First Crusade Full Article Language: En
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
_full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_alt_articletitle_running_head (oude _articletitle_deel, vul hierna in): First Crusade _full_article_language: en First Crusade 59 Chapter 3 First Crusade No archaeological evidence survives to indicate the scale or form of the early stone-throwing siege engines used by the Franks or their Muslim counterparts during the First Crusade. We are therefore dependent on the surviving literary sources, which fortunately include a number of eyewitness accounts, even if the most detailed of them are all written from a Frankish point of view. Among the participants of the First Crusade, the anonymous author of the Gesta Fran- corum and Raymond of Aguilers composed detailed and influential accounts of their travels and experiences as they made their way to Jerusalem. Another participant, Fulcher of Chartres, was among those who broke off from the main army and accompanied Baldwin of Boulogne to Edessa prior to the siege of Antioch. Although not an eyewitness of the crusaders’ activities once they left Anatolia, Fulcher, as well as others who were not present, including Albert of Aachen, who was back in Europe, and Ralph of Caen, who would make his way to Syria about a decade later, provide original details that they seem to have learned directly from participants who survived to recount their adven- tures. Nicaea: 1097 Having crossed Europe, the various regional units that would make up the main wave of the First Crusade assembled at Constantinople. These forces were represented by a number of significant nobles: Bohemond of Taranto led the Italian Normans; the Alsatians were led by Godfrey of Bouillon; Count Ray- mond of St Gilles of Toulouse and Adhémar of Le Puy, a papal legate, headed the Provençal contingent. Hugh of Vermandois, Stephen of Blois, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders each commanded another significant force. Setting out from Constantinople, the first challenge that faced this army in Anatolia was the city of Nicaea. A stronghold of the Eastern portion of the Ro- man Empire since the fourth century, it had been acquired by the Seljuks less than two decades before the crusaders arrived. According to Raymond of Agu- ilers, Nicaea was surrounded “with such lofty walls that the city feared neither the attack of enemies nor the force of any machine.”1 Considerable stretches of 1 Praeterea muris ita eminentibus cingitur, ut nullorum hominum assultus, nullis machinae im- petus vereatur, Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum 3, RHC Oc 3, p. 239, trans. Hill and © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004376922_005 60 Chapter 3 the city’s classical defences can still be viewed today, although the walls have not survived to their original height. The bulk of the Frankish army arrived at Nicaea on 6 May 1097, followed by Raymond of St Gilles and his Provençal forces a week later and a final contin- gent, under Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, arrived in early June, just in time to see the city surrender.2 The sources make it clear that artillery was used throughout the siege. The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum and Guibert of Nogent relate that, soon after arriving, the main body of Franks began to construct machines to aid their early attacks.3 Raymond of Aguilers and Albert of Aachen note the construction of further stone-throwers by the Provençal forces when they took up a position to the south of Nicaea.4 This contingent arrived just in time to defeat a relief force sent by Kilij Arslan and wasted little time using their engines to hurl the heads of fallen Turks into the city.5 Fulcher of Chartres, traveling with the forces of Stephen of Blois and Robert of Normandy, notes that petrariae and tormenta were also built by this group, the last to arrive.6 The use of artillery is widely noted by the sources, but so too is its limited power. Raymond of Aguilers clearly states that the stones thrown by the Pro- vençal engines had minimal effect against the city’s defences. Albert of Aachen confirms the initial ineffectiveness of the crusaders’ artillery but adds that when the number of engines was increased, from just two, some cracks were Hill, p. 25. For a detailed description of Nicaea’s defences, see France, Victory in the East, pp. 143-44. 2 Gesta Francorum 2.7-8, ed. and trans. Hill, pp. 13-17; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum 3, RHC Oc 3, p. 239, trans. Hill and Hill, pp. 25-26; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 1.9.2-10.1, ed. Hagenmeyer, pp. 177-81, trans. Ryan, pp. 79-81. The Gesta places Robert of Flanders at the siege before the arrival of the Provençals while Fulcher states he arrived with Stephen of Blois only days before the siege ended. 3 Gesta Francorum 2.8, ed. and trans. Hill, p. 14; Guibert of Nogent, Die gesta per Francos 3.6-10, ed. Huygens, pp. 145-55, trans. Levine, pp. 62-66. 4 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum 3, RHC Oc 3, p. 239, trans. Hill and Hill, p. 26; Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana 2.32, ed. and trans. Edgington, pp. 114-15, cf. 2.29, 32, pp. 110-11, 116-17. 5 Gesta Francorum 2.8, ed. and trans. Hill, p. 15; Guibert of Nogent, Die gesta per Francos 3.6, ed. Huygens, pp. 145-47, trans. Levine, pp. 62-63; Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. Coxe, 2:83, trans. Giles, 1:394. Cf. Chanson d’Antioche 74, trans. Edgington and Sweetenham, p. 146. This force had been sent by Kilij Arslan, who was then busy besieging Malatya. Matthew of Edessa notes Kilij Arslan’s use of artillery against Malatya, Matthew of Edessa, Patmut‘iwn, trans. Dostourian, pp. 163-64. 6 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 1.10.6, ed. Hagenmeyer, pp. 185-87, trans. Ryan, p. 82..