THE CRUSADE UNDER THE CHIEFTAINS, GODFREY, RAYMOND, BOHEMOND, TANCRED,
HUGH, ROBERT OF NORMANDY.
The age, though degenerate, had nourished an order of men of far loftier
type than those we have described. Godfrey of Bouillon was the most
prominent figure. The chivalric spirit of the middle ages enrolled him
among the nine greatest heroes of mankind—Joshua, David, Judas
Maccabæus, Hector, Alexander, Cæsar, Arthur, Charlemagne, and Godfrey.
He was of noblest lineage. His father was brother-in-law to Edward the
Confessor of England, and through his mother, the beautiful and saintly
Ida of Lorraine, he inherited the blood of Charlemagne. He was short of
stature, but of such prodigious strength that he is reputed to have
divided an opponent from helmet to saddle with one blow of his sword. He
was equally endowed with courage and sagacity. In his war against the
rival emperor, Rudolph, Henry IV. committed the imperial standard to
Godfrey, who, though but a youth of eighteen, honored this charge by
penetrating to the presence of Rudolph in the thick of the battle,
plunging the spear of the standard through his heart, and bearing it
aloft with the blood of victory. Yet such a deed in that age did not
lessen his repute for gentleness and piety. Two ancestral spirits
alternated their control of him, if we are to credit the praise given
him by an old chronicle of the time: “For zeal in war, behold his
father; for serving God, behold his mother.” When Rome was besieged by
his imperial patron, Godfrey signalized his prowess by being the first
to mount the walls. This exploit, however, troubled his tender
conscience as a devout Catholic, and when the crusade was proclaimed he
sold his lands and devoted himself to the holy war, in attempted
expiation of what he had come to regard as his former impious deeds. At
the head of ten thousand horse and seventy thousand foot, he set out for
the Holy Land. He was accompanied by his two brothers, Baldwin and
Eustace.
Raymond of Toulouse led a second army composed of the men of Languedoc.
He was the most opulent and haughty of the chieftains, as well as the
most experienced in years and war. He had fought by the side of the Cid
in Spain, and was haloed in popular estimate with some of the glory of
that great knight. Alfonso VI. of Castile had not hesitated to bestow
upon him his daughter Elvira, who shared with her husband the hazard of
the expedition. One hundred thousand warriors followed in Raymond’s
train as he took the cross. With him went Bishop Adhemar of Puy, the
papal legate, who, in the name of the Holy Father, was the spiritual
head of the combined expeditions.
Bohemond of Taranto marshalled another host. He was son of the famous
Robert Guiscard, founder of the Norman kingdom of Naples. Anna Comnena
thus describes him: “He was taller than the tallest by a cubit. There
was an agreeability in his appearance, but the agreeability was
destroyed by terror. There was something not human in that stature and
look of his. His smile seemed to me alive with threat.” The fair
annalist recognized Bohemond’s inheritance of his great father’s
prestige and ability, and at the same time of his disposition “to regard
as foes all whose dominions and riches he coveted; and was not
restrained by fear of God, by man’s opinions, or by his own oaths.”
Robert Guiscard had died while preparing for an attempt to capture
Constantinople. With filial pride, his son Bohemond had also “sworn
eternal enmity to the Greek emperors. He smiled at the idea of
traversing their empire at the head of an army, and, full of confidence
in his fortunes, he hoped to make for himself a kingdom before arriving
at Jerusalem.” When the march of the other crusaders was reported to
him, with an ostentation of piety which his subsequent career scarcely
justified, Bohemond tore his own elegant mantle into tiny crosses and
distributed them to his soldiers, who were at the time engaged in the
less glorious attempt of reducing the Christian town of Amalfi.
Tancred de Hauteville by his splendid character amply compensated the
defects of Bohemond, his kinsman. In history and romance he is
celebrated as the type of the perfect soldier:
“Than whom
... is no nobler knight,
More mild in manner, fair in manly bloom,
Or more sublimely daring in the fight.”
Dissatisfied with even the ideals of Chivalry, Tancred hailed the new
lustre that might be given to arms when wielded only in the cause of
justice, mercy, and faith, which, perhaps too sanguinely, he foresaw in
the crusade. Thus nobly seconded by Tancred, Bohemond took the field
with one hundred thousand horse and twenty thousand foot.
Hugh of Vermandois, brother of Philip I. of France, led the host of
Langue d’Oil, as Raymond that of Languedoc.
Robert of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror, set out with nearly
all his nobles. To raise money for the expedition, he mortgaged his
duchy to his brother, William Rufus of England, for ten thousand silver
marks, a sum which that impious monarch raised by stripping the churches
of their plate and taxing their clergy. Robert was companioned by
Stephen of Blois, whose castles were “as many as the days of the year,”
and by Robert of Flanders, “the lance and sword of the Christians.”
These leaders, deterred by the difficulty of obtaining sustenance for
such multitudes as followed them, agreed to take separate routes, which
should converge at Constantinople. Count Hugh was the first afield. He
crossed the Adriatic, and after much beating by tempest gathered his men
at Durazzo. Here he experienced what his comrades were continually to
meet, the treachery of the Greek emperor, Alexius. Being the brother of
the French king, Hugh would be a valuable possession of the Greeks, as
hostage for the good behavior of his brethren. By Alexius’s order he was
seized and sent without his army to Constantinople.
Godfrey’s band took the road through Hungary, already marked by the
bones of the crusaders under Peter and Walter. The ghastly warnings
everywhere about him encouraged him to treat with justice and kindness
his coreligionists through whose lands he was journeying. He enforced
strict military discipline against pillage, and appeased the wrath of
the Hungarians by leaving his brother Baldwin in their hands as hostage
for his good faith. But beneath the gentleness of Godfrey smouldered
fiery indignation against all forms of injustice. When, therefore, he
heard of the capture of Count Hugh he demanded of the emperor instant
reparation, failing to receive which, he took summary revenge by laying
waste the country about Adrianople. The emperor reluctantly pledged the
release of Count Hugh. When the crusaders camped before Constantinople,
Alexius refused to sell them provisions except on condition of their
rendering homage to his throne. Several leaders had in their extremity
yielded this point, but Godfrey replied by letting loose his soldiers to
gather as they might; this brought Alexius to better terms.
Bohemond and Tancred crossed the sea to Durazzo and thence took the
route eastward through Macedonia and Thrace. Hearing of the duplicity of
Alexius, Bohemond urged Godfrey to seize upon Constantinople. Though
Godfrey declined to divert his sword from the Infidels, the rumor of
Bohemond’s proposal led the haughty Greek to seek closer alliance with
his unwelcome guests. With stately parade, he adopted Godfrey as a son,
and, in return for the formal bending of the knee at his throne,
intrusted to him the defence of the empire. When Bohemond reached the
Eastern court he was received with flattering protestations of
friendship, which he repaid with equal adulation and as unblushing
deceit. These two men at least understood each other, perhaps by that
subtle instinct which leads serpents of a kind to come together.
Count Raymond had greater difficulties in leading his forces from
northern Italy around the head of the Adriatic and over the mountains of
Dalmatia, whose semi-savage inhabitants menaced his march. From Durazzo,
he says, “right and left did the emperor’s Turks and Comans, his
Pincenati and Bulgarians, lie in wait for us; and this though in his
letters he spoke to us of peace and brotherhood.” The stern warrior
inflicted cruel retaliation upon his assailants by cutting off the noses
and ears of those he captured. On arriving at Constantinople, the irate
veteran proposed to his brother chieftains to immediately sack the city.
But, in spite of his severity, the blunt honesty of Raymond eventually
won from Alexius more praise than did the apparent compliance of his
brethren; for, says Anna Comnena, “My father knew that he [Raymond]
preferred honor and truth above all things.”
The expedition of Robert of Normandy gave no credit to the crusading
zeal. That chief, surnamed “Short-hose” and “the Fat,” chose the route
through Italy, and justified his repute for indolence by spending the
entire winter in that genial climate. Robert of Flanders and a few
resolute kindred spirits shamed the lethargy of their brethren, and
crossed the Adriatic in spite of wintry storms. Many others, disgusted
with the general conduct of affairs, returned to their homes. It was not
until after Easter in 1097 that Duke Robert and Count Stephen embarked
at Brindisi.
All these armies were encumbered by the presence of women and children,
since the crusading scheme proposed not only war against the Mussulman,
but settlement in the lands that should be conquered. In some cases the
entire population of villages and sections of cities tramped eastward,
so that the movement took the character of a migration rather than that
of a campaign.
The dealings of the Greek emperor with the crusaders were characteristic
of the man. Alexius Comnenus had secured the throne in 1081 by
successful rebellion and the capture through treachery of the capital,
which he gave over to license and rapine. His subsequent policy as a
ruler was in keeping with its beginning. The intrigues by which he
acquired power were matched by the despotic cruelty with which he held
it. His career has been depicted for us by the partial pen of his
daughter Anna. Through her fulsome coloring we can detect the
contemptible disposition of Alexius, and in her unblushing admissions,
while purposing only to praise, we can also see much of the prevailing
degeneracy of the Greek mind and conscience. Sir Walter Scott would
temper our contempt for the man by the consideration that “if Alexius
commonly employed cunning and dissimulation instead of wisdom, and
perfidy instead of courage, his expedients were the disgrace of the age
rather than his own.” But his wife, the Empress Irene, without doubt
correctly summarized his personal character when, watching by his
death-bed, she exclaimed, “You die as you have lived, a hypocrite.”
No doubt Alexius had reason to fear the proximity of the crusaders. In
the strong figure of Gibbon, he was like the Hindu shepherd who prayed
for water. Heaven turned the Ganges into his grounds and swept away his
flocks and cottage in the inundation. Alexius was aware of the ambition
of Bohemond to harm the Greek empire, and suspected all his comrades of
similar designs. The rude manners of the invaders were also such as not
to ingratiate them with the sycophancy of the court. Once, while the
Franks were paying homage to the emperor, one of them unceremoniously
placed himself beside his Majesty, remarking, “It is shocking that this
jackanapes should be seated, while so many noble captains are standing
yonder.”
Alexius was doubtless right in exacting from his visitors an oath of
loyalty while within his dominions, and a pledge to turn over to him any
Greek cities and fortresses they might recapture from the Turks. This
was agreed to by all except Count Raymond, who declared that he would
have no oath but to Christ, and invited the emperor to share with the
crusaders the marches and battles against the Turks if he would divide
the spoil. The ambition and cupidity of Bohemond were stayed with
bribes. Thus Alexius one day introduced the Norman leader into a roomful
of treasures. “Ah, here is wherewith to conquer kingdoms!” exclaimed
Bohemond. The next day the treasures were transferred to his tent. The
amazing request of Bohemond to be appointed Grand Domestic, or general
of the Greek empire, was declined by Alexius, who had himself held that
office and found it a convenient step to the throne. He, however,
promised Bohemond the rule of the principality of Antioch in the event
of his conquering it with his sword. Tancred, with a delicate sense of
honor that shamed the truculency of his kinsman, fled the imperial lures
by avoiding the city and keeping himself in disguise on the Asiatic side
of the Bosporus. His example was not lost upon his fellow-chieftains,
who felt the enervating influence of the daily vision of palaces,
villas, gorgeous equipages, and, as the historian has fondly noted, the
beauty of the women of the capital.
Alexius encouraged the virtuous purpose of the Latins to resume the
crusade, from considerations of their menace to his own domain while
encamped within it. With apparent magnanimity, he facilitated their
crossing the Bosporus, and applauded the heroism of their start through
the plains of Bithynia. In every way he fanned their enthusiasm against
the Turk; but at the same time he informed the enemy of the movement of
his allies, that their victories might not diminish his own prestige,
and that, in the event of their discomfiture, he might profit by the
friendship of the Infidel.