to fall; silence reigned over the public places and around the
ramparts;[181] nothing was heard in the holy city but hymns of
penitence and these words of Isaiah, “_You who love Jerusalem, rejoice
with her_.” The Crusaders exhibited a devotion so animated and so
tender, that it might have been said, according to the remark of a
modern historian,[182] that these men who had just taken a city by
assault, and had committed a horrible carnage, had come forth from a
long retirement and a profound meditation upon our mysteries. These
inexplicable contrasts are often to be observed in the history of the
crusades. Some writers have believed that they found in them a pretext
to accuse the Christian religion itself, whilst others, not less blind
or passionate, have endeavoured to palliate the deplorable excesses
of fanaticism; the impartial historian contents himself with relating
them, and mourns in silence over the weaknesses of human nature.
The pious fervour of the Christians only suspended the scenes of
carnage. The policy of some of the leaders might make them believe
that it was necessary to inspire the Saracens with as much dread as
possible; they thought, perhaps also, that if they released the men who
had defended Jerusalem, they should have to fight them over again, and
that it was not prudent for them, in a distant country and surrounded
by enemies, to undertake the charge of prisoners whose number by far
surpassed that of their own soldiers. The approach of the Egyptian army
likewise was announced, and the dread of a new danger closed their
hearts against pity. In their council, a sentence of death was decreed
against all the Mussulmans that remained in the city.[183]
Fanaticism but too well seconded this barbarous policy. All the enemies
whom humanity or the fatigue of carnage had at first spared, and even
such as had been saved in hopes of a rich ransom, were slaughtered.
They compelled the Saracens to cast themselves from the tops of the
towers and the houses; they made them perish in the midst of flames;
they dragged them from their subterranean concealments to the public
places, and there immolated them upon heaps of dead. Neither the tears
of women nor the cries of infants, not even the sight of the very place
where Christ had pardoned his executioners, could soften the hearts
of the angry conquerors. The carnage was so great that, according
to the report of Albert d’Aix, bodies were seen heaped up, not only
in the palaces, the temples, and the streets, but even in the most
retired and solitary places. Such was the delirium of vengeance and
fanaticism, that these scenes appear not to have been revolting to the
eyes of those who beheld them. The contemporary historians describe
them without thinking of excusing them, and amidst recitals of the most
disgusting details, never allow a single expression of horror or pity
to escape them.[184]
The few Crusaders who had preserved any feelings of humanity had not
the power to check the fury of an army who thought they were avenging
outraged religion. Three hundred Saracens, who had taken refuge on
the platform of the mosque of Omar, were immolated on the day after
the conquest, in spite of the prayers of Tancred, who had sent them
his standard as a safeguard, and was indignant to find that so little
respect was paid to the laws of honour and chivalry.[185] The Saracens
who had retreated to the fortress of David were almost the only persons
that escaped death. Raymond accepted their capitulation, and had
the good fortune and the glory to have it executed; but this act of
humanity appeared so strange to the greater part of the Crusaders, that
they expressed less admiration for the generosity of the count de St.
Gilles than contempt for his avarice.[186]
The carnage did not cease until the end of a week. Such of the Saracens
as had been able to elude pursuit during this period were reserved for
the service of the army. The Oriental and Latin historians agree in
stating the number of the Mussulmans slain in Jerusalem to have been
more than seventy thousand. The Jews met with no more mercy than the
Saracens. The soldiers set fire to the synagogue in which they had
taken refuge, and all perished in the flames.
But it began to be feared that the bodies heaped up in the public
places, and the blood which had flooded the mosques and the streets
might give rise to pestilential diseases, and the leaders gave orders
that the streets should be cleansed, and that a spectacle which, now
fury and fanaticism were satisfied, must have been odious to them,
should be removed from before their eyes. Some Mussulman prisoners, who
had only escaped the sword of the conquerors to fall into a horrible
state of slavery, were ordered to bury the disfigured bodies of their
friends and brothers. “They wept,” says Robert the Monk,[187] “and
transported the carcases out of Jerusalem.” They were assisted in this
melancholy duty by the soldiers of Raymond, who, having entered last
into the city, had not had a large share of the plunder, and sought to
increase it by a close search of the bodies of the Saracens.
The city of Jerusalem soon presented a new spectacle. In the course of
a few days only it had changed its inhabitants, laws, and religion.
Before the last assault it had been agreed, according to the custom
of the Crusaders in their conquests, that every warrior should remain
master and possessor of the house or edifice in which he should present
himself first. A cross, a buckler, or any other mark placed upon a
door, was, for every one of the conquerors, a good title of possession.
This right of property was respected by every soldier, however greedy
of plunder, and the greatest order soon reigned in a city but recently
given up to all the horrors of war. The victory enriched the greater
part of the Crusaders. The conquerors shared the provisions and the
riches they had found, and such as had not been fortunate in the
pillage had no cause to complain of their companions. A part of the
treasures was employed in assisting the poor, in supporting orphans,
and in decorating the altars they had freed from the Mussulmans.
Tancred had as his share all the wealth found in the mosque of Omar.
Among these riches were twenty candelabra of gold, a hundred and twenty
of silver, a large lamp,[188] and many other ornaments of the same
metals. This booty was so considerable, that it would have been enough,
say the historians, to load six chariots, and employed Tancred two days
in removing it from the mosque. The Italian hero gave up a portion of
this to his soldiers and another to Godfrey, to whose service he had
attached himself. He distributed abundance of alms, and placed fifty
gold marks in the hands of the Latin clergy for the reëstablishment
and the decoration of the churches.
But the Crusaders soon turned their eyes from the treasures which
victory had bestowed upon them to admire a conquest much more precious
in their estimation; this was the true cross, which had been borne
away from Jerusalem by Cosroës and brought back again by Heraclius.
The Christians shut up in the city had concealed it from the Saracens
during the siege. The sight of it excited the most lively emotions
in the pilgrims. “_Of this thing_,” says an old chronicle, “_the
Christians were as much delighted as if they had seen the body of
Christ hung thereupon_.” It was borne in triumph through the streets of
Jerusalem, and then replaced in the church of the Resurrection.
Ten days after their victory the Crusaders employed themselves in
restoring the throne of David and Solomon, and in placing upon it a
leader who might preserve and maintain a conquest that the Christians
had made at the expense of so much blood. The council of the princes
being assembled, one of the leaders ’history names the count of
Flanders) arose in the midst of them, and spoke in these terms:[189]
“Brothers and companions; we are met to treat of an affair of the
greatest importance; never did we stand in greater need of the counsels
of wisdom and the inspirations of heaven. In ordinary times it is
desirable that authority should be in the hands of the most able;
with how much greater reason then ought we to seek for the man most
worthy to govern this kingdom, still in a great measure in the power
of the barbarians. Already we are told that the Egyptians threaten
this city, for which we are about to choose a master. The greater part
of the Christian warriors are impatient to return to their country,
and to abandon to others the care of defending their conquests. The
new people then who are going to inhabit this land will have in their
neighbourhood no other Christian nations to assist them in their need
or console them in their disgraces. Their enemies are near them, their
allies are beyond the seas. The king we shall give them will be their
only support amidst the perils which will surround them. He then who
is called upon to govern this country must have all the qualities
necessary to maintain his position with glory; he must unite with the
bravery natural to the Franks, temperance, good faith, and humanity;
for you know by such virtues great principalities are acquired and
kept as well as by arms. Let us not forget, brothers and companions,
that our object to-day is not so much to elect a king for Jerusalem,
as to bestow upon it a faithful guardian. He whom we shall choose as
leader must be as a father to all those who have quitted their country
and their families for the service of Jesus Christ and the defence of
the holy places. He must make virtue flourish in this land where God
himself has given the model of it; he must win the infidels to the
Christian religion, accustom them to our manners, and teach them to
bless our laws. If you elect one who is not worthy, you will destroy
your own work, and will bring ruin on the Christian name in this
country. I have no need to recall to your minds the exploits or the
labours which have placed us in possession of this territory; I will
not remind you of the dearest wishes of our brothers who have remained
in the West. What would be their sorrow, what would be ours, if, on
our return to Europe, we should hear that the public good had been
neglected and betrayed, or religion abolished in these places where
we have restored its altars? Many would then not fail to attribute to
fortune, and not to virtue, the great things we have done, whilst the
evils which this kingdom would undergo would pass in the eyes of men as
the fruit of our imprudence.
“Do not believe, however, brothers and companions, that I speak thus
because I am ambitious of royalty, and that I am seeking your favour or
suffrages. No; I have not sufficient presumption to aspire to such an
honour; I take Heaven and men to witness, that even if you should offer
me the crown, I would not accept it, being resolved to return to my own
country. That which I have said to you is but for the good and glory of
all. For the rest, I supplicate you to receive this advice as I give it
to you, with affection, frankness, and loyalty, and to elect for king
him who by his virtue shall be most capable of preserving and extending
this kingdom, to which are attached both the honour of your arms and
the cause of Jesus Christ.”
Scarcely had the count of Flanders ceased speaking, than all the other
leaders gave him the warmest praise for his prudence and good feelings.
Most of them even thought of offering him the honour he had declined,
for he who in such circumstances refuses a crown, always appears to be
the most worthy of it; but Robert had expressed himself with frankness
and good faith; he longed to return to Europe, and was satisfied with
the honour of bearing the title of “the Son of St. George,” which his
exploits in the holy war had obtained for him.
Among the leaders who could be called upon to reign over Jerusalem,
we must place in the first rank Godfrey, Raymond, the duke of
Normandy, and Tancred. The only object of Tancred was glory in
arms, and he placed the title of knight far above that of king. The
duke of Normandy, likewise, had evinced more bravery than ambition;
after having disdained the kingdom of England, he was not likely
to be anxious to gain that of Jerusalem. If we may believe an
English historian,[190] he might have obtained the suffrages of his
companions; but he refused the throne of David from indolence, which
so irritated God against him, says the same author, that nothing
afterwards prospered with him during the remainder of his life. The
count of Thoulouse had taken an oath never to return to Europe, but
his companions dreaded his obstinate and ambitious character; and
although several authors have said that he refused to ascend the throne
on account of his great age, everything leads us to believe that the
Christians feared to have him for king.
The opinions of the leaders and the army were various and uncertain.
The clergy insisted that a patriarch should be named before they
elected a king; the princes were not at all agreed among themselves,
and of the body of the Crusaders, some would have wished to choose him
whom they had followed through the holy war, whilst others, like the
Provençals, who had no attachment for the count of St. Gilles, and were
not desirous of remaining in Asia, gave all their efforts to keep the
crown of Jerusalem from the prince under whose colours they served.
To terminate the debate, it was decided that the choice should be
made by a special council of ten of the most highly respected men
of the army. Prayers, fasts, and alms were commanded, in order to
propitiate Heaven to guide them in the nomination they were about
to make. They who were called upon to choose the king swore, in the
presence of the whole Christian army, not to listen to any interest or
any private affection, but to decree the crown to wisdom and virtue.
These electors, whose names history has not preserved, gave the utmost
attention to ascertain the opinion of the army upon the merits of
each of the leaders. William of Tyre relates that they went so far
as even to interrogate the familiar associates and servants of all
who had any pretensions to the crown, and that they made them take an
oath to reveal all they knew of the manners, characters, and secret
propensities of their masters. The servants of Godfrey of Bouillon gave
the most striking evidence of his mildness and humanity, but above all
of his exemplary devotion.
To add to this honourable testimony, the exploits of the duke of
Lorraine during the holy war were dwelt upon. They remembered that at
the siege of Nice he had killed the most redoubtable of the Saracens;
that he had split from shoulder to haunch a giant on the bridge of
Antioch, and that in Asia Minor he had exposed his life to save that of
a soldier who was overpowered by a bear. Many other feats of bravery
were related of him, which in the minds of the Crusaders placed him
above all the other competitors.[191]
Godfrey was the leader decidedly in possession of the suffrages of
the majority of the army and the people; and that he might not want
anything in the expression of their wishes for his success, revelations
were announced that God himself declared in his favour. “Many years
before the crusade,” says Albert d’Aix, “a soldier named Hezelon de
Kintzveiler, had fallen asleep in a forest, and, being conveyed in
a dream to the summit of Sinai, he had seen Godfrey, covered with
glory, and accompanied by two celestial messengers, who announced to
him that God had chosen him, as he had done Moses, to be the conductor
and chief of his people.” A clerk, Giselbert ’a canon of St. Mary, of
Aix la Chapelle), related a vision not less miraculous. The duke of
Lorraine had appeared to him seated upon the throne even of the sun.
The birds of heaven from all climates and all points of the horizon,
flew around him in numberless troops. The recital of this apparition
was accompanied by many other circumstances which we have not space to
repeat; but the Crusaders, who were much struck with them, did not fail
to see in the throne of the sun a faithful image of that of Jerusalem,
and in the birds of heaven the multitude of pilgrims who would come
from all countries to do honour to the glorious reign of Godfrey.[192]
These visions, which are despised in an enlightened age, had great
power over the Christian army, and did not contribute less than the
personal merit of the prince of Bouillon to draw upon him the attention
of all. In this disposition of the general mind, the Crusaders looked
with impatience for the decision of the council which was to give a
king to Jerusalem.
At length the electors, after mature deliberations, and an anxious
inquiry for all necessary information, proclaimed the name of Grodfrey.
This nomination caused the most lively joy throughout the Christian
army, and was considered as an inspiration of heaven. By the authority
given to him, Godfrey became the depositary of the dearest interests
of the Crusaders. Every one among them had in some sort confided
his own glory to him, by leaving him the care of watching over and
guiding their conquests. They conducted him in triumph to the church
of the Holy Sepulchre, where he took the oath to respect the laws
of honour and justice. He refused the diadem and the insignia of
royalty, saying that he would never accept a crown of gold in a city
in which the Saviour of the world had been crowned with thorns. He
contented himself with the modest title of defender and baron of the
Holy Sepulchre. It has been pretended that in this he only acted in
obedience to the insinuations of the clergy, who were afraid of seeing
pride seated upon a throne over which the spirit of Christ ought to
reign. However this may be, Godfrey richly merited by his virtues the
title of king which history has given him, and which was far more due
to him than the name of kingdom was to the feeble states he had to
govern.
As the war had the triumph of religion for its object, the clergy
employed themselves in naming bishops, consecrating churches, and
sending pastors to all the cities that had submitted to the power of
the Christians. Piety and disinterestedness ought to have presided
in the choice of the ministers of Christ; but since the death of
the virtuous Adhemar, the greater part of the Latin ecclesiastics,
no longer restrained by his example, had forgotten the humility and
simplicity of their profession. If William of Tyre may be believed,
address and intrigue openly obtained the suffrages, and the spirit of
the religion which had just given Jerusalem a good king, could not
succeed in bestowing upon it prelates respectable either for their
wisdom or their virtues. The clergy, who had ventured to disturb the
election of the king by their intrigues, carried their pretensions as
high as the sovereignty of the city, and claimed with arrogance the
greatest part in the division of the booty won from the infidels.[193]
The Greek priests, in spite of their rights, were sacrificed to the
ambition of the Roman clergy, as they had been in the city of Antioch.
The chaplain of the duke of Normandy caused himself to be proposed as
patriarch of Jerusalem, in the place of Simeon, who had summoned the
warriors from the West. Simeon was still in the isle of Cyprus, from
whence he had continually sent provisions to the Crusaders during the
siege. He died at the moment in which the Latin ecclesiastics were
quarrelling for his spoils, and his death came very opportunely to
excuse their injustice and ingratitude. Arnold, whose morals were more
than suspected, and whose conduct has merited the censure of the
gravest historians, was nominated pastor of the church of Jerusalem.
In the meanwhile fame had proclaimed the conquest of the holy city
throughout all the neighbouring countries. In all the churches founded
by the Crusaders in their passage, thanks were offered up to God for
a victory which must necessarily cause the triumph of the worship and
the laws of Christ in the East. The Christians of Antioch, Edessa,
and Tarsus, with those who inhabited Cilicia, Cappadocia, Syria, and
Mesopotamia, came in crowds to Jerusalem, some for the purpose of
fixing their abode there, others to visit the holy places.
Whilst the faithful were rejoicing over their conquest, the Mussulmans
gave themselves up to despair. The few who had escaped from the
swords of the Crusaders spread consternation wherever they went. The
historians Abul-Mahacam, Elmacin, and Aboul-Feda have described the
desolation which reigned at Bagdad. Zeimeddin, cadhi of Damascus, tore
out his own beard in the presence of the Caliph. The whole divan shed
tears whilst listening to the recital of the misfortunes of Jerusalem.
Fasts and prayers were ordered to mitigate the anger of heaven. The
Imans and poets deplored in pathetic verses and discourses the fate of
the Mussulmans who had become slaves of the Christians. “What blood,”
said they, “has not flowed? What disasters[194] have not befallen the
true believers? Women have been obliged to fly, concealing their
faces; children have fallen under the swords of the conquerors; and
there remains no other asylum for our brothers, so lately masters of
Syria, but the backs of their camels, or the entrails of the vultures.”
The caliph of Bagdad, deprived of his authority, had nothing to
offer but his prayers and tears for the cause of the Mussulmans.
The victories of the Christians had inflicted a mortal blow upon
the dynasty of the Seldjoucides. The sultan of Persia, retired to
the extremity of Coraçan, was occupied in appeasing civil wars, and
scarcely gave a thought to the emirs of Syria, who had shaken off his
authority, and shared his spoils amongst them. The greater part of the
emirs were quarrelling among themselves for the cities and provinces
threatened by the warriors of the West. The discords which accompany
the fall of empires had everywhere sown trouble and division among
the infidels; but such was their grief when they learnt the conquest
of Jerusalem by the Christians, that they united in weeping together
over the outrages committed upon the religion of Mahomet. The Turks of
Syria, and the inhabitants of Damascus and Bagdad placed their last
hope in the caliph of Cairo, whom they had so long considered an enemy
to the prophet, and came in crowds to join the Egyptian army which was
advancing towards Ascalon.
At Jerusalem they soon learnt that this army had reached Gaza, in
the ancient country of the Philistines. Godfrey immediately caused
his brother Eustace and Tancred, who had quitted the city to go and
take possession of Naplouse, to be informed of this. He pressed the
other leaders of the crusade to unite with him and march to meet the
Saracens. The duke of Normandy at first refused to follow him, alleging
that his vow was accomplished; and the count of Thoulouse, who had been
forced to give up to the king the fortress of David, which he pretended
belonged to him by right of conquest, rejected with haughtiness the
prayers of Godfrey, and treated the news of the approach of the
Saracens as a fable.
The refusal of the duke of Normandy and Raymond did not prevent Godfrey
from commencing his march, followed by Tancred, the count of Flanders,
and several other leaders. They learnt on their route that the emir
Afdhal, the same that had taken Jerusalem from the Turks, commanded the
army of the infidels. This general had under his standard an almost
countless multitude of Mussulmans, from the banks of the Tigris and the
Nile, the shores of the Red Sea, and the extremities of Ethiopia. A
fleet had sailed from the ports of Alexandria and Damietta, laden with
all sorts of provisions, and the machines necessary for the siege of
Jerusalem.
Afdhal had taken a solemn oath before the caliph to annihilate for ever
the power of the Crusaders in Asia, and to entirely destroy Calvary,
the tomb of Christ, and all the monuments revered by the Christians.
The march and the intentions of Afdhal soon conveyed terror to
Jerusalem. Raymond and the duke of Normandy were again pressed to join
the Christian army. Women, old men, and priests with tears conjured
the two princes to have pity on the holy city they had delivered. They
represented to them the fatal consequences of their inaction, which
rendered all the labours of the Crusaders useless, and closed for ever
the doors of the East against pilgrims. The voices of all the nations
of the West, they told them, would be raised against them, and the
blood of the Christians would be on their heads. At last Robert and
Raymond allowed themselves to be prevailed upon, and marched with their
troops to join Godfrey. The new patriarch desired to follow them,
bearing with him the wood of the true cross, the sight of which, like
that of the holy lance, would redouble the enthusiasm and the bravery
of the Crusaders.
All the Christians in a condition to bear arms quitted Jerusalem to
go and fight the Mussulmans. There only remained in the holy city the
women, the sick, and a part of the clergy, who, having Peter the Hermit
at their head, addressed night and day prayers to Heaven to obtain the
triumph of the defenders of the holy places, and the last defeat of the
enemies of Christ.
The Christian army, which had at first assembled at Ramla, advanced
across a sandy country, and encamped on the banks of the torrent of
Sorex, in the plain of Saphœa, or Serfend, situated between Jaffa
and Ascalon. The day after the Christians arrived on this plain, they
perceived at a distance, towards seven o’clock in the evening, a vast
multitude, which they took for the army of the enemy. Two hundred
horsemen, who were sent out to reconnoitre, soon returned, however,
with the agreeable intelligence that the multitude they had taken for
the Egyptian army was nothing but a drove of oxen and camels. So rich
a booty at first awakened the avidity of the soldiers, but the prudent
Godfrey, who saw nothing in this circumstance but a stratagem of the
enemy to throw the Christian army in disorder, forbade his soldiers to
leave their ranks. The other leaders, after his example, endeavoured
to restrain the men under their command, and all remained firm beneath
their standards.
The Crusaders learned from some prisoners they had made, that the enemy
were encamped at three leagues from them, and that they were preparing
to come and attack the Christian army. Upon receiving this advice, the
leaders made their dispositions to receive the infidels. The army was
drawn up in nine divisions, and formed a sort of square battalion, so
as to be able at need, to face the enemy at all points. The Crusaders
passed the night under arms. On the following morning ’it was the eve
of the Assumption) the heralds announced by sound of trumpet that
they were about to give battle to the infidels. At break of day the
Crusaders received the benediction of the patriarch of Jerusalem. The
wood of the true cross was carried through the ranks, and shown to the
soldiers as a certain pledge of victory. The leaders then gave the
signal, all the ensigns were unfurled, and the army marched to meet the
Saracens.
The nearer the Christians approached the army of Egypt, the more were
they filled with confidence and hope. Their drums, cymbals, hymns, and
war-songs animated them to the fight. They marched towards the enemy,
says Albert d’Aix, as to a joyous feast. An emir of Palestine, who
followed the army as an auxiliary, could not sufficiently admire, if
we may believe historians, this joy of the soldiers of the cross at
the approach of danger. He came to express his surprise to the king of
Jerusalem, and swore before him to embrace a religion which could give
so much strength and bravery to its defenders.
The Christians soon arrived in the plain of Ascalon. This immense plain
is bounded on the east and south by mountains, and extends on the west
to the sea. On the coast was situated the city of Ascalon, over which
the Mussulman standards floated. At the extremity of the plain the
army of Egypt was drawn up, with the sea and the mountains behind it.
The Crusaders advanced in two lines; the count of Thoulouse commanded
the right wing, the two Roberts and Tancred were placed at the left.
Godfrey commanded a body of reserve, which was at the same time to keep
the garrison of Ascalon in check and fight with the army of Egypt.
Whilst the Christian army was thus marching in battle array, the drove
of oxen and camels that they had met on their route came to their
rear, and followed all their movements. The confused noise of these
animals, mingled with the sound of the drums and trumpets, and the
clouds of dust which arose under their steps, caused them to be taken
for squadrons of horse, and the Mussulmans were persuaded that the
Christian army was more numerous than their own. They were drawn up
in two lines, as the Crusaders were. The Turks from Syria and Bagdad
were on the right; the Moors and Egyptians on the left; the emir Afdhal
occupied the centre with the main body of the Egyptian forces. This
army covered an immense space, and, says Foulcher de Chartres, like a
stag who projects his branching horns, it extended its wings to envelop
the Christians; but a sudden terror rendered it motionless.
In vain the emir endeavoured to rouse the courage of his soldiers. They
fancied that millions of Crusaders had arrived from the West; they
forgot both their oaths and their threats, and only remembered the fate
of the Mussulmans immolated after the conquest of Jerusalem.
Before engaging, all the Crusaders, fully armed, fell on their knees
to implore the protection of Heaven; and rising full of ardour and
hope, marched against the Saracens. If the most truthful historians
are to be believed, they had not more than fifteen thousand foot
and five thousand horse. When they had arrived within bow-shot, the
foot-soldiers made several discharges of javelins, at the same time
the cavalry, increasing their speed, precipitated themselves upon the
enemy’s ranks. At this first charge the duke of Normandy, the count
of Flanders, and Tancred broke through the centre of the Egyptians.
Duke Robert, followed by his bravest knights, penetrated to the place
where Afdhal fought, and got possession of the great standard of the
infidels. The foot-soldiers followed the horse into the _mêlée_, and
cast away their bows and javelins to make use of sword and lance, arms
much more terrible to the Mussulmans.
On all sides the Saracens were thrown into disorder. Towards the end
of the battle Godfrey had had to contend with a troop of Ethiopians,
who bent one knee to the ground to launch their javelins, and then,
springing up, rushed upon the Crusaders with long flails armed with
balls of iron. This redoubtable battalion could not alone resist the
lances of the Christians, and were soon dispersed. An invincible
terror seemed to paralyze the arms of the Mussulmans. Whilst the king
of Jerusalem was pursuing the Ethiopians and Moors who fled towards
the mountains in the vicinity of the field of battle, the Syrians and
the Arabs, who fought in the left wing, were broken by the count of
Thoulouse. Hotly pressed by the conquerors, a great number of them
precipitated themselves into the sea, and perished in the waves;
others sought an asylum in the city of Ascalon, and such was their
eagerness, and so numerous were they, that two thousand were crushed
to death upon the drawbridge. Amidst the general rout, Afdhal was on
the point of falling into the hands of the conquerors; and, leaving
his sword upon the field of battle, had great difficulty in gaining
Ascalon. Historians add, that when, from the walls of that city, he
contemplated the destruction of his army, he shed a torrent of tears.
In his despair, he cursed Jerusalem, the cause of all his evils, and
blasphemed Mahomet, whom he accused of having abandoned his servants
and disciples.
This was a day of terror and death for the Mussulmans. From the
beginning of the battle, the infidels, who had previously burned with
a thirst of vengeance, appeared to have no purpose but to escape by
flight from an enemy who granted no mercy to the conquered. In their
mortal fear, they let fall their arms, and suffered themselves to be
slaughtered without offering the least resistance. Their terrified
crowd stood motionless on the field of battle, and the sword, to
employ the expression of a contemporary,[195] mowed them down like the
grass of the field. Some cast themselves on the ground, and concealed
themselves among heaps of slain; whilst others plunged into caverns,
or scrambled up rocks or trees, where they were shot down with arrows,
like birds.[196] Afdhal, who did not believe himself to be in safety
in Ascalon, embarked on board a fleet which had arrived from Egypt.
Towards the middle of the contest, all the Egyptian vessels which were
near the shore spread their sails, and gained the open sea. From that
moment no hope of safety remained for the scattered army of these
infidels, who were, as they had said, to deliver the East, and whose
multitude was so great, that, according to the expression of old
historians, God alone knew the number of them.[197]
Such was this battle, whose prodigies poetry has taken delight in
celebrating, but which was, in reality, nothing but an easy victory
for the Christians, in which fanaticism even had not the least share.
On this day the presence of celestial legions did not animate the
battalions of the Crusaders, and the martyrs St. George and St.
Demetrius, whom they always believed they saw in great perils, had no
occasion to be present in this fight. The Christians must have learnt
from this _rencontre_ that their new adversaries were much less to
be dreaded than the Turks. The Egyptian army was composed of many
different nations, which were divided among themselves; the greater
part of the Mussulman troops had been levied in haste, and fought for
the first time. The army of the Crusaders, on the contrary, had been
proved by many victories, and their leaders were as skilful as they
were brave. The bold resolution that Godfrey had taken of going to
meet the enemy, raised the confidence of the soldiers, and assisted in
creating fear and disorder among the Egyptians.[198]
If William of Tyre and Robert the Monk may be believed, the Christians
did not lose a single horseman. They might have made themselves masters
of Ascalon, but want of union among the leaders prevented their taking
due advantage of their victory.[199]
After the defeat of the enemy, Raymond had sent a messenger into the
place to summon the garrison to surrender.[200] He wished to plant
his standard on the walls of the city, and retain the conquest for
himself. On the other hand, Godfrey claimed the possession of it and
maintained that Ascalon ought to form part of the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The debates became very warm. The count of Thoulouse, who found all
the leaders of the Christian army against him, listened to nothing but
the dictates of his blind anger; he recommended the garrison to defend
themselves, and set forward with his troops to return to Jerusalem.
Godfrey, after the desertion of Raymond, in vain attempted to besiege
the city. The greater part of the Crusaders, impatient to return
to their own country, abandoned his colours; and, after making the
inhabitants and garrison of Antioch pay him a considerable sum, he was
obliged to follow them to Jerusalem.
The quarrel which was begun between Raymond and Godfrey before Ascalon
was renewed a few days after before the city of Arsouf, situated near
the sea, twelve miles to the north of Ramla. The count of St. Gilles,
who marched first with his troops, undertook to besiege this place, but
as he met with an obstinate resistance, he abandoned the siege, and
continued his march, after having warned the garrison that they had
nothing to fear from the king of Jerusalem. A short time after, Godfrey
having besieged the city, found the Saracens determined to defend
themselves, and as he learnt that their resistance was the fruit of
the counsels of Raymond, he could not restrain his anger, but resolved
to avenge this affront in the blood of his rival. He marched with his
ensigns displayed, against the count de St. Gilles, who, on his part,
was willing to meet him, and prepared for the conflict. The Christians
were on the point of proceeding to extremities, when the two Roberts
and Tancred threw themselves between Raymond and Godfrey, and used
their utmost exertions to appease them. After a long altercation, the
two rivals, overcome by the prayers of the other chiefs, embraced in
the presence of their soldiers, who had taken part in their animosity.
The reconciliation was sincere on both sides. The pious Godfrey, says
Albert d’Aix, conjured his companions to forget the dissension that had
broken out among the Christian warriors, and implored them, with tears
in his eyes, to remember that they had together delivered the holy
tomb, that they were all brothers in Christ, and that concord was still
necessary to defend Jerusalem. When the inhabitants of Arsouf learnt
that the leaders of the Christian army were reconciled, they repented
of their resistance, and engaged to pay a tribute to Godfrey.[201]
After having received and given hostages as a guarantee of the treaty,
Godfrey, followed by all the other chiefs, quitted the territory of
Arsouf, to return to Jerusalem. The Christian army was loaded with an
immense booty. It marched, followed by the droves of cattle it had met
on the banks of the Sorec, and brought back all the riches found in the
camp of the infidels. As they approached Jerusalem, all the trumpets
were sounded, and their victorious flags were unfurled. A crowd of
pilgrims, who came out to meet them, filled the air with their songs
of gladness; these lively expressions of joy mingled with the hymns
of the priests; the echoes, says Robert the Monk, repeated the sounds
of the warlike instruments and the acclamations of the Christians,
and appeared to offer an application of these words of Isaiah: “_The
mountains and the hills shall sing before you the praises of the
Lord_.” The Crusaders entered the holy city in triumph. The great
standard and the sword of the sultan were suspended on the columns
of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. All the pilgrims, assembled in
the very places which the emir Afdhal had sworn utterly to destroy,
returned thanks to Heaven for a victory which crowned all their labours.
The victory of Ascalon was the last of this crusade. At length,
liberated from their vows, after four years of toils and dangers, the
princes of the crusade quitted Jerusalem, whose sole means of defence
now were three hundred knights, the wisdom of Godfrey, and the sword
of Tancred, who had resolved to end his days in Asia. Some embarked on
the Mediterranean, whilst others marched across Syria and Asia Minor.
They arrived in the West bearing palm branches in their hands, and
singing hymns of triumph on their way. Their return was considered as
a miracle, a sort of resurrection, and their presence was everywhere
looked upon as a subject of edification and enthusiasm. Most of them
had been ruined by the holy war; but they brought back from the East
precious relics, which were in the eyes of the faithful a veritable
treasure.[202] Their hearers were never tired of listening to the
recital of their labours and exploits. Tears, doubtless, mingled with
the transports of admiration and joy when they spoke of their numerous
companions whom death had swept away in Asia. There was not a family
that had not to weep a defender of the cross, or did not glorify itself
with having a martyr in heaven. Ancient chronicles have celebrated the
heroic devotion of Ida, countess of Hainault, who made the voyage to
the East, and braved all dangers in search of her husband. Sent by the
Crusaders to Alexius, the count of Hainault, with all the persons of
his suite, had disappeared, without any one being able to say what had
been their fate. Some said they were still prisoners among the Turks,
others that they were killed. Ida sought through many countries of
Asia, but returned to France without having obtained any tidings of her
husband.[203]
The count of Thoulouse, who had sworn never to return to the West, went
to Constantinople, where the emperor received him with distinction, and
gave him the city of Laodicea. Raymond of Orange determined to share
the destiny of the count of Thoulouse, and finish his days in the East.
Among the knights, companions of Raymond de St. Gilles, who returned
to their own country, we must not forget Stephen and Peter de Salviac
de Viel Castel, whom their age holds up as models of brotherly love.
Stephen and Peter de Salviac were twins, and the tenderest affection
united them from their infancy. Peter assumed the cross at the council
of Clermont, and Stephen, although married, and the father of several
children, determined to follow his brother into Asia, and share with
him the perils of so long a voyage. In all battles they were seen
fighting side by side, and they together were present at the sieges of
Nice, Antioch, and Jerusalem. A short time after their return to Le
Quercy, they both died in the same week, and were buried in the same
tomb. On their tomb may still be read an epitaph which has transmitted
to us the remembrance of their exploits and of their touching
affection. Gaston de Béarn returned with them into Europe; but some
years after, having re-entered upon his estates, he again took up arms
against the infidels, and died in Spain, fighting against the Moors.
Peter the Hermit, on his return to his country, concealed himself
from the eager curiosity of the faithful, and shut himself up in a
monastery he had founded at Huy.[204] He lived there in humility and
penitence, and was buried among the cenobites he had edified by his
virtues. Eustace, the brother of Godfrey and Baldwin, returned to
take possession of the moderate inheritance of the family, and gave
no further trouble to fame by his exploits. Alain Fergent, duke of
Brittany, and Robert, count of Flanders, returned to their states,
repaired the evils caused by their absence, and died regretted by their
subjects.[205]
The duke of Normandy was less fortunate than his companions. The sight
of the holy places, or the long series of labours and evils he had
endured in the cause of religion, had had no effect upon his indolent,
undecided character. On his return from the Holy Land, he passed
through Italy, where he fell in love with Sibylla, the daughter of
the count of Conversana, and allowed his passion to detain him from
his duchy more than a year. By this delay he lost the opportunity of
ascending the throne of England, to which, after the death of his
brother William Rufus, his birth, and the great renown he had acquired
in the crusade, gave him undoubted right. When at length he returned to
Normandy, he was received with transports of admiration and joy; but
upon resuming the reins of government, he showed nothing but weakness;
he gave himself up entirely to debauchery, and surrounded himself by
none but dissipated, greedy courtiers, who drew upon him the hatred of
his subjects. His brother, Henry I., who had succeeded William Rufus,
took advantage of the degraded condition of Robert, and the contempt
into which he was fallen, to take possession of Normandy. At the end
of a battle this unfortunate prince was made prisoner by his brother,
who led him in triumph to England, and caused him to be confined in the
castle of Cardiff, in the province of Glamorgan. The remembrance of his
exploits in the Holy Land had no effect in mitigating his misfortunes.
After twenty-eight years of captivity, he died forgotten by his
subjects, his allies, and the ancient companions of his glory.
The return of the Crusaders, and the account of their conquests,
excited great enthusiasm, and renewed the eagerness for crusades and
pilgrimages among the nations of the West. They were not now affected
by the passion for delivering the holy places, but by that of visiting
and defending them. Europe exhibited a second time the scenes which
had followed the council of Clermont; new discourses were heard, and
fresh miracles related. Cities, lands, and castles were again offered
for sale. He who preferred repose and his country to the glory of the
holy pilgrimage passed for a very lukewarm Christian; whilst all who
had quitted the standard of the crusade were objects of contempt in
the eyes of the faithful, and were threatened with the thunders of the
Church.
A general cry was raised against the brother of the king of France,
who could not be pardoned for having abandoned the Christian army in
a cowardly manner, and returned to Europe without seeing Jerusalem.
Stephen, count of Chartres and Blois, was not allowed to remain in
peace in his states and family; his people were astonished at his
shameful desertion, and his wife Adela reproached him with having
shrunk from the duties of religion and chivalry. These unfortunate
princes, and all who had deserted the standards of the holy war, were
obliged to quit France, and again take the route for Asia.
Many of the princes and barons who had not partaken of the enthusiasm
of the first Crusaders, accused themselves of culpable indifference,
and were drawn into the general movement. Among these latter was
William IX., count of Poictiers, a relation of the emperor of Germany,
and the most powerful vassal of the king of France. An amiable and
intelligent prince, of not at all a warlike character, he left, to take
up the pilgrim’s staff, a voluptuous and gallant court, which he had
often delighted with his songs. He took upon him the cross at Limoges,
and set out for the East, accompanied by a great number of his vassals,
among whom were a vast many women and young girls.[206] His example
was followed by William, count of Nevers, Orpin, count of Bourges, and
Eude, duke of Burgundy. This last prince, perhaps, was influenced less
by a desire of visiting Jerusalem than by his anxiety to recover the
remains of his daughter Florine, who had been killed with Sweno in Asia
Minor.
In Italy, Albert, count of Blandras, and Anselm, archbishop of Milan,
placed themselves at the head of a countless multitude of pilgrims.
Germany witnessed the departure of Conrad, marshal of the emperor
Henry, Wolf IX., duke of Bavaria, the princess Ida, margravine of
Austria; and a great number of lords and knights.
In this new expedition, as in the first, many of the Crusaders were
led away by a desire for seeking adventures and visiting foreign
countries. The brilliant success of Baldwin, Bohemond, and Godfrey
aroused the ambition of the barons who had remained in Europe. Humbert
II., count of Savoy, who set out for the Holy Land with Hugh the
Great, made a donation to the monks of the Bourget, in order to obtain
by their prayers, a fortunate establishment ’_consulat_) in his
foreign voyage.[207] Many lords and knights made similar donations,
whilst others founded monasteries and churches, setting out with the
hope that God would bless their arms, and enable them to acquire rich
principalities in the East.
The Crusaders assembled in several troops, and crossing the
territories of the Hungarians and Bulgarians, united under the walls
of Constantinople to the amount of two hundred thousand. These new
pilgrims repeated the scenes of violence which had so seriously
alarmed Alexius in the first expedition. The Greek emperor, faithful
to his policy, opposed force by cunning; he flattered the vanity or
the avarice of men he could not subdue, and paid very dearly for the
insincere homage of the leaders of the crusade. He called Raymond
to his assistance, who was then in his government of Laodicea. The
presence and the persuasive discourses of the count of Thoulouse
calmed the perturbed spirits of the Crusaders for a few days; and when
they set forward on their march to Palestine, he was charged with
conducting them across Asia Minor.
Among this confused mass of pilgrims[208] was a crowd of monks,
old men, women, and young girls. They were without discipline, and
marched without either precaution or order; but they had such perfect
confidence in their arms, that they boasted, on leaving Constantinople,
that they would go to Bagdad, and wrest Asia from the hands of the
infidels. Their troop was divided into three bodies. At the head of the
first were the duke of Burgundy, the count of Chartres, the archbishop
of Milan, the count de Blandras, and Raymond de St. Gilles. “The
archbishop of Milan,” says Albert d’Aix, “had brought into Asia an arm
of St. Ambrose, with which he gave his benediction to the Crusaders.
Raymond carried with him the lance that had been found at Antioch, to
which he looked for new miracles.”
This first body, advancing towards Paphlagonia, took the city of
Ancyra by assault, and laid siege to the fortress of Gangras. The
garrison made a strong resistance, and forced the Christians to
retire. They were in want of provisions, and entertained but little
hopes of obtaining any in an enemy’s country; and whilst sinking into
despondency they quite unexpectedly found themselves confronted by a
Turkish army.
Kilidge Arslan, who had retired to Iconium, which became the capital of
his states, after the taking of Nice, had got together the remains of
his army, and recruited his strength. The sultan of Mossoul, that same
Kerboghâ who, three years before, had lost the battle of Antioch, had
joined the son of Soliman, and burned to meet the Christians again.
Although they both had a considerable number of troops, they contented
themselves, at first, with harassing the Crusaders in their march.
Sometimes the infidels got before the Christians, and ravaged the
country and filled up the wells and the cisterns; whilst at others,
they laid ambushes for them, and massacred all who strayed away from
the main body. The Christian army had suffered much in crossing the
defiles of Paphlagonia; and fatigue, hunger, and thirst had greatly
weakened the strength of the pilgrims, when the sultans of Mossoul and
Iconium determined upon giving them battle on the banks of the Halys.
Raymond, before the engagement, caused the miraculous lance to be
carried through the Christian ranks; whilst the archbishop of Milan,
followed by his clergy, exhibited the arm of St. Ambrose, and offered
up prayers for victory; but neither the prayers of the clergy, nor the
sight of the holy lance, nor even the prodigies of valour displayed
by the Crusaders, could secure them a triumph. After a sanguinary
conflict, they retired to their camp in great disorder. The Turks,
who had met with a determined resistance, did not at first dare to
follow up their victory, and satisfied themselves with remaining
masters of the field of battle, and plundering the dead. During the
night the Crusaders became aware of the extent of their loss. Raymond
and the other terrified leaders sought safety in flight. As soon as
their absence was discovered, terror and despair pervaded the camp of
the Christians; every one attempted to fly, abandoning the baggage,
the sick and the wounded. The roads were soon covered with soldiers,
women, and children, who embarrassed each other in their confusion,
and were ignorant where they might meet with the enemy, or where they
should look for the Christian army. The Turks, rendered aware of their
victory by the cries and groans which resounded from the neighbouring
mountains, hastened to the camp of the Crusaders, massacring or
making prisoners all they met. They then hotly pursued the fugitives,
slaughtering them without mercy. The darkness of the night added to the
horrors of this scene of carnage. The pilgrims lost themselves in their
confusion, and seemed to seek the swords they wished to avoid; others
stopped exhausted by fatigue, and awaited death as an end of their
calamities.
When day appeared, the country was covered with the bloody, plundered
bodies of the Christians. Raymond de St. Gilles, the duke of Burgundy,
the count of Chartres, the count of Blandras, and some other leaders
who had fled by different routes, met at Sinope, where they could
scarcely gather around them a few thousand men, the remains of an army
which had counted under its standards more than a hundred thousand
pilgrims.
A second army of Crusaders, led by the count de Nevers and the count
de Bourges, advanced as far as Ancyra, and directed its course towards
Heraclea.[209] This army looked for traces of that which had preceded
it; but instead of finding the Christians, they soon met with the
victorious army of the Turks, which came to meet them, attacked them,
and routed them. The count de Nevers with great difficulty found
refuge in Germanicopolis. Taking for guides some Greek soldiers, he
was pillaged and abandoned by them in a desert. He went through the
greatest dangers for several days; and, exhausted with fatigue and
covered with rags, he at length arrived at Antioch, whither the news of
his defeat had preceded him.
A third troop, composed, according to the authors of the time, of more
than a hundred and fifty thousand pilgrims, set out from Constantinople
under the orders of the count of Poictiers, the duke of Bavaria, and
Hugh de Vermandois. They took possession of Philomelium and Samalia,
and marched across devastated provinces towards the city of Stankon,
where they expected to unite themselves with the army of the count
de Nevers. It was before this city that the pilgrims heard of the
disasters and defeat of the Christian armies that had preceded them.
They advanced towards Heraclea, and were not long in meeting with the
army of Kilidge Arslan, which was waiting for them in an advantageous
position. As they had no longer anything to hope for except from
their courage, they did not seek to avoid the enemy. A rivulet which
separated the Christians from the infidels, was the signal and the
theatre of battle. The Crusaders, pressed by thirst, rushed towards
it in crowds. The Turks immediately discharged upon them a shower of
javelins and arrows. The two armies were soon completely engaged;
but the Christians fighting in a confined and marshy place, could
neither draw up their forces nor make use of the lance or the sword.
Their bravery and their efforts were of no avail against the skilful
manœuvres of Kerboghâ and Kilidge Arslan. The Turks penetrated the
Christian army everywhere; the carnage was horrible; scarcely a
thousand of the Crusaders escaped from either death or slavery. The
margravine of Austria disappeared amidst the tumult of the battle. Some
say that she was crushed under the feet of the horses; whilst others
assert that she fell into the hands of the enemy, and went to live and
die in the harem of the sultan of Mossoul. The greater part of the
women and young girls that followed the Christian army met with the
same fate. The count of Vermandois, pierced by two arrows, fled across
Lycaonia, and arrived with a feeble escort at the city of Tarsus, where
he died of his wounds.
The duke of Bavaria and the count of Poictiers, after having wandered
a long time in deserts and forests, arrived almost naked at Antioch,
in which city were assembled all the Crusaders that had escaped after
their defeat. The leaders, by gathering together the wrecks of their
troops, were able to form an army of ten thousand men, with which they
marched to Jerusalem. Whilst coasting the Sea of Syria, they took
the city of Tortosa, which they gave up to Raymond, although they
had accused him, only a few days before, of having been the cause
of all their disasters. Upon their arrival in Palestine, they found
new enemies to contend with. The duke of Burgundy[210] and the count
of Blois were killed in a battle fought near Ramla. Arpin, count de
Berri,[211] fell alive into the hands of the Saracens, and died in
slavery. The count de Blandras, the count of Savoy, William, count of
Poictiers, the count de Nevers, and the duke of Bavaria only led a
small number of their soldiers back to Europe.[212]
Such are the principal events of the first crusade, the commencement
and the end of which were marked by the greatest disasters, and which
deprived Europe of more than a million of men. When we reflect on the
energies displayed and the forces employed in this expedition by the
West, we are at first astonished that it did not succeed.
It has often been repeated, when speaking of this holy war, in which
the East beheld an army of six hundred thousand men brought against
it, “that Alexander conquered Asia with thirty thousand men.” It is
more than probable that the Greeks who wrote the life of Alexander have
diminished the number of his forces in order to heighten the splendour
of his victories;[213] but, be that as it may, it must be admitted that
the expedition of the Macedonian conqueror did not present the same
dangers, or the same obstacles that the Crusaders had to encounter.
The armies which left Greece for Asia had less to suffer from change
of climate, or the length and difficulties of the voyage than those
who came from the extremities of the West. The Macedonians, in their
invasion of the East, had scarcely any nation to contend with but the
Persians, an effeminate people, previously several times vanquished
by the Greeks; whilst the Crusaders had to pass through a crowd of
unknown, barbarous hordes, and when arrived in Asia, found, as enemies,
several nations of conquerors.
The Greeks of Alexander’s expedition did not go into Asia to introduce
new laws, or change the manners and religion of the people; they even
adopted something of the costumes and usages of the Persians, which
very much facilitated their conquests.[214] In the crusades, on the
contrary, we behold two religions armed one against the other, which
redoubled the hatred of the combatants, and forbade all approximation.
As soon as the standard of Mahomet floated over a city, the Christians
fled from it; whilst the cross of the Christians had the same effect
upon the Mussulmans. As the greater part of the Mussulman cities which
fell into the hands of the Christians were deserted, the latter were
obliged to people the provinces they conquered, and exhaust their
armies, to found, in some sort, colonies wherever their arms triumphed.
If it be allowed that no wars are more sanguinary than religious
wars, there are certainly none in which it is more difficult for a
conqueror to extend or preserve his conquests. This is a very important
observation, if we would appreciate the results of this crusade.
On all occasions where bravery alone was required, nothing can be
comparable to the exploits of the Crusaders. When reduced to a small
number of combatants, they triumphed no less over their enemies than
when they consisted of vast armies. Forty thousand Christians obtained
possession of Jerusalem, defended by a garrison of sixty thousand
Saracens. There remained scarcely twenty thousand men under their
standards, when they had to contend with all the forces of the East
in the plains of Ascalon. If Alexander performed greater things, and
particularly if he conquered a greater number of nations, it was
because he commanded a disciplined army, of which he was the absolute
leader. All his military and political operations were directed by
one same mind and one same will. It was not thus in the army of the
Crusaders, which was composed of many nations, and held within itself
the fatal germs of license and disorder. The feudal anarchy with which
Europe was then distracted followed the defenders of the cross into
Asia, and that turbulent spirit of the knights, which constantly led
them to have recourse to arms, was precisely that which checked and
bounded their conquests.
When we think of their ever reviving discords, of the calamities which
were the consequences of them, of that excess of bravery that made them
commit so many faults, of that want of foresight which they almost
always evinced on the eve of great dangers, one thing alone surprises
us, and that is, that they did not entirely fail in their enterprise.
Philosophy may, with some justice, oppose its reasonings to the marvels
of this war; but she will find in it an abundant source of profound
and new observations. In it she will see man with his inexplicable
contrasts; in it she will meet with the passions, with all that
characterizes them, with all they possess that most plainly exhibits
the human heart and mind. Reason, without doubt, must deplore the
disorders, the excesses, and the delirium of the Crusaders; but such
is human weakness, that we always interest ourselves in great events
wherein man is fully developed.
The imagination of the most indifferent must be struck with the
instances of heroism which the history of the crusades abounds in. If
many of the scenes of this great epoch excite our indignation or our
pity, how many of the events fill us with admiration and surprise!
How many names, rendered illustrious by this war, are still the pride
of families and nations! That which is perhaps most positive in the
results of the first crusade, is the glory of our fathers,—that glory
which is also a real good for a country; for great remembrances found
the existence of nations as well as families, and are the most noble
sources of patriotism.
In remotest antiquity, one of those passions which sometimes act upon
a whole people, precipitated Greece upon Asia. This war, famous and
rich in exploits, inflamed the imagination of the Greeks, and was for a
great length of time celebrated in their temples and upon their stage.
If great national remembrances inspire us with the same enthusiasm, if
we entertain as strong a respect as the ancients for the memory of our
ancestors, the conquest of the Holy Land must be for us as glorious and
memorable an epoch as the war of Troy was for the people of Greece.
These two wars, however different in their motives, present almost the
same results to the enlightened observer; both offer grand lessons to
policy and illustrious models to valour; both founded new states, new
colonies, and established relations between distant nations. Both had a
marked influence upon the civilization of the ages that followed them:
both, in short, developed great passions and fine characters, and thus
furnished the happiest subjects for the epic muse, who delights only in
celebrating prodigies and wonders.
When comparing these two memorable wars, and the poetical masterpieces
that have celebrated them, we cannot but think that the subject of the
“Jerusalem Delivered” is more wonderful than that of the “Iliad.” We
may still further say, that the heroes of Tasso are more interesting
than those of Homer, and their exploits less fabulous. The cause which
armed the Greeks was much less important than that which actuated the
Christians. The latter, in some sort, took up arms for the assistance
of misfortune and oppressed weakness. They went to defend a religion
able to make them sensible of ills that were endured far from them, and
to make them find brothers in regions unknown to them. This character
of sociability is not to be found in any belief of the ancients.
The Crusaders exhibited another spectacle with which antiquity was
unacquainted—the union of religious humility with the love of glory.
History shows us constantly these haughty heroes, the terror of Asia
and the Mussulmans, bending their victorious brows to the dust, and
marching from conquest to conquest, covered with the sack of penitence.
The priests, who exhorted them in battle, only raised their courage
by reproaching them with their sins. When they met with reverses, a
thousand voices were raised among them to accuse their own misconduct;
and when they were victorious, it was God alone that gave them the
victory, and religion forbade their claiming glory from it.[215]
The historian may be permitted to think that this difference
between the heroes of the “Iliad” and those of the holy war is not
sufficiently marked in the poem of “Jerusalem Delivered.”[216] Another
reproach may likewise be addressed to the bard of Rinaldo and Godfrey;
the ideas of magic and gallantry which he has too freely lavished upon
his poem are not in accordance with the truth of history. Magic, which
is nothing but a sort of degenerated superstition, and which only
deals with small things, was but little known to the Crusaders. Their
superstition, however gross, had something noble and grand in it, which
associated them sufficiently with the spirit of the epopée, without the
poet having anything to alter; their character and manners were grave
and austere, and exceedingly well suited to the dignity of a religious
epic. It was not till long after the first crusade that magic formed
any part of the superstition of the Franks, or that their warlike
manners abandoned the prominently epic character which distinguished
them, to adopt the romantic character which they have preserved in all
books of chivalry. It appears to us that we discover in Tasso much more
of the manners of the times in which he lived than of those of the
end of the eleventh century, the period of the events which form the
subject of his poem.
But it does not enter into the plan or the object of this work to carry
such observations further.[217] After having spoken of the heroic deeds
and of all that was wonderful in the first crusade, I will turn my
attention to the immediate effects it produced upon Europe and Asia.
We are sufficiently well acquainted with the evils by which it was
followed; great disasters are the familiar subjects of history, but the
slow and almost insensible progress of the good that may result from a
great revolution, is much less easily perceived.
The first result of this crusade was to carry terror among the
Mussulman nations, and to place it out of their power to undertake for
a length of time any warlike enterprises against the West. Thanks to
the victories of the Crusaders, the Greek empire extended its limits,
and Constantinople, which was the road to the West for the Saracens,
was rendered safe from their attacks. In this distant expedition Europe
lost the flower of its population, but it was not, as Asia was, the
theatre of a bloody and disastrous war; of a war in which nothing was
respected, in which provinces and cities were, by turns, ravaged by
the conquerors and the conquered. Whilst the warriors of Europe were
shedding their blood on the plains of the East, the West remained in
profound peace. Among Christian nations it was then considered a crime
to take up arms for any other cause than that of Jesus Christ. This
opinion contributed greatly to check the frightful brigandage that had
prevailed, and to increase respect for _the truce of God_, which was,
in the middle ages, the germ or the signal of the best institutions.
Whatever were the reverses of the crusades, they were less deplorable
than the civil wars and the scourges of feudal anarchy that had so long
ravaged all the countries of the West.
This first crusade produced other advantages to Europe.[218] The
East, by the holy war, was in some sort laid open to the West, which,
before, was but little acquainted with it; the Mediterranean became
more frequented by European vessels, navigation made some progress,
and commerce, particularly that of the Pisans and Genoese, must have
been increased and enriched by the foundation of the kingdom of
Jerusalem. A great part, it is true, of the gold and silver of Europe
was carried into Asia by the Crusaders; but these treasures, heaped
up and concealed by avarice and fear, had been long abstracted from
circulation; the gold which was not carried away by the Crusaders
circulated more freely, and Europe, with a less quantity of money,
appeared all at once more rich than it had ever been.
We cannot perceive, whatever may have been asserted, that in the
first crusade Europe received any great quantity of knowledge from
the East. During the eleventh century, Asia had been the theatre of
the most sanguinary revolutions. At this period the Saracens, but
more particularly the Turks, cultivated neither the arts nor the
sciences. The Crusaders had no other relation with them but a war of
extermination. On another side, the Franks held the Greek among whom,
besides, the arts and sciences were declining, in too much contempt to
borrow any kind of instruction from them; nevertheless, as the events
of the crusade had strongly affected the imagination of nations, this
great and imposing spectacle was sufficient to give an impetus to the
human mind in the West. Several writers undertook to trace the history
of this memorable period. Raymond d’Agiles, Robert the monk of St.
Remy, Tudebode, Foulcher de Chartres, Abbot Guibert, Baudry, the bishop
of Dol, and Albert d’Aix were contemporary historians, and most of them
ocular witnesses of the conquests and exploits they have described.
The histories they have left us are not destitute of merit, and some
of them are even better than that which was written of the same kind
among either the Greeks or the Arabs. These writers were animated in
their labours by the same spirit of piety which governed the heroes of
the cross. This spirit of piety caused them to take up the pen, and
persuaded them that they wrote for the cause of God. They would have
thought themselves wanting in their duty as Christians, if they had
not employed their abilities in transmitting the events of the holy
war to posterity. In whatever manner we judge of their motives, we
cannot avoid being convinced that they have rendered great services to
history, and that without them the heroic times of our annals would
have remained without monuments.
The wonderful portion of the character of this first crusade likewise
awakened the epic muse. Raoul de Caen,[219] who, in his history,
sometimes sounds the epic trumpet in order worthily to celebrate the
“gestes” of Tancred, is not deficient in either warmth or fancy. The
conquest of Jerusalem was during the twelfth century the subject of
several works in verse. A Limousin knight, Geoffrey de la Tour, called
the prior or abbot of the Vigeois, described very tolerably the events
of these wars in a large volume all written in his maternal tongue,
and in vulgar rhyme, in order that the people might understand it the
better. This poem, written in verse, which was the fruit of the labour
of twelve years, is lost. Many other similar works have doubtless
shared the same fate; but that which remains suffices to prove that
human intelligence began to expand at the commencement of the twelfth
century.
Before this period, the science of legislation, which is the first and
most important of all, had made but very little progress. Some cities
of Italy and the provinces near the Pyrenees, where the Goths had
encouraged the Roman laws, alone exhibited glimmerings of civilization.
Among the rules and ordinances that Gaston de Béarn laid down before
his departure for the Holy Land, are to be found many points and
particulars which deserve to be preserved by history, because they
exhibit the feeble beginnings of a legislation which time and fortunate
circumstances would perfect. _Peace_, says this legislator of the
eleventh century, _shall be observed at all times towards clerks,
monks, travellers, and ladies and their suite.—If any one takes refuge
in the abode of a lady, he shall enjoy security of person, on paying
all loss or consequent injury. Let the peasant live in peace; let his
cattle and agricultural instruments be exempt from seizure._[220] These
benevolent dispositions were inspired by the spirit of chivalry, which
had made some progress in the wars against the Saracens of Spain; they
were particularly the works of the councils[221] which undertook to put
a stop to private wars and the excess of feudal anarchy. The holy wars
beyond the seas finished that which chivalry had begun, they perfected
chivalry itself. The council of Clermont and the crusade that followed
it only developed and consolidated all which preceding councils, all
that the wisest lords and princes, had done for the cause of humanity.
Many of the princes of the crusades, such as the duke of Brittany and
Robert count of Flanders, signalized their return by establishing
wise regulations. A few salutary institutions began to displace the
violent abuses of feudalism, and there might be seen, at least in
some provinces, what a regime founded by the sword could exhibit of a
moderate kind in its legislation.
It was in France that these changes were most obvious, because France
had taken the greatest part in the crusade. Many nobles emancipated
their serfs upon their following them in this expedition. Giraud and
Giraudet Adhemar de Monthiel, who followed their brother, the bishop of
Puy, to the holy war, to encourage and reward some of their vassals,
by whom they were accompanied, granted them several fiefs by an act
drawn up in the same year as the taking of Jerusalem. We might quote
many similar acts made during the crusade and in the first year that
followed it. Liberty awaited in the West the small number that returned
from the holy war, who seemed to acknowledge no other master but Jesus
Christ.
In this crusade the nobility lost some portion of a power which they
had abused, but they had more splendour and were held in greater
honour. The king of France, although for a long time obnoxious to the
censures of the Church, and although he did not distinguish himself
by any great personal qualities, had a more tranquil and prosperous
reign than his predecessors; he began to shake off the yoke of the
great vassals of the crown, of whom several were ruined or perished
in the holy war. We have often repeated that the crusade placed great
wealth in the hands of the clergy; but we must likewise add, that the
clergy composed the most enlightened part of the nation, and that
this increase of prosperity was in the nature of things. After the
first crusade, was seen that which is always to be observed in all
nations that are progressing in civilization. Power had a tendency to
centralize itself in the hands of him who protected liberty. Glory
became the reward of all who were called upon to defend their country;
consideration and riches took a direction towards that class from which
intelligence was to be expected.
It is certain that knowledge arose in Europe among the clergy, and that
they alone were able to consecrate in some way many of the salutary
results of the crusades. As long as the clergy powerfully assisted
the progress of civilization, they preserved their wealth; as soon as
they went beyond civilization, they lost it. This is the course of
things on earth. As long as institutions are favourable to society,
society reveres them;[222] when under some relations they are esteemed
less useful, they lose their importance. Without any necessity for
declamation, we must leave the ingratitude natural to nations to take
its course, as we must their inconstancy, and to time; which are but
too powerful in destroying instruments which society has employed with
some advantage.
Many cities of Italy had arrived at a certain degree of civilization
before the first crusade; but this civilization, born in the midst
of a barbarous age, and spread amongst some isolated nations divided
among themselves, had no power to attain maturity. For civilization to
produce the salutary effects it is capable of, everything must at the
same time, have a tendency to the same perfection. Knowledge, laws,
morals, power, all must proceed together. This is what has happened in
France;[223] therefore must France one day become the model and centre
of civilization in Europe. The holy wars contributed much to this happy
revolution, which may be seen even in the first crusade.