the Latin hostis, "stranger." It seems more likely it is from Old French ostage, which was used for both pledge or bail and kindness or hospitality. In turn this was from Latin obsidanus, meaning literally "to sit before" and meaning people who were hostages.

A hostage was a pledge of financial payment or cooperation. One example was Philip of Courtenay. Another was William Marshal. William served five English kings, starting with Henry II. When he was a boy, his father, John, opposed King Stephen in favor of the Empress Matilda (this was during "The Anarchy"). Stephen was besieging John's Newbury Castle, and John promised he would eventually surrender the castle and offered William as hostage/surety for his promise.

John used the time it bought him, however, to reinforce the castle and send word to Matilda's forces of what was happening. Stephen found out, and ordered John to surrender immediately, or else William would be hanged. John called Stephen's bluff, saying "I still have the hammer and the anvil with which to forge still more and better sons!" Stephen started to arrange to have William catapulted at the castle, but could not do it. Harming a hostage and harming a child were not easily done.William was released only after several months went by and a peace treaty was signed to end the war.

Another famous hostage was King John of France (26 April 1319 – 8 April 1364) during the Hundred Years War. The English under Edward, the Black Prince, dominated at the Battle of Poitiers, although the French army was probably twice the size. John was captured by a French exile who had sided with the English, Denis de Morbecque, who promised to lead John to the Prince of Wales. John surrendered by handing over his glove.

John was taken to England, where he lived in high style for years. He was allowed to travel the country, and had a budget that included buying pets and clothing and having his own court astrologer and a court band. He would be a hostage while a treaty (including ransom) favorable to the English would be negotiated.

His son, the Dauphin, had great difficulty arranging things back in France. The Estates General, a consulting and legislative body of the various estates in France, were angry over the mismanagement of resources (taxes and men) in a disastrous military engagement. They demanded political concessions in exchange for money, which the Dauphin refused. King John would remain a hostage, hosted by King Edward, for a total of four years. How he was able to go home, and why he then went back to England to place himself in captivity, will be explained tomorrow.

Mortgaging Children

This is the story of Philip of Courtenay (1243 - 15 December 1283). He was one of the Latin Emperors of Constantinople—the empire was established after the disastrous and mis-guided (literally) Fourth Crusade—even though the Byzantine Empire had re-established control in 1261. Technically he was an "Emperor in Exile."

He was born in Constantinople, the child of Baldwin II and Marie of Brienne. Baldwin was the last of the Latin Emperors who actually ruled from Constantinople. The difficulty with the "Latin Emperors of Constantinople" was that they didn't have the resources they would have enjoyed at home. They weren't landowners living off rents. Baldwin's "territory" was essentially the city itself, and he did not have the resources to control the country around him, where life just went on.

Baldwin went westward to beg for money, asking Rome and France to help support him financially. One plan was to supplant the Marchioness Margaret of Namur (a sometimes independent state, now basically a city in Belgium) to have the Namur revenues. It didn't matter to him that Margaret was his sister. Baldwin didn't stay to manage Namur, however, and after it was invaded by the Count of Luxembourg, Baldwin sold the rights to his cousin, Count Guy of Flanders.

Baldwin left Marie and a regency council behind while he traveled Europe begging. In 1238 they sold the Crown of Thorns to Venice for 13,134 hyperpyrons. Around that time Baldwin got money from Louis IX of France in exchange for some other relics, of which Constantinople had many.

But this is about his son, Philip, and you can guess where this is going. Baldwin and Marie borrowed 24,000 hyperpyrons from Venetian merchants. The mortgage, the surety for this loan, was their son, Philip of Courtenay. Philip was five years old at the time. He was sent to Venice to live in the household of two merchant brothers. He was there from 1248 until he was 17, in 1260, when the mortgage was paid with the help of Alfonso X of Castile.

Mortgaging your child seems like a cruel act by a desperate parent. As difficult as it is to argue with that, as usual, medieval sensibilities were different from ours, and never more so than in the idea of a hostage. In fact, the meaning and practice of "hostage" is my next topic.

The Mortgage

"Mortgage" is a Late Middle English word from Old French, and literally means "dead pledge"; folk etymology will say the name signifies the debt dying when it is repaid. The use of "mort" originally had a different meaning.

When the Normans invaded the British Isles, they introduced an item of Norman law called a "gage of land." Say I was a landowner in need of money; for a sum from a lender, I (the gagor) would give possession but not ownership to the lender (the gagee) until I paid off the loan.

There were two types of gages: living and dead. In the living gage (Norman vifgage) and the dead gage (mortgage). With the living gage, any profit made by the lender while in possession of the land—such as selling the produce from it—went toward reduction of the debt. The dead gage did not reduce the debt, however much the land might have produced for the lender.

During Henry II's reign (1154-1189), he tried to right some wrongs that occurred under his predecessor King Stephen (1135-1154), during which many properties had been improperly seized. In the Assize of Clarendon, Henry created the right of novel disseisin ("new/recent dispossession"), by which the gage could go to the royal court and claim improper dispossession. The cases were dealt with swiftly, which was a plus, but they did not actually determine proper ownership: they merely judged whether the land should go back into the original landowner's possession, and the question of ownership was left for later. Yes, it could get messy.

Novel disseisin made the lender's life difficult, since the gage could at any time make a claim to repossess the land. The practice could easily be abused by a gage.

A frequent use of mortgage after 1095 was for the money needed to afford to go on Crusade. But who had the money to lend? Surprisingly, because of generous gifts, monasteries often had the cash to offer—interest feee, of course. Because so many Crusaders came back with less money than they started with, or no money at all, or never came back because they died on Crusade, monasteries gained lots of land for grazing their sheep or planting vines.

Keep in mind, however, that mortgages were not as common as they are today when everyone wants to own a house. Things were different when generations of families stayed in one building, and cottages could be built by one's own labor, or with the help of friends and family.

Speaking of mortgages and family, however, have you ever heard of mortgaging your children? You will, if you come back tomorrow.

A Living Wage

I've talked about different jobs here and here. What could you earn in different professions?

First, we need to know the currency:

1 pound (£) = 20 shillings (s)
1 shilling = 12 pence (d)
1 pence (penny) = 4 farthings
Additionally, 1 crown was only 5 shillings, and 1 mark = 13 shillings and 4 pence
The £, s, d symbols are from French Livre, sou, and denier, which are in turn from Latin liber, solidus, and denarius.

Lists of wages are not readily available; the information must be gleaned from various sources found in various time periods. For comparison's sake, I will keep to wages in the 1300s.

An unskilled laborer in 1300 could make £2/year, or 40s; by 1390 that had doubled to £4.

A manservant in 1390 could make 20s/year; a maidservant half that, 10s.

A swineherd made as much as the maidservant.

In 1351, as the Black Death was reducing the labor pool, a mason could earn 107s/year; by 1390, that had risen to £8, or 160s!

A carpenter in 1300 could make 53s/year. By 1351 (Black Death killing off workers!), that had risen to 80s/year, and a master carpenter could earn 107s. A little later, in 1400, the carpenter's apprentice would be worth 40s/year.

While the carpenter might be hired to help build a house, the thatcher might be needed for the roof. Collecting sufficient reeds, binding them, making them secure so that the roof is thick enough to keep out inclement weather and secure enough that high winds don't destroy it—these arduous and skilled tasks probably explain why the thatcher in 1390 could make £6/year, or 113s!

Of course, building a house took a lot more than one's savings. A two-story cottage in the early 1300s could cost £2, four times what the swineherd makes. A house with several rooms could cost £10-15! So what did the typical person/family do to afford it? Why, get a mortgage, of course. Did mortgages work the same way they do now? Let's find out tomorrow.

The Medieval Sourcebook has a lot of pricing information ranging from the 11th to 15th centuries, if you'd like to explore further.

The Cost of Things

When I taught high school English Literature, students were aghast at the small sums (a few hundred pounds) that a successful poet might have to live on. They had a difficult time grasping not only that prices were much lower, but also that the Age of Reason household did not use expensive machines for washing, cooking, preserving foods, calling friends, watching or hearing entertainment, etc.

I've tackled this topic at least once before, but mostly focused on food prices. Let us look at some other economic data. First, however, we have to know the currency:

1 pound (L) = 20 shillings (s)
1 shilling = 12 pence (d)
1 pence (penny) = 4 farthings

Additionally, 1 crown was only 5 shillings, and 1 mark = 13 shillings and 4 pence

The L, s, d symbols are from French Livre, sou, and denier, which are in turn from Latin liber, solidus, and denarius.

Now let's get dressed in the 1300s:

A fashionable gown (for upper class) could cost as much as 10 pounds.
A simple tunic for a working class man could cost 3-4 shillings
A landless serf's tunic anywhere from 1-6 pence
Highest quality wool for making clothes was 5 shillings/yard in 1380
If you wanted silk, it was 10-12 shillings/yard (but more easily available a century later)
(A loose-fitting tunic required 2.5 yards; a doublet (a lined tunic, so "doubled" fabric) needed 4 yards
Shoes and boots could be 4 to 6 pence
Accessorize with a hat (10 pence to 14 pence) and a purse (1.5 pence), and you were ready to hit the town

How affordable were these? Tomorrow we will look at what people earned in different professions.

The Golden Coin

Let us talk about coinage, specifically the solidus. Its plural was solidi; also known as the bezant (named for Byzantium, the earlier name of Constantinople, now Istanbul), and sometimes simply as nomisma, Greek for "coin."

It was introduced by our old friend Emperor Constantine the Great. He designed a gold coin weighing 4.45 grams. (As of this writing, gold is worth US$59.54/gram.) That weight stayed consistent from Constantine's time (early 300s) right up to the 1030s, after which Byzantine emperors started to make it with less gold because of a suffering economy due to military and civil problems. By the time of Alexios I it was being made with very little gold. Alexios eliminated the solidus in 1092, replacing it with the hyperpyron nomisma ("super-refined coin").

This hyperpyron was the same weight, though of slightly less purity because the debased solidi were recalled and melted down with gold to make the new coin. This coin was the standard until the mid-14th century, although it also suffered from succeeding emperors using less and less gold in it.

What was it "worth" in terms of buying power? Well, prices fluctuate over time and place, of course, and the day-to-day need for and value of goods is very different from how we live today. In Constantine's time, for instance, the average Roman would consume two pounds of wheat bread daily. In 320 CE a loaf of wheat bread could sell for two nummi (a silver coin, later made of copper or bronze). An early (pure gold) solidus at one time was worth 7200 nummi. A Roman cavalryman made 180 nummi per day. A solidus would be worth a month and a half salary for him. There's also a little more insight from this old post.

Next time, let's look at some prices closer to our time.

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.

Other Accounts of Clermont

How do we know what happened hundreds of years ago? Sometimes we have an archaeological finds that are subject to interpretation. Sometimes we have direct records, like coroner reports or exchequer accounts that we assume are straightforward. Sometimes we have histories written by contemporaries, or eyewitnesses, but even those we have to look at with a critical eye. Did the author have an agenda? Did the author have an accurate memory of the event? Did the author know how to interpret events?

For example: what did Urban actually say at Clermont on 27 November 1095 to announce the (First) Crusade? Six accounts have survived.

First, we have a letter Urban himself sent to Flanders. He says "a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient" (because he has had a request from the emperor in Constantinople for help with the Turks) and makes a passing reference to Jerusalem by saying the barbarism has "even grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection." Interestingly, there is no indication that this Crusade has as its main purpose taking over Jerusalem from non-Christians.

There is also the Gesta Francorum ("Deeds of the Franks"), an anonymous history written only a few years after 1095, that simply says Urban called upon people to "take up the way of the Lord" and be prepared to suffer in the undertaking. This account suggests that Urban was calling on the Franks specifically for this task, and caused the Franks to sew crosses onto the right shoulders of their garments to indicate their willingness.

Two eyewitness accounts exist. Fulcher of Chartres was a chaplain whose detailed account of the Council of Clermont (in the week preceding the announcement) gives an account in which he claims to record only things that he saw with his own eyes. He is the best (we think) account of what Urban actually said.

Robert the Monk is the other account. Robert says he was an eyewitness to Urban's speech, and he may have been: Robert has been identified as a former abbot of Saint-Remi who lived from c.1055 - 1122. Writing more than ten years after the speech, he embellishes it (compared to Fulcher's version) and makes it more dramatic. It is Robert who claims that the crowds as one shouted Deus vult ("God wills it!") at the conclusion of the announcement.

Two more accounts that do not claim to have been present exist. Guibert, the abbot of Nogent, adds his own emphasis on returning Jerusalem to Christian possession to fulfill prophecies about the Apocalypse. Baldric, the archbishop of Dol, seems to re-write the account from the Gesta Francorum and emphasize the Crusade as an appeal to chivalry. Part of Urban's focus during the Council was to reign in violence caused by Christian knights in the West.

We take what we can get from the historical record and hope we can assemble the jigsaw puzzle of historical events.

Tomorrow I'll tell you a little more about Guibert of Nogent and his very "modern" skepticism about something that scholarship definitely agrees with, no matter what people in the Middle Ages believed.

Godfrey of Bouillon

Godfrey (c.1060 - 18 July, 1100) was the second son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and therefore was not in line for much inheritance. His godfather, however, was Godfrey the Hunchback, Duke of Lower Lorraine. The Duke had no children, and named Godfrey his heir. The old Duke died in 1076, leaving Godfrey the duchy--if he could keep it.

Lower Lorraine was an important buffer between France and Germany, but that made it important to a lot of people. In 1076, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (of the Investiture Controversy) wanted there Lower Lorraine for his son, confiscating it and leaving Godfrey with Bouillon and the land around the cities of Antwerp and Breda. Godfrey's land was also being nibbled at by his aunt Matilda of Tuscany, his cousin Albert III of Namur, and a couple others. His brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, supported him, and eventually he won the Lower Lorraine back by 1087.

Having a larger territory made it possible to gather a larger force to join the First Crusade, which set off in August 1096. Godfrey mortgaged his estates to the bishops of Liège and Verdun, and he and his brothers led a group of 40,000 overland to Constantinople.

"Crusade fever" sparked a new wave of antisemitism. While passing through Mainz, word went out that Godfrey had vowed to avenge the Crucifixion by eliminating all Jews. Emperor Henry prohibited this, and one report (written 50 years later) says Godfrey relented after the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne each paid him 500 marks (1 mark=8 ounces of either gold or silver).

The army reached Jerusalem in June 1099 (after many other events and encounters). On 14-15 July, they got over the walls using siege towers made from lumber from Italian ships, intentionally dismantled for the purpose. Godfrey was one of the first to enter the city. They had left home three years earlier, but they had set foot in Jerusalem (after conquering other towns along the way), and could claim success.

The next step was to determine how to rule the new Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey was chosen to rule (after Raymond of Toulouse, the oldest and most experienced warrior of the Crusade had turned it down), and chose to be Calle Defender of the Holy Sepulchre rather than king. Among other acts, Godfrey endowed the Jerusalem hospital.

What we know of the Crusades comes to us from various chronicles. They do not always agree, and their general reliability must always be examined very carefully. Tomorrow we'll look at a couple accounts of the First Crusade.

The First Crusade Commences

It can be argued that the First Crusade, announced in 1095, could not or would not feasibly have been undertaken much earlier than the end of the 11th century. A few different trends combined at the right time.

One was that the political power of Western Europe had recently grown; kingdoms were becoming more sophisticated with fewer border squabbles, and the church and the secular powers had the organizational ability to manage a large undertaking. Also, there was an eschatological air ever since the year 1000, and the end of the world could be nigh, sparking a religious fervor not previously seen. The end of the world in Biblical terms involved Jerusalem, and so freeing Jerusalem from infidels was important. A request from Alexius I Comnenus of Constantinople to get help from the West with his infidel problems was a catalyst for Urban II to declare this undertaking.

Assembling armies takes time, however, and joining the Crusade was expensive. There was no large standing army in any country capable of taking on such a huge military operation, so citizens from all walks of life were recruited. The prospect of a plenary indulgence from the pope that would remove the need for penance was a strong inducement to join. Individuals sold goods and sought donations to be able to afford food, armor, weapons, passage, etc.

The main forces (there were four major organized groups) were ready to depart Europe in August 1096. A fifth and smaller force led by the King of France's brother, Hugh of Vermandois, left early and was shipwrecked in the Adriatic. (There was also an impatient "People's Crusade" that left early and, well, see the result here.)

The major group was led by Godfrey of Bouillon (1060 - 1100), the duke of Lower Lorraine. Much of the story of the First Crusade relies on his actions. We can look at how the Crusade went through the point of view of the first European "King of Jerusalem" next time.

[map source]

The First Crusade Announced

Christianity in the Middle Ages did not approve of Islam and its swift growth. It was not many years after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE that the Islamic occupation of Jerusalem was established in 638. Even though Jews and Christians were allowed in the city, and a treaty was signed between the caliph and the Patriarch of Jerusalem guaranteeing protection of Christian holy places, Western Europe and the papacy saw Jerusalem as a problem to solve.

Pope Urban II decided it was important to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule, and to that end he announced there would be a special gathering at Clermont in France in 1095. Clermont was the site of a couple religious councils. He was holding one on 18 November, 1095. Urban had received a request for aid from Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus against the Muslim Turks

On 27 November he spoke from a wooden platform to a crowd of thousands of the faithful that had gathered. On each of four sides of the platform were men with leather conical "megaphones" who repeated his words so that they could reach as far as possible to the crowds. (I have read this in the past, but cannot now find a reference for it, so take it as literary license for now.)

In short, he called all Christians to join in a war against the Muslims to free the Holy Land. This would also be an important pilgrimage for any involved, and would include a plenary indulgence (a remission of all penance for sins) to those who partook. When Urban finished his announcement, he concluded Deus vult! (Latin for "God wills it.") The crowd erupted, repeating his Deus vult.

The result of all this? We'll see tomorrow whether they succeeded.

What Did Horseshoes Look Like?

The figure to the left is a horseshoe; or rather, it is a hipposandal. This was the Classical Roman method of "shoeing" a horse. Nails were not involved; a leather strap went around the hook in back and tied through the ring in front. It was sturdy for the cobbled stone roads for which Rome was famous, and could be easily removed when no longer needed and fitted to another horse. The suggestion that the Romans brought circular horseshoes to Britain during their occupation, and that the existence of extra horseshoes led to the pastime of throwing them onto a stake, inventing the game of quoits, seems suddenly less likely.

So when did the horseshoe that was shaped like a ... well, a horseshoe, come into being? You could buy A History of Horseshoes, or read on.

One fact to start with: iron was a valuable material: if an iron object got old and worn, it was likely reforged into something new, so old iron horseshoes were not likely to be found in the archaeological evidence. So far as we can tell, references to shod horses in the classical era may be to the hipposandal seen above. References to shoes that are nailed into a hoof don't appear until about 900 CE, which doesn't mean they didn't exist earlier. An 1829 work by Bracy Clark with the wonderful title Hippodonomia, or The True Structure, Laws, and Economy, of the Horse's Foot tells us there is a reference to "crescent figured irons and their nails" in 910.

Encyclopedia Britannica's entry "Horseshoe" mentions a horseshoe with nails found in the tomb of Childeric I (c.437 - 481), King of the Franks. So it appears that at least part of the medieval world used such horseshoes by the 5th century. We will never know who invented the shape that needed to be nailed on.

Around 1000, horseshoes cast from bronze were known, and by the time of the First Crusade (1096), horseshoes were common. They were valuable enough to be a substitute for money when paying taxes. By the 13th century in Western Europe, horses and their needs were so common that there was mass-production of horseshoes by blacksmiths. The Worshipful Company of Farriers was founded in 1356, one of the Livery Companies (trade associations) in the City of London. The name Farrier comes from Middle French for blacksmith, ferrier, from Latin ferrum, "iron."

To my surprise, when I searched my blog for the "First Crusade" to provide a link to its mention above, I discovered two references to someone being away on it, but no explanation of it or why a Crusade was started at all. Looks like I have some explaining to do...

Quoits

The idea that quoits—a game in which players toss rings at a stake, hoping to encircle it—originated with the "Greek or Roman discus" does not seem to me to hold up. The discus was flung for distance; quoits is a game of accuracy. The fact that each is circular is not sufficient to link the two historically.

Those who subscribe to the Greco-Roman origin use it as a basis for quoits coming to Britain during the Roman occupation. The game of quoits ("coiting") in England during the reign of Edward III, and again during the reign of his successor, Richard II, was outlawed in favor of pastimes such as archery, which would translate to readiness in battle. This was duplicated in the Statutes of Kilkenny (see here and here) by Edward's son, Lionel of Antwerp, in his rôle as viceroy of Ireland.

(Ironically, quoits was referred to as "manly and healthy amusements" in 1836 in a Washington, DC, advertisement for the available amusements at a nearby coffee house.)

The similarity between quoits and the game of horseshoes suggests that the game might have started with people idling their time by throwing spare horseshoes at a stake or peg. That assumes, however, that "horse shoes" in the past were the ring- or U-shaped pieces of metal they are now.

And that is something worth looking into in more detail.