The response to the Pope’s appeal was overwhelming. It is
believed that over 100,000 people, an enormous number given the population of
Western Europe at this time, took part in this first crusade. First, an
estimated 20,000 common people without particular organization or planning
followed a self-proclaimed prophet, Peter the Hermit, thinking he would lead
them to a kind of paradise on earth in Jerusalem. After plundering their way
through the Balkans, they were completely destroyed by a Turkish army just
beyond the Bosporus.
The real crusading army, consisting of roughly 35,000
fighting men, set out on the official First Crusade several months later. This
force was led by some of the most powerful noblemen of Western Europe at the
time, including the Dukes of Flanders and Normandy and Count Raymond IV of
Toulouse.
While some of the leaders, notably the Count of Toulouse and
Godfrey de Bouillon, were men with land and riches at home, whose motives for
embarking on such a dangerous and difficult expedition were largely pious, the
same cannot be said of all crusaders. Bohemond, the Prince of Otranto, and
Baldwin of Boulogne, for example, proved their interests were largely venal by
setting themselves up as princelings in conquered territory even before
reaching Jerusalem.
As for their followers, as Richard Barber writes in The Knight and Chivalry: “The Papacy saw
the crusades as a way of harnessing the concept of knighthood to spiritual ends;
the knights saw them as a solution to earthly ills, with the promise of
absolution and heavenly reward as well …. Furthermore, by removing the
discontented knights from their homes in the West, the popes believed that they
would bring peace to Europe as well as helping their fellow Christians in
Palestine and Byzantium.”(Barber, Richard W., The Knight and Chivalry, p. 254.) In short, many men went on
crusade for practical more than religious reasons: to avoid debts, taxes, and
feudal duties, for adventure, for spoils, in hope of a better future in the
Holy Land ….
The First Crusade reached Constantinople in April 1097. Here
the leaders dutifully swore fealty to the Byzantine Emperor, in whose name they
continued as soldiers of an Emperor seeking to re-take territory that had
belonged to his predecessors. The crusaders then crossed into Muslim-held
territory for the first time (modern Turkey) and confronted Seljuk forces on
July 1. The crusaders routed the Seljuk army and continued east until they came
to Antioch.
Here, after an eight-month siege, Antioch fell to the
crusaders – who promptly found themselves under siege by a much larger Muslim
army. The crusaders appealed desperately for aid from the Byzantine Emperor,
their ‘overlord,’ who had sent them on this mission and promised them support.
In fact, the Byzantine Emperor had moved his troops in behind the crusaders,
“mopping up” what remained of the Seljuk forces and re-establishing Byzantine
control over Asia Minor. But, unfortunately for Christianity, one of the
crusaders, Stephan of Blois, deserted the crusader cause and on his way home
told the Byzantine Emperor that the crusaders were defeated and lost. The
Emperor therefore decided to consolidate what he had and returned to
Constantinople, leaving the crusaders on their own.
Trapped in Antioch, on the brink of starvation, the crusaders
discovered a relic, which one of the priests identified as the lance that
pierced Christ’s side before the Crucifixion. This “miracle” inspired the
crusaders to undertake what turned out to be a decisive sortie that drove the
besiegers off. But the survivors no longer trusted the Byzantine Emporer, or
felt that they owed him fealty. Instead, they established two independent
kingdoms, at Edessa and Antioch before the hard-core of the crusaders pressed
on for Jerusalem itself. A year later, the weary, much
decimated, ill-equipped, and half-starved crusading army reached Jerusalem.
This army had suffered extreme privation during its march,
notably thirst so intense that according to the chaplain of the Count of
Toulouse, at one pool “those who were strong pushed and shoved their way in a
deathly fashion through the pool, which was already choked with dead animals
and men struggling for their lives …. Those who were weaker sprawled on the
ground beside the pool with gaping mouths, their parched tongues making them
speechless, while they stretched out their hands to beg water from the more
fortunate ones.” ( Hopkins, Andrea, Knights: The Complete Story of the Age of Chivalry, from Historical Fact to Tales of Romance and Poetry, p. 85.)
The army was no longer large enough to encircle the city, so no
proper siege was possible. Furthermore, the leaders believed that a Muslim
relief army from Egypt was on its way, which made a rapid victory all the more
important. The crusaders therefore attempted to take the city by storm almost
at once, but lacked sufficient ladders to scale the walls; the assault was
driven off. An imperfect siege began, during which the Christians secured
materials to build siege engines. On the night of July 13, 1099, a new assault
was launched, but it was not until the afternoon of July 15 that a breakthrough
was achieved.
The crusaders reportedly poured into Jerusalem. At this
moment of their greatest triumph, the crusaders committed the atrocity that has
besmirched the very words “crusades” and “crusaders” ever since. Knowing the
Christians had been expelled before the siege, the crusaders put all the defenders to the sword. Later accounts would claim that the crusaders' horses waded up
to their fetlocks in running blood, but serious historians note that in fact thousands of inhabitants survived the capture of Jerusalem, so that oft cited accounts of wading in blood were exaggerated -- not to say allegorical. All Muslims were, however, expelled turning Jerusalem into a Christian city once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome feedback and guest bloggers, but will delete offensive, insulting, racist or hate-inciting comments. Thank you for respecting the rules of this blog.