SOURCE: “The Accounts of Eye Witnesses and Participants” in The First Crusade, Peter Smith, 1921, pp. 1–21.

[In the following essay, Krey analyzes the eyewitness chronicles and letters of the First Crusade, maintaining that they have primarily been examined as sources for literature, not as literary productions. Krey then examines the style and language of these accounts.]

It is now more than eight hundred years since Christian Europe was first aroused to arms in an effort to wrest the Holy Land from the hands of the Infidel, and yet the interest in those expeditions still persists. Scarcely a generation has passed without demanding a fuller and fresher account of the Crusades for its own perusal. Sober historians have sought earnestly to answer the call, but, voluminous as their work has been, the fanciful poet and novelist have succeeded in keeping a pace in advance. It would require many pages to list only the titles of the books and articles which the last generation alone has produced. Apparently the subject will not cease to appeal to the interest of the world so long as the history of Syria remains a treasured memory. And the story of the first and most successful Christian effort to retake possession of the Holy Land will continue to be read with feeling by the descendants, blood and spiritual, of those first Crusaders. It seems, therefore, not out of place to make available for the English reader the story of that expedition as related by the men who witnessed it and participated in it.

I. GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF THE CHRONICLES

Modern writers have viewed the Crusades with varying opinion. Scholarly enthusiasts have seen in them “the first great effort of mediaeval life to go beyond the pursuit of selfish and isolated ambitions; … the trial feat of the young world essaying to use, to the glory of God and the benefit of many, the arms of its new knighthood.”¹ Others, like Gibbon, more cynical in their attitude, have seen in them only the mournful spectacle of hundreds of thousands of human beings led on to inevitable slaughter by a spirit of ignorant fanaticism.² However varied the opinion on the wisdom and the expediency of the undertaking, there is less room for difference in regard to the importance of the movement as a phase in the development of European civilization. The highly localized life of the eleventh century, in which the immediate horizon so often served to limit men's vision of knowledge, was shaken from end to end. Not all who started on this expedition to the Holy Land ever reached the other end of Europe, to be sure, but even these saw for the first time strange cities and men and returned home, if not with glory, certainly with more experience than they had had before. As for the thousands who finally succeeded in overcoming the almost superhuman obstacles involved in the conquest of the holy places, what wonders did they not have to relate! Individuals and occasional bands of pilgrims had journeyed over the same route before the Crusaders, but they were relatively so few that their experiences were absorbed within their own limited localities and left few traces. The First Crusade, however, enlisted people of all classes, of both sexes, and every age, drawing them from practically all parts of Christian Europe. As the first bands proceeded through district after district, others caught the spirit and started after them. And thus the narrow highways were choked with a constant stream of Crusaders, some hurrying eastward, others returning home. Nor did the movement cease with the capture of Jerusalem. Ten years later there were Crusaders still going East in answer to Urban's call for the First Crusade, while the actual possession of the Holy City by the Crusaders afforded the necessary impetus for a steady stream of pilgrims between West and East. With the pilgrim and the Crusader went also the merchant, courier, minstrel, and adventurer. Thus wayfaring, with all its attendant good and evil, became a habit over all of Europe. What this exchange of ideas and wares meant transcends statistics and must be looked for in the accelerated progress of Europe which followed, in the so-called Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.

Quite apart from the Crusade itself, the eye-witness accounts of the expedition have a peculiar value for the student of history as the first fairly full description of European society since the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. It is difficult to find in the period between the fifth and twelfth centuries any writings which describe contemporary life and society. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne is the striking exception. Just as the meagre Germania of Tacitus has been remorselessly tortured into a confession of Germanic civilization, frequently made to serve all centuries from the prehistoric to the eighth, and even beyond, so Einhard, with but little help, has been pressed into equally heroic service for the eighth and ninth centuries. The next two centuries, for lack of a Tacitus or an Einhard, have been constrained to linger under the infamy of the name “Dark Ages.” This darkness, however, is effectively dispelled at the end of the eleventh century, largely through these chronicles of the First Crusades, while the steadily swelling volume of writings thereafter obviates the danger for succeeding ages. The religious character of the Crusades drew the sympathetic attention of clerical writers, the only writers of the time. All that the leaders did on this journey “of the Lord,” whether petty or great, trivial or important, was thought worthy of commemoration for the benefit of posterity. Under the circumstances, the varied composition of the crusading host was particularly fortunate. Practically the only classes of Europe not personally represented on the Crusade were Emperor and King, Pope and Archbishop. In other words, that portion of society which alone was deemed worthy of attention in the ordinary brief annals and chronicles of the time was absent, and those who detailed the story of the expedition lavished their enthusiasm upon ordinary nobles, knights, and foot soldiers, even the poor being accorded a generous measure of notice. These accounts, accordingly, present a picture of society in which the relationship of all classes, ecclesiastical and lay, masculine and feminine, is portrayed in its intimate aspects. Although ordinary affairs are at times slighted, the extraordinary recur so frequently and with such variety as to make the inference of the ordinary fairly easy. The descriptions are so full and touch so many activities of society that they illumine not only the civilization of the time, but also cast considerable light on the preceding and following periods. As a result, it has been a common practice for master historians to initiate their apprentices into the study of European history through the accounts of the First Crusade.

The literary value of these writings is rather indirect than otherwise. They have afforded apparently inexhaustible material for literature, but as literary productions themselves have been only lightly appraised. Nevertheless, they are fair specimens of the writings of that time, and, as such, they deserve some consideration in a comprehensive history of literature. Some of them, such as the letters of Stephen of Blois and Anselm of Ribemont, have a charm which entitles them to much higher consideration. Here and there in the chronicles the authors soar to fairly great heights. It would be difficult to find anywhere a more graphic description of deep despair than is presented by the anonymous author of the Gesta in his account of the reception by Alexius and his army of the fate of the Crusaders at Antioch. In like manner, the fanciful account of the interview of Kerbogha and his mother before Antioch may be ranked with many a better known piece of imagery. In general, however, the literary merit of the following accounts consists chiefly in their vivid realism, which the very crudeness of expression only serves to accentuate. The hopes and fears, mournful sorrows and exultant joys, the profound despair and terror of the army, as it marched through one trial after another, are described with the awful earnestness and sincerity of men who have actually shared these experiences. It is this quality which causes the chronicles themselves to be read with interest long after their material has been adorned with finer language by more skilful writers.

II. THE DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS

But the absence of a polished literary finish was not wholly due to a lack of skill on the part of the writers. It was partly due, also, to the fact that these writings were intended for the information of the contemporary world. They were the newspapers of the time and in this they mark a distinct advance in the art of disseminating current information. Hitherto, writing had been almost exclusively confined to the Latin language and, hence, to churchmen. The few exceptions in vernacular tongues before the twelfth century have been deservedly treasured as rare monuments of philology. In the Latin writings only such matters as were of interest to the clergy were accorded much consideration. Theological writings, Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, books of Church service, textbooks for the schools, and treatises on kindred subjects constituted the chief themes for writers. Laws of kingdoms and meagre entires in monastic annals composed the major portion of secular information committed to writing. Occasionally the career of some ruler was chronicled in panegyric fashion, usually because of some past or expected favor to the Church. Even the histories of nations—e.g., The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, or The Ecclesiastical History of England by the Venerable Bede—were ecclesiastical histories, in which the purely secular played but an incidental part.

The written description of contemporary events for contemporary men was left to letters. But in the narrow life of the time people were rarely so far removed from their friends that they found it necessary to resort to such means for exchanging information. The churchmen, whose organization radiated from Rome, and whose training had made them more familiar with the art of writing, alone employed letters to any great extent. Here again, however, ecclesiastical and scholastic matters received the preponderant share of attention, though often current bits of general interest were included. These latter items might be transmitted to Church gatherings and, doubtless, were frequently so treated. But for the most part the news of the day was passed orally from neighbor to neighbor, or wider areas were momentarily linked together by the tales of some warfaring minstrel or other traveller. As the monasteries and castles were most famous for their hospitality, so these were the best informed centers of the time.

The Crusade, however, created abnormal conditions. Most of the people who went on the expedition did so with the expectation of returning home after the fulfillment of their purpose. As a result, the social interests of the local communities were suddenly expanded even to Palestine itself. Since, moreover, there were few regions of western Europe which did not furnish some of their people for the cause, many different lines of interest focused themselves upon the army and were constantly crossing one another. Secular Europe was no longer limited by a local horizon; it was ever eager for news, and more news, from the East. Neighborhood gossip could serve only as a local distributing agency in this work. Wayfarers were eagerly accosted for news and probably supplied the localities with much real information. But where the interest was great and so constant, the temptation to expand small items to magnificent proportions was too great to be resisted, and many a glib-tongued impostor exchanged the fabrication of his fertile imagination for full fare and comfortable lodging. Some of these wild tales found their way into writing and were transmitted to a credulous posterity with all the authority which the written page could lend. Authentic information—and even the common world was soon forced to discriminate between kinds—had to be obtained through more assured channels. The service of couriers, long known to the official world, was expanded to meet the need.

III. LETTERS

In the earlier stages of the march it was a relatively easy matter to detach squires or foot-soldiers and send them back with messages and news. This continued even to the time when the army left Nicaea; thereafter this method became impracticable, if not quite impossible. Chance meetings with ships from the West then offered almost the only opportunity to exchange greetings, and, as the accounts show, these opportunities occurred but rarely. Letters alone could be used under such circumstances. It was, therefore, fortunate that the expedition represented a union of ecclesiastical and secular interests, for the churchmen, priests, or clerics lent themselves willingly to the task of drawing up letters—in Latin, of course. The churchmen in the West, upon receiving these letters, copied them and rapidly passed on the information to the waiting world. Such letters, even when addressed to individuals, were regarded as common property, unless they were carefully sealed, and their contents were widely diffused, usually at Church gatherings of some sort. How eagerly the congregations everywhere must have looked forward to such meetings for news from relatives, friends, and acquaintances, gone so long and so far away!

These letters,³ of which fourteen are here translated and distributed at their appropriate places in the narrative, constitute the most important sources of our knowledge of the events which they describe. The authors are all men of prominence and responsibility. Two of the letters are from popes. One is from the Emperor Alexius. Five are from the leaders of the Crusade and may be regarded as official reports of progress, while the remaining four, though also the works of leaders, are of a more personal nature. The two letters of Stephen of Blois to his wife, Adele, are among the literary gems of the period. In addition to the responsible character of their writers, the letters have the further merit of greater proximity both of time and place to the events which they narrate. The emotions of the moment grip the writers irresistibly, beyond the power of epistolary formality to efface and thus lend a vividness which the later chronicles sometimes lack. Our chief regret is that there are not more of them.

IV. CHRONICLES

The interest of the world in the events of the First Crusade could not be satisfied by letters alone. Numerous motives combined to keep this interest inflamed. Patriotic pride in the achievements of countrymen, natural enjoyment of the marvelous and adventurous, the continued need of both men and money to insure the permanence of the conquest, and, no less, the pardonable pride of the Crusaders themselves in preserving the memory of their deeds—all these influences tended to the telling and the retelling of the story. Book-making in itself offered little inducement, for the absence of publishing houses and the lack of copyright laws denied prospective authors hope either of fame or wealth. Publishing, if the multiplication of copies by the laborious process of hand-writing may be so called, was done chiefly in the scriptoria of monasteries or episcopal schools. But parchment was expensive, and only the clerics could write. Ordinarily the military exploits of contemporary men seemed too ephemeral to justify description. However, the Crusade was a different matter in that its exploits, though largely military and material, nevertheless had a deep religious significance. Urban's remark at Clermont, that the recovery of the Holy Land would be a deed comparable to those of the Maccabees, was not forgotten. The thought that he was really adding a chapter to Sacred History served to carry more than one writer over depressing periods of discouragement to the successful completion of his history of the expedition. These varied motives, both sacred and profane, combined to inspire the composition of the following detailed accounts of the First Crusade.⁴

The first complete account of the Crusade which has come down to us is commonly known as the Gesta. Its author has attained some measure of distinction as the Anonymous. What is known to him, therefore, rests solely upon the inferences to be drawn from his work. He accompanied the Italian Norman prince, Bohemund, from the siege of Amalfi to the capture of Antioch. From there he went to Jerusalem with the general band under Raymond's leadership, whether with Raymond himself or, which is more likely, with Tancred or Robert of Normandy, who were associated with Raymond, is not clear. His book was written before the close of 1101, for Ekkehard saw and used a copy of it at Jerusalem in that year. So much may be stated fairly positively; the rest is only inferential, for in his book personal references are singularly few. There is no preface or dedication, no parting remark to the reader. However, certain expressions, certain modifications of the Latin which he employs, betray a high degree of familiarity with the verbal habits of southern Italy, while his constant laudation of Bohemund, even though he abandoned him after the capture of Antioch, tends to confirm the belief that his home was in that region. He may have been a Norman; if so, he left Normandy long before the First Crusade. His somewhat secular point of view in regard to events, occasional impersonal remarks upon the clergy, or participation in battle, have led modern critics to the belief that he was a knight, though his lack of intimacy with the leaders would indicate that he was a lesser knight. The style of his work and the general lack of literary allusions do not bespeak a very high degree of education. His use of language is that of an amateur, and his vocabulary is decidedly limited. Unable adequately to describe the achievements of the various crusaders, he strains the superlative degree of his adjectives so constantly that occasionally he finds it necessary to lapse into the simple positive as a means of actual distinction. The Bible is practically the only work which he quotes. His real piety is sustained both in his book and in his own career, as is indicated by the fact that he chose to go on to Jerusalem, instead of remaining with his leader at Antioch. What he lacks elsewhere is greatly outweighed by his judgment in evaluating the relative importance of events, his restraint in preventing intimate details from obscuring the perspective of his story, his unusual fairness and impartiality toward the rival Christian leaders, as well as toward his Turkish foes, and a certain native instinct for the dramatic apparent throughout the book. Guibert, Balderic, and Robert the Monk all criticized his style, but unwittingly paid him the lavish compliment of incorporating nearly the whole of his work in their “literary” accounts of the expedition. The great historical value of the work rests not only in the fact that it was written by an eye-witness and participant, but also upon the fact that it was probably composed from time to time on the journey and finished immediately after the battle of Ascalon in September 1099, the last event which it mentions. It is the first full account of the Crusade still extant, and almost every other history of the First Crusade is based either directly or indirectly upon it. Six MS copies of it still remain, and all of the material has been preserved in one form or another in the later accounts of the Crusade.

The second chronicle listed, on the other hand, does not at all efface its author, for the preface sets forth the authorship and the purpose in full:

“To my Lord Bishop of Viviers and to all the orthodox, from Pontius of Balazun and Raymond, Canon of Puy; greeting, and a share in our labor.

“We have concluded that we ought to make clear to you and to all who dwell across the Alps the great deeds which God in the usual manner of His love performed, and did not cease constantly to perform, through us; especially so, since the unwarlike and the fearful left us and strove to substitute falsehood for the truth. But let him who shall see their apostacy shun their words and companionship! For the army of God, even if it bore the punishment of the Lord Himself for its sins, out of His compassion also stood forth victor over all paganism. But since some went through Slavonia, others through Hungary, others through Longobardy, and yet others by sea, it would be tedious for us to write about each. Therefore we have omitted the story of others and have taken it as our task to write about the Count, the Bishop of Puy, and their army.”

Pontius of Balazun, a knight in the Provençal army, was killed at Archas, and Raymond was thus left to complete the task alone. Raymond had been elevated to the priesthood while on the Crusade and had become the chaplain of Count Raymond of Toulouse, who was the wealthiest leader on the expedition. The expense of compiling the book was, therefore, a trivial matter. His intimacy with Count Raymond and with Bishop Adhemar gave him access to much information not available to such writers as the Anonymous. Critics have been exceedingly harsh in their condemnation of both the form and the content of the book. They condemn it as crude, bigoted, intensely partisan, and a mass of confused and credulous mysticism. Partisan it undoubtedly is, for Raymond was writing to correct a probable impression conveyed by the returning Crusaders both as to the bravery of the Provençal host and the validity of the Holy Lance, especially the latter. He himself had been among the first to accept the visions of Peter Bartholomew, had participated in the digging for the Lance, and even the apparently adverse judgment of the Ordeal was not sufficient to shake his faith in it. A large part of his work, therefore, is a brief in defense of the Lance, in support of which he adduces vision after vision and numerous witnesses. The rest of his book is devoted to the part played by Count Raymond, Bishop Adhemar, and the Provençal host in the Crusade. All this is true, but it cannot be said in justice that he is totally blind to the faults of either leader or people. To the historian the book is second in importance only to the Gesta, for it was the work of an eye-witness, written possibly no earlier than 1102, though undoubtedly on the basis of notes taken during the journey. It must be regarded as an independent account, even though, as Hagenmeyer conjectures, its author may have used details from the Gesta to correct his own account. For what may be termed the sociological aspects of the Crusade, Raymond's history is the most valuable of all the accounts. Six MS copies of the work are extant.

The third account of the Crusade as a whole was written by Fulcher of Chartres, whose career can be traced more fully than that of any other eye-witness chronicler of the Crusade. Born probably at Chartres in 1059, he was trained for the service of the Church, and when the Council of Clermont was held in 1095 he was a priest either at Chartres or at Orleans. The enthusiasm which swept over the land claimed him, as it did so many of his countrymen, so that when the army of Stephen of Blois moved from Chartres, late in 1096, Fulcher was one of the band. He was with Stephen's army until October, 1097, when he became the chaplain of Baldwin, Godfrey's brother. From this time until Baldwin's death in 1118 he remained in that capacity, closely associated with the energetic leader. As a result, he was present neither at the siege of Antioch nor at that of Jerusalem, being then at Edessa, which place he did not leave until late in 1099, when he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem with Baldwin and Bohemund. When Baldwin was summoned to take the reins of government upon the death of Godfrey, Fulcher accompanied him to Jerusalem, where he remained until the time of his own death in 1127 or 1128.

His Historia Hierosolymitana, of which only the portion relating events actually witnessed by Fulcher on the First Crusade is here translated, was written upon the urgent solicitation of his friends. It first appeared in 1105, and the welcome then accorded it encouraged him to go on with it. The latter part of his work takes the form of an annalistic account of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, for the early history of which it is undoubtedly the most important single source of information. He seems to have revised the earlier portions of his history at least twice, and the final version ends somewhat abruptly with the mention of a plague of rats in the year 1127. Fulcher apparently had a more extensive literary training than either of the two preceding writers. His fondness for quotation has been charged against him as an affectation by modern critics, but, as a fault, it mars only the latter portion of his work, written when he was quite old. On the whole, his book is free from either partisanship or bias. He seems to have been interested chiefly in describing the events as they occurred, with possibly an additional desire to attract soldiers from the West to the support of the needy Latin state in Syria. He displays a strong interest in nature and describes strange plants, animals, and natural phenomena in a naïve manner. His interest in the intrigues of the lords, both lay and ecclesiastical, is very slight, but the general welfare of the people he views with all the kindly concern of a simple French curé. As a whole, the book is exceedingly valuable and very soon was widely read and copied. It was second only to the Gesta as a mine for exploitation by later writers on the Crusade. More than fifteen MS copies of the original are still extant.

Of the writings which contribute eye-witness testimony to but a portion of the history of the Crusade, the Alexiad, by Anna Comnena, is one of the most important. The writer was the daughter of Alexius, and, though she was barely fourteen years of age when the Crusaders came to Constantinople, it may be assumed that the presence of so many rude strangers in the imperial city made a most vivid impression on her mind. Both Anna and her husband, Nicephorus Briennius, had been highly educated, and when the palace intrigue in which they were both concerned proved unsuccessful and she was shut up in a convent by her brother's order, she undertook to complete the history which her husband had begun. Forty years after the first Crusaders had passed through Antioch she began her task. In the meantime there had been various bands of Crusaders from the West. Bohemund had taken Antioch in defiance of the Emperor and had even made war upon him. The relations of Alexius with Count Raymond of Toulouse had undergone changes, and many other events relating to the Latins and the Crusades had occurred. Thus, with so much to confuse her memory, her chronology is uncertain, her statement of fact often inaccurate, and her style highly rhetorical and affected. Never very certain of the identity of the Latin leaders, as she herself confesses, she calls them all counts and confuses one group with another in hopeless fashion. Nevertheless, her work is exceedingly valuable as a presentation of the Byzantine attitude toward the Latins, and her conception of her father's feeling toward the Westerners can probably be relied upon as correct. A MS copy of the account, corrected by Anna herself, is preserved at Florence. Other fragments also remain.

It is necessary to include in the list of eye-witness accounts of the First Crusade the work by Peter Tudebode, a priest of Civray.⁵ This work, once regarded as the original of the Gesta, has been dethroned from that position by recent criticism. It is almost a verbatim copy of the latter, with portions added from the account of Raymond of Agilles, together with a very few personal remarks and observations. He speaks of the death of his brother in Antioch and his own share in the funeral services. His account differs from that of the Gesta primarily in the change of adjectives qualifying Raymond of Toulouse and Bohemund, for Tudebode was a follower of Count Raymond. However, this policy is not consistently maintained. At best, the work may be regarded as an eye-witness corroboration of the Gesta. It was written after both the account by the Anonymous and by Raymond had been composed, and sometime before 1111, after which date it was quoted by other writers. Four MS copies are preserved.

Ekkehard of Aura, who is still regarded as one of the greatest of the German historians of the Middle Ages, was a monk at Corvey when the First Crusade was preached. He accompanied a later band of crusaders in 1101 as far as Constantinople by land, and by sea from there to Joppa. At Jerusalem he saw a copy of the Gesta, which he made a basis for his own history. This work he wrote for the Abbot of Corvey in 1112, after he himself had become Abbot of Aura. The language and the style of this book reveal a greater familiarity with classical authors than is shown by any of the preceding accounts of the Crusade. Its value rests chiefly upon his eye-witness account of the Crusade of 1101, and his brief items about the Peasants' Crusade, of which no direct chronicle has come down to us. Only the latter material has been included in the following translation. Six MS copies of the work are extant.

Raoul de Caen, a Norman knight too young to accompany the Crusaders of 1096, enlisted in the army which Bohemund assembled in 1107. He reached Syria and entered the service of Tancred, then prince of Antioch, whom he served until the latter's death. In his early years he had received instruction in letters from Arnulf, who became Patriarch of Jerusalem after 1112. He was an accomplished knight and seems to have enjoyed the friendship of Tancred. During the first five years of this relationship he learned much about the First Crusade, especially Tancred's view of events. He also visited Jerusalem and there conversed with his former teacher, Arnulf, now the Patriarch, to whom he dedicated his work, the Gesta Tancredi. Though an important source of information, this work is not, strictly speaking, an eye-witness account. It is a panegyric of the Norman princes of Antioch and is very hostile to the Emperor Alexius and to Count Raymond. It deals with the history of the First Crusade and of Tancred up to 1105, and its chief value lies in the reflection of the Norman point of view. It also contains some information not afforded by other writers. The Latin is polished and adorned with numerous passages and quotations from classical authors. Raoul writes chiefly in prose, but he sometimes attempts to soar to poetic form in describing unusually great achievements. On the whole, Patriarch Arnulf had reason to be proud of his former pupil's achievement. The book was written sometime between Tancred's death in 1112 and that of Arnulf in 1118. A single MS copy is preserved at the Royal Library of Brussels. His account of the Holy Lance, in which he takes an opposite view from Raymond, is here translated in full. Other material from the work is included in the notes.

The value of the account by Albert of Aix has been much disputed. Little is known of the author, who is said to have been a canon of the church of Aix-la-Chapelle about the middle of the twelfth century. By his own confession he never visited the Holy Land himself. Nevertheless, he wrote a history of the First Crusade and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem down to the year 1120, of which twelve MS copies exist. The date of this writing has, therefore, been placed somewhere between 1120 and the middle of the century. He obtained his information, he says, from the oral and written testimony of participants. Much of the material is palpably legendary; more of it, however, seems entirely probable and stands the test of comparison with well established accounts. The work contains so much not treated by other writers and, therefore, incapable of corroboration that its value must stand or fall with the reader's attitude toward the author. It has been conjectured that much of the material was taken from a Lorraine chronicle now lost, an explanation plausible enough, though thus far not substantiated. At any rate, his items of information cannot be ignored, and they may be of full value. Until further evidence is discovered, the question cannot be settled positively.⁶ Only excerpts on the Peasants' Crusade and Godfrey's march to Constantinople are here translated from Albert.

The other three works included in this translation because their authors were present at the Council of Clermont may be grouped together as literary histories. None of the writers accompanied the expedition, but each wrote a history of the whole Crusade, thus illustrating the deep interest of the people of Europe in the subject. All three were churchmen of high position, and each sought to rewrite the crude account of the Gesta in more literary form. They succeeded in varying degree, but their names are remembered, while that of the original author has been irretrievably lost. Robert the Monk is generally identified as the monk chosen Abbot of Saint-Remi of Rheims in 1094, and later forced to retire to the priory of Senuc. His work was written at the request of Bernard, Abbot of Marmoutier, sometime before 1107. It adds little to the Gesta, but was very popular in the twelfth century. More than eighty MS copies of it are still extant. Balderic, Abbot of Bourgeuil, and Archbishop of Dol after 1107, added little more than Robert to the Gesta account. His work was written after 1107 and was also quite popular. Seven MS copies remain. The best of these three accounts is that of Guibert, who was Abbot of Nogent from 1104 to 1121. He composed his book between 1108 and 1112 and dedicated it to Lisiard, Bishop of Soissons. Guibert was one of the leading scholars of his time, well versed in classical lore, which he used to adorn his accounts of the Crusade. He was also fairly well informed about matters in northern France. His additions to the Gesta contain many valuable items about the crusading leaders from that region. Four MS copies of his work are preserved.

V. TERMINOLOGY.

In the translation of these accounts a conscious effort has been made to reproduce as nearly as possible the style and manner of expression of the original. Though the writers all used the same language, they employed different words and idioms to describe the same occurrences, even the ordinary incidents of life. Under the circumstances, it was felt that too much would be lost if the expressions were all translated in the standard idiom of today. The person of the twentieth century who is interested in the manners and customs of that time will find enough pleasure and profit in this treatment, it is hoped, to repay him for whatever confusion the variety of expressions may create. A brief explanation of some of the more distinctive habits in the terminology of the period may be of use.

1. Names of persons and places.

The names of the same persons and the same places are spelled in many different ways not only by the different writers, but often, too, by the same writer. While this is more true of Eastern persons and places, it is, also, quite generally true with regard to the West, a revelation of how much of the world was strange to the people of eleventh century Europe. It must be remembered, however, that dictionaries, gazetteers, and similar works of reference, which greet the twentieth century person at every turn, were virtually unknown, while newspapers and other periodicals, which serve to standardize so much of life today, did not then exist. Almost the only common descriptions of the world known at that time were those contained in either the classical writings or in those of the Church fathers. It is not strange, therefore, to find the names of old Roman provinces and cities applied to places by some of the more highly educated writers, such as Ekkehard, Raoul, or Guibert. Less trained writers—and most of our writers fall within this category—had to trust chiefly to their powers of hearing and their ability to reproduce in writing what they heard. They had to follow their own rules of phonetic spelling and, considering the difficulties under which they labored, their results deserve genuine admiration. In order to avoid undue confusion, a uniform spelling has been adopted for the names of places which have been identified. In most cases the mediaeval name has been employed, but where the modern equivalent is much better known that form has been chosen.

The identification of the places mentioned by the writers presents considerable difficulty at times. It would be asking almost too much to expect the chroniclers to recall vividly and correctly both the name and exact location of all the strange places which they mention five or more years after they had passed through them. Important towns and places in which they spent some time, or with which they were able to associate some dramatic event, are usually located quite accurately; other lesser places cannot always be positively identified. All places mentioned whose location can be identified appear on the accompanying maps. The others, whose location is uncertain, have been italicized.

Names of persons, such as Robert, Godfrey, Baldwin, and Stephen were common enough, and little variation occurs. But Adhemar, papal leader of the expedition, seems to have had a baffling name, probably due to its similarity to a variety of names. As a result, his name appears as Haymarus, Aimarus, Ademarus, or Adhemarus, or not at all. Guibert, in describing the Pope's appointment of a vicar for the Crusade, confesses that he does not know his name, an interesting comment on the isolation of the time. His use of the name later may be an indication that he was using his original too closely, for the author of the Gesta, too, was ignorant of the name until later in the expedition. For the purposes of this translation, however, the names of the Western leaders are standardized. This is not the case with Oriental names, the unusual character of which occasioned the chroniclers a great deal of trouble. The name of the Turkish ruler of Antioch may be cited as a typical instance. The common spelling of his name today is Yagi-Sian or Iagi-Sian. It appears in the accounts, however, wth the Latin ending as Aoxian-us, Cassian-us, Caspian-us, and even Gracianus. Fulcher, who coined the first of these, succeeded remarkably well on the whole. In the case of less prominent men who are mentioned only once or twice, the variations have caused considerable confusion, leading even to the belief that they were different persons—e.g., Godfrey of Lastours, who appears as Gulferrus de Daturre, Golprius de turribus, and Gosfridus de Dasturs. This example seems to indicate the beginning of the use of surnames, but it is probably fortunate for the reader that the movement had not yet developed far. The efforts of the Crusaders to distinguish between the numerous Raymonds, Roberts, Stephens, Baldwins, and Godfreys, are of interest as early factors in the movement which led to the growth of heraldry and the multiplication of names.

2. Expressions of time.

The reader will doubtless be impressed by the absence in the chronicles of precise and minute statements of time, which are such a marked feature of modern industrial life. The year seems to have been of little account as a basis for reckoning time, for the author of the Gesta mentions it only once during the whole narrative which extends over a period of four years, and Raymond of Agilles scarcely more often. The more learned Fulcher uses it, to be sure, but rather as an ornament than because he feels the need of such a measure of time. The great festival days of the Church constituted the chief standards of time, and here, thanks to the influence of the Church, we find a fairly uniform practice among the writers. The necessity of determining the variable date of Easter compelled the Church to keep a calendar, while the custom of regulating the ordinary affairs of life with reference to the chief festival days of the Church had long since become an established habit of Christian Europe. The old Roman Calendar, too, continued to exert some influence despite the efforts of the Church to supplant it with a Christian scheme. As a result, the days of the month are reckoned both by Kalends, Nones, and Ides, and by the numerical count of days from the incoming or outgoing month. Days of the week bear the old Roman names and the canonical enumeration from the Lord's Day, as well. Time of day is expressed usually by means of the canonical hours, Matins, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline, though such expressions as cock-crow, earliest dawn, and sunrise also occur. Time of day, and day of year are sometimes noted by the psalms and prayers customary at those times. Local variations in reckoning the beginning of the year and seasons, or in expressing dates by festivals of loyal saints, a practice quite common in the West, appear rather infrequently in these accounts.⁷

3. Numbers.

The figures used by mediaeval writers in stating numbers of people have baffled modern investigators. In order to discover the actual numbers involved, it has become almost a rule to divide the figures of the chroniclers by ten. Perhaps it would be fairer to regard almost all numbers over one thousand as figures of speech, intended only to convey the impression of a very large number. Roman numerals alone were in use, and neither the average writer nor the average reader of the period had very much training in arithmetic. It was certainly a difficult task to describe, if not a more difficult task to decipher, a very uneven number of six figures in Roman numerals. Quite aside from the mere mechanical difficulty of the task, few, if any persons, had had experience in dealing with large numbers. Neither commercial, ecclesiastical, nor military establishments dealt accurately in very large amounts or numbers at this time. As a result, when these chroniclers found themselves in the midst of the vast host which composed the crusading army they were struck with amazement. Nothing in their previous experience afforded them a satisfactory basis for estimating the size of the army. The numbers implied in their frequent resort to the term “countless” and “innumerable,” or “as the sands of the sea,” and “as the leaves of autumn,” are probably almost as accurate as the numerals which they employ. The actual number of persons who took part in the First Crusade cannot be fixed with any certainty. Army rosters were not yet in use. It is, furthermore, extremely doubtful whether even among the better organized bands, such as those of Raymond and Godfrey, the leaders themselves knew exactly how many persons were in their following. The more adventurous knights were constantly digressing in smaller or larger companies from the main line of march; the more timid were dropping behind or deserting; and new enthusiasts were joining the march at almost every halting place. Thus the total number in the army fluctuated from day to day. Fulcher's statement that if all who had signed themselves with the cross had been present at Nicaea, there would have been six million, instead of six hundred thousand, armed men is probably more accurate in its proportions than in its actual figures. A modern estimate of the number in the army as it left Nicaea, ingeniously computed from the length of time required to cross a certain bridge in Asia Minor, is 105,000 persons.⁸ The combined army was then at its maximum size. It dwindled rapidly thereafter, and the figures offered by the chroniclers themselves became more and more accurate, so that when Fulcher reports the number of Crusaders left to garrison Jerusalem as a few hundred, his statement may be accepted without great question.

If they had so much difficulty in describing their own numbers, little surprise need be felt at their estimate of the enemy's forces. After chronicling battles against the Turks and Saracens for almost thirty years, Fulcher reaches the following conclusion: “As to the number of dead or wounded in this or any other battle, it is not possible to determine the truth, for such great numbers cannot be computed by anyone, except approximately. Often when different writers deceive, the reason for their deception is to be attributed to adulation; for they try to enhance the glory of the victors and to extol the valor of their own land for people present and to come. From this it is very clear why they so foolishly and falsely exaggerate the number of dead among the enemy, and minimize, or remain entirely silent, about their own loss.” This critical attitude, however, was not taken by the earlier writers, not even by Fulcher himself in the period with which this translation deals.

4. Money and prices.

Europe was still dealing largely on a basis of natural economy when the First Crusade started on its way. Money was regarded rather as a luxury than as a matter of general need, and even ordinary state obligations were discharged in kind rather than coin. Indeed, there was no standard coin in the West, and coinage was a right exercised by all the great feudal vassals. There were expressions of value common to all Europe—e.g., the liber, or pound, which equalled 20 solidi, or shillings, which equalled 240 denarii, or pennies; and a marc which equalled two-thirds of a liber, or 160 denarii. But when these terms were applied to coins in actual circulation, their meaning varied with the character of the coin involved. The coin in most general use was the denarius, or penny. This was usually of silver, but might be made of an alloy, or sometimes of copper alone. A large and a small denarius were known, the latter often called an obol. The intrinsic value of the coin varied somewhat according to the particular mint at which it was coined, weight constituting, on the whole, the safest method of determining value. Raymond mentions seven different denarii from a limited region of the West as current in the army. Variation was caused by debasement through coin-clipping and kindred practices, which, however, appear to have been less common at this time than later. In view of such facts, generalizations about monetary matters are exceedingly hazardous. However, it is usually safe to assume when Western coins are mentioned that denarii are meant. Solidi, liberi, and marci are moneys of account, convenient in expressing large sums of denarii. The ordinary silver denarius weighed from 20 to 24 gr. as compared with the American dime which weighs 38.5 gr. In the East the Crusaders met with gold coins, the besant and perperus of Constantinople, and the gold besant of the Saracens. The besant of Constantinople weighed about 65 gr. as compared with the American gold coinage, which weighs about 25 gr. per dollar. The perperus, called also purpuratus, yperperus, yperperon, and perpre, is less well known. Its value, as stated by the author of the Gesta, was equal to 15 solidi, or 180 denarii. The gold besant of the Saracens, a Latin term for the Arabian dinar, was about equal in weight and intrinsic value to the besant of Constantinople. In seeking the modern equivalents of these coins, it is necessary to bear in mind the relative value of gold and silver in the middle ages. Another coin encountered in the East was the tartaron, which appears to have been a cheap copper coin of somewhat varying value.

From an economic point of view the First Crusade must be regarded as one of the most important factors in transforming the basis of European exchange from the natural to the monetary. The change was by no means complete with the end of the Crusades, but a long step had been taken toward that goal when the first of these expeditions was launched. Money was necessary to defray the ordinary living expenses on the march, and the Crusaders resorted to almost every conceivable device to obtain it. They tortured Jews, melted plate, mortgaged their possessions, and sold their goods for ridiculously small sums. Money, ordinarily scarce, rose in value until, as Albert recounts, one peasant sold seven sheep for a single denarius. Normally, a denarius was the equivalent of a workman's dinner, but the Crusade created abnormal conditions. Unfortunately, this abnormal state of affairs accompanied the Crusaders along their whole line of march, for just as their arrangements for departure caused the exchange value of money to soar, so the arrival of so many people at one town or another caused the limited food supply to take on incredible prices. Occasionally, in time of famine, food rose to almost impossible heights, so that the peasant who exchanged his seven sheep for one denarius in the Rhine country might have exchanged his denarius, in turn, for a single nut at Antioch during its siege by Kerbogha. The student of economics will be able to find many such equations in the following pages. The Crusaders had unwittingly become steady victims of the law of supply and demand, but for lack of such knowledge they blamed their misfortunes upon the cupidity of the Armenians and Greeks. Thus, however, they learned to esteem the possession of money, and in Saracen territory they lost few opportunities to secure it either as tribute, extortion, or plain robbery. Sometimes they even burned the dead bodies of their foes to obtain the coins which they believed these people had swallowed or secreted about their bodies. Actual money and its value was one of the most important contributions of the returning Crusaders to Western life, so much so that the besant of Constantinople and the Saracen besant became well known coins in Europe.

5. Military arrangements.

A definite organization of the army as a whole did not exist. The Pope's representative, Adhemar, who met all of his charges at Nicaea for the first time, was social and ecclesiastical head of the expedition until his death at Antioch, August 1, 1098. For military purposes, the Crusaders chose Stephen of Blois as their leader on the march across Asia Minor, and, after his withdrawal, Bohemund acted in that capacity for a time. Little real authority, however, was accorded these leaders, except for the brief period of Kerbogha's siege, when Bohemund was entrusted with full powers. Ordinarily, matters of policy were decided at a council of all the leaders, both lay and ecclesiastical. For all practical purposes, each band was almost a separate army in itself, and even within each band matters were usually decided by a common council. Leaders of the separate bands frequently had to resort to all the arts of persuasion at their command in order to keep their many-minded and impulsive vassals in leash. Eloquence, entreaty, offers of pay, and even threats were used time and time again. The feudal oath of allegiance of vassal to over-lord was the only basis of obedience, but the conditions under which the campaign was conducted were so different from those of the West as to render the ordinary feudal obligations quite inadequate. As a result, adventurous knights frequently went off on raiding expeditions without regard for the wishes of their lords, and companies of knights for these forays were formed from many different bands. Disorganization was further increased by the presence of great numbers of non-combatants. Persons of both sexes and all ages had attached themselves to the army from various motives—serfs to perform menial tasks; peasants with their families seeking improvement, material, social, or spiritual; women, wives of Crusaders, or mere adventurers; pious pilgrims of all ages; and clergy, both regular and secular. At Nicaea this multitude probably largely outnumbered the fighting men, and, as a rule, they were a great hindrance to the army.

The fighting men were of two classes—the mounted and armored knight, and the more or less armored foot-soldiers. At first the mounted knights were probably all of noble birth, but, as the exigencies of the campaign multiplied, this condition was changed. At times noble knights were compelled to ride on oxen or other beasts, or to proceed on foot, and, again, ignoble foot-soldiers found mounts and suits of armor. In the course of time, many of the latter proved themselves worthy of knighthood, so that by the time the army reached Jerusalem a great number of the so-called knights were not of noble birth.

The knight, protected by his breastplate and his suit of chainmail, and equipped with shield, lance, and two-edged sword, was the mainstay of the army. His squires, also mounted, usually accompanied the knight in battle. The foot-soldiers, whose chief weapons were the cross-bow and javelin, were used both to break up the line of the enemy in the opening charge and to dispose of the dismounted enemy after the main charge of the knights. Noncombatants were of some service in refreshing the fighters with drinks, caring for the wounded, and helping to collect the spoils. The clergy played an important part by administering the sacrament before battle and offering up prayers during the course of the fighting. Such was the practice against an enemy in the open field. The tactics of the Turks, however, caused some modifications. This foe, usually mounted on swift horses and armed with dangerous small bows, insisted upon encircling the Crusaders without coming to close quarters. Their arrows, which they shot quickly and in profusion, were calculated to shatter the ranks of the Crusaders and usually did great damage to the less heavily armored foot-soldiers. If this device failed to open up the ranks, they scattered in feigned flight, hoping thus to draw the Crusaders after them in disorganized pursuit, when it was an easy matter to turn and cut them down. The Emperor Alexius gave the Crusaders some very valuable advice on these matters. Actual experience proved an even more effective teacher, so that the Crusaders regularly placed a strong line at their rear and on the flanks, as well as in front, and did not pursue the enemy until they were actually in rout.

To the Westerners siege warfare was less well known than open fighting. In most of Western Europe there was little of the heavy masonry of Roman days, such as had never gone out of use in the East. The Italians had had relatively more experience than the people north of the Alps, but both had much to learn. The military engineers of Constantinople gave the Crusaders some important lessons in siege-craft at Nicaea. The development of more powerful hurling engines for both stones and arrows became a necessity. These were of two kinds: the ballistae, used to shoot large arrows or bolts with great force, and the Petraria, which hurled large stones. The motive power was provided by the torsion of twisted ropes or the sudden release of a heavy counter-poise, and great ingenuity was exercised to increase their force. During the whole expedition, however, they were not developed sufficiently to make any considerable impression upon the walls. They were chiefly effective in clearing the walls of defenders, which facilitated other siege operations. Battering rams of various kinds were also used, and, as a protection for the manipulators, mantlets made of wattled stakes were constructed. Undermining the walls was an operation also resorted to, but the most effective devices in overcoming strongly fortified towns were the great movable towers and the blockade. The first was used successfully both at Marra and Jerusalem, the latter at Nicaea and Antioch. These are fully described in the text (see pages 256, 205, 105). Scaling ladders of wood were of subsidiary value, but played a part at Marra and Jerusalem and especially at Caesarea. In all these operations there was a great demand for skilful engineers, as well as for unskilled labor. It is significant that Greek engineers were employed at Nicaea and Antioch, Italian at Antioch and Jerusalem. The Westerners had much to learn, it is true, but that they were quick to do so is shown not only by their success at Jerusalem, but also by the stronger castles and fortifications which appeared in Western Europe during the twelfth century.

Notes

1. Bishop Stubbs, quoted by George L. Burr in the American Historical Review for April, 1901, page 439.

2. Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapters LVIII-LXI.

3. The following fourteen letters have been translated from the Latin texts edited by Hagenmeyer in his Epistulae et Chartae … Primi Belli Sacri:

   II. Urban II to all the faithful assembling in Flanders. Written about the end of Decembe, 1095. Pages 42-43.

   IV. Stephen of Blois to his wife, Adele. Written from Nicaea, June 24, 1097. Pages 100-101; 107-109.

   VI. Simeon, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, to the faithful of the northern regions. Written from Antioch, October, 1097. Page 132.

   VIII. Anselm of Ribemont to Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims. Written from Antioch about the end of November, 1097. Pages 106-107; 129.

   IX. The Patriarch of Jerusalem to all the bishops of the West. Written from camp at Antioch, January, 1098. Pages 142-144.

   X. Stephen of Blois to his wife, Adele. Written from Antioch, March 29, 1098. Pages 131-132, 155-157.

   XI. Alexius to Oderisius, Abbot of Monte Casino. Written from Constantinople, June, 1098. See Chapter III, n. 26. Pages 110-111.

   XII. Bohemund, son of Robert Guiscard, Raymond, Count of St. Gilles, Duke Godfrey, and Hugh the Great, to all the faithful in Christ. Written from Antioch, either October, 1097(?) or April-July, 1098. Pages 130-131.

   XV. Anselm of Ribemont to Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, July, 1098. Pages 157-160; 189-191.

   XVI. Bohemund, Raymond, Count of St. Gilles, Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine, Robert, Count of Normandy, Robert, Count of Flanders, and Eustace, Count of Boulogne to Pope Urban II. Written from Antioch, September 11, 1098. Pages 160-161; 192-195.

   XVII. The Clergy and people of Lucca to all the faithful. Written from Lucca, October, 1098. Pages 161-162; 191-192.

   XVIII. Daimbert, Archbishop of Pisa, Duke Godfrey, Raymond of St. Gilles, and the whole army in the land of Israel to the Pope and all the faithful in Christ. Written from Laodicea, September, 1099. Pages 275-279.

   XIX. Pascal II to all the archbishops, bishops and abbots of Gaul. Written about the end of December 1099. Page 279.

   XX. Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims to Lambert, Bishop of Arras. Written from Rheims, November or December, 1099. Pages 264-265.

4. The following are the accounts contained in this book:

   1. Anonymi Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum. Translated in full from Hagemeyer's edition. To read in the order of the original, see pages 28, 57, 71, 57, 80, 62, 93, 98, 101, 113, 118, 120, 123, 125, 132, 136, 144, 151, 163, 169, 174, 182, 195, 204, 214, 223, 212, 249, 256, 262, 265.

   2. Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Jerusalem, by Raymond of Aguilers. Translated in full from the text in the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux, III. To read in the order of the original see pages 8, 64, 97, 103, 116, 124, 126, 134, 139, 147, 153, 168, 173, 176, 182, 173, 185, 197, 207, 217, 224, 243, 250, 257, 262, 268.

   3. Historia Hierosolymitana, by Fulcher of Chartres. Translated in part from Hagenmeyer's edition. Preface: I, chapters 1-14, 33-34; II, chapter 6 passim; III, chapter 37 passim. To read in the order of the original see pages 24, 26, 28, 40, 24, 44, 45, 56, 61, 67, 99, 104, 105, 116, 118, 119, 121, 272.

   4. The Alexiad, by Anna Comnena. Translated in part from the edition by Reifferscheid. Vol. II, Book X; chapters 5-6 passim; 7; 9 passim; 10; 11 passim; Book XI; chapters 2-3 passim; pages 70, 76, 86, 94, 99, 109.

   5. Historia de Hierosolimitano Itinere, by Peter Tudebode. Only the variations from the Gesta are indicated and are to be found in the notes. The edition used was that of the Rec. Occid. III. See also Molinier: Sources de l’histoire de France, nos. 2115-2116.

   6. Hierosolymita, by Ekkehard, Abbot of Aura. Translated in part from Hagenmeyer's edition, chapters VII-XIII. See pages 41, 46, 53.

   7. Gesta Tancredi, by Raoul de Caen. Translated in part from the text in Rec. Occid. III; chapters 99-103, 108-109. See page 237.

   8. Liber Christianae expeditionis pro ereptione, emundatione, restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae, by Albert of Aix. Translated in part from the text in the Rec. Occid. IV. Included in this translation are I, chapters 2, 6-8, 15-24, 26-30, passim; II, chapters 1-17 passim. It has been thought necessary to translate only the gist of the matter contained in most of the chapters, as Albert was not, strictly speaking, an eye witness. Pages 48, 54, 57, 73, 80.

   9. Hierosolymitana Expeditio, by Robert the Monk. The report of Urban's speech at Clermont, as contained in Rec. Occid. Vol. III, Book I, chapters 1-2, has alone been translated. Page 30.

   10. Historia Hierosolymitana by Balderic, Archbishop of Dol. Urban's speech at Clermont; contained in Rec. Occid. IV, Book I, chapters 4-5, has alone been translated. Page 33.

   11. Gesta Dei per Francos, by Guibert, Abbot of Nogent. Here the speech of Urban and the description of Peter the Hermit, contained in Rec. Occid. IV, Book II, chapters 4-6, have alone been translated. Pages 36-47.

5. “He who first wrote this should be believed, since he was on the expedition and saw it with the eyes of his body—to wit, Peter Tudebode of Civray.” See Tud. XIV: 6.

6. For a more detailed discussion of this point, see Kugler: Analekten zur Kritik Albert's von Aachen, and the summary of the discussion in Molinier: Les sources de l’histoire de France, no. 2126.

7. For a comprehensive treatment of mediaeval chronology, consult Grotefend: Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung, or Giry: Manuel de Diplomatique.

8. Delbrück: Geschichte der Kriegskunst, III, pp. 228-29.