GODFREY, FIRST BARON OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE—CONQUEST OF THE LAND—THE
KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM.
When wearied with gathering the spoil the crusaders deliberated how best
to secure their possessions. This could be done only by maintaining
peace within the city and adequate defence against the armies of the
Infidels, who would undoubtedly rise to assail them from without.
Their first business was the selection of a king of Jerusalem. The
popularity of Godfrey, merited by his genius, bravery, and devotion,
readily suggested his name to the ten electors who were chosen to voice
the suffrage of the host. To secure his enthusiastic reception by the
people, he did not need additional arguments drawn from imagined
revelations of the will of Heaven. Yet visions were invoked to confirm
the judgment of human discretion. One reported that he had seen Godfrey
enthroned in the sun, while numberless flocks of birds from all lands
came and nestled at his feet. This was interpreted to mean the coming
glory of Jerusalem and the crowds of pilgrims who should be safe beneath
his sway. Godfrey modestly declined the royal title, accepting only that
of Defender and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre, saying that he would not
wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn only a crown of
thorns (July 22, 1099).
With less unanimity and only after unseemly brawls, which were in
strange contrast with the orderly arrangement of their secular affairs,
Arnold de Rohes, the eloquent but dissolute ecclesiastic, was selected
by the priests as Patriarch of Jerusalem.
With true statesmanlike purpose, Godfrey addressed himself to the
organization of the political and military government of his new
dominion. He had, however, little time to devote to the peaceful
progress of his kingdom. Raymond diverted his chief’s attention more by
plots of ambition and jealousy than he aided him by wisdom of counsel.
Multitudes of Christians resident in the East, excited to become such by
the fame of the conquests of the crusaders, poured into the city and
vicinage, and thus added to the governor’s cares.
At the same time the Mussulmans, quickly recuperating from their
despair, inaugurated new campaigns. The Turks and Persians laid aside
their jealousy of the Egyptians, and poured southward and westward to
join the army of the caliph of Cairo. Afdhal, already famous for having
wrested Jerusalem from the Turks, gathered the warriors of Islam of all
tribes and races, from the Nile to the Tigris. His advancing army was
supported by a vast fleet, which had been laden at Alexandria and
Damietta with provisions and siege apparatus for a second capture of
what to them, as well as to the Christians, was the sacred city.
Learning that the Moslems had reached Gaza, Godfrey set forth to meet
them, with Tancred as his most worthy coadjutant. Raymond, having
quarrelled with Godfrey about the independent possession of the tower of
David, sulked in his house, and Robert of Normandy also refused to march
to the aid of Godfrey. These leaders were, however, at length driven
from the city by the taunts of the priests and the women. Their martial
pride was also stirred by the message of Godfrey that a battle was
imminent. The crusaders made their camp at Ramleh, and August 11th
advanced towards Ascalon. By the banks of the wadi Surak they captured
immense herds of camels, oxen, and sheep, which encouraged them as much,
doubtless, as did the wood of the True Cross that was carried through
the ranks. The herds also seemed to be marshalled by a special
providence as their rearward. We must describe this in the words of
Godfrey: “When we advanced to battle, wonderful to relate, the camels
formed in many squadrons, and the sheep and oxen did the same. Moreover,
these animals accompanied us, halting when we halted, advancing when we
advanced, and charging when we charged.” The enormous dust-clouds raised
by the herds led the Moslems to take them for a contingent of the
Christian force, which imagination magnified to many times its real
numbers. A paralysis of fear fell upon the Infidels. Most of them, being
fresh troops, had never met the crusaders in battle, and had dared the
issue, relying upon their own superiority in numbers. Now that this
dependence seemingly failed them, they anticipated defeat at the hands
of the heroes of Nicæa and Antioch and Jerusalem, and stood nerveless
before the attack. The Christians, coming near, fell every man upon his
knees in prayer, then rose to make the charge. Raymond struck the column
of Turks and Persians; Tancred led his braves through the Moors and
Egyptians; Godfrey crushed the Ethiopians, who resisted him but for an
instant with their long flails armed with balls of iron; Robert of
Normandy wrested the standard from the hands of Afdhal himself. As the
Moslems cast away their bows and javelins to hasten their flight, the
Christians cast away theirs that they might speed the pursuit with the
sword. Back they drove the Infidels against the walls of Ascalon. Two
thousand were trampled or suffocated in the crowd that choked the gate;
multitudes, avoiding the city, were driven into the sea and were
drowned. The panic communicated itself to the Egyptian sailors on the
fleet, who spread their sails and disappeared over the sea, leaving the
Moslem soldiers no opportunity of escape. Godfrey says: “There were not
in our army more than five thousand horsemen and fifteen thousand
foot-soldiers, and there were probably of the enemy one hundred thousand
horsemen and four hundred thousand foot-soldiers.... More than one
hundred thousand perished by the sword; and if many of ours had not been
detained plundering the camp, few of the great multitude would have
escaped.”
Raymond claimed the city of Ascalon for his own possession. Godfrey
declared that all conquests belonged to their common kingdom of
Jerusalem. Raymond, in mean revenge, encouraged the Moslems not to
surrender their stronghold, which still resisted. By similar counsel he
prevailed upon the Saracen garrison of Arsuf to hold out. Godfrey could
not restrain his anger at this treachery, and turned his arms upon his
old comrade. Tancred and Robert of Normandy threw themselves between the
swords of the combatants and effected their reconciliation.
With the victory at Ascalon (August 19, 1099) the first crusade may be
said to have terminated. The events of the subsequent year relate to the
history of the new kingdom of Jerusalem. The closing months of the
eleventh century witnessed the return of the mass of crusaders to their
European homes. In almost every castle and hamlet of France the
thrilling events of three years were narrated by those whose scars
corroborated the story of their valor and sufferings. Nearly every
family remembered a father, a brother, or a son as a martyr, or rejoiced
in his return renowned as a hero or revered as a saint.
Few of the leaders enlarged their repute by any subsequent actions.
Peter the Hermit ended his days at advanced age in the monastery of Huy,
which his renown for sanctity had enabled him to found. Robert of
Normandy seems to have exhausted all the manliness of his nature in his
Eastern adventures. He allowed an amour to detain him in Italy for more
than a year, during which time his brother Henry took the throne of
England on the death of William Rufus, a reward which might easily have
come to Robert, had he shown disposition to defend his right of
inheritance. Henry wrested from him even his duchy of Normandy, and
confined him in the castle of Cardiff, where he died after twenty-eight
years of captivity.
Raymond retired to Laodicea, the government of which he had secured.
From this place he was summoned to command new bands of crusaders.
Multitudes set out under him. Some followed Stephen of Blois, brother to
the French king, whose desertion of the crusaders brought upon him such
dishonor that he was eager to restore his repute by a second enlistment.
William, Count of Poitiers, Lord of France, reputed as the first of the
Troubadours, departed with a retinue of soldiers and girls. A German
horde was led by Conrad, the marshal of the empire. Italians followed
Anselm, Archbishop of Milan, in whose train were lords, knights, and
noble ladies, among them the Princess Ida of Austria.
These various bands, like the earlier crusaders, met at Constantinople,
repeating the annoyance to the Emperor Alexius, who begged Raymond to
relieve him of their presence. This veteran accepted the duty, bearing
with him the Holy Lance that had wrought wonders at Antioch, and which
Raymond regarded as a match for the arm of St. Ambrose that the
Archbishop of Milan had brought from his cathedral.
This march eastward was without discipline, monks and women often
filling the places of soldiers. Kilidge-Arslan, the Sultan of Iconium,
burned with desire to avenge his defeat three years before at Nicæa.
Kerbogha, Sultan of Mosul, was equally inflamed to wipe out his disgrace
at Antioch. These joined their forces and overwhelmed the Christians at
the river Halys. The massacre almost amounted to extermination. Raymond
fled with the other leaders. The Turks repeated their assault upon a
second army, under the Count de Nevers, at Ancyra, with similar results.
And again they administered their terrible vengeance upon a third army,
under the Count of Poitiers, the Duke of Bavaria, and Count Hugh of
Vermandois, of whose reputed one hundred and fifty thousand scarcely one
thousand escaped. The leaders found a sorry refuge in rags and wounds at
Tarsus and Antioch. The women, among them the Princess Ida, disappeared
within the curtains of numberless harems. A forlorn remnant reached
Jerusalem, to add, perhaps, more to the care than to the assistance of
Godfrey.
The rule of Godfrey as Baron of the Holy Sepulchre was brief, but such
as to promise, had his career been extended to even the age of most of
his companions, a record worthy of the greatest of kings. Despising the
mere gilding of a throne, he sought to strengthen his government by the
best laws known to Europe, as well as to guard and extend his power by
the sword.
The latter was, however, the first and pressing necessity. The departure
of the crusading hosts left him but three hundred knights with their
retainers, out of six hundred thousand who during three years had taken
the cross. His strongholds were, besides Jerusalem, a score of towns
scattered over the vicinage of the capital, in many cases antagonized by
the still remaining fortresses of the Infidels. The country between
these towns was open to the passage of his foes. The land was untilled,
and offered scanty provision for his people. To prevent a further exodus
of Christians, it was enacted that land could be acquired in ownership
only after a year’s continuous occupancy, and would be alienated by a
year’s absence.
Tancred was as Godfrey’s right hand. These two men stand out together as
preëminent for their moral qualities among many as brave as they in
merely physical prowess. To Tancred was assigned the principality of
Tiberias, the possession of which he quickly acquired with his sword.
Godfrey at the same time forced the acknowledgment of his government by
exacting tribute from the Arabs west of the Jordan, and from the emirs
along the coast of the Mediterranean. One city, Asur (Arsuf), refused
submission and maintained its independence in spite of siege. The spirit
of Godfrey was strangely tried here by an incident. Gerard of Avernes
had been given up by Godfrey as a hostage for his clemency and justice
in dealing with the people of the town. While the arrows of the
Christians were sweeping the walls, Gerard was placed unshielded at a
point where they were falling thickest, that his danger might divert the
assault. Godfrey, coming near, cried aloud to him, “If my own brother
were in your place I could not cease my attack; die, then, as a brave
knight.” Gerard accepted his martyrdom, and fell beneath the missiles of
his friends.
To Jerusalem came a multitude of pilgrims, among them Dagobert
(Daimbert) as special legate from the Pope. By virtue of his high office
he claimed for himself the patriarchate of Jerusalem, together with the
secular sovereignty of Jaffa and the section of the sacred city in which
was located the Holy Sepulchre. Following further the policy of the
popes to make their dominion a world monarchy, secular as well as
spiritual, Dagobert required Godfrey to acknowledge himself a temporal
vassal of the pontiff, and to pledge to the patriarch the sovereignty of
the kingdom in the event of Godfrey dying without children. Bohemond, as
Prince of Antioch, and Baldwin, Prince of Edessa, brother of Godfrey,
and Raymond, now of Laodicea, were at the time visiting Jerusalem. These
also made their submission, and received their governments anew from the
Holy Father.
With the counsel of these and others, his wisest advisers, Godfrey
inaugurated the system of laws afterwards known as the Assizes of
Jerusalem. They were not completed until a subsequent century, but their
inception belongs to his statesmanship. These regulations are
interesting as reflecting in brief compass the best customs of Europe.
Their study may, therefore, be on that wider field. The Assizes were a
sort of written constitution, and when prepared the original document
was placed with solemn pomp in the archives of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre.
But the reign begun under such favorable auspices was suddenly
terminated. Returning from an expedition for the succor of Tancred,
Godfrey accepted the hospitality of the emir of Cæsarea, and immediately
falling ill, his sickness was accredited to poisoned fruit. He died soon
after reaching his capital (June 18, 1100), at the early age of
thirty-eight. In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is still to be seen
his tomb, near by that of his Lord, which he had given his brief but
brave life to rescue and defend.
Godfrey’s preëminence among the original crusader chieftains was due not
so much to any single virtue in which he was their superior as to a rare
combination of many excellent qualities. It was said of him that he was
the peer of Raymond in counsel and of Tancred in the field. To this we
may add that for piety he outshone Adhemar the priest. In the midst of
the fight he would pause for prayer to the God of battles; and his
meditation on sacred themes was ordinarily prolonged far beyond the
hours prescribed for devotion by the church. His nature was gentler and
more just than that of his companions. If at times his actions were
cruel, they might be attributed rather to the habit of the age than to
his own inclination. Since he surpassed his generation in so many
respects, it would be neither just nor generous to criticise his
defects. In him we see the budding of a better type of humanity amid the
prevailing grossness of animalism and superstition.