THE CRUSADE
The year 1096 marks the beginning of a new era in the history of western
civilization as well as in the life of Robert Curthose. On 27 November
1095,[1] Pope Urban II had preached his momentous sermon before the
assembled multitude at Clermont, and ‘the gates of the Latin world
were opened’[2] upon the East. “It was the miracle of the Lord in our
time,” writes Henry of Huntingdon, “and a thing before unheard of in all
the ages, that such divers peoples and so many distinguished princes,
leaving their splendid possessions, their wives, and their children, set
forth with one accord and in scorn of death to seek the most unknown
regions.”[3]
It was natural that the stirring words of Pope Urban should find a ready
hearing among the ‘untamed race of the Normans.’[4] The great adventurers
of their age, they were destined to play the most vigorous and
aggressive, if not the most devout and single-minded, part in the supreme
adventure of the Latin world in the Middle Ages. Moreover, the situation
of Duke Robert at home was such that new fields of opportunity and
adventure offered peculiar attractions to him. Lacking the indomitable
energy of his great forbears and the Norman genius for organization,
government, and law, surrounded by enemies both within and without his
dominions, his tenure of the duchy had become a heavy burden. His war
with William Rufus still dragged on. Disloyal barons continued to desert
to the English cause; and twenty Norman castles were said to be in the
Red King’s hands. Prince Henry, long firmly established at Domfront, and
now backed by the strong arm and the long purse of his older brother,
had gained control of ‘a great part of Normandy’; and the ‘soft duke’
had fallen into contempt among his turbulent subjects. Disobedience and
disorder were everywhere on the increase, and the unarmed population
lacked a protector.[5] An expedition to the Holy Land at the head of a
splendidly equipped band of knights, with new scenes and new adventures
and plenary indulgence for past sins, offered a welcome prospect of
escape from the trying situation in which Duke Robert found himself in
the spring of 1096.[6]
Yet the First Crusade was a papal, not a Norman, enterprise.[7] At the
provincial council of Rouen which was convened in February, 1096, for
the purpose of ratifying the canons of the council of Clermont, there
is, oddly enough, no evidence that the projected Crusade was taken under
consideration by the Norman clergy.[8] The initiative of the Pope, on the
other hand, was clear-cut and vigorous, and his activity can be traced
with some fulness. From Clermont Urban proceeded on a tour of western
France; and passing northward through Poitou and Anjou early in 1096, he
arrived at Le Mans in the middle of February and was at Vendôme near the
end of the month. Then turning back southward, he was still occupied with
the Crusade in a council at Tours in March.[9] The Pope seems not to have
entered Normandy at all; but he was close to the border while in Maine
and at Vendôme, and it is not improbable that it was during this period
that he took the first steps towards launching the Crusade in the Norman
lands.
Pope Urban’s first duty, if he wished to raise large forces in Normandy
for the Crusade, was obviously the promotion of peace between the
warring sons of William the Conqueror. It was not to be thought of that
Robert Curthose should lead a Norman army to the liberation of the Holy
Sepulchre while William Rufus continued the struggle to deprive him of
his duchy. Accordingly, the Pope sent Abbot Gerento of Saint-Bénigne of
Dijon as his special agent to undertake the delicate task of negotiating
a peace.[10] The abbot was with William Rufus in England at Easter (13
April) 1096.[11] He crossed to Normandy before the end of May;[12] and
remaining there throughout the summer, brought the peace negotiations to
a successful termination, and accompanied the crusading host upon the
initial stages of its journey as it departed in the autumn.[13] It may
be conjectured that during this whole period Gerento was engaged in the
work of promoting the Crusade in Normandy; and this conclusion is fully
in accord with the statements of the chroniclers that Duke Robert took
the cross “at the admonition of Pope Urban”[14] and “by the counsel of
certain men of religion.”[15]
The treaty which had been concluded at the abbot’s instance was wisely
drawn to meet the exigencies of Robert’s situation. Not only did it
bring about the necessary peace, but upon such terms as to provide the
impecunious duke with ample funds for his distant enterprise. Normandy
was to be taken in pledge by William Rufus, and in exchange Robert was
to receive a loan of 10,000 marks of silver.[16] The date at which this
bargain was struck cannot be exactly determined, but, in any case,
it was early enough to allow the king time to extort money from his
unfortunate subjects by means which provoked a general outcry.[17]
An aid (_auxilium_) was demanded of the barons, and an extraordinary
Danegeld was levied at the rate of four shillings to the hide throughout
the kingdom. Though the clergy had from early times been exempted from
this tax, their privileges were not now respected; and they were obliged
to pay their full share along with the lay nobles.[18] Churches were
stripped of their ornaments in order that the sum might be raised.[19]
Meanwhile, in Normandy and the surrounding lands, preparations for the
Crusade had been going steadily forward; though it must be owned that we
have but slight information concerning the measures which were taken,
beyond what may be inferred from the occasional record of a mortgage of
lands to a religious house in exchange for a loan of ready cash for the
journey,[20] or from the names of a relatively small number of men and
women[21]—less than fifty in all—who, stirred by religious impulse, the
spirit of adventure, or the hope of gain, followed the duke’s example and
took the cross.
So far as it is possible to describe it at this distance, Robert Curthose
certainly travelled at the head of an interesting and honorable company,
which, drawn not only from Normandy but from the surrounding lands,
was altogether worthy of the dignity of the Conqueror’s eldest son. To
attempt a comprehensive enumeration would be tedious, but the names of at
least the more important of the duke’s companions should be recorded.[22]
Of the Norman bishops, the only ones who took the cross were Odo of
Bayeux and Gilbert of Évreux. Both had been present at the council of
Clermont as ‘legates’ of their fellow bishops; and Odo, at any rate, had
been in touch with Abbot Gerento in Normandy during the summer of 1096.
Yet it is doubtful whether he was a very active promoter of the Crusade,
for some, at least, believed that he had taken the cross for personal
reasons rather than out of zeal for the Holy War. He had been driven
from England after the failure of the rebellion against William Rufus
in 1088, and the king’s wrath against him had not been appeased. Rather
than remain in Normandy to become the subject of his bitter enemy, he
preferred to undertake the hardships of the distant pilgrimage. Among the
lay nobles from Normandy who accompanied Robert on the Crusade we meet
with no very great names; but it is interesting to note that the list
contains not only such life-long friends of the duke as Ivo and Alberic
of Grandmesnil, but also—a fruit of the recent pacification—his late
enemies Count Stephen of Aumale and Gerard of Gournay. The great house of
Bellême was represented by Philip the Clerk, one of its younger scions.
Mention should also be made of Roger of Barneville, an obscure knight
from western Normandy, who was destined to lose his life in a skirmish
with the Turks at Antioch, and whose noble character and unexampled
bravery made him a great favorite with the army.
The neighboring lands of northern France contributed an equally
distinguished company to Duke Robert’s forces. His cousin, Count Robert
of Flanders, and his less heroic brother-in-law, Count Stephen of Blois
and Chartres, both found it to their advantage to travel with him, as
did also Alan Fergant, duke of Brittany, and a notable list of Bretons.
Among these latter may be mentioned Alan, the steward of Archbishop
Baldric of Dol;[23] Ralph de Gael, the one-time earl of Norfolk whose
treason had caused the Conqueror to drive him forth from England;
Conan de Lamballe, who was killed by the Turks at Antioch; and Riou de
Lohéac, who died while on the Crusade, but sent back to the church of
his lordship a casket of precious relics which included a portion of the
true cross and a fragment of the Sepulchre. From Perche came Rotrou of
Mortagne, son of the then reigning Count Geoffrey. And from the Flemish
border came old Hugh, count of Saint-Pol, and his brave son Enguerrand,
who gave his life for the Christian cause at Marra in Syria; Walter of
Saint-Valery and his valiant son Bernard, who according to one account
was the first to scale the wall of Jerusalem. The forces of Duke Robert
also included a number of Manceaux,[24] but Helias of La Flèche, the
count of Maine, was not among them. Stirred by the common impulse, he had
taken the cross, apparently designing to travel with Robert Curthose.
But when he learned that William Rufus would grant him no peace, but
proposed to bring Maine back under Norman domination by force of arms, he
was obliged to abandon his undertaking and remain at home to defend his
county.[25]
From England, strangely enough, only two crusaders of known name and
history have come to light among the followers of Robert Curthose:
the Norman William de Percy, the great benefactor of Whitby abbey, and
Arnulf of Hesdin, a Fleming. Neither, it will be observed, was a native
Englishman. The Anglo-Saxon chronicler remarks that the preaching of
Pope Urban caused “a great excitement through all this nation,”[26] and
English mariners are known to have coöperated with the crusaders on the
Syrian coast.[27] Yet England still lay largely beyond the range of
continental affairs and the great movements of world history, and the
part played by the English in the First Crusade appears to have been of
minor importance. William of Malmesbury observes truly that ‘but a faint
murmur of Asiatic affairs reached the ears of those who dwelt beyond the
British Ocean.’[28]
The standard-bearer of Duke Robert throughout the Crusade is said to
have been Pain Peverel, the distinguished Norman knight who later was
granted a barony in England by Henry I and became the patron of Barnwell
priory. As his chaplain, or chancellor, Robert took Arnulf of Chocques,
the clever Flemish adventurer who had long served in the ducal family as
preceptor of his eldest sister, Princess Cecilia, and who later rose to
the dignity of patriarch of Jerusalem.[29] And finally mention should be
made of Fulcher of Chartres, the well known historian of the Crusade, who
travelled with the ducal forces as far as Marash in Armenia, and who up
to that point may almost be regarded as the official historiographer of
the northern Norman contingent.
While preparations for the Crusade were being pushed forward in
Normandy and the adjoining lands, William Rufus had completed the work
of collecting English treasure for the Norman loan, and in September
1096[30] he crossed the Channel. Meeting the duke, apparently at
Rouen,[31] he paid over the 10,000 marks which had been agreed upon, and
received the duchy in pledge.[32] Thus was Robert supplied with funds
for his distant journey, and when this most necessary matter had been
arranged, final preparations were speedily brought to an end, and the
duke took his place at the head of his forces.
Near the end of September, or early in October,[33] amid tearful but
courageous leave-takings from friends and loved ones,[34] the crusaders
set forth upon their long pilgrimage. As they moved forward over the
first stages of the march, their numbers were considerably augmented by
additional forces which flowed in from districts along the way.[35] At
Pontarlier on the upper waters of the Doubs, Abbot Gerento of Dijon and
his faithful secretary, Hugh of Flavigny, who had accompanied the host
thus far, and must have viewed with much satisfaction the successful
culmination of their enterprise, took their leave of the leaders and
turned back.[36]
From Pontarlier the route probably lay by the well known road of
pilgrimage and commerce past the great monastery of Saint-Maurice and
over the Alps by the Great St. Bernard to Aosta, and thence across the
valley of the Po and over the Apennines to Lucca.[37] At Lucca the
crusaders were met by Urban II, who conferred with the leaders, Robert of
Normandy and Stephen of Blois, and gave his blessing to the departing
host as it moved on southward and came to Rome ‘rejoicing.’[38] But in
the basilica of St. Peter the crusaders found little joy, for the great
church, with the exception of a single tower, was in the hands of the
men of the anti-Pope, who, sword in hand, seized the offerings of the
faithful from off the altar, and from the roof hurled down stones upon
the pilgrims as they prostrated themselves in prayer.[39] Saddened by
such outrages, but not delaying to avenge them, they pushed on southward,
pausing at Monte Cassino to ask a blessing of St. Benedict as they
passed,[40] and came to the port of Bari.[41]
Already tidings of the great enterprise which Pope Urban had launched
had stirred one of the ablest chiefs of the southern Normans to action.
Bohemond, prince of Taranto, the oldest son of Robert Guiscard, was
engaged in the siege of Amalfi with his uncle, Count Roger of Sicily,
when news reached him that early contingents of French crusaders had
already arrived in Italy. The possibilities of the great adventure fired
his ardent imagination, and, “seized with a divine inspiration,” he took
the cross. Then, dramatically ordering his magnificent cloak to be cut
into crosses, he distributed them among such of the knights present as
were willing to follow his example; and so great was the rush of men to
his standard, that Count Roger found himself almost deserted, and was
obliged to abandon the siege and retire in dudgeon to Sicily.[42] Before
the arrival of Robert Curthose and the northern Normans, Bohemond had
already crossed the Adriatic at the head of a splendid band of knights
and entered upon the road to Constantinople.
The hopes of Robert and his followers to make an immediate crossing and
push on in the footsteps of Bohemond were doomed to disappointment. When
they arrived at Bari, winter was already close at hand, and the Italian
mariners were unwilling to undertake the transport of such an army in
the inclement season.[43] Duke Robert and Count Stephen, therefore, were
obliged to turn aside and winter in Apulia and Calabria.[44] Only the
more active Robert of Flanders with his smaller forces managed to make
the winter passage and push on towards Constantinople.[45] Meanwhile,
Roger Bursa, duke of Apulia, received Robert of Normandy with much
honor “as his natural lord” and supplied him with abundant provisions
for himself and his noble associates.[46] Many of the poorer crusaders,
however, were confronted with a grave problem. To winter peacefully in
a friendly country which they could not plunder seemed quite out of the
question; and, fearing lest they should fall into want, they sold their
bows, and, resuming pilgrims’ staves, turned back ‘ignominiously’ to
their northern homes.[47] Their more fortunate comrades, the nobles,
however, found generous hospitality among friends;[48] and the winter
months must have passed pleasantly for these northern Normans in the
sunny Italian climate among their distinguished kinsmen. Bishop Odo
of Bayeux, still vigorous and active, in spite of his advanced years,
crossed over to Sicily, and paid a visit to Count Roger’s beautiful
capital at Palermo. There he was taken with a fatal illness, and died
early in 1097. His fellow bishop, Gilbert of Évreux, buried him in the
great cathedral church of St. Mary; and Count Roger reared a splendid
monument over his grave.[49]
With the return of spring, in the month of March, Robert of Normandy
and Stephen of Blois assembled their forces at Brindisi and prepared to
push on to Constantinople, the general rendezvous of all the crusading
armies. The embarkation was marred by a tragic accident. One of the
vessels broke up and went to pieces almost within the harbor with some
four hundred souls on board, besides horses and mules and quantities of
money. Overwhelmed by fear in the presence of such a catastrophe, some
of the more faint-hearted landsmen abandoned the Crusade altogether and
turned back homeward, declaring that they would never entrust themselves
to the deceitful waves. Doubtless more would have followed their example,
had it not been discovered that the bodies washed ashore after the wreck
bore upon their shoulders the miraculous imprint of the cross. Encouraged
by this token of divine favor, the crusaders place their trust in the
omnipotent God, and, raising sail on Easter morning (April 5) amid the
blare of many trumpets, pushed out to sea.[50]
Sailing before a gentle breeze, they made the passage without further
accident, and landed on the fourth day at two small ports some ten miles
distant from Durazzo. Thence, passing Durazzo, they advanced along
the ancient Roman road, the Via Egnatia, with few adventures and by
relatively rapid marches towards Constantinople.[51] The route lay up
the valley of the Skumbi and through a mountainous region to Ochrida,
the ancient capital of Bulgaria, and then on past Monastir and across
the Vardar to Salonica on the Aegean, a city ‘abounding in all good
things.’ There the crusaders pitched their tents and rested for four
days, and then pushed on by the coast road through Kavala and Rodosto to
Constantinople, where they encamped outside the city and rested for a
fortnight in the latter half of May.[52]
The magnificent oriental capital with its noble churches and stately
palaces, its broad streets filled with works of art, its abounding
wealth in gold and silver and rich hangings, its eunuchs, and its busy
merchants from beyond sea,[53] made a deep impression upon the minds
of the crusaders, although they were not permitted to view it at great
advantage. For earlier bands who had gone before them had not passed
through the city without plundering, and the Greeks had learned to be
wary. The Emperor Alexius ordered the crusaders to be well supplied with
markets outside the walls, but only in bands of five or six at a time
would he permit them to enter the city of wonders and pray in the various
churches.[54]
Meanwhile, the leaders, Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois,
were being sumptuously entertained and assiduously flattered by the
Emperor.[55] The real contest between him and the crusading chieftains
had already taken place and been practically settled before the arrival
of the northern Normans.[56] After the greater leaders, Godfrey of
Bouillon and Bohemond, had yielded to the Emperor’s demands and entered
into treaty relations with him, he had clearly gained his point, and
it was not to be supposed that he would meet with serious obstacles
in dealing with the princes who came later. Least of all were such
difficulties to be expected in Robert Curthose and Stephen of Blois.
Both promptly took the oath that was required of them;[57] for,
explains Fulcher of Chartres—evidently voicing a sentiment which had
become general—it was necessary for the crusaders to consolidate their
friendship with the Emperor, since without his support and coöperation
they could not advance freely through his dominions, and it would be
impossible for fresh recruits to follow by the route which they had taken.
When Robert and Stephen had satisfied the demands of the Emperor, he
loaded them with gifts of money and silks and horses, and, providing
ships, had them ferried over with their forces to the Asiatic shore.[58]
As they advanced beyond Nicomedia past the battle field where the forces
of Peter the Hermit had met disaster the previous winter, the Normans
were moved to tears at the sight of the whitening bones which still lay
unburied;[59] but pressing on without pausing, they reached Nicaea in the
first week of June.[60] There they received an enthusiastic welcome from
the crusaders who had preceded them and who, since the middle of May, had
been besieging the city; and, passing around to the southern side, they
took up their position before the walls between the forces of Robert of
Flanders and Raymond of Toulouse.[61]
For the remainder of the expedition the exploits of Robert are for the
most part merged in the general action of the Crusade and must, for want
of detailed information, be narrated briefly. Though a leader of the
first rank, Robert was hardly to be compared with Godfrey of Bouillon,
Bohemond, or Raymond of Toulouse. He has, therefore, received but an
incidental treatment at the hands of the contemporary writers.
It is not recorded that Robert and his forces in any way distinguished
themselves at the siege of Nicaea. They had arrived too late to share in
the splendid victory over Kilij Arslan (Soliman II), sultan of Iconium,
on 16 May.[62] Doubtless they were also too late to play an important
part in the construction of the elaborate siege machinery which formed
so marked a feature in the operations against the city. On 19 June
Nicaea surrendered;[63] and Robert hurried away with the other leaders
to congratulate the Emperor upon the victory and to share in the rich
gifts which Alexius was bestowing upon the Franks as a reward for their
services.[64]
Events moved rapidly after the fall of Nicaea. By 26 June some of the
crusaders were already on the march. Robert with his habitual slackness
took a more leisurely leave of the Emperor[65] and did not advance till
two days later. But he quickly came up with the rest of the forces at
a bridge over a small tributary of the Sangarius; and from that point
the whole crusading host moved forward on the morning of 29 June before
daybreak.[66] Either by accident or design the army was separated into
two divisions,[67] which advanced by different, but roughly parallel,
routes. At the head of the smaller force, mainly composed of Normans,
marched the Norman leaders, Robert Curthose, Bohemond, and Tancred.
Raymond, Godfrey, Hugh of Vermandois, and Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy, with
their followers made up the larger division. As the Normans pitched camp
on the second evening their scouts reported the enemy’s presence ahead,
and special watches were set to guard the tents; but the night passed
without incident. When, however, on the following morning (1 July) the
march was resumed, the way was soon barred by the enemy in force under
the command of Kilij Arslan. The Normans hastily prepared for battle; and
towards eight or nine o’clock an engagement was begun which continued
with uninterrupted fury till well after midday. Though the Normans fought
valiantly, they could not long maintain the unequal contest. The mounted
knights were hurled back in disorder upon the foot soldiers; and the
heroic efforts of Bohemond and Robert to rally their forces and resume
the offensive were of no avail. The crusaders, greatly outnumbered, and
terrified by the outlandish modes of warfare practiced by their enemies,
were overwhelmed and thrown back in wild confusion upon their camp. It
was a desperate moment. The Christian forces were packed together “like
sheep in a fold.” Priests were praying, knights were prostrate confessing
their sins. The panic was general. But suddenly, when all seemed lost,
relief came. Earlier in the day a messenger had been despatched to the
crusaders of the other division, who were advancing at some distance
by a separate route. When they learned of the desperate plight of the
Normans, they rushed to arms, and, by hard riding across country, arrived
upon the scene of battle barely in time to save their companions from
annihilation. Strengthened by these reënforcements, the Normans quickly
re-formed their battle order and renewed the contest; and the Turks,
unexpectedly confronted by an enemy doubled in numbers, turned in flight
and were swept from the field. The crusaders pursued them till nightfall,
plundered their camp, and took quantities of booty.[68]
There can be no doubt that Robert Curthose fought bravely, as befitted
one of his ancestry,[69] on the field of Dorylaeum. But the accounts,
nearly contemporary though they be, which picture him as the supremely
brave leader, whose heroic action checked the rout of the Christians
and saved the day, belong rather to the realm of legend than of sober
history.[70] A just estimate based upon strictly reliable sources must
recognize that Robert divided the honors of Dorylaeum with Bohemond and
the other leaders, but must assign him a part in the battle somewhat
subordinate to that played by the great leader of the southern Normans.
The rout of the Turks at Dorylaeum opened the way through Asia Minor; and
on 4 July,[71] after a two days’ halt to rest and to bury the dead,[72]
the crusaders entered upon the long march to Antioch, the great Seljuk
stronghold in northern Syria.[73] No serious opposition was encountered
from the enemy; and on 20 October,[74] after three and a half months
of varied hardships, they arrived at the so-called Iron Bridge (Djisr
el-Hadid) over the Orontes a few miles above Antioch. Robert Curthose led
the vanguard[75] which encountered outposts of the enemy at the bridge
and defeated them in a sharp engagement; and that night the crusaders
camped beside the river.[76] Next day (21 October) they pushed on to
Antioch and took up their positions before the city.[77]
The siege of Antioch was a problem fit to try the resources, spirit,
and endurance of the greatest commander. Its massive walls and towers,
far superior to anything then known in western Europe, rendered it
impregnable by assault. It was held by a strong garrison under the
command of a resourceful emir; and the besiegers were in constant danger
from a sortie in force. Moreover, the beleaguered garrison was not to be
left without assistance; and more than once the crusaders had to meet
and drive off a relief force in greatly superior numbers. And finally,
the food problem soon became so acute as to threaten the besiegers
with starvation; and to hunger were added the hardships of the winter
season. Plainly this was not the kind of warfare which appealed to the
easy-going, pleasure-loving Robert of Normandy. During the early stages
of the siege, while the abundant supplies of a fertile district still
held out, he played his part with courage and spirit, as, for example,
when he joined with Bohemond and Robert of Flanders in a victorious fight
against the Turks on the Aleppo road near Harim in November.[78] But
when, in December, the crusaders began to feel the pinch of famine,[79]
Robert could not withstand the temptation to withdraw to more pleasant
winter quarters at Laodicea.[80]
Though the preaching of the Crusade had aroused little enthusiasm among
the upper classes in England, it had met with a curious response among
the English seamen. Assembling a considerable fleet, they had passed the
Straits of Gibraltar and arrived off the Syrian coast well in advance of
the crusading forces which were making their way across the highlands
of Asia Minor; and in concert with the Emperor—who, it must not be
forgotten, was coöperating with the crusaders both by land and sea—they
had captured Laodicea and established themselves there before the land
forces had arrived at Antioch. Well stocked with provisions from Cyprus,
and protected from pirates by the English fleet, which secured its trade
communications with the islands, Laodicea offered tempting quarters for
one who had tired of the rigors of the winter siege at Antioch. Moreover,
the English mariners appear to have been menaced in their possession by
wandering bands of the enemy in the surrounding country and in need of
reënforcements. Accordingly, they appealed to Robert of Normandy as their
most natural lord among the crusading chieftains, and besought him to
come to Laodicea as their protector.
Accepting this invitation with alacrity, Robert retired from Antioch in
December 1097, and, joining his friends at Laodicea, gave himself up
to sleep and idleness, content with forwarding a part of the abundant
provisions which he enjoyed to his suffering comrades at the siege. The
situation of the besiegers, however, was precarious, and they could
not long remain indifferent to the absence of so important a leader as
Robert. Soon they summoned him to return; and when their appeal met
with no response, they repeated it and finally threatened him with
excommunication. Thus pressed, Robert had no choice but to yield, and,
very reluctantly turning his back upon the comforts of Laodicea, he
returned to the hardships of the siege.
Robert was back at Antioch for the crisis of 8 and 9 February 1098,
which was brought on by the arrival of Ridwan of Aleppo at the head of
a large Turkish relief force. He attended the war council of 8 February
which determined upon a plan of action;[81] and next day, while Bohemond
and the mounted knights were winning their splendid victory over the
forces of Ridwan,[82] he assumed command, along with the bishop of Le Puy
and the count of Flanders, over the foot soldiers who remained behind
to maintain the siege and guard the camp.[83] And though the Turkish
garrison attempted a sortie in force from three gates, Robert and his
comrades kept up a hard but victorious struggle throughout the day, and
at nightfall drove the enemy back within the walls.[84]
From the defeat of Ridwan of Aleppo until the capture of Antioch, 3 June
1098, we lose sight of Robert completely; and it must remain a matter of
doubt whether he was privy to the secret negotiations by which Bohemond,
corrupting a Turkish guard, succeeded at last in opening the gates of the
impregnable fortress.[85] Robert was certainly present at the capture
of Antioch[86] and played his part honorably in the trying days which
followed.
The month of June brought the crusaders face to face with the gravest
crisis with which they had yet been confronted. The citadel of Antioch
still held out against them; and, within two days after their victorious
entrance into the city, advance guards of a vast Moslem army under the
command of Kerboga of Mosul arrived before the gates. By the 8th of
the month the Franks were compelled to burn their outworks and retire
within the walls, themselves to stand a siege.[87] Though not especially
mentioned, Robert doubtless took his part in the all-day struggle of
10 June; and when, next morning, it was discovered that a panic was
spreading through the ranks, and that some of the forces, followers of
Robert among them, had already let themselves down over the wall and
fled,[88] he promptly joined with the other leaders in the solemn oath
by which they mutually bound themselves to stand firm to the end.[89]
And when finally, on 28 June, it was decided to stake all on a battle
with Kerboga in the open, he led the third division[90] in the action
and shared in the greatest victory of the Christians during the First
Crusade. A few days later he attended the council at which it was
determined, in view of the summer heat and the scarcity of water, to
postpone the advance upon Jerusalem until 1 November;[91] and with that
the leaders parted company.
How Robert passed the summer months, it is impossible to say. Probably he
sought cooler and more healthful quarters away from pest-ridden Antioch.
But he was evidently there again on 11 September, for he joined the other
leaders in the letter to Urban II in which they recounted the progress
of the Crusade, reported the death of Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, and
urged the Pope himself to come and join them.[92] Robert was certainly
at Antioch on 1 November, the day set for the general advance upon
Jerusalem.[93]
But the advance was again delayed by a bitter quarrel which had broken
out between Bohemond and Raymond of Toulouse over the possession of
Antioch.[94] And now we find Robert, in the rôle of peacemaker, joining
with the other disinterested leaders who desired to respect their pledges
to the Emperor in an effort to arbitrate the difficulties.[95] But all
these efforts were in vain, for when the arbitrators had arrived at a
decision on the merits of the case, they lacked authority to enforce
their judgment, and dared not announce it lest matters should be
made worse. Finally, however, a truce was agreed upon in the hope of
continuing the Crusade;[96] and Robert departed with Raymond and others
to lay siege to Marra.[97] But hardly had this place been taken (11
December),[98] when the quarrel between Bohemond and Raymond flamed up
afresh; and now the controversy spread from the leaders to the ranks,
and the army was divided into two bitter factions.[99] Again Robert
joined the other leaders in council at Rugia in an attempt to bring about
a reconciliation;[100] but again all efforts failed, and Raymond and
Bohemond remained at enmity.
Meanwhile, the count of Toulouse, yielding to popular pressure in the
army, determined upon an independent advance to Jerusalem; and in order
to isolate his rival the more effectually, he undertook to hire other
leaders to follow him. To Godfrey of Bouillon and to Robert Curthose
he offered 10,000 _solidi_, to the count of Flanders 6000, to Tancred
5000, and to others in accordance with their dignity.[101] Tancred
definitely closed with the offer,[102] and there is reason for believing
that Robert Curthose also accepted it.[103] In any case, Robert joined
Raymond and Tancred at Kafartab, 14 January 1099, and two days later the
three leaders moved southward with their followers towards Jerusalem,
Robert and Tancred leading the vanguard while Raymond brought up the
rear. As they moved southward up the beautiful valley of the Orontes,
panic-stricken emirs along their line of march sent to purchase peace
at any price and poured out their wealth in gifts, while the plunder
of a fertile countryside supplied the crusaders with still greater
abundance.[104] Crossing the river at a ford a short distance above
Shaizar, they made their way over the mountainous divide and descended
towards the sea into the rich valley of El-Bukeia.[105] Halting there for
a fortnight’s rest and the celebration of the Purification,[106] they
crossed the valley and encamped before the great fortress of Arka on the
northern slopes of Lebanon (14 February). The neighboring port of Tortosa
fell into their hands almost immediately, and when easy communication
with the sea had thus been secured, they settled down to the siege of
Arka.[107] This caused another delay of three months, and though Robert,
Raymond, and Tancred each built siege towers,[108] no progress was made
towards reducing the fortress. Even with the aid of Godfrey and Robert of
Flanders, who came up with their forces 14 March, all their efforts were
unavailing.[109]
Meanwhile, fresh disputes arose within the ranks of the army; and the
Provençals, who at Marra had vented their rage upon Bohemond and his
followers, now turned against Robert and the northern Normans. The
genuineness of the so-called Holy Lance had been called in question.[110]
Many of the Normans believed that the discovery of the Lance at
Antioch had been a mere hoax got up by the vision-loving followers of
Count Raymond; and on this question opinion in the army was sharply
divided.[111] Arnulf of Chocques, Duke Robert’s chaplain, was regarded as
the “chief of all the unbelievers,”[112] and upon him the bitter hatred
of the Provençals was concentrated. An attempt was made to settle the
controversy by an ordeal; but this resulted indecisively, and each side
continued to believe as before. Arnulf was firmly supported by the duke
and the Norman party generally, and the attacks of his enemies met with
no success.[113]
While time was thus being wasted in disputes and recriminations the
season was rapidly advancing; and since Arka showed no signs of
capitulating, the leaders, Duke Robert among them, decided to abandon the
siege and push on forthwith to Jerusalem.[114] Breaking camp 13 May, they
advanced along the coast road by rapid marches, and on 7 June arrived
before the Holy City,[115] ‘rejoicing and exulting.’[116]
Of the multitudes who had set out from Europe three years before,
comparatively few had endured to complete this last stage of the
pilgrimage. Not only were the ranks of the army greatly thinned, but half
of the leaders had either fallen behind or turned back. The bishop of
Le Puy had died at Antioch the previous August; Baldwin, Duke Godfrey’s
brother, had turned aside to become count of Edessa; Bohemond had
remained to pursue his ambitious schemes at Antioch; Hugh of Vermandois
had been sent upon a mission to the Emperor; and Stephen of Blois had
deserted and returned to Europe to face the reproaches of his more heroic
Norman wife.
With forces so diminished, a complete investment of Jerusalem was out
of the question. If the city was to be taken at all, it would have to
be carried by storm. The crusaders, therefore, selected approaches and
prepared for an assault upon the walls. If, as has been suggested, Robert
Curthose had been, since the previous January, in the hire of Raymond of
Toulouse,[117] the connection between them was now severed; and during
the siege of Jerusalem Robert’s operations were strategically combined
with those of Duke Godfrey and Robert of Flanders. With them he took
up his position before the northern wall to the west of St. Stephen’s
church.[118]
The assault upon the city on 13 June failed miserably through the almost
complete lack of siege machinery; and it became clear that far more
elaborate preparations would have to be made. It was decided, therefore,
to construct at all costs two movable wooden siege towers and other
apparatus.[119] Count Raymond assumed responsibility for one of the
towers; the providing of the other was undertaken by Godfrey, Robert
Curthose, and Robert of Flanders.[120] Owing to the barrenness of the
region around Jerusalem, wood for the construction was not to be had
near at hand; but guided by a friendly Syrian Christian, the two Roberts
with a band of knights and foot soldiers made their way to a distant
forest in the hills ‘in the direction of Arabia’, and, loading wood upon
camels, brought it back to Jerusalem, where the building operations
were pushed forward with feverish activity for almost four weeks.[121]
When the work had almost reached completion, Godfrey and his associates
determined upon a sudden change of plan; and, during the night of 9-10
July, they had their tower and other engines taken apart and moved a mile
eastward towards the valley of Jehoshaphat, to a point where level ground
offered a good approach, and where the wall was weaker, not having been
reënforced by the beleaguered garrison.[122]
During the next three days the siege tower and other apparatus were again
assembled and set in order for action; and at dawn 14 July the assault
was begun.[123] All day long it was pressed with vigor, and though the
defenders fought with the heroism of desperation, endeavoring to set fire
to the tower as it was moved forward,[124] all their efforts failed.
Next morning at daybreak the attack was renewed, Robert Curthose and
Tancred operating the mangonels which cleared the way for the tower to
be rolled up close to the wall.[125] The garrison still stood stoutly to
the defence and let down bags filled with straw to break the shock of
the missiles hurled from the mangonels. The Christians were filled with
discouragement.[126] But as the hour approached at which the Saviour was
raised upon the cross (9 A.M.), their mighty effort at last was crowned
with success.[127] With burning arrows they managed to fire the sacks
of straw with which the wall was protected; and as the flames burst
forth the defenders were compelled to retire. Then dropping a bridge
from the tower to the wall, the crusaders rushed across and carried all
before them.[128] Soon the gates were opened and the city was given over
to carnage and plunder.[129] With victory assured, the blood-stained
warriors paused momentarily in their work of destruction, and, “rejoicing
and weeping from excess of joy,” turned aside to render adoration at
the Sepulchre and fulfil their vows;[130] but not for two days were the
pillage and slaughter ended.[131]
It remained for the crusaders to elect a ruler of the newly conquered
city and territory. After two conferences[132] and much discussion the
choice of the leaders fell upon Godfrey of Bouillon, the position having
first been offered to Raymond of Toulouse.[133] “Though unwilling,”
Godfrey was elected “advocate of the church of the Holy Sepulchre.”[134]
A generation later the belief was widely current that the honor had also
been offered to Robert Curthose and declined by him;[135] but it rests
upon no acceptable contemporary authority, and appears to have been a
later invention.
Hardly had Godfrey been raised to his new dignity when he became involved
in a dispute with the count of Toulouse, not unlike the quarrel which
had arisen between Raymond and Bohemond after the capture of Antioch.
Raymond was holding the Tower of David and declined to hand it over to
the new ruler. But Godfrey was strongly supported in his just demand
by Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders and by many even of Raymond’s
own followers, who were eager to return home and desired the count to
lead them; and under pressure Raymond, always sensitive to popular
opinion, was obliged to yield.[136] It was during this same period
that Duke Robert’s chaplain, Arnulf of Chocques, was raised to the
dignity of acting patriarch of Jerusalem (1 August).[137] Though only a
priest—perhaps not even in subdeacon’s orders—and of obscure birth, he
had contrived by his learning, personality, and eloquence to make himself
the leader of the anti-Provençal party; and his elevation to this high
position was another notable victory for the enemies of Count Raymond.
Meanwhile a new peril arose to menace the crusaders in the enjoyment
of their conquests. Before any of the leaders had completed their
preparations for the homeward journey, news arrived that the emir Malik
el-Afdhal, grand vizier of the caliph of Egypt, was rapidly approaching
at the head of a great army.[138] Once more the crusaders were to be put
to the test of a battle in the open with an enemy in greatly superior
numbers. On 11 August the leaders concentrated their forces in the
vicinity of Ascalon and prepared for battle.[139] Next morning at dawn
they advanced into a pleasant valley near the seashore and drew up their
forces in battle order. Duke Godfrey led the left wing, farthest inland,
Count Raymond the right beside the sea, while the centre was commanded
by the two Roberts, Tancred, and Eustace of Boulogne.[140] When all
was ready, the crusaders moved forward, while the Saracens held their
positions and awaited the attack.[141] As the opposing forces came
together Robert Curthose perceived the standard of the emir—a lance
of silver surmounted by a golden sphere—which served as the rallying
point for the Saracen forces; and charging the standard-bearer at full
speed, he wounded him mortally[142] and caused the standard itself to be
captured by the crusaders. Spurred on by Robert’s brilliant example, the
count of Flanders and Tancred dashed forward to the attack and carried
all before them right into the enemy’s camp. The victory of the centre
was complete; and the Saracens broke and fled, many of them being slain
by the Christians who pursued them. Vast quantities of booty were taken
and borne away by the victors to Jerusalem.[143] Robert of Normandy
purchased for twenty marks of silver the standard of the emir, which
had been captured by his own heroic act, and presented it to Arnulf,
the acting patriarch, to be placed in the church of the Sepulchre as a
memorial of the great victory.[144]
With the battle of Ascalon the contemporary histories of the Crusade come
abruptly to an end, and it becomes more difficult than ever to piece
together a connected account of the exploits of Robert Curthose in the
Holy Land. If the account of Ordericus Vitalis can be trusted, he again
assumed the rôle of mediator, together with Robert of Flanders, in the
fresh quarrel which broke out between Godfrey and the count of Toulouse
over the expected surrender of Ascalon.[145] But his efforts met with no
success, and the Saracens, learning of the dissension among the leaders,
closed their gates. For more than fifty years Ascalon remained in the
hands of the enemy, a constant menace to the peace and prosperity of the
Latin Kingdom.
Nothing now remained to detain longer in the Holy Land Robert Curthose
and Robert of Flanders, and other crusaders who had no personal
ambitions to promote. Having bathed in the Jordan and gathered palms at
Jericho according to the immemorial custom of Jerusalem-farers,[146]
they took leave of Godfrey and Tancred and set forth upon the homeward
journey in company with Count Raymond.[147] As they proceeded northward
by the coast road they learned that Bohemond had taken advantage of their
absence in the south to lay siege to the friendly city of Laodicea. But
making a short halt at Jebeleh, they quickly came to an understanding
with the Laodiceans; and when they had compelled Bohemond to retire from
his disgraceful enterprise, they were received into the city with great
rejoicing.[148] It was then the month of September.[149] Raymond, who by
this time—as Chalandon has made perfectly clear[150]—was acting in close
agreement with Alexius, garrisoned the fortresses in the Emperor’s name
and remained to hold the city against the machinations of Bohemond.[151]
After a brief sojourn at Laodicea, Robert Curthose and Robert of
Flanders and many of their comrades continued their homeward journey
by sea,[152] embarking, apparently, upon imperial ships and sailing
for Constantinople, where they were magnificently received by the
Emperor.[153] To all who would enter his service he offered great rewards
and honors; but the two Roberts desired to push on homeward without
delay. Accordingly, he presented them with rich gifts and granted
them markets and a free passage through his territories; and so they
returned to Italy and were received with great rejoicing by Roger of
Sicily, Roger Bursa, Geoffrey of Conversano, and other relatives and
compatriots.[154]
Here Duke Robert paused and comfortably rested upon his enviable
reputation while he enjoyed the sumptuous entertainment of admiring
friends and made plans for the future. His position during this second
sojourn in Italy was indeed an enviable one. For once in his life he
had played a distinguished part in a great adventure worthy of the best
traditions of the Normans. It is true that he had not displayed so great
energy and resourcefulness as some of the other leaders. Bohemond and
Tancred, had they been present, might in a measure have eclipsed his
fame. But for the moment he stood without a rival; and it is little
wonder that he gained the hand of one of the great heiresses of Norman
Italy together with a dower sufficiently rich to enable him to redeem his
duchy.[155]
The Crusade had been a fortunate venture in the life of Robert Curthose.
He had set out from Normandy with a record of continuous failure and
a reputation for weakness and incompetence. He was now returning with
all the prestige and glory of a great crusading prince, his past sins
and failures all forgotten. He was soon to become a hero of romance;
and, among modern writers, Freeman has not hesitated to praise him as
a skilled commander, “ever foremost in fight and council.”[156] But a
careful reading of the sources hardly justifies the bestowal of such
praise. Robert had, it is true, shown some fine qualities as a crusader.
He had kept faith with the Greek Emperor and won his lasting gratitude.
His generosity and good-fellowship had gained him many friends and
followers,[157] and it is not recorded that any one was his enemy.
As a warrior he had always fought with distinguished bravery, and in
the battle of Ascalon, at least, he had performed a greater feat of
arms than any of his comrades. He had gone to the Holy Land with no
ulterior ambitions, and in this respect he stands in happy contrast
with the self-seeking Bohemond and the grasping count of Toulouse. His
disinterestedness had gained him a certain distinction enjoyed by no
other crusader, save perhaps his cousin, Count Robert of Flanders; and it
is not without reason that he appears frequently among the peacemakers,
who in the general interest undertook to reconcile the quarrels of
rival leaders. Yet he was still the same indulgent, affable, ‘sleepy
duke,’[158] who had failed in the government of his duchy once and was to
fail again. Though brave and active in the moment of danger, he was in
no sense comparable as a general or as a statesman with such leaders as
Bohemond and Godfrey; and on the whole the judgment of Freeman must be
reversed. Robert was, so far as we know, never foremost in council; he
was rarely foremost on the field of battle; and he showed no particular
capacity for generalship. But with such qualities as he possessed, he was
content to coöperate harmoniously with the more active and resourceful
leaders, persevering on the way until the pagan had been vanquished and
the Sepulchre had been won. Not unnaturally he returned to Europe in the
enjoyment of fame and honor.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 9.
[2] Matthew of Edessa, _Chronique_, in _H. C. A._, i, p. 24.
[3] P. 219.
[4] “Indomita gens Normannorum.” Ordericus, iii, p. 474.
[5] Ordericus, iii, pp. 475-476.
[6] _Ibid._, p. 476. Ordericus evidently believes that the duke’s
unfortunate situation in Normandy was his chief reason for taking the
cross: “Denique talibus infortuniis, Rodbertus dux, perspectis anxius, et
adhuc peiora formidans, ut pote ab omnibus pene destitutus, … decrevit
terram suam fratri suo regi dimittere; et cruce Domini sumpta, pro
peccatis suis Deo satisfacturus, in Ierusalem pergere.”
[7] Cf. Louis Bréhier, _L’église et l’Orient au moyen âge: les croisades_
(Paris, 1907), pp. 52-62.
[8] Cf. Ordericus, iii, pp. 470 ff.
[9] For the papal itinerary see Philipp Jaffé, _Regesta Pontificum
Romanorum_ (2d ed., Leipsic, 1885-88), i, pp. 681-685.
[10] Hugh of Flavigny, _Chronicon_, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, viii, p.
475.
[11] _Ibid._
[12] Hugh of Flavigny, the abbot’s companion and secretary, drew up a
charter for Duke Robert at Bayeux 24 May 1096. Haskins, p. 67, no. 4, and
n. 19; cf. p. 76, n. 34; and _supra_, p. 18, n. 6.
[13] Haskins, pp. 75-76, and the sources there cited.
[14] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p 371.
[15] Ordericus, iii, p. 476.
[16] Hugh of Flavigny, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, viii, p. 475;
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp.
274-275; Ordericus, iii, p. 476; iv, p. 16; Eadmer, p. 74; _A.-S. C._,
_a._ 1096; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 40; William of Malmesbury, _G.
R._, ii, p. 371; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p.
38. There is disagreement as to the term of the loan. According to Hugh
of Flavigny it was to be for three years, according to Ordericus five,
and according to Robert of Torigny until the duke’s return from the
Crusade.
[17] Eadmer, pp. 74-75; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 40; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 371-372.
[18] _Leges Edwardi Confessoris_, in _Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen_,
ed. Felix Liebermann (Halle, 1898-1912), i, pp. 636-637; “Et hanc
libertatem habuit sancta ecclesia usque ad tempus Willelmi iunioris,
qui de baronibus totius patrie auxilium petiit ad Normanniam retinendam
de fratre suo Rodberto eunte in Ierusalem. Ipsi autem concesserunt ei
quatuor solidos de unaquaque hyda, sanctam ecclesiam non excipientes.
“Quorum dum fieret collectio, clamabat ecclesia, libertatem suam
reposcens; sed nichil sibi profuit.” A later recension adds that the
grant was made, “non lege statutum tamen neque firmatum, sed hac
necessitatis causa.”
[19] It is difficult to see why this should have been such a burden, but
the contemporary writers leave no doubt as to the resentment which it
aroused. William of Malmesbury (_G. P._, p. 432) is very bitter against
the abbot of Malmesbury because of his action on this occasion and very
specific as to the sufferings of his church: “Denique die uno .xii.
textus Evangeliorum, .viiiᵗᵒ. cruces, .viiiᵗᵒ. scrinia argento et auro
nudata et excrustata sunt.” Eadmer (p. 75) tells how Anselm was obliged
to borrow two hundred marks from the cathedral treasury, placing his
demesne vill of Peckham in _vif gage_ for seven years as security.—On
_vif gage_ see R. Génestal, _Rôle des monastères comme établissements de
crédit_ (Paris, 1901), pp. 1-2.
[20] E.g., a charter published by Léopold Delisle in _Littérature latine
et histoire du moyen âge_ (Paris, 1890), pp. 28-29. All such documents as
have come to light are cited in connection with individual crusaders in
Appendix D.
[21] For the women with Duke Robert’s forces see Appendix D, nos. 6, 10,
13, 14.
[22] For a full list of Robert’s known companions on the Crusade, with
all the evidence concerning them, see Appendix D.
[23] It was perhaps through this Alan that the names of so many Breton
crusaders have been preserved in the history of Baldric of Dol, from
which they have been copied by Ordericus Vitalis.
[24] They are mentioned in a general way as taking part in the battle
with Kerboga at Antioch, 28 June 1098: “In tertia Rodbertus dux
Normannorum, cum xv milibus Cenomannorum, Andegavorum, Britonum, et
Anglorum.” Ordericus, iii, p. 555. There is a good deal of documentary
evidence bearing upon crusaders from Maine, which, however, is in no
case quite sufficient to prove that any individual Manceau whom we can
identify actually went on the First Crusade. It will be found in Appendix
D, nos. 22-24, 27, 30, 38, 47. An anonymous work entitled _Noblesse
du Maine aux croisades_ (Le Mans, 1859), pp. 13-14, gives a list of
twenty-five noble Manceaux who answered Pope Urban’s call. The list is
valueless, however, since no evidence or authority is cited in any case,
and the work is obviously based upon no sufficient criticism.
[25] Ordericus, iv, pp. 37-38.
[26] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1096.
[27] See Appendix E, pp. 231-232.
[28] _G. R._, ii, p. 431.
[29] See Appendix C.
[30] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 40.
[31] Cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 37: “Ea tempestate qua Rodbertus dux fratri
suo Normanniam commisit, et ab eo magnam argenti copiam, ad explendum
iter ad sepulchrum Regis nostri, recepit, Helias comes ad curiam regis
Rotomagum venit. Qui, postquam diu cum duce consiliatus fuit, ad regem
accessit, eique humiliter dixit…” Freeman places the meeting “at some
point of the border-land of the Vexin, at Pontoise or at Chaumont,”
citing as authority a letter of Ivo of Chartres (_H. F._, xv, p. 82); but
he has quite arbitrarily assigned to 1096 a letter which clearly does not
belong to that period. _William Rufus_, i, p. 559; cf. _supra_, p. 84, n.
215.
[32] Cf. _supra_, n. 16.
[33] Fulcher of Chartres, _Historia Hierosolymitana_ (1095-1127), ed.
Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), p. 159, and n. 21. Fulcher first
wrote ‘September’ and later changed it to ‘October.’ Ordericus Vitalis
(iii, p. 483) and William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, p. 402) both place
the departure in September. Hagenmeyer probably explains the discrepancy
correctly when he remarks that all did not depart at exactly the same
time.
[34] Fulcher, pp. 162-163. The passage is highly rhetorical, but Fulcher,
it should be remembered, was an eyewitness.
[35] _Ibid._, p. 161.
[36] Hugh of Flavigny, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, viii, p. 475.
[37] For the stages of this route see the remarkable itinerary of
Abbot Nicholas Saemundarson of Thingeyrar (in northern Iceland) who
made the pilgrimage to the Holy Land between 1151 and 1154. E. C.
Werlauff, _Symbolae ad Geographiam Medii Aevi ex Monumentis Islandicis_
(Copenhagen, 1821), pp. 18-25. It is summarized by Paul Riant,
_Expéditions et pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte_ (Paris,
1865), pp. 80 ff.
[38] Fulcher, p. 164; cf. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 20;
Ordericus, iii, p. 486.
[39] Fulcher, pp. 164-166.
[40] Petrus Diaconus, _Chronica Monasterii Casinensis_, in _M. G. H._,
Scriptores, vii, p. 765; cf. the letter of Emperor Alexius to Abbot
Oderisius of Monte Cassino, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, pp. 140-141.
[41] Fulcher, p. 166; Petrus Diaconus, _loc. cit._
[42] _G. F._, pp. 147 ff.; Lupus Protospatarius, in _M. G. H._,
Scriptores, v, p. 62; cf. Ferdinand Chalandon, _Histoire de la domination
normande en Italie et en Sicilie_ (Paris, 1907), i, pp. 301-302.
William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, pp. 390, 453), on the other hand,
represents the crafty Bohemond as responsible for the inception of the
whole crusading movement, a view which is accepted and developed at
great length by Sir Francis Palgrave, _History of Normandy and England_
(London, 1851-64), iv, p. 484 _et passim_. H. W. C. Davis is also tempted
by it. _England under the Normans and Angevins_ (London, 1905), p. 102.
But in the face of the positive testimony of the _Gesta Francorum_ and of
Lupus Protospatarius it is untenable.
[43] Fulcher, p. 167.
[44] _Ibid._, pp. 167-168; Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 20;
Ordericus, iii, p. 486.
[45] Fulcher, p. 168.
[46] Ordericus, iii, p. 486.
[47] Fulcher, p. 168. But probably many had only intended to make
the pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Nicholas of Bari. Cf. _Miracula
S. Nicolai conscripta a Monacho Beccensi_, in _Catalogus Codicum
Hagiographicorum Latinorum in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi_, ed. the
Bollandists (Brussels, 1889-93), ii, p. 422. Fulcher of Chartres (p. 167)
notes that many of the crusaders turned aside to pray at the church of
St. Nicholas.
[48] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 409.
[49] See Appendix D, no. 29.
[50] Fulcher, pp. 168-171.
[51] Fulcher of Chartres (pp. 172-175) gives a full itinerary: “ante
urbem praefatam [i.e., Durazzo] transivimus. Itaque Bulgarorum regiones
per montium praerupta et loca satis deserta perreximus. Daemonis ad
flumen rapidum tunc venimus omnes… Mane autem aurora clarescente, … iter
nostrum adripuimus conscendendo montem, quem Bagulatum nuncupant. Postea
montanis postpositis urbibusque Lucretia, Botella, Bofinat, Stella,
pervenimus ad flumen, quod vocatur Bardarium… Quo transito, sequenti
die ante urbem Thessalonicam … tentoria tetendimus nostra… Deinde
Macedoniam transeuntes, per vallem Philippensium et per Crisopolim atque
Christopolim, Praetoriam, Messinopolim, Macram, Traianopolim, Neapolim
et Panadox, Rodosto et Eracleam, Salumbriam et Naturam Constantinopolim
pervenimus.” For identification of place names see Hagenmeyer’s notes,
_ibid._
[52] Fulcher, pp. 175-176.
[53] _Ibid._, pp. 176-177.
[54] _Ibid._, pp. 175-176.
[55] Letter of Stephen of Blois to his wife Adela, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_,
pp. 138-139; cf. Fulcher, p. 178.
[56] For the relations of Alexius with the crusaders see the admirable
discussion by Ferdinand Chalandon, _Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Iᵉʳ
Comnène_ (Paris, 1900), ch. vi, especially pp. 175-186.
[57] Fulcher, p. 178; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 413; Albert
of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 314.
[58] Fulcher, p. 179; letter of Stephen of Blois, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_,
p. 139.
[59] Fulcher, p. 180.
[60] _Ibid._, pp. 182-183; letter of Stephen of Blois, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 139; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p.
239; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 153.
[61] Fulcher, p. 181, and n. 4; _G. F._, pp. 186-187.
[62] Albert of Aix reports Robert as taking part in this battle; but he
is in direct disagreement with the testimony of eyewitnesses, and is
clearly wrong. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 320.
[63] See the sources collected in Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 160.
[64] Letter of Stephen of Blois, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 140; cf. Anna
Comnena, in _H. C. G._, i, 2, p. 46.
[65] Fulcher, p. 189, and n. 3.
[66] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 167.
[67] According to the _Gesta Francorum_ (p. 196) the division was
accidental and due to darkness; and this appears to be the meaning of
Raymond of Aguilers (_H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 240). Fulcher of Chartres (p.
194) confesses that he does not know the cause of the separation. Ralph
of Caen (_H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 620-621) explains that there were two
opinions, but leans to the view that the division was accidental. Albert
of Aix (_ibid._, iv, pp. 328-329), on the other hand, says that it was
intentional. Cf. Hagenmeyer’s note in Fulcher, p. 194; Reinhold Röhricht,
_Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_, p. 90.
[68] Fulcher, pp. 190-198; _G. F._, pp. 196-205; Raymond of Aguilers,
in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 240; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, 620-622,
625 ff.; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, pp. 329-332.
[69] Guilbert of Nogent, _ibid._, iv, p. 160; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._,
iii, p. 622.
[70] See Chapter VIII, pp. 193-194.
[71] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 172.
[72] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 332-333; cf. Hagenmeyer,
_Chronologie_, no. 170.
[73] On the route and the events of the march in general see Hagenmeyer,
_Chronologie_, nos. 172, 175-179, 181-204, and the sources there
collected. At Heraclea the army was divided, Baldwin and Tancred with
their followers taking the southern route through the Cilician Gates,
Robert and the other leaders with their forces making a long detour to
the northward through Caesarea Mazaca, Coxon (the ancient Cocussus), and
Marash, and finally approaching Antioch from the northeast. Albert of
Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 357-358: the fact is also implied in the
other sources, especially Fulcher of Chartres, who writes in the first
person until his separation from the Norman forces at Marash and his
departure for Edessa as chaplain of Baldwin.
[74] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 200.
[75] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 362.
[76] _G. F._, pp. 239-241; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 362-363.
[77] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 203. On the positions taken up by the
various contingents see Röhricht, _Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_, p.
110.
[78] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 242; cf. _G. F._, pp.
245-247; letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145.
[79] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 214.
[80] Laodicea ad Mare (modern Latakia), the seaport on the Syrian coast
directly opposite the island of Cyprus. For all that follows concerning
Laodicea and Robert’s connection therewith see Appendix E.
[81] Tudebode, _Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere_, in _H. C. Oc._,
iii, p. 43.
[82] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 233.
[83] Tudebode, _loc. cit._ Albert of Aix (_H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 381, 385)
and Henry of Huntingdon (pp. 223, 224) erroneously make him lead one of
the six divisions of knights under Bohemond.
[84] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 233.
[85] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 260, 262, 264, 265. According to
Bruno of Lucca, Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders both had a hand
in the secret negotiations. Letter of the clergy and people of Lucca, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 166. But Bruno, though present at the capture of
Antioch, was clearly not well informed about these matters, and great
importance cannot be attached to his statement. According to Baldric of
Dol (_H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 55) and Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 537), Robert
was among the chiefs to whom Bohemond confided his plans on the eve of
putting them into execution. This is in no way unlikely, but Baldric and
Ordericus are not independent, and it must be acknowledged that they are
a very uncertain authority for such a point as this. The writers who were
on the ground make no mention of Robert Curthose in this connection.
[86] Letter of the clergy and people of Lucca, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p.
166; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 657.
[87] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 267, 269-274, 276, 278.
[88] The brothers William and Alberic of Grandmesnil were among the
fugitives. _G. F._, pp. 332-334; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._,
iii, p. 256; Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, iv, p. 64; Ordericus, iii, p. 545;
Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 194; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._,
iii, p. 662; Tudebode, _ibid._, iii, p. 67; _Historia Belli Sacri_,
_ibid._, iii, p. 200. (In citing the last work I follow the practice
of Hagenmeyer’s _Chronologie_ in retaining the caption of Mabillon’s
edition, though the title given in the Academy edition to which reference
is made is _Tudebodus Imitatus et Continuatus_. The author is conjectured
to have been a Norman from southern Italy who took part in the Crusade
and afterwards settled at Antioch. He wrote after 1131.) William of
Grandmesnil did not set out with Robert from Normandy, but went from
southern Italy. According to Tudebode, Ralph of Caen, and the _Historia
Belli Sacri_, Ivo of Grandmesnil was also among the fugitives. This act
of cowardice made a deep impression upon contemporaries. Ralph of Caen
writes: “At fratres, pudet, heu! pudet, heu! Normannia misit.” Guibert of
Nogent, as a friend of the family, declines to mention the family name in
connection with the incident.
[89] _G. F._, p. 340; Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 196; cf.
Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 256. The purpose of the measure was
to restore the morale of the rank and file.
[90] _G. F._, pp. 368-370; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii,
p. 259. Or possibly he led the second division, the count of Flanders
leading the third. The two Roberts evidently fought in close coöperation.
Letter of Anselm de Ribemont, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 160; Fulcher, p.
255; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 666; Albert of Aix, _ibid._,
iv, p. 422. During the battle a new division was formed from the forces
of Robert Curthose and Godfrey in order to checkmate an attempt of the
Turks to outflank the crusaders. _G. F._, p. 373.
[91] _Ibid._, pp. 382-385; Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 208;
cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 298.
[92] _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 161.
[93] _G. F._, p. 394-395; Tudebode, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 87; cf.
Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 266; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p.
448; Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 321.
[94] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 261-268; _G. F._, pp.
379-380, 394-395.
[95] At a series of conferences held in the basilica of St. Peter at
Antioch. _Ibid._, pp. 394-395; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 434;
cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 323.
[96] _G. F._, pp. 395-396; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp.
267-268.
[97] Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 674; Albert of Aix, _ibid._,
iv, p. 448; cf. _G. F._, pp. 402-403, and n. 9.
[98] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 329.
[99] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 270-271; _G. F._, p.
410; Fulcher, pp. 267-268.
[100] _G. F._, p. 411; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 335.
[101] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 271.
[102] _Ibid._, p. 278.
[103] This is made probable by the fact that Robert alone of all the
important leaders joined Raymond and Tancred in the advance upon
Jerusalem. Robert was still in the company of Raymond at Caesarea. Albert
of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 460. But upon the arrival of the crusaders
before Jerusalem, the point at which the contract should have terminated,
he promptly separated from Raymond; and thereafter during the siege
he acted in close association with Godfrey of Bouillon and Robert of
Flanders. Cf. _infra_, p. 112.
[104] _G. F._, pp. 414 ff.; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp.
272-273; cf. Fulcher, p. 268.
[105] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 341-345. For a detailed study of
this itinerary see Hagenmeyer’s notes in _G. F._, pp. 414-419.
[106] _G. F._, pp. 419 ff.
[107] _Ibid._, pp. 425-428; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp.
275-276.
[108] Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, p. 680.
[109] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 352-354, 359-360.
[110] For the discovery of the Lance at Antioch and the use to which it
was put during the critical days of the struggle between the crusaders
and Kerboga, see Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 277, 284, 285, 288, 291,
and the sources there cited.
[111] _Ibid._, no. 363.
[112] “Arnulfum, capellanum comitis Normanniae, qui quasi caput omnium
incredulorum erat.” Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 281.
[113] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 364, 367.
[114] _G. F._, pp. 436-437; Fulcher, pp. 270-271.
[115] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 371-385. Guibert of Nogent
says that Robert Curthose laid siege to Acre during the advance upon
Jerusalem; but that he was called away by Godfrey. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p.
257. Ibn el-Athir also reports an attack upon Acre as the crusaders
advanced upon Jerusalem. _Kamel-Altevarykh_, in _H. C. Oc._, i, p. 198.
[116] _G. F._, p. 448.
[117] _Supra_, p. 109, and n. 103.
[118] _G. F._, pp. 449-450; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p.
293; Fulcher, p. 297; Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 687; Albert
of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 463.
It was evidently at this point that, according to Ordericus Vitalis,
Robert was joined by Hugh Bunel, son of Robert de Jalgeio, the fugitive
assassin of Countess Mabel, the cruel wife of Roger of Montgomery. Hugh
had been provoked to the crime in 1082 because Mabel had violently
deprived him of his lawful inheritance, and he had been obliged to
flee for his life. He had gone first to Apulia and Sicily and then to
Constantinople. But still being pursued by the spies whom William the
Conqueror and Mabel’s powerful family had employed to take his life
wherever they might find him, he had fled from Christendom altogether;
and for many years had dwelt among the Moslems, whose language and
customs he had learned. He now offered his services to Robert Curthose,
who received him kindly; and, being an excellent warrior and familiar
with all the deceptions and stratagems which the pagans practised against
the Christians, he was able to be of great service to the crusaders.
Ordericus, iii, pp. 597-598.
[119] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, nos. 388-389, 391.
[120] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 297; _G. F._, pp.
461-462.
[121] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 467-468; cf. _G. F._, pp.
462-463; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 297.
[122] _Ibid._, p. 298; _G. F._, pp. 462-463; Albert of Aix, in _H. C.
Oc._, iv, p. 471; cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 399.
[123] _Ibid._, no. 403.
[124] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 476-477.
[125] Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, pp. 692-693.
[126] _G. F._, p. 464; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p.
299; Guibert of Nogent (_ibid._, iv, p. 226) particularizes as to
Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders: “Est etiam mihi non inferiore
relatione compertum Rotbertum Northmanniae comitem, Rotbertumque alterum,
Flandriarum principem, iunctis pariter convenisse moeroribus, et se cum
fletibus uberrimis conclamasse miserrimos, quos suae adoratione Crucis et
visione, immo veneratione Sepulchri tantopere Ihesus Dominus iudicaret
indignos.”
[127] _G. F._, pp. 464-465, and n. 15.
[128] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 299-300; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 427.
[129] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 405.
[130] _G. F._, pp. 473-474.
[131] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 407.
[132] _Ibid._, nos. 408-409.
[133] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 301.
[134] Letter of the leaders to the Pope, in _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 168;
_G. F._, pp. 478-480, n. 12.
[135] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 461; Henry of Huntingdon, p.
236; _Historia Belli Sacri_, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 225; cf. Albert of
Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 485.
[136] Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 301.
[137] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 413; cf. _G. F._, p. 481, n. 14.
[138] _Ibid._, pp. 485-486, and n. 21; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C.
Oc._, iii, pp. 302-303; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 490.
[139] Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 420. Robert Curthose with
characteristic indolence remained in Jerusalem with Raymond until the
enemy was almost at hand, announcing that he would not go out unless he
had more certain assurance that a battle was really to take place. He
and Raymond did not lead their forces out from Jerusalem till 10 August
_G. F._, pp. 486-488; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 305;
Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, p. 491.
[140] _G. F._, pp. 493-494; cf. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 494.
[141] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 494.
[142] _G. F._, pp. 494-495; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 497;
cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 429-430.
[143] _G. F._, pp. 499-501.
[144] _Ibid._, pp. 498-499; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 497;
Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, p. 110.
[145] Ordericus, iii, pp. 620-621; cf. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv,
pp. 497-498; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, p. 703. Hagenmeyer studies the
whole problem in _G. F._, pp. 500-502, n. 94.
[146] Fulcher, p. 319, and n. 2.
[147] _Ibid._, pp. 319-320; Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv,
p. 499; letter of Dagobert, Godfrey, and Raymond to the Pope, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 173; Ordericus, iv, p. 69.
[148] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 499-500, 502-503; Ordericus,
iv, pp. 70-72; letter of Dagobert, Godfrey, and Raymond to the Pope, in
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, P. 173.
[149] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 503; cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 69.
[150] _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 205 ff.
[151] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 503-504.
[152] _Ibid._, p. 504.
[153] Ordericus, iv, pp. 72-75; Fulcher, pp. 319-320. Though Ordericus
knew the work of Fulcher, which he calls “certum et verax volumen” (iii,
p. 459), he appears at this point to be entirely independent of it.
[154] Ordericus, iv, pp. 75-76, 77-78.
[155] _Ibid._, pp. 78-79; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 461; cf.
_infra_, pp. 123-124.
[156] William Rufus, i, pp. 560, 564. Palgrave goes so far as to
say, “Robert had earned an entirely new reputation. The thoughtless
spendthrift was transiently disciplined into prudence, the dissolute
idler reformed into a happy and affectionate husband.” _History of
Normandy and of England_, iv, p. 673.
[157] Ralph of Caen, in describing the positions at Antioch, says: “Ab
altero autem latere Blesensis, Boloniensis, Albamarensis, Montensis,
Sancti-Paulensis, et Hugo Magnus; nam omnes his comitis Normanni
muneribus, aliqui etiam hominagio obligabantur.” _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 642.
[158] This favorite characterization of Ordericus Vitalis is confirmed by
Ralph of Caen and by Guibert of Nogent. _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 649; iv, p.
149.