NOTES

CHAPTER 1: HOLY WAR PROCLAIMED

1. Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana, RHC Occ. III, pp. c. 727–8. This quotation is an abridged version of Robert’s text. An English translation of Robert’s version of Pope Urban II’s sermon at Clermont is given in: L. and J. S. C. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274 (London, 1981), pp. 42–5.

2. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. and trans. R. Hill (London, 1962), p. 7.

3. J. M. Powell, ‘Myth, legend, propaganda, history: The First Crusade, 1140–c. 1300’, Autour de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996), pp. 127–41.

4. A. Becker, Papst Urban II. (1088–1099), Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 19, 2 vols (Stuttgart, 1964–88); A. Becker, ‘Urbain II, pape de la croisade’, Les Champenois et la Croisade. Actes des Ive Journées rémoises, 27–28 novembre 1987, ed. Y. Bellenger and D. Quéruel (Paris, 1989), pp. 9–17.

5. For further reading on the Franks see: E. James, The Franks (Oxford, 1988); P. Geary, Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World (Oxford, 1988).

6. For further reading on Charlemagne and the Carolingians see: R. McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, 751–987 (London, 1983).

7. M. G. Bull, ‘Origins’, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, ed. J. S. C. Riley-Smith (Oxford, 1995), pp. 13–33. On the use of the term Franks see: J. S. C. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 64–5.

8. Bull, ‘Origins’, pp. 13–15,19–20; M. G. Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: The Limousin and Gascony, c. 970–c. 1130 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 23–33; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), p. 3; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 27–8.

9. For an introduction to the Christianisation of Europe see: R. Fletcher, The Conversion of Europe (New York, 1988); P. Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom (Oxford, 1996).

10. In an age before printing, when illiteracy was the norm across all levels of society, the threats posed by sin and damnation were pressed home through dreadful, arresting imagery. Religious art was the mass media of the central Middle Ages, and the frescoes and stone sculptures that decorated churches provided graphic representations of the danger of impurity. Any visitor to the Cathedral of St Lazare in Autun, Burgundy, to the south of Urban’s homeland, could not fail to get the message, for the arch above the main entrance contained a stunning sculpted tableau of the Last Judgement. Carved in the first decades of the twelfth century by the master craftsman Giselbert, the weighing of souls – the moment at which a human’s worth would be measured – is depicted with agonising clarity, as a grinning devil strives to tip the scales in his favour and then drag condemned souls into hell. Elsewhere, giant demonic hands reach out to strangle a sinner, with the utter horror of the moment etched on to the victim’s face. Confronted with these ghastly images, and the equally compelling representation of the blessed lifted into eternal paradise by graceful angels, it is little wonder that medieval Christians were fixated upon the battle against sin.

11. For an introduction to medieval Christianity see: B. Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (London, 1986).

12. For an introduction to monasticism and religious life see: C. H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages (London, 1984).

13. N. Hunt, Cluny under St Hugh, 1049–1109 (London, 1967); H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970). Cluny is used here as a case study to illustrate the rising significance of monastic reform, a process that was also taking place in other religious houses such as Gorze and Brogne.

14. For further reading on the medieval papacy see: W. Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London, 1974); C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989).

15. Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 57–108.

16. On Pope Gregory VII and the Reform Movement see: Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 109–33; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998); U.-R. Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia, 1988).

17. F. Duncalf, ‘The councils of Piacenza and Clermont’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Madison, 1969), pp. 220–52.

18. J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (Warminster, 1977); Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 25–39; J. France, ‘The destruction of Jerusalem and the First Crusade’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 47 (1996), pp. 1–17.

19. To trace the grand sweep of Byzantine history see: G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. J. M. Hussey, 2nd edition (Padstow, 1968).

20. On the history of the Christian reconquest of Iberia see: D. Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain (London, 1978). On the question of connections between the reconquista and crusading see: Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 70–114.

21. On the relationship between Latin Christendom and Islam see: R. W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1962); R. Hill, ‘The Christian view of the Muslims at the time of the First Crusade’, The Eastern Mediterranean Lands in the Period of the Crusades, ed. P. M. Holt (Warminster, 1977), pp. 1–8; J. Flori, ‘La caricature de l’Islam dans l’Occident médiéval. Origine et signification de quelques stéréotypes concernant l’Islam’, Aevum, vol. 66 (1992), pp. 245–56; N. Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh, 1960); M. Bennett, ‘First Crusaders’ images of Muslims: The influence of vernacular poetry?’, Forum for Modern Language Studies, vol. 22 (1986), pp. 101–22; J. Gauss, ‘Toleranz und Intoleranz zwischen Christen und Mulsimen in der Zeit vor den Kreuzzügen’, Saeculum, vol. 19 (1968), pp. 362–89.

22. Lomax, The Reconquest of Spain, pp. 68–93; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 18–20; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 66–7.

23. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 13–30; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p. 53–6; A. C. Krey, ‘Urban’s crusade, success or failure?’, American Historical Review, vol. 53 (1948), pp. 235–50; R. Crozet, ‘Le voyage d’Urbain II et ses négotiations avec le clergé de France (1095–1096), Revue historique, vol. 179 (1937), pp. 271–310; R. Somerville, ‘The French councils of Urban II: some basic considerations’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, vol. 2 (1970), pp. 56–65; R. Somerville, ‘The council of Clermont and the First Crusade’, Studia Gratiana, vol. 20 (1976), pp. 323–37; R. Somerville, ‘The council of Clermont (1095) and Latin Christian society’, Archivum Historiae Pontificae, vol. 12 (1974), pp. 55–90.

24. F. H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1975); C. Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton, 1977); J. T. Gilchrist, ‘The Erdmann thesis and canon law, 1083–1141’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 37–45; J. T. Gilchrist, ‘The Papacy and the war against the “Saracens”, 795–1216’, International History Review, vol. 10 (1988), pp. 174–97; E. O. Blake, ‘The formation of the “crusade idea”’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 21 (1970), pp. 11–31; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Cluny and the First Crusade’, Revue bénédictine, vol. 73 (1973), pp. 285–311; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘The genesis of the crusades: The springs of western ideas of holy war’, The Holy War, ed. T P. Murphy (Columbus, 1976), pp. 9–32; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘The papacy and the origins of crusading’, Medieval History, vol. 1 (1991), pp. 48–60; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Canon law and the First Crusade’, The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992) pp. 41–8; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades, 3rd edition (Basingstoke, 2002); J. Flori, La formation de l’idée de croisades dans l’Occident Chrétien (Paris, 2001).

25. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, pp. 16–39.

26. Ibid., pp. 1–39; J. A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison, 1969), pp. 19–24.

27. I. S. Robinson, ‘Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ’, History, vol. 58 (1973), pp. 169–92; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 44–52; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory’s “Crusading” plans of 1074’, Outremer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 27–40; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory and the bearing of arms’, Montjoie: Studies in crusade history in honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, J. S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 21–35.

28. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 53–8.

29. H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II’s preaching of the First Crusade’, History, vol. 55 (1970), pp. 177–88; D. C. Munro, ‘The speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095’, American Historical Review, vol. 11 (1905–6), pp. 231–42; S. Schein, ‘Jérusalem: objectif original de la Première Croisade?’, Autour de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996), pp. 119–26; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 13–30; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 60–75; P. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270 (Cambridge, MA, 1991), pp. 1–36; A. Fliche, ‘Urbain II et la croisade’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, vol. 13 (1927), pp. 289–306; A. C. Krey, ‘Urban’s crusade, success or failure?’, American Historical Review, vol. 53 (1948), pp. 235–50.

30. Robert the Monk, p. 727.

31. H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugssbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck, 1901), pp. 136–7; ‘Papsturkunden in Florenz’, ed. W. Wiederhold, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. (Göttingen, 1901), pp. 313–14. English translations of these two letters are given in: Riley-Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274, pp. 38–40; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), pp. 130–8. Two English translations of Fulcher’s text are available: A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095–1127, trans. F. S. Ryan, ed. H. S. Fink (Knoxville, 1960); E. Peters (ed.), The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, 2nd edition (Philadelphia, 1998), pp. 47–101.

32. Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediavalis, 127A (Turnhout, 1996), pp. 111–17. Guibert’s text is translated into English in: The Deeds of God through the Franks: A Translation of Guibert de Nogent’s Gesta Dei per Francos, trans. R. Levine (Woodbridge, 1996).

33. It was also a popularly held belief that the ‘Last Days’ prophesied in the Bible – when all mankind would be judged and the ‘saved’ would enter eternal paradise – could only come to pass once the city of Jerusalem was once again in Christian hands. The First Crusade was thus viewed by some as a crucial step towards the realisation of Christian destiny.

34. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 132; Baldric of Bourgueil, bishop of Dol, Historia Jerosolimitana, RHC Occ. IV, pp. 12–14. An English translation of Baldric’s version of Pope Urban II’s sermon at Clermont is given in: Riley-Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274, pp. 49–53; Robert the Monk, pp. 728–9; Guibert of Nogent, pp. 111–16. P. Cole, ‘O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance (Ps. 78.1): The theme of religious pollution in crusade documents, 1095–1188’, Crusaders and Muslims in twelfth–century Syria, ed. M. Shatzmiller (Leiden, 1993), pp. 84–111.

35. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 136–7.

36. A considerable debate surrounds the possibility of a connection between the Peace of God movement and the concept of crusading. See: Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 21–69; H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘The Peace and Truce of God in the eleventh century’, Past and Present,vol. 46 (1970), pp. 42–67; J. Flori, ‘L’église et la guerre sainte de la “Paix de Dieu” à la “croisade”’, Annales ESC, vol. 47 (1992), pp. 453–66.

37. Guibert of Nogent, pp. 112–13. On the practice of medieval pilgrimage see: J. Sumption, Pilgrimage: An Image of Mediaeval Religion (London, 1975).

38. H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II and the idea of crusade’, Studi medievali, ser. 3, vol. 36 (1995), pp. 721–42; J. Richard, ‘Urbain II, la prédication de la croisades et la définition de l’indulgence’, Deus qui mutat tempora: Menschen und Institutionen im Wandel des Mittelalters. Festschrift für Alfons Becker zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburstag, ed. E.-D. Hehl, H. Seibert and F. Staab (Sigmaringen, 1987), pp. 129–35.

CHAPTER 2: AFIRE WITH CRUSADING FEVER

1. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 13–57; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 12–20,43–153; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘The motives of the earliest crusaders and the settlement of Latin Palestine, 1095–1100’, English Historical Review,vol. 98 (1983), pp. 721–36; Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 250–88; M. G. Bull, ‘The roots of lay enthusiasm for the First Crusade’, History, vol. 78 (1993), pp. 353–72; J. France, ‘Patronage and the appeal of the First Crusade’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 5–20; B. McGinn, ‘Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The piety of the first crusaders’, Essays on Medieval Civilization, ed. B. K. Lackner and K. R. Philip (Austin, 1978), pp. 33–72.

2. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 44–7, 52, 54–6.

3. Baldric of Bourgeuil, pp. 15–16.

4. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 136–7.

5. J. A. Brundage, ‘Adhémar of Le Puy: The bishop and his critics’, Speculum, vol. 34 (1959), pp. 201–12; J. H. and L. L. Hill, ‘Contemporary accounts and the later reputation of Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy’, Mediaevalia et humanistica, vol. 9 (1955), pp. 30–8; G. J. de Adhémar-Labaume, Adhémar de Monteil, évêque du Puy, légat d’Urbain II, 1079–1098 (Le Puy, 1910); H. E. Mayer, ‘Zur Beurteilung Adhemars von Le Puy’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, vol. 16 (1960), pp. 547–52.

6. J. H. and L. L. Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse (Syracuse, 1962); A. Dupont, ‘Raymond IV de Saint-Gilles et son role en Orient pendant la Première Croisade (1096–1099)’, Bulletin des séances de l’Académie de Nîmes, vol. 47 (1970), pp. 19–21, 24–6; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 45–6, 106–7.

7. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 136–7; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 56–60, 75–7; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 31–3.

8. This analysis presupposes that Urban’s controlling measures post-date his sermon at Clermont and that these measures were included in the narrative accounts of his speech through hindsight. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 30, 50; Becker, Papst Urban II, pp. 232–80; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 137–8; ‘Papsturkunden in Florenz’, pp. 313–14; Papsturkunden in Spanien. I Katalonien, ed. P. F. Kehr (Berlin, 1926), pp. 287–8. An English translation of this letter is given in: Riley-Smith,The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095–1274, p. 40.

9. ‘Papsturkunden in Florenz’, p. 313.

10. J. France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 26–79; J. France, ‘Technology and the success of the First Crusade’, War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th–15th Centuries, ed. Y. Lev, The Medieval Mediterranean, vol. 9 (Leiden, 1997), pp. 163–76; Bull, ‘Origins’, pp. 18–22. Godfrey of Bouillon’s use of the crossbow is mentioned by the crusade chronicler Albert of Aachen. Albert’s account is currently only available in Latin as: Historia Hierosolymitana,RHC Occ. IV, pp. 265–713. A new edition and translation by S. B. Edgington will, however, be published shortly by Oxford Medieval Texts, based on her Ph.D.: ‘The Historia Iherosolimitana of Albert of Aachen: A critical edition’, ed. S. B. Edgington (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1991). I am deeply indebted to Dr Edgington for allowing me access to this work in advance of publication. In view of this I will cite all references to Albert’s account by book and chapter so that the new edition can be consulted. An example of Albert’s reference to Godfrey’s use of the crossbow thus appears as: Albert of Aachen, VI.16.

11. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 31–3; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 89–90.

12. Anna Comnena, Alexiade, ed. and trans. B. Leib, vol. 3 (Paris, 1976), pp. 122–3. The Alexiad has been translated into English in: The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Harmondsworth, 1969).

13. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, vol. 1, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1998), p. 693.

14. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p. 45. They were also connected by the bonds of lordship, for when Roger Borsa became the pope’s vassal in 1089, Bohemond was technically left as Urban’s rear vassal.

15. R. B. Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1917), pp. 1–33; W. B. McQueen, ‘Relations between the Normans and Byzantium, 1071–1112’, Byzantion, vol. 56 (1986), pp. 427–76; M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History, 2nd edition (London, 1997), pp. 129–31; Anna Comnena, vol. 1, pp. 143–68, vol. 2, pp. 7–60; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 17–18, 100–1.

16. R. L. Nicholson, Tancred: A Study of His Career and Work in Their Relation to the First Crusade and the Establishment of the Latin States in Syria and Palestine (Chicago, 1940). The Latin Ralph of Caen wrote Tancred’s biography in the first decade of the twelfth century. It offers a view of the First Crusade from Tancred’s perspective: Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Hierosolymitana, RHC Occ. III, pp. 587–716.

17. William of Tyre, Chronique, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 63, vol. 1 (Turnhout, 1986), p. 427. William of Tyre’s history is translated into English in: A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea by William Archbishop of Tyre, trans. E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, 2 vols (New York: 1943).

18. J. C. Andressohn, The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington, 1947); P. Aubé, Godefroy de Bouillon (Paris, 1985); G. Despy, ‘Godefroid de Bouillon, myths et réalités’, Academie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Pollitiques, ser. 5, vol. 71 (1985), pp. 249–75; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p. 96.

19. P. Gindler, Graf Balduin I. von Edessa (Halle, 1901); William of Tyre, pp. 454–5.

20. C. W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (Cambridge, Mass., 1920); J. A. Brundage, ‘An errant crusader: Stephen of Blois’, Traditio, vol. 16 (1960), pp. 380–95; M. M. Knappen, ‘Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade’, The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by his former students, ed. L. J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 79–100.

21. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 81–105; A. V. Murray, ‘Questions of nationality in the First Crusade’, Medieval History, vol. 1 (1991), pp. 61–73. Historians continue to debate the number of participants on the First Crusade. My estimate has tended to side with the calculations made by J. France, Victory in the East, pp. 122–42. For other recent contributions to the field see: B. Bachrach, ‘The siege of Antioch: A study in military demography’, War in History, vol. 6 (1999), pp. 127–46; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p. 109; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘Casualties and the number of knights on the First Crusade’, Crusades, vol. 1 (2002), pp. 13–28.

22. Robert the Monk, pp. 729–30; Baldric of Bourgeuil, p. 16.

23. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 17–18, 30–39,115–21; J. A. Brundage, ‘The army of the First Crusade and the crusade vow: Some reflections on a recent book’, Medieval Studies, vol. 33 (1971), pp. 334–43; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 22–3, 81–2.

24. R. Somerville, The Councils of Urban II. 1. Decreta Claromontensia (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 74. Baldric of Bourgeuil, p. 15, actually chose to present Pope Urban as seeking to capitalise on Latin greed. In his version of the Clermont sermon, Baldric has Urban promise prospective crusaders that: ‘You will get the enemies’ possessions, because you will despoil their treasuries.’

25. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 34, 39–40.

26. H. E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1988), pp. 21–3; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 47; France, Victory in the East, pp. 11–16.

27. Baldwin of Boulogne also set out on crusade with his English wife, but she died en route.

28. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 43; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 112, 118.

29. M. G. Bull, ‘The diplomatic of the First Crusade’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 35–54; G. Constable, ‘Medieval charters as a source for the history of the crusades’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 73–89.

30. Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 115–203.

31. Ralph of Caen, pp. 605–6.

32. Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 155–281; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 31–49; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 81–143.

33. Guibert of Nogent, p. 87.

34. Ralph of Caen, p. 606.

35. The First Crusaders’ status as pilgrims also afforded them a range of benefits traditionally associated with that penitential activity, including the protection of their property and land by the Church in their absence.

36. I have here presented only a small sample of the material relating to crusader preparations and the evidence of pious intent. For a fuller treatment of the subject see: Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 36–49; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 106–43.

37. Guibert of Nogent, p. 121.

38. E. O. Blake and C. Morris, ‘A hermit goes to war: Peter and the origins of the First Crusade’, Studies in Church History, vol. 22 (1985), pp. 79–107; C. Morris, ‘Peter the Hermit and the Chroniclers’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 21–34; M. D. Coupe, ‘Peter the Hermit – a re-assessment’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. 31 (1987), pp. 37–45; J. Flori, ‘Faut-il réhabiliter Pierre l’Ermite? (une réevaluation des sources de la Première Croisade)’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, vol. 38 (1995), pp. 35–54; J. Flori, ‘Pierre l’Ermite et sa croisades – légende et vérité’, Cahiers de Clio, vols. 125–26 (1996), pp. 29–39.

39. J. M. B. Porter, ‘Preacher of the First Crusade? Robert of Arbrissel after the Council of Clermont’, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. A. V. Murray (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 43–53; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 76–7.

40. Albert of Aachen, I.2.

41. Guibert of Nogent, p. 121.

42. William of Tyre, p. 124.

43. Guibert of Nogent, p. 121.

44. M. D. Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular movements from Bogomil to Huss, 3rd edition (Oxford, 2002), pp. 52–69.

45. Albert of Aachen, I.2–5; William of Tyre, I.11–12, pp. 124–7; Blake and Morris, ‘A hermit goes to war’, pp. 84–97.

46. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 34.

47. Albert of Aachen, I.2; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 207.

CHAPTER 3: THE JOURNEY TO BYZANTIUM

1. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 49–57; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘The First Crusade and the persecution of the Jews’, Studies in Church History, vol. 21 (1984), pp. 51–72; R. Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade(Berkeley, 1987); A. S. Abulafia, ‘Invectives against Christianity in the Hebrew Chronicles of the First Crusade’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P.W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 66–72.

2. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 51–2; Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 35–41; S. Runciman, ‘The First Crusade and the foundation of the kingdom of Jerusalem’, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 134–41.

3. Peters, The First Crusade: The Anonymous of Mainz, p. 113.

4. Peters, The First Crusade: Solomon ben Simson, p. 129.

5. Albert of Aachen, I.26.

6. Peters, The First Crusade: Solomon ben Simson, p. 126.

7. J. T. Gilchrist, ‘The perception of Jews in the canon law in the period of the first two crusades’, Jewish History, vol. 3 (1988), pp. 9–24.

8. Peters, The First Crusade: Solomon ben Simson, p. 131.

9. R. Chazan, ‘The Hebrew First Crusade chronicles’, Revue des études juives, vol. 133 (1974), pp. 235–54; R. Chazan, God, Humanity and History: The Hebrew First Crusade Narratives (Berkeley, 2000); A. S. Abulafia, ‘The interrelationship between the Hebrew chronicles on the First Crusade’, Journal of Semitic Studies, vol. 27 (1982), pp. 221–39.

10. Peters, The First Crusade: The Anonymous of Mainz, p. 115.

11. Ibid., p. 117.

12. Albert of Aachen, I.27.

13. Ibid., I.28–9; France, Victory in the East, pp. 88–95.

14. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 163.

15. France, Victory in the East, pp. 95–102. On the general question of crusader transport and Mediterranean travel see: M. Bennett, ‘Travel and transport of the crusades’, Medieval History, vol. 4 (1994), pp. 91–101; J. H. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean, 649–1571 (Cambridge, 1987).

16. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 213–15; Gesta Francorum, pp. 5–6.

17. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 163–74; V. Epp, Fulcher von Chartres: Studien zur Geschichtsschreibung des ersten Kreuzzuges (Düsseldorf, 1990).

18. Raymond of Aguilers, Le ‘Liber’ de Raymond d’Aguilers, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1969), pp. 36–8. Raymond’s account is translated into English in: Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Philadelphia, 1968); J. Richard, ‘Raymond d’Aguilers, historien de la première croisade’, Journal des Savants, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 206–12; Gesta Francorum, p. 5.

19. Albert of Aachen, II.1–6. Although not an eyewitness Albert did write a detailed and valuable account of the First Crusade with Godfrey as his central character. For a discussion of Albert’s value as a source see: S. B. Edgington, ‘The First Crusade: Reviewing the Evidence’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 55–77; S. B. Edgington, ‘Albert of Aachen reappraised’, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. A. V. Murray (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 55–67; S. B. Edgington, ‘Albert of Aachen and the chanson de geste’, The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. J. France and W. G. Zajac (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 23–37; C. Morris, ‘The aims and spirituality of the crusade as seen through the eyes of Albert of Aix’, Reading Medieval Studies, vol. 16 (1990), pp. 99–117; A. A. Beaumont, ‘Albert of Aachen and the county of Edessa’, The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by His Former Students, ed. L. J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 101–38. On Godfrey’s contingent see: A. V. Murray, ‘The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096–1099: structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade’, Revue belge de philology et d’histoire, vol. 70 (1992), pp. 301–29.

20. Gesta Francorum, pp. 7–8. On the debate surrounding the centrality of the Gesta Francorum as a source for the First Crusade and on the identity of its author see: J. France, ‘The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere of Peter Tudebode’, The Crusades and Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, pp. 39–69; J. France, ‘The use of the anonymous Gesta Francorum in the early twelfth–century sources for the First Crusade’, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. A. V. Murray (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 29–42; C. Morris, ‘The Gesta Francorum as narrative history’, Reading Medieval Studies, vol. 19 (1993), pp. 55–71; K. B. Wolf, ‘Crusade and narrative: Bohemond and the Gesta Francorum’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 17 (1991), pp. 207–16. On Bohemond’s contingent see: Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 100–1; E. M. Jamison, ‘Some notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with special reference to the Norman contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade’, Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope (Manchester, 1939), pp. 195–204; G. T. Beech, ‘A Norman–Italian adventurer in the East: Richard of Salerno 1097–1112’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XV: Proceedings of the XV Battle Conference and of the XI Colloquio Medievale of the Officina di Studi Medievali, 1992, ed. M. Chibnall (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 25–40.

21. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 208.

22. On the history of Byzantium see: M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204: A Political History, pp. 15–98; P. Charanis, ‘The Byzantine empire in the eleventh century’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Madison, 1969), pp. 177–219. On the debate surrounding the impact of Manzikert see: C. Cahen, ‘La campagne de Mantizikert d’après les sources musulmans’, Byzantion, vol. 9 (1934), pp. 628–42; M. Angold, ‘The Byzantine state on the eve of the battle of Manzikert’,Byzantinische Forschungen, vol. 16 (1991), pp. 9–34.

23. Anna Comnena, p. 109. On Anna Comnena’s biography of Alexius The Alexiad see: J. France, ‘Anna Comnena, the Alexiad and the First Crusade’, Reading Medieval Studies, vol. 10 (1984), pp. 20–38; J. Chrysostomides, ‘A Byzantine historian: Anna Comnena’, Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, ed. D. O. Morgan (London, 1982), pp. 30–46; G. A. Loud, ‘Anna Komnena and her sources for the Normans of southern Italy’, Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, ed. I. Wood and G. A. Loud (London, 1991), pp. 41–57; R. D. Thomas, ‘Anna Comnena’s account of the First Crusade: History and politics in the reigns of the emperors Alexius I and Manuel I Comnenus’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, vol. 15 (1991), pp. 269–312; R.-J. Lilie, ‘Der erste Kreuzzug in der Darstellung Anna Komnenes’, Varia II: Beiträge von A. Berger et al., Poikila Byzantina, vol. 6 (Bonn, 1987), pp. 49–148.

24. On the reign of Alexius Comnenus see: Angold, The Byzantine Empire, pp. 115–56; M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge, 1995); M. Mullett, ‘Alexios I Komnenos and imperial renewal’, New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty–Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992, ed. P. Magdalino (Aldershot, 1994), pp. 259–67.

25. On contact between Byzantium and the West see: P. Charanis, ‘Byzantium, the West and the origin of the First Crusade’, Byzantion, vol. 19 (1949), pp. 17–36; J. Shepard, ‘The uses of the Franks in eleventh-century Byzantium’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XV: Proceedings of the XV Battle Conference and of the XI Colloquio Medievale of the Officina di Studi Medievali, 1992, ed. M. Chibnall (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 275–305.

26. R.-J. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096–1204, trans. J. C. Morris and J. E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), pp. 1–7; Duncalf, ‘The councils of Piacenza and Clermont’, pp. 220–52; D. C. Munro, ‘Did the Emperor Alexius ask for aid at the council of Piacenza?’, American Historical Review, vol. 27 (1922), pp. 731–33; J. Shepard, ‘Cross purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 107–29.

27. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 208.

28. Gesta Francorum, pp. 2–3.

29. Albert of Aachen, I.15; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 44–5. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 210, suggests that Alexius actually counselled Peter to wait for crusader reinforcements before crossing the Bosphorus.

30. Albert of Aachen, I.15–16; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 210; Gesta Francorum, p. 3; Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall, vol. 5 (Oxford, 1975), p. 33.

31. Gesta Francorum, pp. 3–4; Albert of Aachen, I.16–17; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 210–11.

32. Albert of Aachen, I.18–19; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 211.

33. Gesta Francorum, p. 4–5; Albert of Aachen, I.19–21; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 211.

34. Albert of Aachen, I.21.

35. Ibid., I.22; Gesta Francorum, p. 5.

36. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 38; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 178–9.

37. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 206–7, 233. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 3–28, provides an outline of the initial contact between Alexius and the second wave of crusaders.

38. Gesta Francorum, pp. 5–6, 8–11; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 39–41; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 171–6; Albert of Aachen, II.7–9; S. Runciman, ‘The first crusaders’ journey across the Balkan Peninsula’, Byzantion, vol. 19 (1949), pp. 207–21.

39. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 39.

40. Albert of Aachen, II.10–15.

41. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 176–7.

42. Ibid., pp. 175–6.

43. Odo of Deuil, De profectione ludovici VII in Orientam, ed. and trans. V. G. Berry (New York, 1948), p. 65.

44. Albert of Aachen, II.10–15; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 220–6.

45. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 226.

46. Albert of Aachen, II.16.

47. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 226; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 8–28; France, Victory in the East, pp. 110–21; J. H. Pryor, ‘The oaths of the leaders of the First Crusade to emperor Alexius I Comnenus: fealty, homage, pistis, douleia’, Parergon, vol. 2 (1984), pp. 111–41.

48. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 230–4; Gesta Francorum, p. 12; Albert of Aachen, II.18. Regarding the debate over the terms agreed between Bohemond and Alexius see: A. C. Krey, ‘A neglected passage in the Gesta and its bearing on the literature of the First Crusade’, The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by His Former Students, pp. 57–78; J. Shepard, ‘When Greek meets Greek: Alexius Comnenus and Bohemond in 1097–98’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, vol. 12 (1988), pp. 185–277.

49. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 234; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 41–2; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 177–8; Gesta Francorum, p. 13; Albert of Aachen, II.19–20. On the debate surrounding Raymond’s relationship with Alexius see: Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 25–6; France, Victory in the East, pp. 120–1; J. H. and L. L. Hill, ‘The convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of St. Gilles’, American Historical Review, vol. 58 (1952–53), pp. 322–7; J. H. Hill, ‘Raymond of St Gilles in Urban’s plan of Greek and Latin friendship’, Speculum, vol. 26 (1951), pp. 265–76.

50. Albert of Aachen, II.16; Anna Comnena, vol. 2, p. 233; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 42; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 179.

51. Anna Comnena, vol. 2, pp. 230, 234.

52. C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, 1999), pp. 33–50; C. Hillenbrand, ‘The First Crusade: The Muslim perspective’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 130–41; C. Cahen,Introduction à l’histoire du monde musulman médiévale, Initiation à l’Islam, vol. 1 (Paris, 1982); C. Cahen, Orient et Occident aux temps des croisades (Paris, 1983); P. M. Holt, The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the 11th Century to 1517 (London, 1986), pp. 1–22 ; F. Gabrieli, ‘The Arabic historiography of the crusades’, Historians of the Middle East, ed. B. Lewis and P. M. Holt (London, 1962), pp. 98–107.

53. Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 38–40, 439–67, 511–33; France, Victory in the East, pp. 145–9; C. Cahen, ‘The historiography of the Seljuqid period’, Historians of the Middle East, pp. 59–78; C. Cahen, ‘The Turkish invasion: The Selchükids’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Madison, 1969), pp. 135–76.

54. Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 89–108; B. Z. Kedar, ‘Croisade et jihad vus par l’ennemi: une étude des perceptions mutuelles des motivations’, Autour de la Première Croisade, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1996), pp. 345–58.

CHAPTER 4: THE FIRST STORM OF WAR

1. Gesta Francorum, p. 13; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 178–83; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 42–3; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, p. 7.

2. Gesta Francorum, pp. 13–14; Albert of Aachen, II.37.

3. Gesta Francorum, p. 14. It is possible that during this interim period attempts were made to negotiate the surrender of Nicaea. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, p. 7, suggests that the crusader forces were divided because of the needs of supply, but even if this were the case the advance group was still exposed.

4. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 10–11.

5. Ibid., pp. 7–12; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 185–7; Albert of Aachen, II.23.

6. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 42–3; Albert of Aachen, II.21; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 139.

7. On siege dispositions see: Gesta Francorum, p. 15–16; Albert of Aachen, II.22–4.

8. Quotation from John Zonoras’ Epitome, taken from an unpublished translation by R. Macrides and P. Magdalino; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 183.

9. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 202–3; Murray, ‘Questions of nationality in the First Crusade’, pp. 61–73.

10. Albert of Aachen, II.32, II.43.

11. Gesta Francorum, p. 14; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 43; Albert of Aachen, II.22–24.

12. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 7–8.

13. Albert of Aachen, II.25–6.

14. Gesta Francorum, pp. 14–15; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 43; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 144; Albert of Aachen, II.26–28; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 8–9.

15. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, p. 9; Gesta Francorum, p. 15; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 144; Albert of Aachen, II.27–8; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 187; Albert of Aachen, II.34.

16. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 185–7; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 43; Albert of Aachen, II.29; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 139.

17. Albert of Aachen, II.30.

18. Gesta Francorum, p. 15; Albert of Aachen, II.31.

19. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 43–4; Albert of Aachen, II.33; Gesta Francorum, pp. 15–16.

20. Gesta Francorum, pp. 16–17; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 44; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 187–9; Albert of Aachen, II.32; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 11–12; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 139–40, 144–5.

21. Gesta Francorum, pp. 16–18; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 44; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 188–9; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 144–5; Albert of Aachen, II.37. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 12–16, suggests that Alexius sought to trick the Franks by making it appear that Nicaea fell in battle to Byzantine troops rather than surrendered.

22. There were other benefits from Nicaea’s fall. Scores of Latin prisoners who had been held in the city were released. Among them was an unnamed nun who had followed Peter the Hermit to Asia Minor. She had been captured by a Turk and repeatedly raped by him and a number of other men. Upon her release, she recognised Henry of Esch among the crusader hosts and begged him to help her find some way to purify her soul. At last Bishop Adhémar himself prescribed a suitable penance: ‘She was granted forgiveness for her unlawful liaison with the Turk, and her repentance was made less burdensome because she had endured this hideous defilement by wicked and villainous men under duress and unwillingly.’ Thus it is clear that, in the eyes of the Church, by being raped she had committed a sin. But this was not the end of the story. According to one contemporary, the nun ran back to her Turkish captor on the very next day. The whole tale may well be a product of Albert of Aachen’s imagination, and the nun’s final change of heart, which he attributes to the innate and overwhelming lustfulness of females, seems particularly unlikely – how was it that her Nicaean ‘lover’ was not himself now a captive? – but it does serve as a vivid illustration of medieval preconceptions about women and sex.

23. Albert of Aachen, II.37; Gesta Francorum, p. 17. On the concept of martyrdom in the context of the First Crusade see: H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Martyrdom and the First Crusade’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P.W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 46–56; J. Flori, ‘Mort et martyre des guerriers vers 1100. L’exemple de la Première Croisade’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, vol. 34 (1991), pp. 121–39; C. Morris, ‘Martyrs of the Field of Battle before and during the First Crusade’, Studies in Church History, vol. 30 (1993), pp. 93–104; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘Death on the First Crusade’, The End of Strife, ed. D. Loades (Edinburgh, 1984), pp. 14–31.

24. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 139–40, 144–5; France, Victory in the East, pp. 165–6.

25. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 189–90; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 16–17.

26. Gesta Francorum, p. 18; Albert of Aachen, II.38; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 145.

27. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 189–91.

28. Ibid., pp. 192–3; Gesta Francorum, p. 20. Stephen of Blois noted 260,000 Muslim troops (Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 145). France, Victory in the East, pp. 170–85, makes an elaborate, if not always entirely convincing, attempt to locate the battlefield and describes the ensuing conflict.

29. Gesta Francorum, pp. 18–20; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 192–7; Albert of Aachen, II.39–40.

30. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 194–6; Albert of Aachen, II.39.

31. Gesta Francorum, pp. 19–21; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 197–9; Albert of Aachen, II.41–3; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 45–6; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 145; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 18–19.

32. Ibn al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, Extracted and Translated from the Chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1932), pp. 41–2; Gesta Francorum, p. 21–3; Albert of Aachen, II.40, II.43.

33. Gesta Francorum, p. 23.

34. Albert of Aachen, III.1–2. Albert’s text has here been abridged.

35. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 88; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 64–5.

36. Gesta Francorum, p. 22; Albert of Aachen, III.3.

37. T. S. R. Boase, ‘The history of the kingdom’, The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, ed. T. S. R. Boase (Edinburgh and London, 1978), pp. 1–33; P. Charanis, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963); J. H. Forse, ‘Armenians and the First Crusade’,Journal of Medieval History, vol. 17 (1991), pp. 13–22; G. Dédéyan, ‘Les princes arméniennes de l’Euphratese et l’empire byzantin (fin Xie – milieu XIIe s.)’, L’Arménie et Byzance: Histoire et culture (Paris, 1996), pp. 79–88.

38. T. S. Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 16–19; France, Victory in the East, pp. 190–6.

39. Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 18–23.

40. Gesta Francorum, pp. 24–5; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 206–208; Albert of Aachen, III.3–13; Ralph of Caen, pp. 632–7.

41. Ralph of Caen, pp. 634–9; Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 21–2.

42. Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 22–3.

43. Gesta Francorum, pp. 25–7; Asbridge, The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 23–4.

44. Gesta Francorum, p. 27.

45. Ibid.; Albert of Aachen, III.27–8.

46. Anselm of Ribemont’s first letter to Manasses II archbishop of Rheims makes it clear that the crusader ranks were being thinned out by battle and illness (Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 145).

47. Albert of Aachen, III.17, III.27; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 205–9; Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. A. E. Dostourian (Lanham, 1993), p. 168.

48. Albert of Aachen, III.18.

49. Ibid., III.19; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 208–12; Matthew of Edessa, p. 168.

50. Albert of Aachen, III.20–22; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 211–14; Matthew of Edessa, pp. 168–9.

51. Albert of Aachen, III.23–4; Matthew of Edessa, pp. 169–70; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 213–14.

52. Albert of Aachen, III.24–5. On the history of the county of Edessa see: M. Amouroux-Mourad, Le comté d’Edesse, 1098–1150 (Paris, 1988).

CHAPTER 5: BEFORE THE WALLS OF ANTIOCH

1. On the general history of Antioch see: G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton, 1960).

2. Albert of Aachen, IV.26; C. Cahen, ‘The Turkish invasion: The Selchükids’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton, vol. 1, pp. 135–76; Introduction à l’histoire du monde musulman médiévale, Initiation à l’Islam, vol. 1 (Paris, 1982); P. M. Holt, The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the 11th Century to 1517 (London, 1986), pp. 9–15; A.-M. Eddé, ‘Ridwan, prince d’Alep de 1095 à 1113’, Revue des études islamiques, vol. 54 for 1986 (1988), pp. 101–125; Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 47–50.

3. The city of Antioch could also claim special spiritual significance for Christians because, according to tradition, Christ’s chief apostle St Peter founded the first Christian church there and acted as its bishop. J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘The First Crusade and St Peter’,Outremer, ed. B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 41–63; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, p. 211. According to Baldric of Bourgeuil, p. 12, Pope Urban II mentioned Antioch in his sermon at Clermont alluding to the link with St Peter, but this account may have been influenced by hindsight. However, the evidence offered by Fulcher of Chartres, p. 217 and the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum, p. 66 does suggest that the First Crusaders were aware of Antioch’s connection with St Peter.

4. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 46–7; France, Victory in the East, pp. 220–2.

5. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 24–7.

6. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 150; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 217; Albert of Aachen, III.36; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 47–8; France, Victory in the East, pp. 222–4.

7. R. Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1992), pp. 1–63.

8. Guibert of Nogent, p. 170.

9. Gesta Francorum, p. 28; Albert of Aachen, III.38–9; Ralph of Caen, pp. 641–3; France, Victory in the East, pp. 224–6.

10. Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere, ed. J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill (Paris, 1977), pp. 63–4.

11. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 49.

12. Gesta Francorum, p. 29; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 50. Raymond’s text has here been abridged.

13. Albert of Aachen, III.40–44; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 218–19.

14. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 134; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 146–9. For further discussion of naval support see: France, Victory in the East, pp. 209–20. For a more general discussion of Mediterranean naval activity see: J. H. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean, 649–1571 (Cambridge, 1987).

15. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 49; Caffaro di Caschilfellione, De liberatione civitatum Orientis liber, RHC Occ. V, pp. 49–50; Gesta Francorum, p. 30.

16. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 145, 158; Gesta Francorum, p. 29; Peter Tudebode, pp. 64–5; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 49.

17. Gesta Francorum, p. 29; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 221; Albert of Aachen, III.46.

18. France, Victory in the East, pp. 188–96, 206–20.

19. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 48; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 151; Matthew of Edessa, p. 167; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 27–31.

20. Albert of Aachen, III.50; Gesta Francorum, pp. 30–31; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 50; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 221–4.

21. Albert of Aachen, III.51–2; Gesta Francorum, p. 31; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 158; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 43; Kemal ad-Din, La Chronique d’Alep, RHC Or. III, p. 580.

22. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 50–1.

23. Gesta Francorum, pp. 32–3.

24. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 145; Peter Tudebode, p. 68.

25. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 150; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 224–6.

26. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 224; Gesta Francorum, p. 33; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 54; Albert of Aachen, III.52.

27. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 222–3; Gesta Francorum, p. 34; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 54.

28. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 223; Albert of Aachen, III.57; J. A. Brundage, ‘Prostitution, miscegenation and sexual purity in the First Crusade’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 57–65. On St Augustine see: P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo(London, 1967).

29. Albert of Aachen, III.53.

30. Gesta Francorum, pp. 33–4.

31. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 51.

32. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 54–6; Gesta Francorum, pp. 34–5; Albert of Aachen, III.38, IV.40. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, p. 20, has Taticius depart in May 1098 after being tricked by Bohemond. On the debate regarding Taticius’ departure see: Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 33–7; J. France, ‘The departure of Tatikios from the army of the First Crusade’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 44 (1971), pp. 131–47; France, Victory in the East, p. 243.

33. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 53–5.

34. Gesta Francorum, p. 35.

35. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 146–9.

36. Albert of Aachen, III.55–6.

37. Gesta Francorum, p. 35; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 51, 53, 55, 56; France, Victory in the East, pp. 281–2; J. Richard, ‘La confrérie de la croisades: à propos d’un episode de la première croisade’, Etudes de civilisation médiévale (IXe–XIIe siècles): Mélanges offerts à Edmond–René Labande (Poitiers, 1974), pp. 617–22.

38. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 56.

39. Gesta Francorum, pp. 35–8; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 56–8; Albert of Aachen, III.60–62; Ralph of Caen, p. 647; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 150–1, 158; Kemal ad-Din, p. 579. France, Victory in the East, pp. 245–51, attempts an extremely precise reconstruction of the battle, but may place too much faith in his exact identification of its site.

40. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 57–8.

41. Gesta Francorum, pp. 37–8, 42; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 58; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 151. Ibn al-Athir, Kamel-Altevarykh, RHC Or. I, p. 193, suggests that the crusaders had earlier sought to negotiate with Duqaq of Damascus. William of Tyre, pp. 267–8, writing in the later twelfth century, looked back on the negotiations with the Fatimids with relative equanimity, but made it clear that this contact ultimately concluded with the military defeat of these Egyptian Muslims.

42. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 226–7; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 158. For views on the death rate see: France, Victory in the East, pp. 122–42; Riley-Smith, ‘Casualties and the Number of Knights on the First Crusade’, Crusades, vol. 1 (2002), pp. 13–28.

CHAPTER 6: TIGHTENING THE SCREW

1. As we have seen, the exact nature of the English naval contribution to the crusade is unclear – these sailors may have come from England itself, or they may have been Byzantine mercenaries. The matter is further confused by the fact that two prominent Norman chroniclers recorded that Edgar the Ætheling, heir to the throne of England, commanded this fleet. Given that Edgar was still embroiled in a dispute over the succession to the Scottish throne in late 1097, this may be unlikely, if not entirely impossible. We do know that an Italian crusader named Bruno of Lucca travelled east with this fleet, because his fellow citizens were so proud of his adventures that they recorded his journey in a celebratory letter addressed, rather grandly, to every single Christian on earth.

2. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 165–6; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 59. On the question of whether Edgar the Aetheling accompanied this fleet see: France, Victory in the East, pp. 215–16.

3. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 151, 158, 166; Gesta Francorum, p. 39; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 59; Albert of Aachen, III.63.

4. Gesta Francorum, p. 40.

5. Ibid., p. 41.

6. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 151, 158, 166; Gesta Francorum, pp. 40–1; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 59–62; Albert of Aachen, III.63–6. Runciman, The First Crusade, p. 227, dedicated only one paragraph to these events. France, Victory in the East, pp. 253–4, similarly offers only a brief comment.

7. Gesta Francorum, p. 42.

8. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 61; Gesta Francorum, p. 42.

9. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 62; Gesta Francorum, p. 42; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 151–2, 158–9, 166; Albert of Aachen, III.66.

10. This view of Raymond of Toulouse’s motivation contrasts with that offered by: Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, pp. 44–82.

11. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 62–3; Peter Tudebode, pp. 78–9.

12. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 63–4; Gesta Francorum, pp. 43–4; Peter Tudebode, pp. 81–2; Ralph of Caen, pp. 644–5; France, Victory in the East, pp. 229–30.

13. Albert of Aachen, IV.9; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 64.

14. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 117.

15. Peter Tudebode, pp. 79–81.

16. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 159.

17. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 20–21; Gesta Francorum, p. 44; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 64; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 230–33; Albert of Aachen, IV.15; Ralph of Caen, pp. 651–3; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 159; William of Tyre, pp. 285–7; Matthew of Edessa, p. 170; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 45; Kemal ad-Din, p. 580; Ibn al-Athir, p. 192. For an analysis of contemporary source variation see: France, Victory in the East, pp. 257–8.

18. In a rather garbled account, Albert of Aachen recorded that an Armenian – also, rather strangely, named Bohemond – acted as a go-between with Firuz, but noted that it was generally believed in the crusader camp that Bohemond had chanced to capture Firuz’s son earlier in the siege and now coerced him to action.

19. Gesta Francorum, pp. 44–5.

20. Ibid., p. 45.

21. Albert of Aachen, IV.3.

22. Gesta Francorum, pp. 49–56; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 159.

23. Matthew of Edessa, p. 170; Michael the Syrien, III, p. 184; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 45–6; Kemal ad-Din, pp. 580–3; Ibn al-Athir, p. 194; Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 56–9.

24. Albert of Aachen, IV.13.

25. Ibid., IV.14–15; Gesta Francorum, p. 45; Ralph of Caen, p. 654; William of Tyre, pp. 288–9; Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 21–2.

26. Albert of Aachen, IV.10–12; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 242–3; Matthew of Edessa, p. 170; Runciman, The First Crusade, p. 231; Mayer, The Crusades, p. 51; J. Richard, The Crusades, c. 1071– c. 1291, trans. J. Birrell (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 52–3.

27. Tancred’s biographer, Ralph of Caen, who wrote about a decade after the event, would even have us believe that his hero had no idea that the attack would take place. This seems improbable given that Tancred commanded the siege tower not far from Firuz’s section of wall, but can perhaps be explained by Ralph’s desire to excuse Tancred’s failure to play a significant role in these events.

28. Gesta Francorum, pp. 45–6; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 64–5; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 166.

29. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 228; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 77; Gesta Francorum, p. 63; Albert of Aachen, IV.13; Guibert of Nogent, pp. 227–9; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 74; Brundage, ‘An errant crusader: Stephen of Blois’, pp. 380–95.

30. Gesta Francorum, p. 46; Albert of Aachen, IV.20.

31. Gesta Francorum, pp. 46–7; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 64–5; Ralph of Caen, p. 654; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 232–3; Albert of Aachen, IV.21.

32. Gesta Francorum, pp. 46–7; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 65.

33. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 65; Gesta Francorum, p. 47.

34. Albert of Aachen, IV.22–3; Gesta Francorum, pp. 47–8; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 65; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 233–5. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 44, remarked that the number of Antiochene’s ‘killed, taken prisoner and enslaved . . . is beyond computation’.

35. Gesta Francorum, pp. 47–8; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 65–6; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 159, 166; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 232–5; Albert of Aachen, IV.24–6; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 44.

36. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 234–5; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 65; Albert of Aachen, IV.25.

37. Ralph of Caen, pp. 655–60.

38. H. Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de le Première Croisade, 1094–1100 (Paris, 1902), pp. 153–4.

CHAPTER 7: TO THE EDGE OF ANNIHILATION

1. Albert of Aachen, IV.27–8; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 66–7; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 159.

2. Albert of Aachen, IV.27; Matthew of Edessa, p. 171; France, Victory in the East, pp. 260–1, 269.

3. Gesta Francorum, pp. 50–1; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 66–7; Albert of Aachen, IV.29.

4. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 67; Albert of Aachen, IV.33.

5. Gesta Francorum, pp. 50–1; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 66–7; Albert of Aachen, IV.29–32; Kemal ad-Din, pp. 582–3.

6. Gesta Francorum, p. 56; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 67–8; Peter Tudebode, pp. 96–7.

7. Gesta Francorum, pp. 56–7, 58–9, 61–2; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 67–8, 74; Peter Tudebode, p. 97; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 244–7, 262–3.

8. Albert of Aachen, IV.30–31; Peter Tudebode, p. 97; Gesta Francorum, pp. 61–2. According to Ralph of Caen, pp. 660–1, it was Robert of Flanders who set this fire. For an alternative view of this strange episode of arson within Antioch see: Asbridge,Creation of the Principality of Antioch, p. 36.

9. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 72–5; Gesta Francorum, pp. 57–8, 62; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 242–6.

10. Gesta Francorum, p. 62; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 262–3.

11. Albert of Aachen, IV. 27, 30, 32, 35; Gesta Francorum, pp. 61–2. The defence of this fortification seems to have been organised by Bohemond, with Rainbold Creton, Ivo of Chartres, Ralph Fontenais, Everard of Le Puiset and Peter son of Gisle among those manning the ramparts.

12. Gesta Francorum, pp. 62–3.

13. Albert of Aachen, IV.34; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 247, 262–3; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 76–7.

14. Gesta Francorum, pp. 62–3; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 262–3; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 76–7.

15. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 68–72; Gesta Francorum, pp. 59–60; R. Rogers, ‘Peter Bartholomew and the role of “the poor” in the First Crusade’, Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Karl Leyser, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), pp. 109–22.

16. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 93–5. For further discussion of the role of relics in medieval society see: P. Geary, Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton, 1990).

17. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 72, 74–5.

18. Gesta Francorum, p. 60; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 95–6.

19. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 75; Gesta Francorum, p. 65; Peter Tudebode, pp. 107–8; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 159–60, 166–7; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 235–8, 263; Albert of Aachen, IV.43; Matthew of Edessa, p. 171. Ralph of Caen, p. 678, suggests that a number of princes were immediately dubious about the lance, but his testimony is likely to have been coloured by hindsight and his anti-Provençal tendencies. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, p. 30, records the discovery of the relic, which she describes as a ‘nail’ but mistakes Peter Bartholomew for Peter the Hermit. Ibn al-Athir, p. 195, maintains that Peter Bartholomew buried the lance himself before duping the crusaders.

20. Mayer, The Crusades, p. 52. A similar line is taken by the following: R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades, vol. 1 (Paris, 1934), p. 103; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 95; France, Victory in the East, p. 279. See also: C. Morris, ‘Policy and vision: The case of the Holy Lance found at Antioch’, War and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of J. O. Prestwich, ed. J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 33–45; S. Runciman, ‘The Holy Lance found at Antioch’,Annalecta Bollandiana, vol. 68 (1950), pp. 197–205.

21. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 263.

22. Gesta Francorum, pp. 65–6.

23. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 75–8; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 95–6.

24. Anna Comnena, vol. 3, pp. 27–9; Gesta Francorum, pp. 63–5; Ralph of Caen, pp. 658–9; Albert of Aachen, IV.37, IV.40–1; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 37–9.

25. Albert of Aachen, IV.41.

26. Gesta Francorum, pp. 66–7; Peter Tudebode, pp. 108–9; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 79; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 159–60.

27. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 247–9; Albert of Aachen, IV.44–6; Ralph of Caen, pp. 663–5.

28. Matthew of Edessa, p. 171; Ibn al-Athir, p. 194.

29. Safe passage to Edessa, St Simeon or Cilicia might have been options for the crusaders, assuming they were prepared to give up Antioch, the city they believed to be the patrimony of St Peter. See: France, Victory in the East, p. 280, for an example of the refutation of the evidence presented by Matthew of Edessa.

30. Albert of Aachen, IV.46.

31. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 77; Gesta Francorum, pp. 67–8; France, Victory in the East, p. 279.

32. France, Victory in the East, pp. 280–96, provides a detailed and largely convincing analysis of the battle.

33. Albert of Aachen, IV.54.

34. Albert of Aachen, IV.55; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 247–9, 252.

35. Ibn al-Athir, pp. 194–5.

36. Gesta Francorum, pp. 68; Peter Tudebode, pp. 110–11; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 78–9; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 252–5, 263; Albert of Aachen, IV.47–8; Ralph of Caen, pp. 665–6.

37. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 80–1; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 263; Gesta Francorum, pp. 68–9.

38. Ibn al-Athir, p. 195.

39. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 263.

40. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 46; Gesta Francorum, pp. 69–70; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 80–3; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 160, 167; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 255–7, 263; Albert of Aachen, IV.49–53; Ralph of Caen, pp. 666–71; Matthew of Edessa, pp. 171–2; Ibn al-Athir, pp. 195–6; Kemal ad-Din, pp. 582–3.

41. Gesta Francorum, p. 70; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 256–7.

42. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 82; Gesta Francorum, p. 69.

43. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 81–2; Albert of Aachen, IV.53.

CHAPTER 8: DESCENT INTO DISCORD

1. Gesta Francorum, p. 72; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 84. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 265–6, seems to suggest that the delay was deliberately planned to allow the crusaders to rest and recuperate.

2. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 34–5.

3. Gesta Francorum, pp. 70–1; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 263; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 83. Ralph of Caen, pp. 675, 678, seems to be in error here when he suggests that the citadel fell to Raymond of Toulouse.

4. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 35–7.

5. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 39–41. For alternative readings of these events see: Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, pp. 85–109; J. France, ‘The crisis of the First Crusade from the defeat of Kerbogha to the departure from Arqa’,Byzantion, vol. 40 (1970), pp. 276–308.

6. Gesta Francorum, p. 72; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 83–4; Albert of Aachen, V.2–3.

7. Albert of Aachen, V.1; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 93–4.

8. Albert of Aachen, V.1; William of Tyre, pp. 339–40; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, p. 195; B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980), pp. 7–9.

9. Gesta Francorum, pp. 72–3; Albert of Aachen, V.15; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 77–9.

10. Gesta Francorum, pp. 73–4; Kemal ad-Din, p. 584; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 108–11.

11. Gesta Francorum, pp. 73–4.

12. Albert of Aachen, V.4.

13. Ibid.; Gesta Francorum, p. 74; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 84; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 258, 263–4.

14. For differing views on Adhémar’s significance see: Brundage, ‘Adhémar of Le Puy: The bishop and his critics’, pp. 201–12; Hill, ‘Contemporary accounts and the later reputation of Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy’, pp. 30–8.

15. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 129–30.

16. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 84; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, p. 28.

17. Albert of Aachen, IV.9; V.13.

18. Albert of Aachen, V.7–12; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 88–9; Kemal ad-Din, p. 586; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 30–1.

19. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 61; K. B. Wolf, ‘Crusade and narrative: Bohemond and the Gesta Francorum’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 17 (1991), pp. 207–16.

20. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 75, 85–7; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 97.

21. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, p. 154.

22. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 84–6.

23. Ralph of Caen, p. 679.

24. Albert of Aachen, V.3.

25. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 258–64; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 161–5.

26. Fulcher of Chartres, p. 264.

27. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 92–4; Gesta Francorum, pp. 75–6. Peter Tudebode, p. 118, actually suggests that Bohemond was unable to attend the meeting at Antioch on 1 November because ill-health detained him in Cilicia.

28. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 93–4.

29. T. S. Asbridge, ‘The principality of Antioch and the Jabal as-Summaq’, The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. P. Phillips (Manchester, 1997), pp. 142–52; Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 37–42.

30. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 91–2, 104–5; Gesta Francorum, pp. 74–5; Albert of Aachen, V.26; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 266.

31. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 94–102; Gesta Francorum, pp. 77–80; Albert of Aachen, V.26, V.29–30; Ralph of Caen, pp. 674–5; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 266–7; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 46–7; Kemal ad-Din, p. 587; Ibn al-Athir, pp. 196. For outlines of the siege of Marrat an-Numan see: Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 39–41; France, Victory in the East, pp. 311–15; Rogers, Latin Siege Warfare in the Twelfth Century, pp. 39–44.

32. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 94.

33. Gesta Francorum, p. 78; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 94–8. Greek Fire was an incendiary weapon based around naptha developed, not surprisingly, by the Greeks. Its key properties were sticky adhesiveness and a resistance to being extinguished by water.

34. Gesta Francorum, pp. 78–9; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 97–8.

35. Gesta Francorum, p. 79; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 98.

36. Gesta Francorum, pp. 79–80.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibn al-Athir, p. 196; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 98.

39. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 98–9.

CHAPTER 9: THE FALTERING PATH

1. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 99; Gesta Francorum, pp. 80–1.

2. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 99–100; Gesta Francorum, pp. 80–1; Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 47.

3. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 101; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 266–7; Gesta Francorum, p. 80. Peter Tudebode, pp. 124–5, suggests that the princes were worried that this type of atrocity might take place after the sack of Marrat and thus ordered the bodies of the dead Muslims to be dragged out of the city. For the suggestion that the incidence of cannibalism was linked to an organised group of ‘poor’ crusaders known as the Tafurs see: A. M. Sumberg, ‘The “Tafurs” and the First Crusade’, Mediaeval Studies, vol. 21 (1959), pp. 224–46. See also: M. Rouche, ‘Cannibalisme sacré chez les croisés populaires’, La Religion populaire: Aspects du Christianisme populaire à travers l’histoire, ed. Y.-M. Hillaire (Lille, 1981), pp. 29–41. It is worth noting that one crusader ‘crime’ at Marrat – the dismemberment of corpses in search of coins – mirrored closely the atrocities that Urban supposedly accused Muslims of committing against Christian pilgrims in Robert the Monk’s version of the pope’s speech at Clermont.

4. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 100–1.

5. Ibid., pp. 101–2; Gesta Francorum, p. 81; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 268.

6. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 102; Gesta Francorum, p. 81. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 150, indicates, for example, that Stephen of Blois seems to have been capable of distinguishing between different Islamic groups. In September 1099, however, Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse did, in the letter they authored with Daimbert of Pisa to Pope Paschal II (Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 170), seek to justify these dealings with Muslims, stating that they had been necessary ‘because our army was not large, and it was the unanimous wish to hasten to Jerusalem, we accepted their pledges and made them tributaries’. For further discussion of the crusaders’ relations with the Islamic powers of the Levant see: M. A. Köhler, Allianzen und Verträge zwischen frankischen und islamischen Herrschern in Vorderren Orient (Berlin, 1991), pp. 1–72.

7. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 102–4; Gesta Francorum, pp. 81–2.

8. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 105.

9. Ibid., pp. 105–6; Gesta Francorum, pp. 82–3; Ibn al-Athir, p. 197. The classic study of Krak des Chevaliers was made by P. Deschamps, ‘Le Crac des Chevaliers’, Les Château des Croisés en Terre Sainte, vol. 1 (Paris, 1934).

10. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 107.

11. Gesta Francorum, p. 83.

12. Ibid., pp. 83–5; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 108; Albert of Aachen, V.31.

13. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 107–9; Gesta Francorum, p. 85; Peter Tudebode, pp. 131–2; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 270; Albert of Aachen, V.31; Ibn al-Athir, pp. 196–7.

14. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 109–10; Historia Belli Sacri, RHC Occ. III , pp. 181, 189–90, 212–15.

15. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, p. 42; Gesta Francorum, p. 84; Albert of Aachen, V.33.

16. Gesta Francorum, p. 84; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 110–11; Peter Tudebode, pp. 129–31.

17. Albert of Aachen, V.33–4.

18. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 111–12. Raymond’s text has here been abridged.

19. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 112, 124–5. For further comparison between the use of tribute systems in Iberia and the Levant see: T. S. Asbridge, ‘The “crusader” community at Antioch: The impact of interaction with Byzantium and Islam’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, vol. 9 (1999), pp. 305–25.

20. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 112–20.

21. On the medieval ordeal see: R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford, 1986).

22. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 120–4, 128–9.

23. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 238–41; Albert of Aachen, V.13; Ralph of Caen, p. 682.

24. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 125–7.

25. Albert of Aachen, V.34–5; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 112, 127–30.

26. Gesta Francorum, pp. 85–6; Albert of Aachen, V.36–8. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 130, suggests that Raymond of Toulouse even tried to promote the investment of Tripoli itself.

CHAPTER 10: THE HOLY CITY

1. Gesta Francorum, p. 86; Albert of Aachen, V.38–9; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 270–4.

2. Albert of Aachen, V.40–2; Gesta Francorum, pp. 86–7. On the question of the Fatimid reaction and military organistion see: France, Victory in the East, pp. 357–60; Y. Lev, ‘Regime, army and society in medieval Egypt, 9th–12th centuries’, War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th–15th Centuries, pp. 115–52.

3. Gesta Francorum, p. 87; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 136; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 274–8; Albert of Aachen, V.43; Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, pp. 11–12; J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘The Latin clergy and the settlement of Palestine and Syria, 1098–1100’, Catholic Historical Review, vol. 74 (1988), pp. 539–57.

4. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 278–80; Albert of Aachen, V.44.

5. Gesta Francorum, p. 87; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 280–1; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 137; Albert of Aachen, V.45; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 118–19; C. Auffarth, ‘Himmlisches und irdisches Jerusalem. Ein religionswissenschaftlicher Versuch zur Kreuzzugeschatologie’, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft, vol. 1.1 (1993), pp. 25–49, vol. 1.2 (1993), pp. 91–118.

6. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 136–7 suggests that the crusaders did debate the best strategy during their advance on Jerusalem. On Jerusalem see: Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 281–92; A. J. Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades (London, 2001); J. Prawer, ‘The Jerusalem the crusaders captured: A contribution to the medieval topography of the city’, Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. W. Edbury (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 1–16; J. Osborne, ‘A tale of two cities: Sacred geography in Christian Jerusalem’, Queen’s Quarterly, vol. 103 (1996), pp. 741–50; France, Victory in the East, pp. 333–5, 337–43.

7. France, Victory in the East, pp. 334–5.

8. Ralph of Caen, pp. 684–5.

9. Gesta Francorum, p. 87; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 137–8; Albert of Aachen, V.46; Ralph of Caen, p. 687. France, Victory in the East, pp. 330–56, outlines the course of the siege.

10. Gesta Francorum, p. 88; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 139; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 293–4; Albert of Aachen, VI.1; Ralph of Caen, pp. 688–90.

11. Albert of Aachen, VI.2; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 294.

12. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 139–41; Gesta Francorum, pp. 88–9; Albert of Aachen, VI.6; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 294–5.

13. Gesta Francorum, pp. 88–9; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 141–2; Albert of Aachen, VI.4.

14. Albert of Aachen, VI.2; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 145–6.

15. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 143.

16. Albert of Aachen, VI.8.

17. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 145–7.

18. Albert of Aachen, VI.3, VI.10; Gesta Francorum, p. 91.

19. Albert of Aachen, VI.9, VI.15.

20. Ibid., VI.5, VI.8, VI.14.

21. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 144–5.

22. Gesta Francorum, p. 90; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 170–71; Albert of Aachen, VI.8.

23. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 146–7; Gesta Francorum, p. 90; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 295–6.

24. Albert of Aachen, VI.9–10; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 147–8; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 296.

25. Albert of Aachen, VI.10–11.

26. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 148.

27. Ibid., pp. 148–9; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 296–7.

28. Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 148–9; Gesta Francorum, p. 91; Albert of Aachen, VI.12, VI.15; Ibn al-Athir, p. 198.

29. Albert of Aachen, VI.12, VI.15–16; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 296.

30. Albert of Aachen, VI.16–17.

31. Ibid., VI.17–18.

32. Gesta Francorum, pp. 90–1; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 149–50; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 297–9; Albert of Aachen, VI.19.

33. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 150; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 299–300; Albert of Aachen, VI.20.

34. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 150.

35. Gesta Francorum, p. 91; Albert of Aachen, VI. 21–3; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 171. Ibn al-Athir, p. 197, numbered the dead of Jerusalem at 70,000. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 48, indicates that a large proportion of Jerusalem’s Jewish population were also slaughtered during the sack. France, Victory in the East, pp. 355–6, suggests that most of Jerusalem’s population was massacred in cold blood three days after the city fell. I am most grateful to Professor B. Z. Kedar for allowing me to see a copy of his forthcoming article ‘The Jerusalem massacre of July 1099 in the western historiography of the crusades’ in advance of its publication in Crusades, vol. 3 (2004). His work provides an excellent overview of all the evidence for this episode and offers a useful summary of the material contained in the Geniza texts. These contemporary letters written by Jews living in the eastern Mediterranean make it clear that some Muslims and Jews did survive the sack of Jerusalem. Kedar also notes that the contemporary Arabic writer Ibn al’Arabi estimated the number of Muslim dead at Jerusalem at only 3,000, still a significant figure but far less than that offered by other Islamic sources.

36. Albert of Aachen, VI.20; Gesta Francorum, p. 91; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 151; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 300–1; Ibn al-Athir, p. 198.

37. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 300–4; Gesta Francorum, pp. 91–2; Albert of Aachen, VI.23; Ibn al-Athir, p. 199.

38. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 301–2.

39. Gesta Francorum, p. 92; Peter Tudebode, p. 141; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 151; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 304–5.

CHAPTER 11: AFTERMATH

1. Gesta Francorum, p. 92; Albert of Aachen, VI.20; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 304; Ibn al-Athir, p. 198.

2. Gesta Francorum, pp. 92–3; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 152–3; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 306–8; Albert of Aachen, VI.33. For the debate regarding the title and powers with which Godfrey was invested see: J. S. C. Riley-Smith, ‘The title of Godfrey of Bouillon’,Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 52 (1979), pp. 83–6; J. France, ‘The election and title of Godfrey de Bouillon’, Canadian Journal of History, vol. 18 (1983), pp. 321–9; A. V. Murray, ‘The title of Godfrey of Bouillon as ruler of Jerusalem’,Collegium Medievale: Interdisciplinary Journal of Medieval Research, vol. 3 (1990), pp. 163–78.

3. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 153.

4. Ibid., pp. 153–4; Gesta Francorum, p. 93; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 175–6; Albert of Aachen, VI.39–40.

5. Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, p. 178; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 154; Peter Tudebode, pp. 145–6; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 309–10; Albert of Aachen, VI.38; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 98; A. Frolow, La Relique de la vraie croix (Paris, 1961). On the later significance of the relic see: A. V. Murray, ‘“Mighty against the enemies of Christ”: The relic of the True Cross in the armies of the kingdom of Jerusalem’, The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, pp. 217–37.

6. Gesta Francorum, p. 93; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 155–6; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 311–12; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 171–2; Albert of Aachen, VI.41.

7. Gesta Francorum, pp. 93–4; Raymond of Aguilers, p. 156; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 311–12; Albert of Aachen, VI.41–2.

8. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 156; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 171–2; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 312–13; Albert of Aachen, VI.43–4, VI.46; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 48–9; Ibn al-Athir, p. 198; France, Victory in the East, pp. 360–5.

9. Peter Tudebode, pp. 146–7.

10. Gesta Francorum, pp. 95–7; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 156–8; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 314–18; Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugssbriefe, pp. 171–3; Albert of Aachen, VI.45–50; Ibn al-Qalanisi, pp. 48–9; Ibn al-Athir, p. 198; France, Victory in the East, pp. 360–5.

11. Albert of Aachen, VI.51–3; Ralph of Caen, p. 703; Raymond of Aguilers, pp. 158–9.

12. Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 318–22; Albert of Aachen, VI.54–60; William of Tyre, pp. 436–8.

13. ‘Vita Urbani II’, Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, vol. 2 (Paris, 1892), p. 293.

14. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 121–2; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 145–6, 151–2.

15. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, p. 121; David, Robert Curthose, pp. 120–202.

16. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 144–5, 153–5, 166.

17. Ibid., pp. 156–7.

18. Ibid., pp. 155–6.

19. Ibid., pp. 144, 150–1, 155.

20. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 120–34; J. L. Cate, ‘The crusade of 1101’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. M. Setton, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Madison, 1969), pp. 343–67; A. Mullinder, The Crusading expeditions of 1101–02(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Swansea, 1996).

21. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 42, 198–9; Hill, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, pp. 142–58; J. Richard, Le Comté de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine (1102–1187) (Paris, 1945).

22. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 42–59.

23. Yewdale, Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch, pp. 85–134; J. G. Rowe, ‘Paschal II, Bohemund of Antioch and the Byzantine empire’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 49 (1966), pp. 165–202; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, pp. 72–82; Asbridge,Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 94–8.

24. Asbridge, Creation of the Principality of Antioch, pp. 59–81; T. S. Asbridge, ‘The significance and causes of the battle of the Field of Blood’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 23.4 (1997), pp. 301–16.

25. Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 61–3; A. V. Murray, ‘Daimbert of Pisa, the Domus Godefridi and the accession of Baldwin I of Jerusalem’, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500, ed. A. V. Murray (Turnhout, 1998), pp. 81–102.

26. Mayer, The Crusades, pp. 68–72.

CONCLUSION

1. Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 47–8; Hillenbrand, ‘The First Crusade: The Muslim perspective’, pp. 131–4.

2. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, pp. 135–52.

3. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 74–5.

4. C. J. Tyerman has made a strong case for caution in the use of the term crusading ‘movement’ given that the form, ideology and practice of crusading evolved gradually over the course of the twelfth century and did not spring fully formed from the mind of Pope Urban II, nor exist as a clear entity in the years immediately following the First Crusade. See his works: ‘Were there any crusades in the twelfth century?’, English Historical Review, vol. 110 (1995), pp. 553–77; The Invention of the Crusades (London, 1998).

5. France, Victory in the East, pp. 26–51, 355–6.

6. Raymond of Aguilers, p. 117; Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 78–81.

7. Asbridge, ‘The “crusader” community at Antioch’, pp. 319–21.