Moving Toward Jerusalem, 1099

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

With Armenian Cilician somewhat relieved of Turkish presence, the region of Armenian Edessa established as a Norman-ruled Christian “county”, and Bohemund acting as Prince of Antioch, the next step had to be Jerusalem. Many of the knights had sworn not to go home until they had captured Jerusalem. They may have envisioned a much faster campaign; they had now been away from home for several years, and they had not yet seen the Holy City. Many of them were impatient to get to this final stage so that, if they survived, they would be free to leave.

When the Princes set out in 1096, Jerusalem was governed by Ilghazi, a Seljuk Turk. However, by the time they captured Antioch in 1098, the half-Armenian Vizier of Fatimid Egypt controlled the southern territory. In some respects, the Muslim Empire was in a civil war. While we look back and blur Turks, Persians, Arabs and North Africans, at the time these divisions were distinct. Turks were adopting and co-opting Persian culture and the Arabic religion; but they were still invaders. The North African and Arab culture of Fatimid Egypt looked on the Turkish invasion with horror.

During the siege of Antioch, the Fatimids sent messengers to the European princes. They suggested forming an alliance against the Turks. Similar alliances had been made between Muslim rulers and portions of the Byzantine Empire, so it seemed plausible to the Egyptians that the Franks would agree. Dividing the land along a Maginot Line, the Egyptians would control the territory south of Antioch, while helping the Franks fight the Turks in Damascus and Aleppo. It was a good strategic plan and would have resulted in a Crusader kingdom firmly planted in Lebanon and Syria.

However, times had changed. The Crusaders were driven by ideology as much as by greed for a new kingdom in the spice-rich East. They did not view the Fatimids as potential allies against the Turks; the Fatimids were just more Saracens. The same shift was also going on in Spain, where pragmatic Arab city governors invited North African extremists to be their allies since the Christian kings were uniting across lines of religion, not strategy. The Crusaders did not distinguish between past Fatimids (like the mad Caliph who destroyed churches) and present ones (who permitted rebuilding). Their grasp of Muslim history and ethnic groups was as weak as the Turks’ grasp of European affairs. So to the Fatimids’ astonishment, their embassy was treated politely but firmly refused. The Crusaders intended to capture Jerusalem; they preferred to fight the Fatimid Mamluk armies than to ally with them.

The Fatimid governor began to fortify the city, preparing for an assault. Like other ancient cities, Jerusalem was walled. It had been besieged many times in the past; there were cisterns and underground tunnels to bring in water. When the European army finally approached, the Fatimid governor expelled all Christians (Armenians, Syrians, Greeks) from the city and poisoned wells in the countryside.

But the Europeans did not march on Jerusalem right away. As they recovered from the grueling siege of Antioch, they were struck with troubles. Predictably, there was a typhoid outbreak. Adhemar, the Papal Legate (one of the few educated leaders), died. Bohemund was busy getting his new city under control and cleaned up, but he still tried to compete for even more leadership and power.

Raymond of Toulouse, the highest-ranking remaining Prince, led a side expedition to capture a Syrian city and fortress just to the south. By the time their full force was set up as a siege, winter was coming. They built a siege tower and had the city in their hands by the start of 1099. This siege of Ma’arat is infamous not for any brilliant warcraft, but for reports of cannibalism after the city fell. Ever since the siege of Antioch, the lower-ranking soldiers had been going hungry, but they kept pressing on. Now some of them may have roasted or boiled dead Ma’arat residents. If so, it was a nadir of morale; cannibalism was absolutely considered a sin.

Eventually, Raymond of Toulouse got the remaining princes to swear fealty to him as feudal lord, and they began the official march on Jerusalem. They marched south during May 1099 and arrived at the Holy City in early June. The wells around the city, of course, were poisoned and all farm produce (such as there is at that time of year) was inside the city. Once again, they faced siege conditions as the besiegers.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Comments Off on Moving Toward Jerusalem, 1099

Two Sieges of Antioch, 1098

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

Antioch had been the regional capital of Roman Palestine. It was a walled city, with the Orontes River dividing it into two parts connected by bridges. Each bridge had a tower and could be defended; there was also a separate walled citadel (a sort of inner city) on its own hilltop. The outer wall encircled a fairly large area, with a number of gates, each defensible. The river valley had made a broad plain around Antioch, which was both good and bad for defense. Attackers could easily set up siege camps in the plain, but on the other hand, everything they did was visible to the defenders.

When the Crusaders’ army came to Antioch in 1097, the Muslim empire at last saw the seriousness of the invasion. At this late stage, they tried to make a concerted defense. Antioch, like the other nearby cities, had been ignoring Baghdad’s central rule since the last powerful vizier was assassinated. Now under siege, the governor of Antioch sent messengers to ask for help. Baghdad was still disorganized. Kerbogha, the Atabeg of Mosul, began to organize a large army drawn from all over Central Asia. If he could raise the siege of Antioch, it would be a first step toward making *himself* the new central power.

As large as the European army was, it was not large enough to complete a blockade of the city. Each of the princes stationed himself at one of the gates, but a few gates could still be used so that Antioch did not quickly run out of provisions. The Crusaders, on the other hand, found themselves functionally besieged in the river valley. Their Armenian allies in Edessa and Cilicia sent what help they were able to. But Radwan and Daquq were able to keep most local provisions from them. As the siege dragged on from October into December, the Crusaders were forced to send an army out into the Muslim-ruled countryside to attack some smaller towns and get provisions.

Bohemund, the son of Robert Guiscard, Norman conqueror of Sicily, offered to lead the food expedition. It didn’t go well, because Daquq of Damascus counter-attacked. Bohemund got back to Antioch safely and even with enhanced status, but they were no better off concerning food. People began to desert the Crusade in January, and by February, it was getting desperate. Radwan of Aleppo now attacked to lift the siege, but the starving Crusaders managed to hold on.

By May, there were two significant developments. From the east, Kerbogha marched from Mosul to Aleppo with a large army made of Turks, Persians, Arabs and other ethnic factions. He was confident that his army could easily defeat the Franks, starting with Edessa. What he didn’t realize is that the Normans had learned Turkish war tactics and now used specific strategies to counter them. The Turks liked to surround an enemy; the Normans would dispose their troops precisely to block being surrounded. The Turks were better archers than swordsmen; the Normans would force close combat. Kerbogha was not able to take Edessa back from Baldwin, but his confidence was not shaken and he marched toward Antioch.

The second key event: in Antioch, Bohemund started secret communication with an ethnic Armenian named Firouz, who oversaw the defense of some of the towers.  Firouz knew that a Crusader was now ruler in Edessa and that his countrymen were supporting the Europeans. Firouz agreed to leave his towers undefended if and only if Bohemund himself attacked them, personally. He didn’t trust the others.

Bohemund didn’t tell his fellow princes about his secret, but instead he casually suggested that they elect a leader who would then rule Antioch. Once he was put in command, he sent his troops–at night—straight at Firouz’s towers. They put ladders to the walls, but there was no defense. They climbed up and attacked. Firouz’s brother was killed, perhaps in the confusion, but at last Bohemund came over the wall personally and made sure that Firouz survived. His men opened the gates, and the other Crusaders ran in.

The sacking of Antioch was done with no mercy and lots of time pressure, because the army from Mosul was coming closer. The Crusaders would now be manning the wall of Antioch themselves, as defenders. Anyone spared was someone who would need food, and after six months of siege, the city’s rations were getting short. So for two days, they investigated food storage and defenses, killing anyone they found and tossing bodies in the street. The Armenian quarter was supposed to be spared in Firouz’s deal, but some Franks knifed any “foreigners” they found.

On the third day, Kerbogha’s vast army arrived. The Crusaders were now besieged within Antioch, restricted to the supplies that Antioch had been able to spare. Worse yet, the hilltop citadel inside Antioch was untouched, still held by Muslims. If at any time Kerbogha’s army seemed to be on the brink of winning, the Muslims inside the citadel could break out and start killing Crusaders.

The reserve of the Crusader army back in Tarsus heard of this difficult situation from deserters and other travelers. Their leader Stephen of Blois had made a vow to go all the way to Jerusalem, but when he heard of the desperate position in Antioch, he broke his vow and retreated. He recrossed Anatolia to Constantinople, and along the way, he met the Byzantine Emperor with an army.

What happened next was pivotal in the long-term results of the First Crusade. Stephen of Blois told the Emperor it was hopeless to ride to Antioch to assist the now-defenders. Alexios Komnenos listened to their persuasion and did not go. Not only was Stephen of Blois breaking his Crusade vow, but the Emperor was now breaking the vow made when he got the Crusade princes to swear fealty to him. Fealty was a two-way street. Submission by the lower prince was not more important than the duty of the higher prince to come to his vassal’s aid. To the extent that the Crusader princes actually meant their fealty vows, they now felt keenly the Emperor’s failure. In their eyes, the contract was void. They may never have known the role of Stephen, their fellow prince. All they knew was that the Emperor failed to come.

The Crusaders in Antioch were on their own during twenty long, terrifying days of siege by a massive army, on unfamiliar ground, with dwindling food and already half-starved soldiers.

The odds were heavily against the Europeans. The way they rescued themselves is a lesson in how important morale is during a battle. If you think you’re winning, just maybe you will. A monk named Peter Bartholomew had a vision of St. Andrew telling him that the Holy Lance (which had pierced Jesus’ side) was buried in Antioch. The princes were skeptical, but Raymond of Toulouse decided to back the monk up and start looking for the lance. They excavated inside the cathedral, then Peter Bartholomew himself went into the pit and brought up a spear point.

The news of this miracle surged through the city. In the next five days, the princes had to make a key decision: to surrender, negotiate or attempt a sortie. They sent Peter the Hermit (who had not only survived his followers’ previous disaster and was still around, but also spoke Arabic!) to talk to Kerbogha, but the terms were not acceptable. Peter and others brought back another interesting piece of news: Kerbogha’s alliance was starting to crack up. This made the princes’ decision. The knights and foot soldiers were only told that Holy Lance’s discovery had saved the day! Deus Vult! Morale surged; men began to mend their weapons and brush their surviving horses.

In reality, Kerbogha and Bohemund were both using Antioch as a springboard to power. The Crusaders knew that if Bohemund succeeded in saving their possession of Antioch, he would become the regional king. Although some of the princes grumbled, they were not really determined to vie against Bohemund, who was an excellent general. By contrast, Kerbogha was surrounded by Turkish, Persian, Arab and Kurdish war leaders who took strong exception to assisting him in becoming the next regional strongman. Radwan and Daquq wanted to push out the invaders, but Kerbogha’s power bid was actually a greater threat.

It all came together on June 28, 1098. Six starving divisions of Crusaders suddenly flung open the city gates and attacked the Turkish camp. Their leaders were Bohemund, Adhemar the Papal Legate, Hugh of Vermandois (brother of France’s king), Godfrey of Bouillon (whose brother was now Count of Edessa), Robert Duke of Normandy, Tancred who was Bohemund’s nephew, and Robert Count of Flanders. One of the knights carried the Holy Lance at the head of their charge.

Simultaneously, many of the Turkish governors and commanders deserted, moving their men quickly from the camp back through the hills away from Antioch. Kerbogha, leading a shrinking and demoralized army, fled from the battle field. Seeing the crushing defeat from the hilltop, the last Muslims in the inner citadel of Antioch surrendered to Bohemund personally.

Bohemund was the undisputed victor of Antioch, and it was now settled that whatever rank (county? princedom? kingdom?) they decided Antioch should have in their new feudal organization, he would be its prince. His nephew, Tancred, also rose in status. Hugh Vermandois, one of the royal rivals for power, began a journey back to Constantinople and never returned. So did the two Count Roberts. The chief rivals left for Bohemund and Tancred were Raymond of Toulouse and Godfrey of Bouillon, who appeared willing to stay on for Season Two of The First Crusade.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Two Sieges of Antioch, 1098

Armenian Governor, Prince and Vizier, 1097

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

When the Princes’ Crusade arrived in Armenian Cilicia, the Armenian Prince of Cilicia welcomed them with enthusiasm.

Until a few decades earlier, Armenia’s capital city was Ani, now a ruin near the borders of Turkey, Georgia and Armenia. Ani was conquered by the Byzantines in 1045, and its king invited to come live in Constantinople. When he arrived, he was told to sign abdication papers in exchange for a fief in Cappadocia, on the prairie plateau. The Emperor began resettling Armenians in Cappadocia and Cilicia, sending others to live in Ani. So apparently the forced relocations of Armenians go back pretty far. By the time the Seljuks sacked Ani in 1064, it was just another frontier Byzantine city.

An Armenian nobleman named Roupen (the Bible name Reuben?) fled from Cappadocia’s plains into the nearby Taurus Mountains after the king was executed (well, the king had murdered a bishop). Seizing the Cilician Gates, Roupen declared Cilicia an independent Armenian princedom. He was still alive but an old man when the Crusaders arrived at the Cilician Gates; his son Prince Constantine was acting head of state.

Had the Crusaders signaled that they were rock-solid with the Emperor, their reception might have been different. But as it was, they were only weakly allied, which suited Prince Constantine. Within the first weeks of their arrival, some Crusaders led by a minor Norman prince named Tancred routed Turks out of Cilician towns like Tarsus, allowing the Armenians to use the mountains as a secure border again. (They were able to hold onto Cilicia until the 14th century, which is pretty good.)

It’s not clear to me how Constantine was related to the inland city of Edessa. The conquering Turks had appointed an Armenian nobleman (who may or may not have been related to him) as governor. As you know, Sultan Tutush had died a few years back and his sons were plunging the region into war, Damascus vs. Aleppo. Edessa was certain to be drawn in, since old governor Thoros was technically part of the Turkish power structure. Edessa was “Armenian” in that the westward refugee drift had filled the city with Armenians and it was on the border of their traditional kingdom. But it was Turkish by politics, and Byzantine by older history.

Governor Thoros had no male heir. Prince Constantine formed a simple plan with the youngest of the three Boulogne brothers. Baldwin, who led his own knights, rode into Edessa before the Turks got wind of anything, and Thoros adopted him as his legal heir. (The Turks saw governorship as heritable.) Baldwin, a widower, then married his daughter Arda. It wasn’t many weeks until Thoros died—well, he was assassinated. We don’t know if discontented Armenians killed the collaborator, or if Baldwin chose not to wait for his inheritance. Either way, Baldwin declared Edessa independent of both Turkish “Rum” and Byzantium in 1098.

Just like that, the Crusaders had established their first state. Edessa was a rich farming county, and its influence could spread as Baldwin and the Armenians grew stronger. When it merged with the coastal territories the Crusaders would win, they’d have a viable state. As Count of Edessa, incidentally, Baldwin was now the feudal equal of his brothers, who were a Count and a Duke. The Boulogne brothers are a refreshing note in history, actually, because they were steadily loyal to each other and inspired loyalty in others. Within a few decades, this loyalty would make Baldwin the most famous and important of the first Crusaders.

There was a third Armenian ruler in the Holy Land during this time, and it’s not someone we’d expect: it was the Grand Vizier of Fatimid Egypt! His father was an Armenian boy captured/bought as a Mamluk, trained rigorously and promoted into military and governing levels until he became the Grand Vizier under Caliph al-Mutansir.  His son, born while he was governing Acre in the Holy Land, became Vizier after him. Of course, this Vizier was a fervent Muslim and knew nothing of Armenian culture, even if he was half Armenian. Still, it’s interesting to note just how many levers of power at this point were held by Armenians!

And al-Afdal’s power was immense. We’ve already seen that when al-Mutansir died, the Vizier chose to crown the much younger son Mustaali instead of the older one, Nizar. Mustaali was Caliph and Imam in spite of the Nizari opposition, but clearly, the Mamluk Vizier who chose him had the real power. Mamluks were no longer slaves except in origin; they soon became outright rulers in Egypt (but not quite yet).

To the Fatimid Caliphs and their Viziers, the Turkish invasion infused the worn-out Sunni party with alarming new vigor. Turkish Sultans were fiercely Sunni; they executed Ismaili missionaries (except for the ones holed up in Alamut) and kept advancing through the Muslim heartland: Damascus, Antioch, Jerusalem… When the Turks’ Persian Vizier was murdered by a Nizari assassin, the Fatimids rejoiced. As Radwan and Daquq fought each other to become the next regional Emir, the Fatimids decided to move.

Quite independently of the Crusaders, Vizier al-Afdal led Egyptian Mamluk troops north into the Holy Land. In 1097, he captured Tyre (part of Tripoli) in Lebanon. In 1098, he took Jerusalem from Ilghazi, one of those feuding petty Turkish lords. The rest of the land, south to Egypt, was posted with Mamluk units. The Turkish advance into the Holy Land stopped permanently. Between Cilicia, Edessa, and Fatimid Egypt, could Armenians sweep the Turks entirely from the map? 

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Armenian Governor, Prince and Vizier, 1097

Through the Cilician Gates: Armenia, 1097

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

Names and borders in the area now known as Turkey have changed so many times that it’s difficult at first to understand the region that the Crusaders were approaching. The few educated priests among them probably knew the New Testament names of some of these places. The writings of Paul and Jesus’ disciples used Romanized version of Greek colonies.

After leaving Nicaea, the Crusaders crossed the Roman province of Galatia, which included cities to whom Paul had addressed his Letter to the Galatians. Galatia was a very wide plateau, averaging 1000 feet above sea level, so at first they followed a steep road from Lake Ascanius up into the plateau. In modern times, Ankara is in the center of this plateau.

The plateau ends in the east by going up into the higher mountains or, right at the coast, going sharply down again to sea level. There was one much-used pass that led down to the wide coastal plain of Cilicia; it has always been called the Cilician Gates. Two huge boulders act as gateposts to a narrow pass that’s only wide enough for a modern road. Modern Turks call it the Gulek Pass (picture). Invading armies must go through the pass in a long line, though not quite single-file. Since ancient times, the pass has been guarded by a fortress.

Look at this topographic map of Turkey. The modern town of Adana is located in the middle of the Cilician coast plain, and just to the left, you may notice white higher elevations with a break in the middle. That’s the pass. Apostle Paul’s home town of Tarsus was in Cilicia, near modern Adana. When the Crusaders went through the Cilician Gates, they were now in the Holy Land, in their minds.

Go back to the topo map of Turkey, and look way to the east, to Armenia. Right at the border is the mountain marked Ararat. It’s in this mountain range that Noah was said to land in the Ark. A very ancient indigenous nation, the Armenians, claimed that their founding ancestor was Noah’s great-grandson Hayk. They believed that while other descendants drifted away, the family of Hayk remained in the foothills of Ararat, spreading down into the plateau toward the Mediterranean. Their capital city, in the early Middle Ages, was just east of modern Gaziantep. It was called Edessa in Greek; its original name appears to have been something like Urhay, and in modern Turkey it’s called Urfa or Sanliurfa. At the height of Armenian power, they ruled from Cilicia (the fortress at the pass was Armenian) through the mountains, over to the shores of the Caspian Sea.

The Armenians did not have a port, originally, so they allied and cooperated with whoever lived in the nearest Mediterranean cities. Greek settlements ringed the Mediterranean coast, so the nearest port towns were Tarsus, Antioch, Latakia and Tripoli. Latakia and Tripoli were further down into modern Lebanon, but Antioch is still on the topo map of Turkey. It’s called Antakya in Turkish, but if you look for it on Google Maps, try Hatay, which is also the name of the province. It’s just south of Iskendurun.

Antioch was a major Roman port and it had become a center of Syrian Orthodox Christianity. It was located on the Orontes River, which winds very slowly through Syria and forms part of a very squiggly, oxbowed border between Syria and Turkey. The Orontes River was unusual for the region because it flowed from south to north; although it was merely following its course downhill, local people had generalized that rivers flowed north to south—except for this one. The river was not very useful for travel, but it formed a lake at Antioch (now drained) and created a wide floodplain for farming and foot travel. So a great deal of ancient settlement was along the Orontes River.

Armenia’s traditional close ties to Antioch led to its being one of the first non-Greek nations to accept the new doctrine of Jesus. Although Armenia was integrated with its Greek and Aramaic neighbors to some extent, its unique language and culture also kept it isolated. Armenians developed their own church traditions and were not part of the Greek Orthodox network. (Here is a video of Armenian music to accompany the Lord’s Prayer. “Hayr Mer” means “Father Our.” Hayr is a cognate of Latin Pater.)

Going back to the green triangle of Cilicia (modern Adana), this region had changed a great deal just before the Crusade. The Seljuk Turks entered Byzantine Anatolia only after stampeding across Armenia. Armenian refugees crowded up into the mountains (where modern Armenia is located) and down into Cilicia, where they could expect some Byzantine protection. So Cilicia had become an Armenian enclave; later it was even its own “Kingdom of Armenia in Cilicia,” but at this time it was still a frightened refugee population. Several Cilician cities, including Tarsus, had already fallen to the Turks.

A few cities dominated the region in 1097:

–Edessa, still the Armenian capital;

–Antioch, still an active port;

–Aleppo, called in Paul’s time Berea, terminus of the Silk Road travel;

–Damascus, the ancient capital of Arameans and Syrian Christians, but now a regional Muslim seat of government;

–Tripoli, the Greek name for the tri-city zone of Tyre, Sidon and Arados, and traditionally a ship-building powerhouse due to the good timber in Lebanon;

and Jerusalem. Because it was holy.

Armenian Edessa was still independent of Turkish rule, though its sovereignty was shrunken to just the zone near the city. Antioch, Aleppo, Damascus, Tripoli and Jerusalem were all part of the Muslim Empire, but at this time they were led by warring Turkish governors. This is the land that the Crusaders now entered by the Cilician gates, climbing down from 1000 feet to sea level.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Through the Cilician Gates: Armenia, 1097

The Princes (1st Crusade) Cross Anatolia, 1097

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

When the Byzantines and Crusaders besieged Nicaea, the Seljuk Turks saw that they were a serious invasion force. Kilij Arslan was fighting another tribe of invading Turks to the east. He had only just declared independence for “Rum,” that is, the former Roman lands of Anatolia, and he had to battle back invading tribes who saw opportunity in chaos. For the remainder of the time that the Europeans were in his territory, the Sultan focused on trying to stop them. He wasn’t able to.

Remember that not long before this, an Ismaili assassin dressed as a dervish asking alms had killed the Grand Vizier on his way from Isfahan to Baghdad. The Grand Vizier was a well-educated Persian who understood governance strategy better than the Turkish Sultans whom he served. Until now, Baghdad had been enough of a central government that an invasion would have provoked a concerted defense. But after one Sultan died with only a child as heir and then the savvy Grand Vizier was murdered, Baghdad lost all control of its provinces. Not only was it no longer in control of North Africa or Egypt; it lost control of Syria and many Persian cities. Many Turkish city governors were at war, attempting to seize more power. So at this exact point in history, the Muslim lands were too fractured and recently-invaded to make a unified defense.

As the Crusaders marched across Anatolia, from Nicaea to the coast near Syria, they broke into two armies: French and Norman. The Normans were about a day’s march ahead of the French when Kilij Arslan brought down his main army to stop them. The Sultan did not realize that the French army was as large as it was, or else he thought it was farther away. As the Normans defended their camp, the vanguard of the French army arrived. Arslan had to withdraw from a battle where he was clearly outnumbered.

The European forces stayed near each other from then on, and he did not attack them. However, Turks went in advance to destroy and burn everything along the road. By the time they reached the coast of the Mediterranean, some of the Crusaders were starving. They lost a lot of horses in the heat.

If the regional Turks could have joined the Sultan of Rum to attack the Crusaders at that time, they might have won easily. But even as the Europeans approached, the Turkish governors of Aleppo, Antioch, Damascus and Jerusalem were allying against each other and preparing to march on each other’s territory. At the center of this drama was a pair of brothers who had turned against each other and were battling for supremacy. Without a powerful central government to force them into unity, they only turned to meet the Europeans as small local armies, city by city.

The bad summer march through burnt farmlands brought the first year of the Crusade to a close. Joint leadership could not last beyond that first year. The Papal Legate could not enforce his nominal leadership, and the four leading French and Norman princes jockeyed for power. None of them was clearly strong enough to take control. As they reached the edges of Bible lands (cities that Paul had visited), one of the Boulogne brothers set off on his own.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Comments Off on The Princes (1st Crusade) Cross Anatolia, 1097

First (Princes’) Crusade: Victory at Nicaea, 1097

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

Around the same time that Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir were arriving in Constantinople, four official organized armies left Europe. As these armies traveled, the disorganized Peoples’ Crusade met thorough defeat in Anatolia. Only a few weeks after their 3000 survivors had been rescued by Byzantine soldiers, the first official force arrived under Hugh Vermandois, brother of the King of France.

Raymond of Toulouse, Bohemond of Taranto (that is, a Norman who had just conquered a swath of Italy) and Godfrey of Bouillon led the other three armies. With Godfrey rode his brothers Eustace Count of Boulogne, and Baldwin who as yet had no title. Modern estimates guess that Raymond of Toulouse had the largest army, and that all together there were probably many thousands of armed men, perhaps 30,000. Most were foot soldiers.

The first difficulty they met was that the Emperor considered them potentially an invasion and wanted them to swear allegiance to him before they could go farther into his territory. He wanted them to swear not to conquer any territory on their own, but only in the name of Constantinople. It’s interesting that the leader who successfully resisted this oath was the Count of Toulouse; Toulouse remained independent until 1229, when the Crusade against its Cathars left the region charred and broken. Toulouse did not consider itself French, nor under allegiance to the French king. Raymond IV also led the largest army. He swore not to harm the Emperor, but no more.

The first expedition of the official First Crusade was led against Nicaea by two Byzantine generals, the four princes, and the Papal Legate. This city was a Greek colony not far from Constantinople. It’s the home of the Nicene Creed, which we pronounce “Nice-een,” but in Greek it’s spelled Νικαια, with a k.

Sultan Kilij Arslan was using Nicaea as forward base and capital, which demonstrates just how close his army was coming to a frontal attack on Constantinople. The Byzantines certainly knew the town’s defenses well, since it had been one of their strongholds until very recently. Kilij Arslan’s army was away at the time, conquering more of Anatolia.

Nicaea’s chief defense against attack or siege was the presence of Lake Ascanius, a 20-mile long inland lake. The lake worked well to foil attempts to box the town in. The Crusader expedition was not prepared to fight on water as well as on land, but the Turkish garrison could always bring supplies from the other side of the lake. It must have been very maddening for the Byzantine generals to see all of Lake Ascanius’ boats in the hands of Turks.

However, some Crusaders had come by sea, and their boats were idle in Constantinople’s harbor. The Emperor sent some of these ships by tree-trunk log rollers, more than 40 miles to the inland lake. It doesn’t seem likely that he paid to have the ships hauled back, which may be why he didn’t use his own ships. Now both sides had boats!

But here, Alexios Komnenos played a careful strategy that, in retrospect, was the first step in the Crusades’ breakdown. He had appointed two generals, and the one closer to him was given secret instructions. While Byzantine forces appeared to be assisting in the siege, General Manuel Boutoumites arranged a sudden surrender of Nicaea only to Byzantine forces. Probably the Turks and resident Greeks had heard of the Normans’ reputation in Sicily. Once Nicaea surrendered, its terms stipulated that the Crusaders’ entry would be very controlled. General Boutoumites allowed them to enter only in very small groups, like tourists.

Nicaea was not sacked. Instead, the Byzantine treasury paid the Crusader princes for their valuable role. This was the model Alexios wanted to continue following as the guest army moved farther into Turkish-held territory. But his careful plans had rightly conveyed to the princes that he didn’t trust them. Their knights grumbled about the lack of loot. As a first try at cooperation, Nicaea was both success and loss.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , | Comments Off on First (Princes’) Crusade: Victory at Nicaea, 1097

Nizaris: Assassins in the 1090s

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

Muslim regions were no longer unified in any real way, by the time the real Crusaders arrived. I’ve previously explained the three most significant blows to Muslim unity: Fatimid evangelism, North African puritanism, and the rapid conquest of Turks from the east.

In the years running up to European invasion, the Fatimid dynasty’s fervent belief system had fractured into three factions. The Druze refused to accept as Imam any of the Fatimid Caliphs after al-Hakim. Adherents to the esoteric doctrine of Druze theology were, as now, clustered in Syria. An early persecution prompted them to make secrecy a tenet of their faith, so they stayed very quiet for the next centuries.

The next major break was more disruptive. Caliph al-Mutansir, who died in 1094, supposedly wanted his older son, Nizar, to be the next Caliph and Imam. But after al-Mutansir died, the younger son, al-Mustali, seized power. Nizar had to hide.

This event created the next Ismaili split; most Ismaili splits were over which brother was supposed to succeed the father. While the majority of Fatimids in Egypt accepted Caliph al-Mustali (what else could they do?), a radical group of Nizar supporters did not. They fled Egypt, following a trail of believers and safe houses into Persia.

The Seljuks in Persia were deeply hostile to Ismailis and other kinds of Shi’ites. There was no way that Turks could ever be seen as close relatives of Mohammed, so all Shi’ite doctrine was directly hostile to their rule. They persecuted and executed Ismaili missionaries as possible.

By the 1090s, when Caliph al-Mutansir was getting old in Cairo, Seljuk power was growing, mainly under the guidance of a Persian vizier who served several Seljuk generals in succession. Around this time, Hassan i-Sabbah (the chief Ismaili Da’wa in Iran) obtained the remote hilltop fort in northern Iran that became the headquarters for Ismailis and then specifically Nizaris. He named it Alamut, meaning Eagle’s Nest (or Eagle’s Teaching). Once he entered it, he never left. He shut himself into a room and devoted his hours to scholarship and prayer.

The Ismailis wanted to strike back at Seljuk Sunni power; as Iranian Ismailis were few in number, they had to use strategic killing rather than frontal assaults. In Alamut, lower-ranked believers were trained as killers. Their first targets were Seljuks, but after the Nizari split, Alamut considered itself at war with all Muslim rulers. Anyone but Nizar or his descendants was an anti-Caliph who led people straight to hell.

We’ve all heard that the first Assassins used hashish either to evoke Paradise or to carry out their attacks. Current scholarship is against this popular idea, seeing it as a slander put out by non-Nizaris (ie. pretty much everyone else). Ismaili doctrine was extreme and fervent, and it may have been enough to inspire their self-sacrificial assassins, the fedayeen, to give up their lives.

Assassins were trained for stealth, patience, and final delivery of the planned blow. Their weapon was the knife, often with a poisoned tip. They were allowed to take time to assimilate to a town, or to disguise themselves as harmless persons (like whirling dervishes). But eventually, they always got their man. Sometimes their orders were only to threaten and frighten a ruler, but often they carried out public assassinations, like on the steps of the main mosque. Other times, they assassinated in private. The strategic plan was to make everyone else believe that Nizari assassins were almost supernatural in their ability to reach their targets.

The first Alamut-ordered assassination was of the Seljuk vizier, Nizam al-Mulk. He was a gifted ruler who succeeded in maintaining power balance among the last of the Abbasids, various Seljuks, and yet more Turkic tribes flooding into Persia. But while he was traveling from Isfahan to Baghdad on a litter, a Sufi whirling dervish approached him, perhaps for alms. It was really an Ismaili assassin; he stabbed the Vizier. Only our imaginations can suggest what might have happened if the talented vizier had been alive when the Crusaders arrived. Instead, the assassins created a power vacuum.

After Alamut became the Nizari stronghold and headquarters, the Nizaris became the most feared sect. Any murders carried out in the Muslim zone for nearly 200 years were attributed to Nizari assassins. It was often true, but it served their purposes also when it wasn’t. Nizari doctrine spread, and there were other hilltop fortresses to train assassins. Just to glance ahead at the future: eventually, the Mongols destroyed Alamut. Nizaris continued to believe their doctrine but became a dispersed, secretive sect. The Aga Khan is the current Imam of the Nizaris. The Khans of modern times have never tried to seize secular power and do not order assassinations.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Nizaris: Assassins in the 1090s

End of the People’s Crusade, 1096

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

About five waves of disorganized pilgrims set out to cross Hungary on foot in 1096. In the first wave, they split up as they reached the Danube, some going by boat, some walking to a better ford. Walter Sans-Avoir was the first to reach Belgrade, outpost of Byzantium.

Walter’s band ran into unexpected trouble in Belgrade because the Byzantine commander didn’t know what to do with them. He told them not to proceed farther until he had instructions. Their provisions ran out, so they took food from Hungarian and Serbian farmers (to put it bluntly, they robbed and pillaged the countryside). Eventually the commander let them move ahead to southern Serbia while he sent messengers to Constantinople. Peter the Hermit’s band arrived next and ended up in a full riot in Belgrade after a marketplace dispute. Many of the local people were killed, and the “pilgrims” robbed and torched the city.

In southern Serbia, the two groups met at the city of Nisz. Again, a dispute touched off a riot, but in this case, a garrison of Byzantine soldiers joined the battle and as many as a quarter of the Crusading pilgrims were killed. The rest were escorted by a heavy guard to Sofia, then to Constantinople. Italians arrived by sea, joining the mix of Germans and French.

Emperor Alexius I Comnenus didn’t know what to do with this dangerous, undisciplined band of armed foreigners. It was not at all the sort of help he had asked for. The end result was both sensible for the Emperor and disastrous for the Crusaders: he ordered boats to carry them across the Bosporus to the Asian side. They landed on Byzantine territory but within a day’s walk they were into areas threatened by Turks. Peter the Hermit was still with them, but he had lost control. Norman/Italian robber knights now led the army, such as it was. It still included paupers, women, and children.

The Sultan of Seljuk Anatolia at this time was Kilij Arslan. He had declared independence from Seljuk Baghdad and was in the process of conquering all of Anatolia for his people. He had the momentum of conquest on his side and his men were practiced in battle.

The Europeans attacked some towns now held by Seljuks. It was very poor military strategy, because if you push too far ahead of your support system, you can be stranded and surrounded. Kilij Arslan’s men surrounded one part of the European force in a town they had just taken and besieged them into defeat. They killed about 30,000 of the rest of Peter the Hermit’s group nearby, including paupers and women. Some surrendered, converted to Islam, and went into slavery in Persia. Three thousand Crusaders (probably fighting men) survived in an abandoned castle until they were rescued by a Byzantine force, the only ones to return home.

By October 1096, the popular Crusade was over. Two hundred years later, a group of children may have set out to take back the Holy Land. Otherwise, the lesson appears to have been learned. Taking back the Holy Land was not an End Times miracle or a holy pilgrimage. If ordinary people wanted a way to be holy, it had better not involve spears.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on End of the People’s Crusade, 1096

First Crusade Jewish Massacre in Germany

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

In 1096, many of Germany’s Jews were massacred by the minor knights and paupers gathering for “pilgrimage.” When we look back from the 21st century, the event doesn’t seem surprising because we know the end of the story. But that’s not the best way to read history; we have to look for the beginning of the story as well. A one-word answer, like “Anti-Semitism,” isn’t good enough to the question, “why?”

Cologne’s name came from Latin “Colonia.” Around the turn of the BC/AD timeline, Roman legions went up the Rhine River and established a fort among a friendly Germanic tribe, the Ubii. General Nero Claudius Germanicus and his wife had their first daughter, Agrippina, in the camp; she eventually became Emperor Claudius’ fourth wife, and in 50 AD he named her birthplace “Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis.” The new German territory attracted Jewish settlement, perhaps before the general Jewish diaspora in 70 AD, but certainly in the years after. Jews helped develop viticulture in the Rhine Valley.

By the time of the Frankish migration into Europe, the Jews of Cologne were well established in farming and trade. They were never viewed as immigrants. Why, then, did they suddenly face massacre? Six facts about 11th century Northern European society, combined together, seem to give us an answer:

1. Rise in Norman power; the Normans were against everything the Jews were best at: scholarship, diplomacy, finance and trade. Norman lords seemed to feel natural scorn for the humble, clever, internationally-connected Jewish merchants and were glad for an opportunity to show their scorn. As we’ve also seen, they were a very aggressive, militant culture even compared to their distant cousins, the Franks and Anglo-Saxons. As we’d say now, they moved the Overton Window in the direction of more savagery, not less.

2. Association of Jews with the Holy Land, the Holy Land with Saracens, and the Saracens with destruction of churches. Word of mouth reports connected Jews to Caliph al-Hakim’s mad persecutions around 1009, then the tales had about 90 years to grow.

3. Illiterate theology was taught in sound-bites. In the popular version, the Jews killed Jesus. Although our literate culture can easily find the story segments and theological commentaries that balance and neutralize the simple “Jews killed Christ” version, their illiterate culture could not. Anti-Jewish theology had not been emphasized for a long time; but once people were blaming Jews for al-Hakim’s destruction, dormant anti-Jewish teaching came back.

4. The growth of towns, with more Jews located in the towns than in the countryside. In Colonia Claudia, Jews had been farmers; but in medieval Cologne/Koln, they were town-based traders. They had more cash on hand; some aristocrats legally robbed them by requiring loans. Certainly, lesser knights looked for chances to rob them too.

5. Europe’s level of violence was higher than it should be at this time; that’s part of why the Pope was encouraging them to go fight Turks. The knight-training apparatus had been operating since Charlemagne’s time; now many trained fighting men had no land. Some of them adopted bridges, charging tolls at spear-point. Some worked out “protection” rackets. Many flocked to civil wars among the aristocrats. They were unprincipled, violent men whose religion consisted of some ritual practice and a little superstition.

6. Millenialism makes people feel like the usual rules are suspended. We saw this in 1999 when sensible people appeared to believe that society was about to collapse. Same thing here—less concern about plausibility, probability, and long-term consequences.

Knights and paupers converging on Cologne attacked Jewish neighborhoods along the way, and some of them attacked more Jews as they headed for Hungary. Jewish homes and businesses were plundered by ragged mobs. Some of the devout paupers attempted to convert Jews in the process of pillaging their goods; some Jews committed suicide to escape. They came in disorganized waves, inspired by itinerant preachers, so some towns saw several groups of them pass through.

The organized Crusaders were less of a problem. Godfrey of Bouillon is said to have sworn to kill Jews (to “avenge” Christ) before setting out on his holy mission, but he did not impulsively attack without warning. A Jewish leader warned the Emperor, who forbade the attack; and the Jews of Mainz and Cologne paid 500 silver marks to persuade Godfrey to leave them alone.

We don’t know how many Jews died in northern France and Germany. At this time, paper was not readily available, so most people did not keep written records. The few written accounts tell of widespread killing and theft, suicide, and flight of refugees toward Poland. The Jews of Germany, previously the most secure Jewish community, never recovered from the trauma. Their Christian neighbors never again saw them as fully integrated. All crimes are more easily carried out a second time; the precedent is laid down.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , | Comments Off on First Crusade Jewish Massacre in Germany

Peter the Hermit and Crusade Evangelism

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Ruth

A century before, when the year changed from 999 to 1000, many people had anticipated the end of the world. Coming up to 1100, the same expectation was in the air. In the months surrounding Pope Urban II’s call to Crusade, natural disasters lent credibility to the feeling that the world might end. There was a lunar eclipse; Hugh Vermandois, King Philip I’s brother, found it persuasive and so did many common people. The weather had been poor for a few years, so there were local famines and then, due to the dampness, a fungal infection entered the wheat. This is called ergot, and it produces a natural LSD. Starving peasants ate the deformed wheat and started tripping; some died.

The Pope’s council had been held in Clermont, in central France. One famous priest in attendance was Peter the Hermit. He immediately began to preach the Pope’s call, walking west and north into Normandy and Flanders. Within two months, the message was spreading through these regions with a new twist: Peter the Hermit had himself received a call directly from Christ. All devout Christians were called to come to this historic pilgrimage, in which the armies of all Christians would come together in the Holy Land to welcome Christ’s return. Peter the Hermit may have been to the Holy Land on pilgrimage himself; he told lurid stories about Seljuk cruelty to Christians, and he spoke some Arabic!

Two types of listeners received his message. The largest group was of paupers and uneducated peasants. They believed that the prayers of sick, poor and disabled people were purer and more effective. The poorest of the poor were welcomed to be part of the historic pilgrimage. This group included beggars, women, and children. They had no sense of military purpose; they were gathering for the end of the world, following a divine call.

The other significant group provided leadership, such as it was. They were mostly trained knights and minor aristocrats who did not fight in the organized armies of the major royalty. Count Emicho of Leiningen said that he had received his own personal divine call. His town was located along the Rhine river and he began gathering knights and others from Rhine Valley towns. Another knight leader is known as Walter the Penniless, but that seems to be a trick of translation; he was really called Walter (Guatier) of Boissy-Sans-Avoir and became known as Walter Sans-Avoir, which sounds like “Walter who Hath Not.” A few priests, like Peter, also not only preached pilgrimage but became gathering points and then leaders for groups in France and Germany.

Pope Urban II had set a date of mid-August, 1096 for the main expedition to set out. This was a realistic date that permitted messenger travel, gathering provisions, and doing some last-minute weapon-making and training. But by spring, enthusiastic paupers, priests and minor knights were ready to go. They didn’t plan ahead for provisions. Some assumed that the journey was short; some had nothing to begin with. The knights assumed that they’d live off the land, which is what they tended to do anyway. Everyone assumed that God would provide, and especially that the Byzantine Emperor (whose riches were legendary) would provide as soon as they crossed into his territory.

Hungary and Bulgaria were both recently converted to Christianity; Bulgaria was loyal to Constantinople, while Hungary had pledged loyalty to the Roman Pope. So, as the evangelists saw it, they had only to gather in Germany and walk on foot through Hungary, and then they’d be at the Emperor’s doorstep in Belgrade. There was no reason to wait; winter was ending and only famine and ergot awaited those who stayed to plant and harvest at home. Some may have been eager to leave due to thinking that to the east lay riches and ample food.

Cologne, the oldest Roman town in the Rhineland, was the agreed starting point. Waves of volunteers arrived and waited, then impatiently set out. Perhaps as many as five ragged “armies” of knights and paupers left Cologne that spring and summer. Peter the Hermit went with one group; Count Emicho and Walter Sans-Avoir led others.

Posted in Islam History D: Crusades | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Peter the Hermit and Crusade Evangelism