Tempus MagazineONLINEVERSIONWITHCOVER

1

Table
Of
Contents
The Council of Clermont
Pope Urban II Q&A
The People's Crusade
The Arrival at Constantinople
Profile: Raymond of Toulouse
The Siege of Nicea
Profile: Bohemond of Taranto
The Battle of Dorylaeum
The Capture of Edessa
The Siege of Antioch
The Battle of Antioch
The Siege of Jerusalem
Defender of the Holy Sepulchre and
the Battle of Ascalon
Stephen of Blois Q&A
Letters
Editorial
Bibliography
Meet the Writers
3
8
1 2
1 7
23
26
29
33
37
39
43
52
58
62
65
68
73
Margarita Bajamic
"May I please have
bread?"
Julia Banco
"Padre Pio save us"
Cole Canofari
"Educate, evaluate,
procrastinate"
Mika Colonia
"DK! Donkey Kong is
here!"
2
Vanessa DaSilva
"It's not a noun"
Romina Difluri
"It's a noun"
Marlon Miral
"Expect nothing,
appreciate everything"
Alessio Pizzolato
"Trust me, you can
dance" -vodka

The Council
of Clermont
Romina Difluri
Born to a family of French nobles in
1 042, there was nothing particularly exceptional
about Odo de Lagéry in his childhood. His youth
was spent in relative comfort given the time
period, enjoying the quality life he, fortunately,
had been assigned at birth (Runciman 56). Soon
enough, however, it became evident that God had
granted him a superior wealth of talent,
intelligence, and integrity to match his. Still, no
one could have possibly foreseen the extent that
this man would single-handedly have on our
Earth. It was impossible to predict that, one day,
he would abandon his given name and be reborn
as Pope Urban II; that glorious battles, sieges,
and pilgrims would be called in his name; that he
would conjure the cries of hundreds of men,
“Deus vult!”, “God wills it!” (Armstrong 3); that
the very fabric of human society as we know it
today exists as a result of his actions. Whether or
not he intended to be, Pope Urban the II was,
arguably, one of the most significant figures in
the history of mankind. His speech at the Council
of Clermont in 1 095 would alter the course of
history forever by initiating one of the most
notorious, controversial sequences of events in
the Middle Ages, The First Crusade (Runciman
62).
It was November 25th in the winter of 1 095,
and “twelve archbishops, eighty bishops and other
senior clergy” (Frankopan 1 ) had been summoned
to a synod at Clermont in Auvergne. Most of the
council was held in the presence of these clergymen
as is typical of a synod, though Pope Urban II
announced that he had an announcement meant to
be heard by anyone of the Christian faith.
(Runciman 56). He assembled this group of the
faithful in a nearby field, addressing the crowd of
highly expectant laymen and clergymen alike.
Before even beginning, the audience was held in
the palm of his hand; Urban II was well-liked by
most and had already proved himself well worthy
of their admiration. His role in the Church had
begun decades ago as prior to the Abbot of Cluny,
though that is only one of the many titles on his
formidable resume. Pope Gregory VII would
eventually make him Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and
move him to Rome. There, he would serve as friend
and advisor to the Pope, even acting as legate on
his behalf in France and Germany (Runciman 56).
Following the death of Pope Gregory VII, which
Pope Urban II witnessed in person, Pope Victor III
was instated as Bishop of Rome. Urban II was not
quite as fond of this new Pope, though he was quite
fond of Urban II and even recommended him as a
potential successor. He was elected Pope as Urban
II in March of 1 088, and from that moment on fate
was sealed (Runciman 56).
Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire in
Constantinople to the East was experiencing serious
difficulties. After the fall of the Roman Empire, its
two halves were ostracized from each other,
forming intense prejudices between Romans and
Byzantines, deeply rooted in both political and
3

eligious disagreements. (Jones 3). Despite the
nature of the Primacy of Peter which was clearly
in the possession of the Roman Pope, the
Byzantines took it upon themselves to form their
own Church and establish an Antipope, Guibert.
For decades following this decision, the Roman
and Byzantine Empires did not have particularly
amicable relationships. While the Romans were
faced with fending off the Barbarians,
Constantinople had a conflict on their own to
deal with. The Seljuk Turks had been threatening
the Byzantines for some time, and eventually
defeated them ruthlessly at the Battle of
Manzikert in 1 071 (Jones 3). Using this as an
entryway, they then continued to sweep through
the Middle East, eventually reaching and
occupying Jerusalem, the Holy Land. In a crisis
of desperation, Byzantine Emperor Alexius I
Comnenus wrote a letter to Pope Urban II,
pleading for help with the Muslims in Jerusalem.
When Pope Urban had assembled his crowd of
the faithful, they expected the usual messages to
be conferred on - matters of Cluniac reformation
and combatting Church corruption. No one ever
expected him to suggest they answer the call
from the Byzantine Empire (Runciman 56).
Shockingly enough, historians posses no
actual transcript of this incredibly pivotal speech.
At the time, nobody had thought to write it
down. We do, however, have five versions
written by a variety of people, documented a
year or two after its occurrence. The Version of
Robert the Monk is referenced fairly commonly,
as it is believed he may have been present for the
speech (Peters 2). The Gesta version, however, was
one of the earlier ones to be written, therefore many
of the other four used it as a template for theirs. It
was written by an anonymous crusader who likely
was not a witness (Peters 5). Third, there is The
Version of Baldric of Dol. He used the Gesta
version heavily when writing his, therefore the two
are relatively similar (Peters 6). The Version of
Guibert Nogent was penned by a man who most
definitely was present for the speech. He did not
personally partake in the crusade, but was a sort of
amateur historian and very knowledgeable on the
matter (Peters 1 0). Lastly, we have the Fulcher of
Chartres, “the most reliable of sources” (Peters 1 7).
Fulcher was present for the speech and very
involved in multiple aspects of the crusades. He
had personal connections with princes, spoke to
leaders, and followed the crusaders around on their
journeys. Fulcher chronicled the entirety of the
First Crusade, including his own version of Pope
Urban II’s speech (Peters 1 7).
Though each version of Urban’s speech
differs from the other, there are several main points
that Urban makes and uses that appear in all five.
Urban exercises masterful rhetoric in his persuasion
of the crowd through five foolproof steps. In his
opening statement from Robert the Monk, Urban
appealed to the French noblemen in the crowd,
calling them a “race chosen and beloved by God”
(Peters 2). By complementing the Franks, it was
only human nature for them to have been more
inclined to listen.
4

Next, he absolutely barraged his audience
with the terrible atrocities the Muslims were
allegedly committing in their Holy Land. These
examples are numerous, though one of the most
harrowing claims they “circumcise the
Christians, and the blood of the circumcision
they either spread upon the altar or pour into the
vases of the baptismal fonts” (Peters 2). This was
a key factor, as it sparked an intense hatred at the
audacity of the Muslims. It gave the Christians a
reason to not just hate but absolutely despise
them, to feel the duty to stop them from ruining
the land that Jesus himself had lived on.
This second point leads directly to the
third, guilt. Pope Urban II made the audience feel
like it was their own personal responsibility to do
something about the crisis. The Fulcher of
Chartres documented that he bid them, “if you
permit them to do so, God will be much more
widely attacked by them” (Jones 71 ) Though it
may not be clearly apparent, Urban II was very
intentional in his wording. He personally
addressed each member of the audience by
saying “you,” (Jones 71 ) and by saying that God
would be attacked if they did nothing makes it
incredibly difficult not to feel guilty for choosing
to stay behind. “It was shameful that the tomb of
Christ should be in the hands of Islam”
(Armstrong, 1 ), he professed. Lastly, Urban
motivated them with gifts, dangling incentives in
front of their faces like candy. He promised the
crusaders the ability to bypass Purgatory and
make it straight to Heaven, promised them they
would come home as heroes, that land and
wealth would be waiting for them when they
returned. After a speech of this calibre, it was no
surprise that he was met with uproarious support.
Whether or not their perspective on Muslims was
accurate, embellished, or way off, that entire
crowd shared the exact same opinion by the time
Urban II was done. “Deus vult!” They cried,
“God wills it!” (Amstrong 3). The Bishop of
Lupoy stood up in his seat before Urban was
hardly able to finish, declaring that he would join
him and taking up arms, inciting hundreds to
immediately follow his example (Runciman 62).
It is speculated that Pope Urban II had three
main motives supporting his decision to answer
Alexius I Comnenus’ calls, despite their rather
turbulent relationship. Primarily, it was a wise
choice on religious grounds. As mentioned
previously, the Holy Land of Jerusalem, where
Jesus was crucified and resurrected, was under the
control of Seljuk Turks. These people were a
“warrior-like” (Jones 3) tribe that had converted to
Islam, adopting an extremist position of the faith,
essentially forming their own Muslim sect. The
Christians, however, were unaware of this division
within the Muslims, and believed them all to be
part of the newly powerful extremist sect. This
radical group occupied Jerusalem and would attack
anyone who attempted to come visit. Though this
may appear to be simply an unfortunate
inconvenience, it had serious ramifications on the
Christian Church. Up until that point, it had been
common for Christians to go on pilgrimages to the
Holy Land. There, they could visit the grounds that
Jesus himself had tread, strengthening their faith
and returning home spiritually anew. Now, the
Muslims would attack anyone who dared to attempt
and visit, making a pilgrimage incredibly
dangerous and near impossible. Guibert of Nogent
wrote that Urban was distraught to learn
“Christianity was established where now is
paganism” (Peters 1 3). By sending men over to
Jerusalem on an armed pilgrimage (Armstrong 59),
they might “destroy that vile race from the lands of
our friends” (Jones 70) and be able to resume their
safe, nonviolent pilgrimages. (Jones 71 ).
Pope Urban II’s second reasoning had to do
with the long-due reparations needed concerning
the Great Eastern Schism. During the time of
Urban’s papacy, what was left of the Roman
Empire was in shambles. Pope Urban II would
constantly have to deal with the complications the
Eastern Orthodox Church had presented. By
creating a second Church, the Christian Church was
thrown into a period of chaos and confusion, both
Pope and Antipope attempting to assume Peter’s
Primacy. Rome and Constantinople were constantly
at odds, the Byzantine Empire maintaining their air
of superiority as per usual. Pope Urban II realized
how rare the opportunity to amend the broken
5

elationship between the East and West was, and cleverly figured it would be beneficial to continue repairing
things between the two Empires. Urban II recognized the potential of amending Christendom and the
harmony that was meant to exist between pope and Emperor. Additionally, this was Urban II’s chance to
fulfill the desires of his predecessor, Pope Gregory VII. In 1 071 and 1 074, Pope Gregory VII had attempted to
defend the Church “in response to Turkish victories against Byzantium (Armstrong 63). Unfortunately, very
few knights were persuaded to join the Knights of St. Peter, and nothing would ever come of Gregory’s call to
arms. Pope Urban’s “appeal to the knights of Europe twenty years later” (Armstrong 63) would incur an
incredibly different response, allowing him to fulfill Pope Gregory VII’s original plans (Armstrong 63).
Lastly, the people under Pope Urban II’s care had fallen into disarray in every aspect imaginable. The
continent was “torn apart by small wars” (Jones 2), riddled by the petty, now violent arguments of “nobles
with too much time on their hands” (Jones 2). The knights of the Roman Empire had begun to act terribly
hostile towards one another, constantly fighting and making messes all throughout the Empire. Countless
younger siblings who were denied an inheritance by their elder brothers’ and their claims would furiously
attack one another in the streets. Hundreds of unemployed soldiers similarly invented ways to cause trouble,
often forming gangs and infecting the towns with the plight of gang-warfare (Jones 3). Though Pope Urban II
may have lacked the passion of Gregory VII, he was “broad-minded, less obstinate, and more skillful in
handling men” (Runciman 57). Identifying the futile violence spotting up all over the Empire, he realized that
an armed pilgrimage would be the perfect way to send these troublesome men out of the cities, now armed
with a purpose to fuel their violence. It was a wonderfully practical solution (Jones 3).
It is important to note that Urban had specific, practical intentions with his initiations of the crusades.
In fact, he never even used the word to describe his endeavours. Pope Urban II wanted an armed pilgrimage
not vengeful battle, and this is an important distinction. He intended for a group of trained, noble knights to
pick up their arms and travel to the Holy Land on a mission of faith. The goal was never to slaughter Muslims
and destroy them all. He also made it clear in the version of Robert the Monk that it was not necessary for the
poor, any women, the elderly, or untrained to come along, as they would only be a hindrance and burden
(Peters 4). Their goal was simply meant to be to go on a pilgrimage, exercising their right to worship the
Lord. If they had to defend themselves from the Turks, then so be it. Ultimately, however, it was a practical,
logical solution to three problems the Church and Pope Urban II himself had been plagued with for years.
Unfortunately, the execution of Urban’s goal was , to say the least. Whether or not he intended it to be, Pope
Urban II speech at the Council of Clermont was the seed that sprouted two centuries worth of conflict,
beginning with the First Crusade (Peters 2).
Urban delivers his speech during the Council ofClermont
6

7

An Interview with
8
Marlon Miral
Today, we are joined by Pope Urban II, the pious
vicegerent who “transformed the ethos of the
Holy Roman Empire with regard to holy war and
pilgrimage” (Ross 575). This inspiring and Godfearing
figure answers the circulating questions
on his personal life, the Council of Clermont, and
life after the First Crusade.
Q: Pope Urban II, as a child, did you want to
join the religious life or did you have other
aspirations?
A: Well, the Lagèry family doesn’t shy away
from living a luxurious life, keeping in mind that
I come from a family of aristocrats. Interestingly
enough, it was not something I thought about in
school. After studying in Soissons and Reims, I
became fascinated with the Church and it was
only then where I heard God’s calling for me.
Soon after, I became the archdeacon in the
diocese of Reims, where I would assist the
bishop with administration concerns. A couple of
years later, I entered the Cluny Abbey to become
a monk under the influence of Abbot Hugh.
Then, I was sent on a mission to Rome, where I
was appointed as a cardinal by Pope Gregory
VII. Subsequently, I was elected pope by a group
of reform cardinals who were trying to regain
control of Rome from the antipope, Clement III.
Now, I am known as Pope Urban II (Becker
“Urban II”).
Q: Very interesting story. Fast forward a
couple of years and we are taken to the
Council of Clermont. What was discussed at
the Council of Clermont?
A: Twelve archbishops, eighty bishops, and
countless lay men were present with me at the
Council of Clermont (Frankopan 1 ). In the
beginning, we discussed the Muslims’ acts of
transgression in Jerusalem. Christians were being
persecuted by the Muslims and it was our
responsibility as leaders of the Church to start a
movement and take back the Holy Land. Then, I
called upon all Christian knights and nobles across
Europe. I invited them to embark on this pilgrimage
to the Holy Land and promised that their souls
would be cleansed if they chose to partake. Finally,
I appointed Adhemar of Le Puy to lead this crusade
and enkindle the crowd (Cartwright “Council of
Clermont”).
Q: What inspired you to call the First Crusade?
A: Well, there were a number of factors that led me
to call this crusade. I had three main motives that
led me to respond to the calls of Alexius
Comnenus. During this time, Jerusalem was under
the control of the Seljuk Turks. They were
preventing Christians from entering the Holy Land
and inflicting violence on anyone who had dared to
visit. I also wished to repair the Great Eastern
Schism. The Eastern Orthodox Church was in
conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. Two
figures claiming the Primacy of Peter had thrown
the Church into a period of confusion. Calling a
crusade would amend the severed relationship
between the East and West and amend Christendom
once and for all. Finally, I wished to redirect the
spewing violence that was spotting up all over the
Empire. Knights and nobles were beginning to act
hostile with one another, thus calling a pilgrimage
would present a perfect opportunity to cast away
these intemperate men with a real purpose. In
reality, this crusade was a defensive just war rather
than one of despicable intentions (Asbridge 1 6-21 ).
Q: How did you convince so many people to go
on this pilgrimage of yours?
A: In summary, I proclaimed an indulgence for
anyone who participated in the Crusade. Any
crusader who died on this pilgrimage received a
remission of sins and the privilege of bypassing

Pope Urban II
Purgatory (Asbridge 37). I had a group of
scholars come up with the idea that “a campaign
of violence could be justified by references to
particular passages of the Bible and the works of
Saint Augustine of Hippo” (Cartwright “Council
of Clermont”). The objective of this crusade was
liberation and this is what we achieved.
Q: Do you firmly believe that calling a
crusade was the right decision to make? In
other words, if you could go back in time,
would you make the same decision?
A: Yes. As I said before, my intentions were not
to kill any Muslims but rather to reach a peaceful
negotiation. When this was deemed unfeasible, a
crusade to liberate Jerusalem was the next best
option. I intended for a group of trained nobles
and knights to travel to the Holy Land on a
mission of faith. All we ever asked from the
Seljuk Turks was to exercise our right to worship
our Saviour. The violence that erupted was
simply employing self-defence against the Seljuk
Turks. All in all, the results seemed to work in
our favour and that is all that needs to be said.
Q: Describe your relationship with Byzantine
Emperor Alexius Comnenus.
A: To be honest with you, Alexius and I weren’t
on the greatest terms before he asked for my
help. With the whole Great Eastern Schism going
on, the Church was forced into a period of
confusion. Charlemagne’s crowning is what
seemed to evoke some tension. Now, the
Byzantine Emperor had no real connections with
the Church. The creation of the Eastern Orthodox
Church ultimately severed all connections
between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman
Catholic Church (Meyendorff “Eastern
Orthodoxy”). I have to admit that I was quite
surprised to hear from Alexius Comnenus. He
informed me that the Seljuk Turks were
threatening him for quite some time and that the
Holy Land was under Muslim control now. He
asked me to assemble an army of knights and take
back the Holy Land. At this point, I felt compassion
for him and figured it was time to act upon this
request (Runciman 56).
Q: How did you convince so many people to go
on this pilgrimage of yours?
A: In summary, I proclaimed an indulgence for
anyone who participated in the Crusade. Any
crusader who died on this pilgrimage received a
remission of sins and the privilege of bypassing
Purgatory (Asbridge 37). I had a group of scholars
come up with the idea that “a campaign of violence
could be justified by references to particular
passages of the Bible and the works of Saint
Augustine of Hippo” (Cartwright “Council of
Clermont”). The objective of this crusade was
liberation and this is what we achieved.
Q: Do you believe that God looks favourably
upon you considering the decisions you made?
A: You know you’re really testing my patience? As
I mentioned before, I did not wish for any innocent
man to be killed. This was simply an act of defense
against the Seljuk Turks. In Jerusalem, the Jews
were conspiring with the Turks and were standing
in our way of capturing the Holy Land. I’ve spent
my whole life praying for those who persecute me.
I’ve devoted my whole life to God who has
showered me with blessings. If I have done
something that has upset him, that is between us
two. Next question.
Q: You make some outstanding points here. Why
didn’t you ask Henry IV, the Holy Roman
Emperor to assist you in calling this crusade?
9

A: I regret to inform you that the two of us are not on speaking terms. I don’t like to hold grudges but I will
never overlook the fact that he appointed Clement III and convinced him to lay claim to the Primacy of Peter
(Schmale “Henry IV”). He had no right to complete such a heinous maneuver. I proposed the idea of a
religious pilgrimage, therefore I had every right do so without the approval of the Holy Roman Emperor. The
social order of Christendom calls for the Emperor to provide protection for the Church and take care of the
earthly needs of the people. Henry IV failed to reach out and support this religious pilgrimage, which displays
a lack of committment on his part. The only one who can judge him now is the one who presides over us.
Q: Last question. Arguably saving the best for last. Historians have yet to find a complete transcipt of
your inspiring speech at the Council of Clermont. Did you actually start the chant ‘Deus Vult’?
A: I knew this question would be asked. However, my response may not be well received. The truth is that the
details are insignificant. My general message to the audience contained the idea that God wanted us to take
back the Holy Land and that he was counting on us to do so. Maybe a chant of ‘Deus Vult’ did break out.
We’ll never know. The wording is not important but rather the message I had to express. They bore this
common meaning. Anyway, thank you for lovely questions Tempus Magazine. May the blessing of the Lord
be upon you all.
1 0

11

The People's
Crusade: A
Complete Failure
1 2
Julia Banco
After Pope Urban II's sermon at
Clermont, in November 1 095, calling for
Christians to take back the Holy Land held by
the Seljuk Turks (Jones 9). He was expecting a
powerful military force charged by nobles,
knights, and foot soldiers who possessed military
expertise and experience (Madden 39). While
Pope Urban II's speech resulted in a compelling
appeal to nobles and military men to fight, it also
intrigued many serfs, peasants, poor people, and
minor nobles of all ages and sexes (Phillips &
Taylor 46). This was surprising to Urban in
which he advocated that the old, feeble, women
without the consent of their husbands, and clergy
members without the consent of their clergy
should not join, yet they did (Hanawalt 80).
Many people were convinced to join due
to the circulating idea the second coming of
Christ was coming soon. Comets, lunar eclipses,
and meteor showers indicated that it might be
God sending a message. When multitudes of
people began getting ill, many people speculated
that it was God’s displeasure with them. With
Peter the Hermit and Pope Urban II preaching
upon these radical ideas, many people desired a
pilgrimage (Phillips & Taylor 47). Unfortunately,
this was not possible due to the Seljuk Turks
holding the Holy Land of Jerusalem. The Turks
defiled churches and religious landmarks, robbed
and displayed violence towards the Christians
upon them visiting. From their actions, this news
swept throughout Europe and all of Europe was
afraid of the Turks. From these responses, people
like Peter the Hermit preached for peasants and
common people to fight the Turks to rightfully
take Jerusalem back. (Lambert 78). One would not
think this would be influential and that the Turks
brought fear, but due to Peter the Hermit’s ability to
attract large crowds and his evangelical ideas, he
had found himself leading what is known as The
People’s Crusade (Philips and Taylor 46).
Peter the Hermit invited clergymen, sinners,
and serfs on his journey to recapture the Holy Land.
He portrayed Jerusalem as the promised land
“flowing with milk and honey,” as said in the
scriptures. When serfs, peasants, and slaves heard
this they believed they could be liberated from the
starvation and slavery that they were living in
(Lambert 78). This invitation and promise from
Peter the Hermit had over one hundred thousand
people joining him by the end of the crusade
(Williams 41 ). Although Peter had numerous
people to fight the Turks, many of the people who
joined had little to no military experience (Phillips
& Taylor 46). The people who joined the crusade
not only had no experience fighting, but they also
had no armour, weapons, or horses to fight with.
Very few of them knew how to carry a sword, but

Peter thought they could succeed because they
had the weapon of prayer (Williams 39).
Fortunately, he had assembled minor nobles with
some military experience like Walter Sans Avoir
from the Seine Valley (41 ).
Walter Sans Avoir was a tremendous help
in the People’s Crusade and aided militarily. He
was a moderately experienced soldier and
brought eight experienced knights and fifteen
thousand-foot soldiers to the People’s Crusade
(Foss 57). Together they had found themselves
successful in recruiting members throughout
Europe. They began their journey to the Holy
Land on April 1 2, 1 096, both leading a wave of
peasants for the People’s Crusade. Peter began in
Cologne, Germany and Walter left from
Clermont, France. Peter’s plan was to gain more
followers as he continued throughout Germany
and did this by preaching that Jesus had
appointed him to lead the crusade (Philips and
Taylor 46). With the more people that joined and
the supplies running low, the crusaders needed to
acquire more. The only feasible idea in which
they could get supplies was to start stealing from
the Jewish people starting in the Rhineland
(Williams 41 ).
To the Christians, persecuting the Jews
for their money was not a poor plan since they
held many anti-semitic ideas at the time and for
other reasons. One of them was that money
lending was forbidden between Christians and in
order to get resources, they would need to get it
elsewhere. Christians usually entered debt with
Jewish leaders, so instead of borrowing money,
they stole from Jewish communities
(Phillips & Taylor 47). Count Emicho of Leiningen,
a minor noble recruited by Peter, had a heavy
influence on the treatment of the Jewish people
throughout the crusade. He held many anti-semitic
ideas such as the Jews were responsible for the
crucifixion of Christ and spread them throughout
the crowd of the crusaders (Lambert 78). He
claimed to the army that Christ appeared to him and
promised to make him emperor as long as he
converted the Jewish people of Europe. With many
people believing Count Emicho, Count Emicho
commenced a ten-thousand-man army that did not
reach the Holy Land, and instead focused on
carrying out attacks on Jewish communities in
France and Germany (Phillips & Taylor 47).
The first attacks upon the Jews led by Count
Emicho started in Cologne, the same city where
Peter the Hermit’s first wave of the crusade left,
and then the Northern neighbouring cities, Mainz
and Worms. The cruelty put against the Jewish
communities of Cologne, Mainz, and Worms was
relentless, in which the crusaders did not spare
women, children, or the elderly (Frankopan 1 20).
Count Emicho and his ten-thousand-man army
equipped with knives, swords, and clubs charged
towards a small part of Worms called the
“Judengasse” or the “Jew’s Gate.” There they
hacked every Jew in sight, pillaged the town, and
burnt down the Synagogue with Jews inside. When
the crusaders were finished with the city of Worms,
they killed over one thousand Jews in the vicinity
(Williams 42). The Church authorities tried to stop
the crusaders from forcing the Jews to convert and
persecuting them if they refused baptism but were
unsuccessful in aiding them (Phillips & Taylor 47).
While hearing about the forced baptisms,
robberies, and persecutions of the Jewish people in
Cologne and Worms, the Jews in Mainz feared the
peasant army. When they heard the crusaders enter
on May 27th, the Jews in Mainz threw money and
goods into the street so that they would not be
persecuted. Due to the resilience and hatred
towards the Jews, the crusaders removed them from
their homes and murdered them if they refused
baptism into Christianity. The actions from the
crusaders slaughtered over nine hundred Jewish
people in Mainz and the crusaders performed more
1 3

pogroms in Trier, Metz, and Prague. By the end
of the Crusade, over ten thousand Jews were
persecuted by the army of Count Emicho and his
troops. While Peter and his army left the
Rhineland and started to enter Hungary, Count
Emicho and his army wished to carry out attacks
in Hungary (Williams 42). When they were met
with the powerful Hungarian army, they fled
Hungary and Count Emicho turned back and
headed to Swabia (Lambert 78).
While Peter’s army was just leaving the
Rhineland, Walter’s group caught up with them
in Odenberg. As the massive army of people of
all ages and classes collided, they started to get
impatient, hungry, and tired. As they were close
to the Byzantine Empire, Peter the Hermit got
Walter Sans Avoir to lead five thousand others as
an advance group to Belgrade for supplies. When
Walter arrived in Belgrade, the Byzantine was
surprised to see peasants, pilgrims, and minor
nobles coming to fight the Turks. When Walter
and his army asked for food and supplies,
Belgrade was not prepared to give the army
supplies, because it was not harvest season, and
they were not expecting to be a provider to any
army (Williams 43). When Belgrade tells the
advance group that they cannot accommodate
them and deny them entry into the city, the army
immediately gets enraged (Phillips & Taylor 46).
The French crusaders started ravaging the
countryside of Belgrade after the city refused
them entry and passageway into the city. When
Belgrade heard about the violence against their
farmers and the theft in the countryside, they sent
troops to solve the issues. The experienced
Belgrade army captures one hundred and fifty
crusaders and burns them in a church as a
punishment for the destruction of the Belgrade
countryside (Williams 43). While Walter’s advance
army finished receiving some minor setbacks, they
headed for Sofia as Peter’s army reached Nish and
was waiting for Byzantine troop escort to
Constantinople. Peter’s second wave of the Crusade
was also approaching near as they had left Cologne
on April 20th and followed the same route as
Walter Sans Avoir’s army (Phillips & Taylor 46).
As the second wave reached Belgrade, they see the
armour of Walter’s army and panic. The second
wave attacked villagers and came across the
Hungarian Army while doing so (Williams 44). The
second wave performed attacks on the Hungarians
and villagers, and they killed five thousand
Hungarians and four thousand villagers in the
progress. This was the unfortunate first success for
the People’s Crusade, who won but against other
Christians and not against the Turks who they were
hoping to overthrow. The second wave then set the
town on fire and marched on to Nish, where the rest
of the army was waiting (Williams 44; Phillips &
Taylor 46).
The second wave of the People’s Crusade
arrived at Nish on July 3rd after their misadventure
in Belgrade. Peter’s army arrived before them and
managed to convince the garrison commander to let
1 4
The People's Crusade arrives at the gates
ofConstantinople (colourized)

"The
crusaders
were able to
recover"
them through the city and receive an escort to
Constantinople (47). All was going well until the
German crusaders and villagers began fighting
and the Germans set fire to houses and stole
livestock (Williams 44). The garrison
commander, who had already warned the
crusaders to get through the town quickly, sent
the full experienced army of Nish to chase after
the crusaders (Phillips & Taylor 47). The army
quickly attacked the arsonists and thieves, as the
townspeople started to join in. A large amount of
the crusader army was killed, racking up a total
of five thousand crusader deaths and fifteen
thousand villager deaths in Nish (Williams 44).
Fortunately, the crusaders were able to recover
and arrived in Sofia on July 1 2th and awaited
military escorts to Constantinople (Phillips &
Taylor 47).
With escorts from Sofia, the army of the
People’s Crusade arrived in Constantinople on
August 1 st, 1 096. Although there was a
widespread group of people, one-fourth of the
army had been killed or taken into slavery. With
the number of deaths seen during the Crusade,
many people left leaving very few able people to
fight (Williams 44). When Alexius heard the
state of the army, he was in disbelief as he
expected experienced troops. Instead, the army
of peasants expected to be given assistance and
demanded to be fed by the city. After
experiencing the neediness of Peter and his
crusaders, Alexius denied them entrance into the
city and made them camp outside of the walls of
Constantinople (Phillips & Taylor 50). As it was
clear the army was getting impatient in wanting
to go to Jerusalem, Alexius gave the advice that
the army should wait for reinforcements of the
Papal Crusade to take them under their wing, but
Peter would not listen. Even after Alexius had
offered them camp and food outside of
Constantinople, they were hesitant. Instead of
taking up Alexius on his offer, the crusaders
decided to break into Constantinople, steal from the
people and churches, and cause chaos during the
night (Williams 46).
In the morning, Alexius sees the destruction
to Constantinople and sends the crusaders on their
way across the Bosphorus River and into Anatolia
(Williams 47). As they left, Alexius warned them to
stay clear of the Turks for they would wipe out the
whole army of crusaders if they tried to battle them
(Phillips & Taylor 47). As the army entered
Anatolia on August 6th, 1 096, five days after
arriving in Constantinople, some of the crusaders
came across the suburbs of Nicea. The army of
crusaders were running low on supplies; therefore,
the group robbed the suburbs of Nicea and killed
many people in the city. Hoping to create peace,
Alexius sends the crusaders supplies and food to
stop the robberies in Nicea (Williams 47). Instead
of stopping the raids in and around Nicea, the
crusaders rebelled by abusing old people, killing
children, and then roasting them over a fire. The
influence to act so cruelly came from the Italians,
who joined and pillaged towns with the army. The
Italians seemed to help in which they aided in
establishing a camp in Civetot, but due to their
aggression, many fights happened between them
and the crusaders (Phillips & Taylor 50).
After the raids of Nicea, the army of the
People’s Crusade spread and broke up throughout
Anatolia. The main reason for this happening was
due to there being a lack of a powerful leader and
the poor organization of the crusade. Walter and
Peter’s armies split up during the time they would
meet their final battle against the Seljuk Turks
(Madden 37). As a group of mainly German and
Frankish crusaders made their way through
Anatolia, they received word that the Turks were
holding the city of Xerigordon and immediately
went there to fight them (Phillips & Taylor 50).
King Kilij Aslan, the ruler of Anatolia, had heard
about the crusader invasions at Nicea and decided
1 5

to cut off all water and supplies running to Xerigordon. This forced the crusaders to eat and drink their own
blood, urine, and feces due to the lack of supplies. As the Turks heard about an army throughout Anatolia
going to Xerigordon to fight them, the Turkish army immediately arrived expecting a mighty army (Williams
47). When the Turks arrived in Xerigordon, the Turks rapidly started massacring the weak army. After a short
period of eight days, the army of the People’s Crusade, who was originally eager to fight them, hung a white
flag, calling for a truce. After surrendering, the army would have to either convert to Islam, become a martyr,
or become a slave (Phillips & Taylor 50).
In any other battle, the remaining army and back up troops would have returned homeward after
calling a truce. Due to the ignorance of the surviving army that did not receive attacks at Xerigordon, the
Seljuk Turks decided to outwit the rest of the army. The Turks set up spies at the camp in Civetot and spread
the lie that the Germans and Franks had conquered Xerigordon and had taken Nicea as well. The enthusiastic
army quickly headed to Nicea, where they were hoping to share the wealth among each other. The crusaders
were so exhilarated that they went completely unprepared with no armour. During this time, Peter the Hermit
left to go to Constantinople, to negotiate for supplies upon their new wealth of Xerigordon and Nicea.
Fortunately, for Peter the Hermit, he missed the complete end to the People’s Crusade (50).
On October 21 st, 1 096, the crusaders heading to Nicea from Civetot were attacked by the Turkish
army five kilometres away from the camp (50). The Turks showed no mercy while killing infants, monks, and
priests. The weak were slaughtered, and the Turks walked with the rest who could go into slavery. Young
women, supplies, and animals were walked to Nicea, where the women and supplies could be sold (Madden
1 23). After the harsh battle, only three thousand managed to survive the brutality of the Turks out of twenty
thousand people. One of the twenty thousand victims included Walter Sans Avoir, who died while in battle.
The remaining survivors took refuge in a fortress by the sea until they were rescued by the Byzantine army in
Constantinople (Williams 48). Those who made their way back to Constantinople recovered and joined with
other armies following them until the Siege of Antioch (Phillips & Taylor 69). Peter the Hermit, without the
help of Walter Sans Avoir’s military aid, joined the official Crusade and charged the peasant militia, marking
the end of the People’s Crusade (Williams 48).
Secret drawing found in monk manuscripts attached to stories ofthe People's Crusade, some
say the faces ofseveral ofthe monks resemble the writers ofthis magazine!
1 6

The Arrival at
Constantinople
Less than three months after the arrival,
and subsequent speedy departure, of the People’s
Crusade, the city of Constantinople hosted
another group of crusaders, albeit this group
being of a somewhat more professional nature.
The Prince’s Crusade, as the more successful
portion of the First Crusade would come to be
called, was composed mainly of noblemen from
Europe who had heard the cry of “Deus Vult”
from Pope Urban II. This crusade was made up
of five different armies that travelled to
Constantinople separately (Phillips 52), and was
lead by noblemen of various stature and military
experience, unlike the People’s Crusade. The
most prominent among these noblemen, and the
ones who lead the largest contingents of forces,
were Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond of
Taranto, Raymond of Toulouse, Duke Robert of
Normandy, and Hugh of Vermandois. Alexios I,
the Byzantine Emperor and the man who had
requested the help of the Western Church against
the Muslims, would have to use manipulation
and flattery to ensure that these Crusaders would
attack their intended targets, and return the
conquered Muslim land back to the Byzantines
(Runciman 93).
Alexios I Comnenus was the Byzantine
Emperor from 1 081 to 111 8. During this time he
would fight wars against both the West, in the
form of the Norman’s in 1 081 -82 (Phillips 38),
and the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia, who had
conquered swathes of Byzantine territory in
Anatolia in the decades prior. He had gained the
throne after a coup against the prior Emperor
Nicephorus III, using his skills of political
espionage to turn the Byzantine aristocracy
against Nicephorus. When the empire of Malik
Shah, ruler of territory spanning from Palestine
Cole Canofari
to Iraq, collapsed following his death in 1 092
(Phillips 38), Alexios would seize the
opportunity and call for help from the West to
take back the former Byzantine holdings in the
East. When the Prince’s Crusade arrived in
Constantinople, Alexios had the memory of the
disastrous People’s Crusade fresh in his mind
and the minds of the people of Constantinople,
and because of this, he was suspicious of the true
motives of the newly arrived Crusaders (Phillips
54). His suspicions were motivated by the reports
of the Crusaders talking openly about capturing
Jerusalem for the Western Christians. This was
worrying to the Alexios as the Byzantines still
laid claim to the city as they were the last
Christian realms to hold it. Bohemond of Taranto
had also been at war with Alexios only a few
short decades earlier along with his father,
Robert Guiscard. Motivated by this, Alexios
decided to ensure that the Crusaders would
return the Byzantine territory by having their
leaders swear an oath to do so upon their armies
arrivals in Constantinople (Runciman 93).
Hugh of Vermandois’ army was the first
to arrive in Constantinople, entering the city in
November of 1 096 (Phillips 52), escorted by a
troop of Byzantines. Hugh was the highest
ranking of the Crusader leaders, as he was the
1 7

1 8
brother of King Philip the First of France,
making him a prince of a prominent royal house
in Europe. Hugh is notable amongst the Crusader
leaders for his massive ego, on account of his
royal birth. Anna Comnena, who was the
daughter of Alexios and had extensively
documented her father's reign, including the
accounts of the Crusaders in Constantinople,
wrote of Hugh sending a letter to Alexios that
showcased his massive ego, “Be advised, O
Emperor, that I am the King of kings, highestranking
of all beneath the sky. My will is that
you should attend me upon my arrival and give
me the magnificent welcome that is fitting for a
visitor of the noblest birth” (Phillips 52). Hugh
travelled to Constantinople through Italy to the
port of Bari on the Adriatic, being joined on the
way by soldiers that had been under the
command of Count Emicho. When he set sail
across the Adriatic, his army became
shipwrecked in what is now Albania and had to
be rescued by the Byzantine governor of the
province (Phillips 52). He was then escorted to
Constantinople by Byzantine troops and arrived
in November of 1 096.
Godfrey of Bouillon’s contingent of the
Crusade was the second army to arrive in
Constantinople in late December of 1 096 (Phillip
52) and camped outside the walls of
Constantinople. Godfrey was accompanied by
his brothers Baldwin and Eustace III, and about
forty thousand soldiers. This army took a similar
route to the People’s Crusade, an idea that might
not have been the best considering the out of
control looting and pillaging that had been done
by the People’s Crusade in the regions they
travelled through. Godfrey marched through
Hungary and then into the Byzantine Empire by
way of Belgrade and then through Sofia and
present-day Edirne to Constantinople.
The third army to arrive in
Constantinople was lead by Bohemond of
Taranto, with his nephew Tancred joining him.
Bohemond is one of the stranger cases of
someone joining the Crusades, as he had just
previously been at war against Alexius on the
side of Bohemond's father, Norman Robert
Guiscard (Phillips 52). Bohemond was not one of
the nobles in attendance at the Council of
Clermont, and therefore was not one of the those
who had uttered the cries of “Deus Vult” following
the speech of Pope Urban II. He had heard about
the Crusade from a group of knights who were
travelling to the Holy Land whilst he was dealing
with a rebellious town in southern Italy. Upon
hearing of the purpose of the crusading knight's
journey, Bohemond decided to take up the cross
and join the Crusade, setting sail for Constantinople
in October of 1 096. They landed in Albania and
then marched the rest of the distance, marching the
rest of the distance to the city, arriving on the 9 of
April 1 097 (Runciman 1 07).
The fourth army that arrived was led by
Raymond of Toulouse, a French nobleman.
Raymond was present at the Council of Clermont
and was one of the first noblemen to join the
crusades following the speech made by Urban the
II. Raymond had experience fighting the Muslims,
as he had taken part in several wars against the
Moors in Spain (Runciman 1 08). Raymond, on
account of his personal experience with Muslims
and military history, was the favourite for the
commander of the lay people of the Crusade and its
military forces (Runciman 11 0). Pope Urban II
wanted to ensure that the Crusade was kept under
spiritual guidance, however, and had made no
concrete promises to Raymond, would appoint the
Bishop of Le Puy, Adhemar, to lead it (Runciman
11 0). Raymond is known for being one of the most
reliable and honest members of the Crusade,

managing to impress even the Byzantines
(Runciman 11 0). His army left for
Constantinople in October of 1 096, and travelled
the overland route through Northern Italy and the
Balkans, arriving in Constantinople on the 21 of
April 1 097.
The fifth army to arrive in the imperial
capital was under the joint command of three
nobles; Robert Duke of Normandy, his brotherin-law
Stephen Count of Blois, and his cousin
Robert the Second Count of Flanders. This army
had its origins in northern France and departed
for the Byzantine capital in October 1 096
(Runciman 11 4). Robert of Normandy, the man
whose forces formed the majority of the fifth
army, was the eldest son of William the
Conqueror. In accordance with his family’s
martial tradition, ever since William’s death,
Robert had been at war with his brother William
Rufus. William Rufus had invaded Normandy
several times, but, following Urban’s speech at
Clermont, Robert had somewhat of a spiritual
epiphany (Runciman 11 4). After this epiphany,
he pledged himself to the service of the Crusade
and the Pope, in return, acted as a mediator
between Robert and his brother, ending their
conflict. Stephen, the Count of Blois, was only
forced into the Crusade by the persistence of his
wife, Adela, the daughter of William the
Conqueror. Among his party was the future
historian Fulcher of Chartres. Robert the Second,
Count of Flanders, was the son of the pious
Robert I, who had made the pilgrimage to
Jerusalem himself in 1 086 (Runciman 11 4). On
the return trip from his pilgrimage, Robert I
enlisted in the army of Alexius for several years
and maintained contact with the Emperor until
his death in 1 093. Because of these personal
connections, both with the Holy Land and the
Byzantine Emperor, it can only be viewed as a
natural step in Roberts life that he takes up the
cross and help out his father's old friend.
Alexius viewed all of these Crusading
army’s with distrust after the misbehaviour of the
People’s Crusade inside Byzantine territory and
knew that he had to get the leaders to swear an
oath of fealty, or at the very least respect, to him
and his property. Alexius was not a simpleton and
knew that while the purpose of the Crusade was
outwardly to protect the vulnerable Christian
pilgrims, the real reason was for the nobles to gain
territory and wealth in the Middle East and did not
object to this, so long as the world recognized who
was the overall sovereign of those lands (Runciman
11 4). Dealing with some of these leaders, such as
Hugh, would prove to be simple affairs, but others,
like Godfrey and Bohemond, would require use
skills of manipulation and cunning, and generous
amounts of gold from the imperial treasury.
Hugh of Vermandois, for all of his demands
for pomp and ceremony and the deference of the
Emperor to him upon his arrival, presented the least
difficult of the Crusaders to convince to swear the
oath of fealty. When Hugh arrived, Alexius dazzled
him with the splendour of the Imperial capital, and
with Alexius’ own wealth. Alexius then showered
gifts of gold and valuables upon Hugh, who went
on to swear the oath of fealty with no hesitation and
was soon spirited across the Bosphorus to Anatolia.
Godfrey would prove to be a much tougher
nut to crack for Alexius. While making his way to
Byzantine territory through the Holy Roman
Empire and Hungary, he had kept tight control over
his army (Runciman 96), declaring that any act of
looting was punishable was death. The initial
journey through Byzantine territory also went
without incident, but as word was received of
Hugh’s pseudo captivity in the capital, Godfrey
grew worried about what was to await him.
Following this, when Godfrey’s army arrived in the
coastal town of Selymbria on the Sea of Marmora,
its long maintained discipline seemed to shatter,and
an 8-day spell of rioting and looting of the
countryside occurred (Runciman 96). This was
excused by Godfrey as retaliation for the captivity
of Hugh, and Alexius responded by sending out
envoys to persuade Godfrey to maintain discipline
and continue his journey in peace. Godfrey
acquiesced, and the army marched towards
Constantinople. Upon its arrival in the city,Alexius
immediately sent out Hugh, who had not yet left, in
order to summon Godfrey to see the Emperor. To
almost everyone's surprise, Godfrey refused the
summons. Godfrey had made contact with the
1 9

20
remnants of the People’s Crusade, who had
blamed its failure on the Empire, and he was
furthermore troubled by Hugh’s attitude, and he
wished to wait and consult with the other leaders
of the Crusading armies before making any
commitments. Alexius was insulted by this and
decided to force Godfrey to come to terms by
cutting off the supplies that were going to his
men from the city. Following this blockade,
Baldwin began raiding the suburbs of the city
almost immediately (Runciman 98). Alexius
relented in his blockade after giving assurances
that Godfrey’s army would be kept supplied so
long as discipline was maintained and it was
moved to Pera, which was a location in which
imperial forces could keep a closer watch on the
activities of the army. This status quo was
maintained for some time (Runciman 99) until
Alexius found out that the other Crusaders were
soon approaching the city. He then decided that
the situation had to be resolved quickly, or he
would find himself with a formidable force of
well-equipped soldiers outside the gates of his
capital, and so began to slowly decrease the
supplies going to the Crusaders. This angered
Godfrey, who assembled his army and began to
attack the gate to the palace quarter of
Constantinople on April 2, the Thursday of Holy
Week. Alexius was shocked by this, as he
considered fighting on such a day to be an insult
against God. As he wished for no bloodshed, he
ordered a number of imperial legions to make a
demonstration, but no attack the Crusaders,
outside of the walls. These legions were to be
covered by archers along the wall, who were
ordered to fire over the Crusaders heads. The
Crusaders, after a brief skirmish that left seven
imperial troops dead (Runciman 1 00), called off
the attack and retired. Alexius sent Hugh out
again, but this only lead Godfrey to insult him
and call him a puppet of the Emperor. Alexius
had grown tired of this struggle and sent out
envoys with the news that he would transport
Godfrey over the Bosphorus without him
swearing the oath, but this attempt was thwarted
when the Crusaders attacked the envoys without
hearing them out first (Runciman 1 00). Alexius
was angry at this point and countered the attack
with some of his most seasoned imperial troops,
who were more than a match for the Crusaders.
After this, Godfrey finally agreed to swear the oath,
along with Baldwin, and after doing so was swiftly
transported across the Bosphorus and away from
Constantinople on Easter Sunday.
Bohemond was the major Crusader leader to
arrive in the city after an uneventful trip through
Byzantine territory, which was the result of his
informing his troops that they were passing through
Christian towns. Bohemond also made sure to keep
strict control of his troops in order to maintain good
relations with the Emperor so that he might be
granted favours down the road from Imperial
sources. When Bohemond arrived in
Constantinople, Alexius immediately recognized
him as the most dangerous of the Crusader leaders.
He had learned from experience of the Normans
prowess in battle, particularly Bohemond’s, and
was warned by his daughter of Bohemond’s skills
in manipulation and his political acumen
(Runciman 1 07) Even though she knew of
Bohemond’s danger, Anna Comnena could not help
but be impressed with his good looks, saying that
he had the physique of a young man, and wrote of
his hairstyle and facial features (Runciman 1 07).
Upon talking to the Emperor, Bohemond
immediately swore the oath, as he knew just how
vital the Byzantines were to the Crusaders’ cause,
and also wished to gain more power as the imperial
legate to the Crusade. After being denied this
position, he was spirited across the Bosphorus by
Alexius on April 9, the same day that Raymond's
force arrived in the city.
Raymond’s journey was fringed with
conflict with the Byzantines, as his army was not
very disciplined and resented the watchful eye of
their imperial escort. Upon arrival at Thrace, which
only a week later had been visited by Bohemond’s
troops, they were dismayed to find there was no
food available. Indignant with this, they began
shouting cries of “Toulouse, Toulouse” (Runciman
111 ) and forced entry into the town, where they
looted houses and markets. Alexius sent an envoy
to Raymond, urging him to come to the capital,
which Raymond obliged. After his departure, his

army grew more restless and continued looting until they were decisively defeated by an imperial garrison
stationed nearby. Raymond was pleased to arrive in Constantinople and asked to see the Emperor at once.
Once he learned of the requirement to swear the oath of fealty to the Emperor, and how it would mean
obeying Bohemond if Bohemond was made imperial legate, Raymond was put off from swearing it. He
refused to swear the oath, saying that God had driven him to come to the Holy Land and therefore God was
his only lord (Runciman 11 3). His other Crusader leaders were dismayed with this and begged him to take the
oath. Raymond eventually relented, but he only agreed to swear a modified version, that promised that
Raymond would respect the life and honour of the Emperor and his property. After this issue was resolved, his
army was transported across the Bosphorus, however, Raymond stayed at the imperial court to talk with
Alexius, who had become a fast friend of Raymonds after Alexius realized that Raymond had no intention of
breaking his oath.
The final army to pass through Constantinople was that of Stephen of Blois and Robert the Second,
and this happened without incident. Stephen would later write of the Emperor's generosity towards himself
and his army. Stephen and Robert swore the oaths almost immediately and were swiftly transported across the
Bosphorus to join the rest of the Crusaders.
Once this was done, Alexius could breathe again without worrying whether the Crusader would decide
to attack their host, and he no longer had to provide food or supplies to them. He had achieved his goal of
having all of the leaders swear the oath of fealty, except for Raymond, but Alexius was still satisfied with the
promise Raymond had made. He fulfilled his desire to have an army come to fight his closest enemies, the
Seljuks in Anatolia. Because of all of this, he was satisfied with what he had done. The Crusaders were happy
as well, as they were one step closer on their road to the Holy Land and on their pilgrimage, but before they
could make it to the Levant, the historic walls of Nicea lay in their path.
21

Don't miss out on next
week's episode of Bayulock
where Bayulock
meets his greatest foe yet,
heresies!
Allanah Hardson is in for some
hardy mysteries in this
brand new season ofBayulock
22
Official sponsor of MNN

Raymond of
Toulouse:
A Profile
Mika Colonia
Raymond IV, better known as the Count
of Toulouse, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, or
Raymond I of Tripoli, was a man of numerous
heroic achievements and great nobility. He was
born approximately 1 041 in southern France to
his mother Almodis, daughter of Bernard, the
Count of the March in Limousin, and his father,
Pons, the Count of Toulouse. He had two other
brothers, William IV of Toulouse and Hugh, and
a sister named Almodis after their mother.
Almodis was Pons’ third wife but she had left
him approximately in 1 051 for Raymond-
Berengar, Count of Barcelona, who became
Almodis’ third husband. Raymond remained with
his father and siblings in France (Hill and Hill 2,
6-7).
Raymond IV had inherited the county of
Toulouse through his bloodline. Frankish in
origin, the House of Toulouse was subject to
Frankish custom, in which property was passed
down from father to eldest son. The men of the
House of Toulouse were powerful nobles
because of their Frankish ancestry. In a time
when there were many political conflicts in the
surrounding nations and when France was
lacking a strong leader, the people depended on
the House of Toulouse and the provincial church
for guidance (Hill and Hill 5-6). When Pons
died, Raymond received one-half of the
bishopric in Nimes, one-half of the abbey in
Saint-Gilles, the castle of Tarascon, and the land
of Argence through his elder brother William,
though Raymond’s property would grow in size
later on by 1 093 when he became the Count of
Painting ofRaymond ofToulouse
Toulouse. It is speculated that Raymond had come
to adopt the title “Count of Saint-Gilles” through
his inheritance of the abbey in Saint-Gilles (7). His
bloodline would make him “southern France’s
richest and most powerful secular lord” during the
First Crusade (Asbridge, The Crusades 35).
The Count of Toulouse was seen as
“commendable in all things, a valiant knight, and a
devout servant of God” (Hill and Hill 4). In his
youth, Raymond was known to be “brighter than
his older brother” and had excelled in combat while
his brother did not (7). The man had strong military
campaign initiatives and had a fierce campaign
against the Moors of Iberia before the First Crusade
(Asbridge, The Crusades 43). But of the given
personality traits, Raymond was well-known for his
piety. Though he may have supported simony prior
to the First Crusade, Raymond supported the
reform of the papacy initiated by Pope Gregory VII
in his later years and was also close allies with
Bishop Adhemar Le Puy, Pope Urban II’s legate,
during the crusade (Hill and Hill 20). Additionally,
he lost one of his eyes while on a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem because he had refused to pay a Muslim
tax on Latin pilgrims (Asbridge, The Crusades 43-
44). Raymond was also known to pray to Saint
Robert, his favourite saint, in times of need, such as
when he prayed for success before setting off for
the First Crusade and when he wanted to know if he
was to inherit the county of Toulouse (Hill and Hill
3, 1 9). These given instances are just a few of many
other illustrations of Raymond’s deep religious
faith.
23

24
While he may have been devout and
praiseworthy, Raymond of Toulouse was a man
of contradicting personalities. Some accounts
remember him as “greedy, superstitious, [or
short-tempered]” (Hill and Hill 4). For many
during the First Crusade, the good qualities about
him were not enough to excuse him from the
thought that he was prideful (Krey 71 ). These
qualities of Raymond were evident during the
First Crusade as he did not get along well with a
number of the crusade leaders. For one, he had
an ongoing feud and struggle for power with
Bohemond of Taranto. Additionally, when
Godfrey of Bouillon became the designated ruler
of Jerusalem after its conquest and ordered
Raymond to leave the Tower of David, Raymond
was especially angry and left Jerusalem for
Jericho (Williams 55, 93).
Raymond also had an affinity for women.
Like his father, he had three wives leading up to
the First Crusade, though his first wife was his
first cousin. His third wife, Elvira, who was the
illegitimate daughter of Spanish king Alfonso VI,
would accompany him on his journey to the Holy
Land (Williams 54-55; Phillips 53). He had a
son, Bertrand, with his second wife Matilda of
Sicily, and another named Alphonse-Jourdain
with Elvira. He was excommunicated twice by
Pope Gregory VII for his first forbidden
marriage. Though he may have liked women
more than he should have, Raymond’s steadfast
devotion to God outshone his promiscuity for he
left his first wife “as a result of the second
excommunication” and would stay faithful to
Elvira, his last wife (Hill and Hill 1 3).
By the time that the First Crusade was
called by Pope Urban II, Raymond was fifty-six.
He was the oldest Crusade leader. Expecting to
die soon due to his age, Raymond had accepted
the pope’s call in order to die in the Holy Land
and was also the first to accept the call (Williams
54; Asbridge, The Crusades 43). This, along with
his piety, meant that he could not swear loyalty
to Byzantine Emperor Alexius unlike the rest of
the crusade leaders as he had already declared
the pope as his overlord. However, Alexius
commended Raymond’s spirituality and allowed
him to swear a modified declaration to respect the
life and goods of the Byzantine Emperor, and this
began a friendship between the two (Williams 59).
Raymond had conquered or established
diplomacy in numerous regions in his route to the
Holy Land. His diplomacy was shown to have its
benefits during the First Crusade. The Muslims at
Ascalon surrendered only to the Count of Toulouse
as a result of him keeping his end of a deal he made
with Iftikhar al-Dawla during the siege of
Jerusalem, which was to let the Fatimid governor
surrender in exchange for treasure and the Tower of
David (Phillips 83). Despite this, Raymond did not
have an established territory outside of his native
land unlike Baldwin of Boulogne, Bohemond, and
Godfrey after the crusade (Hill and Hill 1 43). In his
search for one, the feud between him and
Bohemond that was prominent during the crusade
continued afterwards in the form of territorial
disputes. When he found Bohemond attempting to
claim the port city of Latakia from Byzantine rule
in 1 099, Raymond supposedly challenged and
threatened to attack him if he was not let into the
city. The quarrels posed an obstacle for the Count
of Toulouse in finding an eastern territory to call his
own even though he ultimately took over Latakia
(1 45).
Before Raymond could continue with
establishing his own eastern territory, he
participated alongside his past comrade Stephen of
Blois in the Crusade of 11 01 , called by Pope
Paschal II in order to strengthen the crusader states.
Raymond was looked to by Alexius to “aid him in
handling the unruly [incoming crusaders]” (Hill and
Hill 1 47) as they approached Constantinople, and
was later chosen as a leader and advisor for the
newcomers. Appreciative of his help, Alexius gave
him a five hundred-man Byzantine army to lead in
addition to whatever remained of Raymond’s
provincial army from the First Crusade for this
crusade. The Count of Toulouse led this new wave
of crusaders through the route that he and the First
Crusade leaders originally took, but the advice that
he and Stephen of Blois gave to the Christian army
was largely ignored. This was due to the original
intent of this crusade becoming forgotten when the

crusaders discovered that Bohemond was
imprisoned by the Turkish (1 48). Desperate to
save the Norman hero, the Christian army met its
downfall at the Battle of Mersivan in August
11 01 , where a combined Muslim army of various
Turkish leaders attacked the crusading army.
With this concentrated force of Muslim power on
the crusaders, many of the crusaders fled; even
Raymond’s army abandoned the fight, leaving
the Count to take refuge from the battle on a rock
where he would later be saved by Stephen of
Blois (1 49). The Battle of Mersivan ended with a
heavy and humiliating Christian loss.
Afterwards, Raymond fled for Constantinople.
This encouraged many others to flee as well and
simultaneously left behind the Holy Lance that
was brought for morale and a large number of
non-combatant pilgrims to be part of the Muslim
slave market (Setton 357).
Raymond joined the crusaders once again
at the beginning of 11 02 by sailing from
Constantinople to St. Simeon. However, his ship
had strayed and he was captured by Bernard the
Stranger at the port of Tarsus where he was then
brought to Tancred at Antioch for imprisonment.
The reasoning for this was Raymond’s “betray[al
of] his comrades to the Turks” (Setton 363) at the
Battle of Mersivan, but he was later released on
the grounds that he would not go and attack the
territories between Antioch and Acre. The
crusaders would go on to successfully siege the
city Tortosa, which would come to be under
Raymond’s care as he remained there for the rest
of the crusade. Tortosa became Raymond’s base
of operations, and this would play a significant
role in creating the beginnings of his future
county of Tripoli (363). The other crusaders
made it to Jerusalem in April of 11 02. Though
this small group of crusaders made it to their
final destination, the Crusade of 11 01 was
considered an ultimate failure on the account of
thousands of Christians dying, fleeing from
battle, or becoming slaves for the Muslims (365).
It was after this crusade that Raymond
began to become fully invested in claiming
Tripoli. He spent the next three years which were
subsequently his last years of life establishing the
Crusader state of Tripoli and building his castle,
called Mount Pilgrim, outside of the city. The castle
was completed 11 03 and was made with the
purpose of being a “refuge for pilgrims and a
[stronghold] against M[u]sl[i]ms” (Hill and Hill
1 55). Raymond also donated several grants to
various abbeys and churches in that year and
attempted to conquer towns within the area as he
had failed to take over Tripoli several times (1 54,
1 55). He would continue doing these actions until
the last year of his life.
There are differing accounts of what
happened in the last months of Raymond’s life.
Some write that Raymond was trapped in a burning
house and died as a result of his injuries during a
Tripolitan raid on Mount Pilgrim in the Autumn of
11 04, while others do not indicate this (Hill and
Hill 1 56). However, it is accepted that Raymond
sustained injuries due to this raid and lived for
another five months. In the month before his death,
Raymond further donated, this time donating land
to the Church of Arles. Furthermore, he ordered a
former prior of Chaise-Dieu to return the cup of
Saint Robert to the monastery which he took with
him to the east as a good-luck charm (1 57).
It was on February 28, 11 05 that the Count
of Toulouse died within the walls of Mount Pilgrim.
His final resting place differs from each account as
well, as it is believed that his body was taken back
to southern France or buried at Jerusalem or Mount
Pilgrim (Hill and Hill 1 57). After Raymond’s death,
Baldwin claimed Tripoli as his own. As he had
captured Edessa during the crusade and took over
Godfrey’s position as Defender of the Holy
Sepulchre in Jerusalem after his death, this made
Baldwin ruler of three of the four existing Crusader
states. Raymond’s eldest son Bertrand, who became
the next count of Toulouse and had inherited his
lands in France, became the count of Tripoli as
Baldwin’s vassal (Asbridge, The Creation of the
Principality of Antioch 11 5). Ultimately, Raymond
of Toulouse was a man unliked by his comrades,
but also a man of great faith and respectable
military leadership. May his legacy as a leader of
the First Crusade live on.
25

The Siege of Nicea
26
Cole Canofari
After all of the Crusader’s armies had
been transported over the Bosphorus by Alexios,
they stood at about 60000 fighting men strong
(Madden 56). This amount was augmented by the
remnants of the People’s Crusade that had
managed to survive the disastrous campaign, and
also by a 2000 man strong Byzantine contingent
led by Taticius, a seasoned Byzantine general
(Runciman 1 20). Even though the end goals of
the Crusaders were suspicious, with Alexios
being wary of the Crusader’s stated aim of
simply reconquering the Holy Land, the first step
for the army was clear. The city of Nicea had to
fall (Runciman 1 20).
Nicea was an ancient city, close to the
coast of the Marmara sea. It lay on the far eastern
bank of what is today Lake Iznik, which would
become quite an important factor during the
siege. Nicea held immense significance in the
mind of Christendom as it was the site of the
Council of Nicea, which was where the Nicene
Creed, the Church’s statement of doctrinal
beliefs, had originated and first been proclaimed
(Madden 56). The Council of Nicea had also
been where the Arian heresy of early
Christendom had been debunked, and according
to legend, where the future Saint Nicholas
slapped Arius in the face.
Nicea was also quite important in the
mind of Alexius and the Byzantine Empire. The
city had been part of the Roman, and later
Byzantine, Empire for over a millennium
(Madden 56), and had served as an important
administrative center and transportation hub for
the Anatolian part of the Empire. Nicea had
fallen to the Seljuk Turks just a few decades prior
to the Crusade, in 1 077 (Madden 56) and so
Alexius had a strong desire to retake such an
important part of his territory. The populace of
rhe city, interestingly, were majority-Greek
speaking Christians, and so sympathized heavily
with the Crusader’s as the people saw them as their
chance to get out from under the foot of the Sultan
of Rum, Kilij Arslan (Runciman 1 23).
Kilij Arslan was the ruler of the Sultanate of
Rum, a Turkish state who ruled over swathes of
former Byzantine territory that they had conquered
from the Empire in Anatolia. Kilij was a Muslim,
and most of his new subjects in conquered land
were Eastern Orthodox Christians. This dichotomy
between ruler and subject faith was used as part of
the reason for the attack on Nicea and other Turkish
cities, as stories were circulating among
Christendom of injustice being done to the
Christians living under Muslim rule.
At the time of the Prince’s Crusade’s arrival
in Anatolia and subsequent march on Nicea, Arslan
was off in the east, fighting against his Danishmend
rivals in order to enlarge his own holdings
(Runciman 1 21 ). He had received word from his
spies in Constantinople that there was indeed a
more professional force of Crusaders arriving and
preparing to go on a campaign, but these same spies
overplayed the strife between the Byzantines and
their fellow Crusaders (Runciman 1 21 ). His
underestimating of the Crusader forces was also
informed by his experience fighting the People’s
Crusade a few months prior (Madden 57).
Believing these new forces to simply be another
repeat of the mob of peasants that had run across
his land like a headless chicken, Kilij decided to
continue fighting in the east, even leaving his
whole treasury and family inside the walls of Nicea
(Runciman 1 21 ).
Godfrey’s army left their camp at
Pelecanum on the 26th of April and marched to
Nicomedia, where they were met by Bohemond's
army. Bohemond's forces were led by his nephew
Tancred, as Bohemond himself had stayed in

Constantinople to secure additional supplies for
the armies from Alexius. After consolidating their
armies, and being joined by a Byzantine
detachment of engineers that were equipped with
siege engines, which were a huge boon to the
Crusaders, headed south to Nicea. Along the way,
Godfrey passed through the region in which the
majority of Peter’s group had died. Godfrey was
rather scared by this and was moved to act
cautiously in the region, sending scouts ahead of
his main force as not to be surprised by any
Muslim groups, and tasking his soldiers to widen
the path so it would be easier to traverse
(Runciman 1 21 ).
Godfrey arrived at Nicea on the 6th of
May (Runciman 1 21 ) and was undoubtedly
intimidated by the defences of the city. Nicea’s
walls ran for approximately four miles and had
been kept in excellent condition by the
Byzantines and, more recently, the Sultan’s
engineers. The walls were adorned with almost
two hundred and forty towers built to enable
defending archers to ran down arrows and other
projectiles upon an attacking force. The cities
position also was a boon to the defenders, as the
Crusaders did not control the waters of Lake
Iznik and so the defenders could bring in supplies
through the docks in the west of the city. The
Crusaders divided the three sides of the city
between them, with Godfrey taking the north,
Tancred the east, and leaving the south for
Raymond's army when it arrived (Madden 56).
When the garrison of Nicea saw the
Crusader forces arriving, they sent out a
desperate call for help to Kilij, causing him to
hurriedly make peace with the Danishmends and
return to his capital to defend it against the, this
time, well-equipped Crusader armies (Billings
39). Kilij rallied his forces and attempted to force
his way through the Crusading forces and relieve
his garrison on the 1 6th of May (Madden 57).
His attack would fall upon the southern flank and
therefore be against the newly arrived army of
Raymond, which was still in the process of
setting up their camp and preparing the siege
engines provided by the Byzantines. Raymond
held the flank until troops sent by Godfrey
arrived to assist, at which point the tide began
turning against Kilij and he was forced to retreat
into the hills, where he would consolidate his forces
and strike again in the near future (Billings 39).
After the Crusaders repelled the Sultan’s
attack, the siege of the city continued, with not
much changing in the wake of the attempted
relieving of the garrison. The Crusaders tried many
methods to breach the walls and lower Turkish
morale, such as launching the heads of the deceased
Turks back over the walls. Bohemond even
attempted to compromise the foundations of one of
the larger towers by having engineers excavate a
space under it, and then light a fire. The Turks
discovered this the next morning and swiftly
repaired the minuscule amounts of damage that
been done by the Crusaders the next night
(Runciman 1 23).
The Crusaders had almost no hope of
capturing the city if they continued in the manner
that they were trying to, as the city was constantly
bringing in fresh supplies, having simply switched
from the land entrances to using transport ships
over Lake Iznik. Alexius recognized this and knew
that the Crusaders had no chance without blocking
off the lake, and so he transported ships overland to
the lake. He then used these ships to transport
Byzantine troops into the city, following secret
negotiations with the inhabitants (Madden 57).
Alexius had promised them that no looting or
destruction would occur if they surrendered to the
Byzantines and that the troops would protect them
against the Crusading forces. The city surrendered
during the night of the 1 9th of June, and the
27

crusaders awoke to Byzantine standards being
flown from the walls of the city (Runciman 1 23).
The Imperial troops held the walls and guarded
against the crusaders, whom they only allowed to
enter the city in small, heavily escorted groups.
The crusaders resented this perceived
underhandedness, but this was offset by Alexius
gifting them with wealth from the Sultans
treasury, and food from the city stores (Billings
40).
The crusader's spirits were lifted by this
large victory, but they, especially Bohemond,
would come to remember what Alexius had done
by going behind the crusaders' backs. Even so,
the crusaders set off with their heads held high
afterwards, marching along the road Jerusalem,
which happened to run through a town named
Dorylaeum (Madden 41 ).
"The
crusaders'
spirits were
lifted"
A monk doodle that occumpanied a
tale of the siege of Nicea, again with
the subjects resembling our writers!
28

Bohemond
Of Taranto:
A Profile
Margarita Bajamic
Bohemond of Taranto, later known as
Bohemond I of Antioch, was a Calabrian-born
Norman knight of great ambition who gained
what many thought he would be unable to.
Bohemond was born sometime between 1 050
and 1 058 to his parents Robert Guiscard and
Alberada, with the exact date being unknown,
and was baptized as Marc. He was given the
nickname Bohemond due to his large size, as his
father heard the tale of a giant with the name and
felt the name suited his own giant son. This
nickname lasted, and eventually replaced
Bohemond’s baptismal name. Guiscard ended up
divorcing Alberada on grounds of consanguinity
in 1 058 or earlier (Yewdale 5-6), and Alberada
came to refer to Bohemond as Robert’s son rather
than her own. Guiscard married Sigelgita and had
children with her, one of whom was named
Roger Norma, who Bohemond would eventually
have issues with. After the divorce, Bohemond
lived with his father, stepmother, and halfsiblings.
Little is known about Bohemond’s
childhood, but his later years were filled with
battles, blood, and gore (Yewdale 7-8).
Bohemond’s military career must have
begun at a relatively early age, as by 1 081 , when
Guiscard attempted to invade the Byzantine
Empire, Bohemond was placed as second-incommand.
Guiscard’s trust in Bohemond was
further demonstrated as Bohemond was sent with
an armed force under his command to Albania,
with instructions to lay waste and occupy the
region ofAvlona (Yewdale 8-9). Bohemond
successfully took Avlona, and further proved his
Imaginary portrait ofBohemond
military strength by taking Canina, Hiericho, and
Burrinto, and eventually going on a campaign
against the island of Corfu. However, even though
Bohemond was successful in following and
extending the orders of his father, sometimes, his
own temper and ego would mix with his military
campaigns (Yewdale 1 0-11 ).
During the siege of Dyrrhachium,
Bohemond was to attack the Venetians, and was
sent by Guiscard against the Venetians with a
squadron by sea. Bohemond was meant to make the
Venetians acclaim Guiscard and Emperor Michael,
but when Bohemond demanded this out of the
Venetians, they simply mocked his facial hair. This
greatly angered Bohemond, and this fury caused
him to lead an attack on the Venetians, and
supposedly he fought with great ferocity, most
likely to show that even if a barbarian lacks facial
hair, he may still be a fierce fighter. Unfortunately
for him, Bohemond lost this battle, as when the
Venetians were led to Guiscard’s camp, they
defeated the Normans and were then received by
Emperor Alexius with great honour (Alexiad of
Anna Comnena Book IV: II).
Bohemond eventually returned to Italy to
bury his father, and due to Guiscard’s death, there
came the dispute between Bohemond and Roger
Norma, Guiscard’s oldest son with Sigelgaita. Due
to his parents’ divorce, Bohemond technically
became illegitimate, even though he was Guiscard’s
oldest son. However, because he was born
legitimate, Bohemond felt he deserved inheritance
from his father or to be his father’s successor,
especially when the fact that Bohemond was
29

30
Guiscard’s second-in-command is taken into
account, proving they had a relatively good
relationship with each other. So, Bohemond
fought with Roger Norma, and eventually won
Taranto, thanks to the intervention of Pope Urban
II. After this, Bohemond joined the First Crusade
in 1 096, which because of his role as a leader, he
met Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor
Alexius I, who described him with great detail in
her Alexiad (Phillips & Taylor 72).
Appearance-wise, Anna Comnena
described Bohemond as “astonishingly tall… he
was 1 8 inches taller than the tallest men; he had a
narrow waist but broad chest and shoulders and
very strong arms” (Phillips & Taylor 72). She
also illustrated him as being very pale with red
cheeks, having grey eyes and hair shorter than
most men, as well as explaining that he was
clean-shaven, which would be quite uncommon
for a barbarian. She also believed Bohemond
resembled Guiscard in many regards, such as
temper, strength, and bravery. At the time of
Anna meeting Bohemond, he was likely in his
early 40s, which is quite old for the time, due to
lifespans being shorter, but he maintained the
complection and figure of a young man. In spite
of the seemingly kind and positive description of
Bohemond, Anna actually disliked Bohemond,
but still could admit his charm and good looks
(Runciman 1 59). While Anna still understood
his charm, she also noted that Bohemond was
quite frightening, with even his laugh being able
to intimidate people around him. In his years as a
knight and prince, Bohemond likely used these
traits to his advantage, in both battle and
diplomacy (Phillips & Taylor 72).
After the crusade, with Bohemond still
prince of Antioch, he was faced with the task of
keeping his principality. His nephew, Tancred,
was still his second-in-command, but Tancred did
still go to Jerusalem to complete the pilgrimage
while Bohemond remained in Antioch. Near
Antioch, there was a port called Lattakieh which
the Byzantines had control of with their vast
amount of ships. With Byzantines so close,
instead of concerning himself with the Seljuk
Turks, Bohemond focussed on the threat he was
slightly more familiar with. So, Bohemond decided
to lay siege on the port city, but without the help of
Tancred, who was in Palestine at the time. In the
beginning of the siege, Bohemond seemed to be
losing, but a Pisan fleet arrived with a man named
Daimbert, who was the archbishop of Pisa, new
papal legate, and eventual Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Bohemond and Daimbert aligned themselves
together, and the Pisan ships moved west to block
Lattakieh from the sea so the Byzantine ships were
crippled. Eventually, Daimbert was summoned to
Jambala by Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of
Normandy, and Robert of Flanders and was
reprimanded, as the new papal legate should try to
make the Eastern and Western Christians cooperate
rather than support battle against each other. So,
Daimbert called off the Pisan fleet and Bohemond
was forced to call off the siege (Runciman 300-
301 ).
Bohemond was not ready to give up some
kind of expansion of his new principality, however.
When Daimbert returned to Antioch, Bohemond
regained his influence over the man and decided to
accompany him to Jerusalem. While Daimbert was
fearful of going to the city on his own, Bohemond
also saw the chance solidify his alliance with the
legate and to fulfill his vow to worship at the Holy
Sepulchre, as his delay in the task was damaging
his prestige. Bohemond was also considering the
future of Jerusalem, as Godfrey had no natural heir
and was in poor health, and since the papal legate
may control the succession, he may be able to gain
the title of Defender of the Holy Sepulchre. Even if
Bohemond was not bestowed that privilege, it
would be wise to understand the happenings of the
city as well. Bohemond and Daimbert left Antioch
in late autumn and they arrived in Jerusalem on
December 21 st (Runciman 302-303).
Bohemond’s life took a drastic turn for the
worse in August 11 00, as he was imprisoned by the
Damishend emir Malik Ghazi Gumushtakin after
being surrounded and captured near Melitene.
Tancred, who had established his own principality
in Galilee, rushed to act as regent ofAntioch, due to
still being Bohemond’s right hand man, and ended
up losing his principality to King Baldwin I due to
his absence. Bohemond was released in 11 03, and it

seemed the pair harboured no ill will towards
each other, as they campaigned together to
strengthen the principality of Antioch. The time
for Bohemond to leave Antioch would come
again, however, as he travelled to Italy and
France in order to build an army to defeat his
biggest enemy, the Byzantine Empire (Kostnick
1 57).
According to Anna Comnena, Bohemond
travelled in a coffin as a corpse to Corfu, and this
is how he was able to travel without notifying
Emperor Alexius, who would be directly affected
by Bohemond’s reason for travelling (Alexiad of
Anna Comnena XII: I). Bohemond’s travels in
France were rather successful, as he managed to
marry Constance, the daughter of King Philip
and even gained the hand of Cecilia, Constance’s
half-sister, for Tancred. Bohemond’s marriage to
Constance seemed to be extremely convenient
for him, as it is quite impressive that an
illegitimate son managed to become a prince and
marry the daughter of the king of France. It is
very likely that even in his older age, Bohemond
was able to use his charm, intelligence, and good
looks to gain favour with the king and Constance.
It is not only the king who Bohemond gained
favour with on his expedition, however. After
completing his arrangement for marriage with the
king’s daughter, Bohemond travelled through
France during Lent, and was entertained in
monasteries, castles, and cities. He told stories of
his adventures and displayed relics he brought
from the Holy Land. Nobles even came to him
asking for him to act as a godfather to their infant
sons, and these sons were named after the giant
man. The once obscure name from a Norman tale
became quite popular. Bohemond also took great
advantage of the crowds that gathered to see him,
declaring Alexius to be an enemy of Christians.
Bohemond extended his trip all the way to
Flanders in an attempt to gain more recruits
(Yewman 1 09-11 0). Bohemond also displayed
his relics to the archbishops of Canterbury and
Rouen, seemingly prizing his possession that was
some of the hair of the Virgin Mary. It is
unknown how successful Bohemond was in
gaining recruits, but he was successful in gaining
a wife who was the daughter of a very powerful
man. Bohemond married Constance sometime after
Easter, and used the celebration as a chance to
preach to the nobles, including King Philip, about
his expedition against Alexius, and many decided to
take the cross for a second crusade to Jerusalem,
and the pope agreed with this expedition as well.
Bohemond’s marriage to Constance seemed to be a
stroke of luck, but sadly for Bohemond, this seems
to be where his good fortune ended (Yewman 111 ).
Bohemond attempted to invade Greece once
again in the autumn of 11 07, setting up a siege at
Dyrrhachium. Unfortunately for him, Alexius
moved swiftly, moving his army and navy in quick
fashion. Bohemond was put on the defensive, and
accepted his defeat in September of 11 08. He
signed a treaty that surrendered the autonomy of
Antioch so that its ruler was a vassal of the
Byzantine Empire (Kostnick 1 58). Bohemond was
still given a variety of cities and districts, including
Antioch, with the condition that he would rule as a
vassal of the Byzantine Empire with his subjects
swearing loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor, but he
was also given the right to choose a successor
(Yewman 1 28-1 29). So, not all was lost for
Bohemond in his final years.
Bohemond's marriage to Constance
31

32
After this defeat, Bohemond retired to Apulia (Kostnick 1 58), and it is important to know that
Constance bore Bohemond two sons with the elder one John dying in infancy, and the second one named
Bohemond living to succeed his father as the prince of Antioch (Yewman 1 31 -1 32). Just a few years after his
treaty with Alexius, in 11 08 Bohemond had taken ill and died on March 7, 1111 , being buried in the chapel
that adjoined the Cathedral of St. Sabinus at Canosa. Overall, while Bohemond’s luck faded out near the end
of his life, his ability to create his own destiny from being a landless Norman lord to a prince married to the
daughter of the French king is applaudable, and it is clear his ambition and skill carried him through these
challenges of his life (Yewman 1 33).

The Battle
of Dorylaeum
Mika Colonia
With the victory and glory won at Nicaea
in mind, the crusaders advanced southward
through Anatolia on their journey to the Holy
Land, now with the intent to reach Antioch. A
group of crusaders, such as those wounded in the
conflict of Nicaea, stayed behind and were
assigned to repair and occupy the city (Runciman
1 84). The crusaders may have been in high spirits
after their victory, but the contingents were
separated by a day in their continued march. This
resulted in a vanguard of about twenty thousand
men led by Bohemond, Tancred, Robert of
Normandy, and Stephen of Blois in combination
with Tacticius’ Byzantine army, and a thirty
thousand man-strong rearguard led by Raymond,
Godfrey, Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy and the
remaining leaders involved with the pilgrimage
(Pavkovic 25). Among varying reasons, this
occurred due to either the inability to feed the
large army as a single unit or the superiority
tensions between Bohemond and Raymond
(Runciman 1 84; Williams 66).
Meanwhile, Kilij Arslan, who was
defeated in front of Nicaea and had escaped to
the mountains as a result, regrouped his forces
and was planning an ambush on the pilgrims.
Arslan and his Seljuk Turks had collaborated
with the Danishmund Turks to execute this,
where it was in the arrangements to occur on the
road towards Dorylaeum, a city not too far from
Nicaea. The strategy behind Arslan’s plan
seemed infallible for a number of reasons. The
natural environment of this area, which was
composed of a narrow valley without easy
turnback and that cleared into an open field,
would “allow [Arslan] to draw out the Crusader
knights and surround them as they moved out of
range of their infantry support” (Williams 66;
Pavkovic 25). Additionally, the size of his forces,
which amounted to about ten thousand men in
combination with the Danishmund Turks, would
outnumber the Crusader forces within the
immediate area if the strategy to further divide the
vanguard is successful. The environment would
also give Arslan further battlefield advantages such
as “allow[ing] his mounted archers [the] room
[needed] to manoeuvre” (Pavkovic 25). This
provided a perfect opportunity for the Turks to
decimate the Crusader forces and to exhibit their
foreign yet brutal battle tactics.
It was the evening of June 30th, 1 097 that
the vanguard had caught sight of Turks in the area.
Though this revealed nothing of the true number of
nearby Turkish soldiers, it was enough to raise
suspicion within Bohemond, the regarded leader of
the vanguard, and to encourage him to raise a camp
for the night. Additionally, the camp was protected
on its western front due to a marsh (Pavkovic 26).
The size and intention of the nearby awaiting
Turkish forces were apparent the morning of the
next day when a “very large [Turkish] force was
[seen] advancing across the plain from the south”
(Pavkovic 26). Kilij Arslan had begun his planned
ambush. Despite the apparent ambush, Bohemond
“was not unprepared” and quickly organized his
troops and non-combatants. Foot soldiers and noncombatant
pilgrims were stationed at the camp’s
centre while knights were positioned at the front of
the camp (Pavkovic 26). One knight was sent to the
rearguard “urging it to make haste” and to inform
them to “prepare for a difficult fight and to remain
at first on the defensive” (Runciman 1 85). The
33

34
"Bohemond
'played to the
strength of
the enemy'"
crusaders were about to face an intense and nonstop
eight-hour battle (Williams 67).
The Battle of Dorylaeum had officially
begun on the morning of July 1 st, 1 097 as soon
as Bohemond had prepared his people to defend
their camp. As the morning came upon them, the
Turks descended on the encamped crusaders with
loud “howl[s] in their own language [saying]
some devilish word which [the pilgrims cannot]
understand” (Asbridge 58). The word the Turks
spoke unto the pilgrims was Allahu Akbar-
“Allah be praised” (Williams 67). Bohemond had
instructed his mounted knights to move towards
them for a frontal charge. He was expecting the
Turkish to come towards them with infantry like
in the European-style battles the crusaders were
used to. However, in doing so, Bohemond had
“played to the strength of the enemy” (Pavkovic
26). Arslan’s soldiers responded with volleys of a
multitude of arrows, a method which is a Turkish
battle specialty. The repetitive sending of arrows
upon the heavyset Christian soldiers and their
division from the Crusader foot soldiers had
stunned the knights enough for them to be unable
to recover and effectively attack back.
Meanwhile, Turkish soldiers who had encircled
the weakened Christian front were able to attack
their camp and the pilgrims who remained there
(26). At this point in time, the Christians
appeared to be on the losing side. Arslan’s
strategy was working as planned.
The Battle of Dorylaeum was the first
battle that the crusaders had experienced eastern
military strategy. Originally from Europe and
composed of Anglo-Normans and Franks, the
crusaders, specifically the knights of the crusader
forces, were known to be generally heavyset in battle.
These soldiers were equipped with heavy armour,
such as mail body armour, iron conical helmets, and
kite shields. Crusader knights, who were on
horseback, primarily attacked with a long lance
(Pavkovic 26). Executing high damage-dealing frontal
charges was the main battle strategy that the crusaders
depended on, in which soldiers attacked together as a
singular horizontal line. This battle tactic created an
air of power and fierceness around the knights in
Europe, as it is noted that “only the best-disciplined
infantry were prepared to receive a charge by [such]
heavily armoured [units]”, and that “the power of the
cavalry would be enough to [cause] panic in enemy
ranks” (26).
The battle tactics of the Turkish forces varied
greatly from that of the Christian armies. As the
“Turkish were nomadic by instinct” (Runciman 1 85),
their military strategy, dressings and equipment for
offensive engagement reflected that. Unlike the
crusaders, the Turks did not utilise foot soldiers.
Armies of Turkish soldiers consisted of unarmoured
or lightly-shielded horsemen equipped with bows and
arrows, which they efficiently used to arouse a charge
from their foes. In doing this, the Turks would break
the enemy charge by continuing their volleys while
spreading out and honing in on the resulting smaller
and separated enemy groups. This tactic was proved
to be powerful, as it had wiped out the People’s
Crusade earlier in 1 096 (Pavkovic 1 9).
Bohemond’s contingent was clearly
outnumbered as the Turks continued to efficiently
take down Crusader forces. The large horse-mounted
and densely-armoured Crusader knights were at a
severe disadvantage at the hands of the lightweight
and agile Turks (Pavkovic 27; Asbridge 58). They had
trapped the crusaders, shooting continuous volleys of
arrows upon them by “running archers to the front
line to discharge their arrows and then [immediately]
mak[ing] room for others” (Runciman 1 85). This
exhibition of Turkish savagery had stunned the
crusaders to a great extent, as some had “took flight
[from the battle] because such warfare was unknown
[to them]” (Asbridge 58). The losses that Bohemond
faced grew in number as more people either fled if
they could or died at the hands of a Turkoman
Despite the inevitability of a loss,

archer. Despite the inevitability of a loss,
Bohemond shifted to a more defensive stance
from the offensive nature of his current battle
strategy. He rallied his fighting forces,
specifically his knights, to create a defensive
formation around the Crusader camp and ordered
them to raise their shields to protect the perimeter
of the camp (Williams 66). The crusaders became
dependent on their “weight of numbers and
[heavy] armour” in order to withstand the
onslaught of Turkish soldiers (Asbridge 58). The
plan now was to wait for the rearguard to catch
up to the battle.
The shield wall had helped reduce the
exponential loss of Christian lives. Though they
were now on the defensive, Crusader troop
morales were diminished. They doubted if they
could survive the ceaseless Turkish attack, and
“determined to suffer martyrdom together” if
needed (Runciman 1 85). However, the pilgrims
were later encouraged by the reminder that those
of the Turkish army “carried their riches with
them” and that they could take the present
opportunity to “seize the wealth they [could not
have done in] Nicaea”, even though enemy
forces periodically broke through the shield wall
(Phillips 58). On those occasions, it is noted that
“girl [pilgrims] who were delicate and nobl[e]
hasten[ed] themselves to dress up so that the
Turks might pity the[m]” (Asbridge 58). Despite
this, the crusaders were able to keep their
formation due to Bohemond and Robert’s ability
to moderate their forces even with the
overwhelming power of the Turks upon them.
The vanguard would remain like this for at least
another five hours (59).
The vanguard’s defensive wall was
robust, but it would weaken under the endless
Turkish assault as time passed. They grew more
susceptible to Turkish soldiers breaking through
the shield wall. Fortunately for them, the
rearguard, led by Raymond of Toulouse and
Godfrey of Bouillon, entered the fray by noon. It
was the weakened vanguard’s saving grace as the
sight of more crusaders caused the Turks to
“falter and [be] unable to prevent the two armies
from combining” (Runciman 1 85-1 86).
Now that all the leaders were together again, they
formed a long front and took an offensive form
once more. Additionally, Adhemar Le Puy and his
men had appeared from the southern hills and
attacked the Turks from the rear, causing further
distress among the Turkish forces who were not
ready to face such a heavy large-scale attack and
were already low on ammunition (1 86). Le Puy had
planned his entrance into the fray, which helped the
crusaders immensely. Facing the true strength of
the Crusader forces, the Turkish were forced to
retreat and “were in full flight to the east” (1 86),
abandoning whatever camp they might have had.
The treasures the Turks left behind now belonged to
the Christians, just as they had preached earlier in
the day.
The Battle of Dorylaeum had ended in a
Turkish retreat and a Crusader victory. But the
victory the pilgrims won did not come without
hardship- the initial separation of the Crusader
force as a whole caused a great loss of life for both
them and the Turks. The crusaders had lost about
four thousand men, while the Turkish force lost
around three thousand (Pavkovic 27). A number of
significant Christians had died as well, such as
Tancred’s brother William (Runciman 1 87).
Nevertheless, it was a Crusader victory despite the
numerous disadvantages they faced, and Le Puy
had “celebrated a Mass of praise and thanksgiving”
(Williams 67) afterwards. The crusaders had come
to “respect the Turk[ish] as soldiers” (Runciman
1 87) after Dorylaeum, seeing them as admirable for
their powerful battle tactics. The victory had
encouraged the crusaders that God was with them
as they rested at Dorylaeum for two days to recover
and plan their next move (Williams 67).
35

36

The Capture
of Edessa
Marlon Miral
Following the Crusaders’ triumphant
victory in Dorylaeum, Baldwin of Boulogne, the
younger brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, was
accompanied by his ally, Tancred, the nephew of
Bohemond of Taranto, as they departed from the
city in the hopes of establishing the very first
Crusader county. The Crusaders navigated
through the Tarsus mountains and eventually
settled in the city of Heraclea. Here, they took the
Turkish garrison by surprise and undisputedly
destroyed them in their own state. The Crusaders
received support from the predominantly
Armenian Christian population, who was
overjoyed by their arrival. As time passed by, the
Crusader army realized that it was now time for
them to continue towards the city of Antioch.
Bohemond, Raymond, and Godfrey moved in
this direction, whereas Baldwin and Tancred had
their eyes set elsewhere (Runciman 11 2).
Tancred’s main goal was the city of
Tarsus, a well-defended city with towering walls
enclosing the hometown of St. Paul. Fearlessly,
Tancred besieged the city of Tarsus with a total
of three hundred men by his side. Soon after,
Baldwin and his considerably larger army found
their way into Tarsus and demanded ownership
of the conquered city. This ignited a dispute
between Tancred’s and Baldwin’s forces,
ultimately leaving Tancred’s army to vacate the
site and live on the other side of the wall. By
night, the Turkish garrison had returned and
massacred Tancred’s sleeping men. A riot would
eventually drive Baldwin out of Tarsus and
impelled Tancred to continue searching for his
own state. The two of them had finally come to
their senses that there was no point in bickering
with each other and that they were on the same
side. Tancred went on to rejoin the main army in
Antioch whereas Baldwin continued east in search
of his own county. Here and now, Baldwin had
discovered that his wife, Godvere of Tosny, was
dying in the city of Marash, which indicated the
loss of his inherited wealth (Konstam 65). This
impelled Baldwin to search for own fortune in
another region.
In February 1 098, Baldwin set off on a
journey to Edessa, his eye open for opportunity in
an influential and prosperous town located east of
the Euphrates River. He rode into the town of
Edessa accompanied by a scarce army of eighty
knights and was received with “the greatest
enthusiasm by the whole Christian population”
(Runciman 204). At the time, the town of Edessa
was under the control of an Armenian warlord by
the name of Thoros, who was thought to be a Greek
Orthodox Christian by the townspeople (Phillips
63). The Edessenes subverted the rule of Thoros
with which he had preserved the authority of the
city. They wished to receive the support of
Baldwin’s fighting men in the case of an attack.
With this in mind, the townspeople urged their ruler
to welcome this exceptional field commander and
inspiring Christian leader into their city (Runciman
205).
Thoros was ecstatic to welcome Baldwin
and the support of his fighting men. Impressed by
Baldwin’s esteemed reputation, he proposed to
create an auspicious alliance. Thoros expected to
use Baldwin as a mercenary, by paying him with
timely endowments of assets and luxurious gifts.
However, Baldwin commended the idea of Thoros
adopting him as his own son and heir. Although he
37

was married, the Armenian warlord had no children of his own and took this proposal into consideration.
Soon enough, a public ceremony was held in the city where Thoros embraced Baldwin into his arms, “binding
him to his naked chest while long shirt was placed over both of them to seal the union” (Asbridge 1 49). In
spite of that, the tables would soon turn against him when news broke that a group of Edessene nobles were
plotting to assassinate Thoros. Terrified by the news, Thoros sought refuge in his own citadel. Within a week,
Thoros was pronounced dead during a revolt in the hands of his very own townsfolk. On Wednesday March
1 0th, Baldwin assumed control and took on the title of Count of Edessa. Soon after, the widowed Baldwin
married an Armenian princess named Arda, considering that Armenian nobility were reputed members
suitable for intermarriage. This marriage ensured Baldwin support from the rest of the Armenian nobility and
secured his assets in a legal dowry (Baldwin 303).
With this, Baldwin had established the first Latin principality in the First Crusade, known as the
County of Edessa. Baldwin was effective in his administrative role over the first crusader state, primarily due
to his efforts in forestalling the Kerbogha of Mosul’s army from advancing. For three weeks, the Edessene
population redirected the attention of Kerbogha’s army, allowing the Crusaders enough time to prepare
themselves in Antioch. Essentially, this strategic plot enabled them to siege the city of Antioch before the
Seljuk Turks could arrive. “In less than half a year, with just a handful men, Baldwin had established the first
crusader state in the Near East - the county of Edessa” (Asbridge 1 52).
Baldwin enters Edessa, painting by J. Robet-Fleury, 1840, "Les Croisades, origines et consequences"
38

The Siege
of
Antioch
Alessio Pizzolato
The Battle of Dorylaeum had inflicted
heavy casualties upon the crusading forces. The
deceased littered the road behind and through the
Taurus and Anti-Taurus mountains, but
nonetheless, their victory brought hope and
courage to the surviving men. Ahead stood the
great and ancient city of Antioch; the last major
obstacle between the crusading forces and
Jerusalem. The walls of Antioch stood strong and
erect, stretching sixteen kilometres around the
city and far into the mountains. The city itself
stood along the length of the Orontes river to the
northwest and mount Silpius to the southeast. Its
walls had stood unbreached since its creation in
300 BCE, over one thousand three hundred years
before the first crusade. Upon first contact, the
crusaders stood dumbfounded and uncertain that
victory was in any regards attainable. Antioch
stood as the third-largest city in the Roman
Empire at the start of the Christian Era (Stark
1 48). Its walls had six gates in total, spread few
and far between and their army had seemingly far
too few men to surround the city and accomplish
a proper siege (Stark 1 48). Nonetheless Antioch
stood between the knights and Jerusalem and was
a city of important religious history, being the
supposed location of the first Christian Church
founded by St. Peter (Asbridge 64).
The nearby port of St. Symeon was taken
early on by the crusading forces as well as other
towns and settlements in the area. As the days
drew on with little progress or attempted breach
these food sources quickly ran thin leaving little
for the crusading forces to eat. Foraging parties
would have to embark further and further away
to find any significant amount of food. The
resulting impression of this siege was then “not one
of warfare but of a constant search for food”
(Riley-Smith 59). As they were encamped at the
base of Antioch, rations soon began to dwindle as
starvation stalked the frustrated warriors causing
many to leave camp in search of welcoming
villages. This took a heavy toll on their steads as
well. Many horses grew too weak to carry a rider
and were killed off for their meat. In these times a
mount was a symbol of pride and honour and their
death certainly did not help the issue of morale.
Under the stress of these circumstances, an odd
plan was made by the Lords of the Crusades. They
planned on sieging the City of Antioch but with
their limited men would cover only a select number
of gates, three out of the six, leaving the people of
Antioch with limited access to outside resources.
Through these resources, Antioch was able to
persevere rendering the siege inefficient and
increasing the stress put on the crusaders. Faced
with this fact, the pilgrim leaders held a council and
decided that Prince Bohemond and the Count of
Flanders should take four hundred knights and lead
a foraging expedition in the surrounding country,
all while the remaining force would continue the
siege to the best of their ability (Asbridge 67).
Once this foraging party reached the small
village of Albara, a frightening sight awaited them.
A six thousand strong Muslim relieve force was
marching down the very road they were travelling
along to gather provisions. Both sides were taken
by surprise and despite their inferior numbers
Bohemond and the Count of Flanders’ army
attacked with ferocity. They managed to rout out
39

40
the enemy but visible losses could be seen within
their ranks. Having driven the Muslims back the
crusader troops returned to camp without the
forage they had set out to find, fruitless and
hungry. Despite this, the bravery of the departed
troops sparked morale among the sieging forces
(Williams 72).
The lack of rations and the failure of this
expedition had a drastic effect on the knights.
The prices for food among the camps were
driven ludicrously high and many deserted in an
effort to escape starvation. Bohemond was not
pleased and an increased distaste for the siege
arrose in him. He began to doubt their actions
and thought the whole effort pointless. As the
siege continued with little to no progress the
Lords of the Crusades began to lose hope in their
plans. Many soldiers starved to death and revolts
were not uncommon, nonetheless, the area
around Antioch was still occupied. Fortunately
for the pilgrims, Byzantine supplies arriving at
St. Symeon in February leading to slightly
improved conditions and morale amongst the
troops. To cut this celebration short, however,
news of another Muslim relieve force en route to
Antioch soon arrived, sent by Ridwan of Aleppo.
The European lords arranged a meeting and
decided on a plan conceived by Bohemond to
fight of this imposing force. That night, under the
cover of dark, Bohemond left camp with a
cavalry unit seven hundred strong to meet the
Turkish troops. With secured flanking positions
he commanded a charge and attacked the larger
numbered army. With the element of surprise and
a number of organized strikes, the crusaders
managed to route the enemy and drive off their
march. This was an impressive example of
Bohemond’s commanding abilities. As the
knights claimed victory in the northeast, English
ships arrived in the southwest at the Port St.
Symeon carrying timber and other building
materials. Using these materials the crusaders
were allowed to construct walls and
fortifications. They built these forts rather than
siege engines so in the event that the enemies of
God gain the upper hand in an assault they would
be able to protect their lords and propel the
attack. (Seetenham 1 22). One of the most
prominent of such forts, named La Mahomerie, was
built in order to block the bridge-gate over the
Orontes river. These forts further closed the
remaining connection Antioch’s residence had with
the outer world. For the first time since their
arrival, the state of the siege was improving. This
brought much stress to the Turkish forces and for a
complete fortnight, no attacks were attempted by
either side of the conflict.
With this break in battle and the coming of
Spring, the crusaders found looking for forage
much easier. To the dismay of the Turks, more
material and sustenance was brought back to the
soldiers strengthening their army and the siege. In
response to the crusaders recent advancements
more cunning strategies were used by the Muslims.
Armenian and Serbian spies were sent out of the
city into the European encampment claiming to be
previously captured Armenian Christians (Williams
72). These spies were for the most part quite
successful and the information brought back to
Antioch proved very valuable to the Turkish
commanders. Using this information the Muslims
attacked the encamped soldiers whenever and
wherever they could in short bursts of fury. Yaghi-
Siyan, the commanding officer of Antioch, sent for
help to Kerbogha of Mosul during these clashes.
Once this call for help was received a large army
was amassed and sent in aid. This army would
arrive too late to have any impact on the initial
siege but would influence the decisions of the
European Lords as they are put under increased
pressure to take Antioch.
As time progressed the existence of the
Turkish spies within their forces was discovered by
Bohemond. Faced with this news he acted quickly
capturing and condemning any suspicion he found.
In a fit of passion and ferocity up to one hundred
spies were captured within their midst and in
typical barbarian fashion Bohemond slit the throats
of every one of them in full view of the Turkish
troops (Williams 73). The Muslim guards watched
on in despair and horror as these bodies would go
on to be skinned and cooked on a stake before the
walls. Likewise, to this conniving attempt,
Bohemond had his own spies sent within the walls

of Antioch, desperation to escape the clutches of
Kerbogha’s army. Through this means contact
was established with an Armenian guard by the
name of Firouz who commanded the tower of the
two sisters. For the reward of a title and a small
sum of money, a bargain was struck between the
guard and Bohemond. Bohemond was weary of
this agreement as he thought it broke the oath
made to Emperor Alexius but under the threat of
an impending Turkish army, he was left with
little choice. The bargain was struck and would
be put into action in the days to come. Finally,
for the first time in over seven months, the
crusaders had hoped to enter the great walls of
Antioch (Riley-Smith 59).
Faced with these circumstances the
crusading forces had to act fast. The threat of an
overwhelming Muslim force mere days away had
different effects on the knights. Many fled in fear,
convinced that the siege brought imminent death.
Among these numbers was Peter the Hermit,
leader of the people’s crusade. These recalcitrant
pilgrims, including Peter, were quickly dragged
back by Bishop Adhemar, many of which
repented afterwards (Williams 72). Others grew
agitated and thought the best course of action
would be a full frontal assault on a weaker gate.
In the next few days, Bishop Adhemar would
introduce a brilliant idea to deal with both these
issues of morale and starvation. He called for a
fast to regain the favour of God which is a pretty
clever way to maintain resources in a desperate
situation. This worked considerable well,
reassuring the pilgrims with their relationship
with God and helped them to find purpose in
their suffering. These demanding days of the
siege would challenge each and every crusader’s
faith as many were conflicted with the idea of
deserting or remaining true to their Lords. On
February 9th, 1 098, a two-pronged attack was put
into action by the remaining Turkish forces
within the city who were both starving and
desperate. The pilgrims deflected a first attack
during the Battle of Lake Antioch with minimal
casualties. The remaining Turks were driven into
a fort along the Orontes River which would then
be burned down with them inside. This flaming
massacre signalled the second prong of their attack.
A small force of Muslims departed from the wall
with the intent of catching the battling crusaders off
guard but was met with similar results. The
defeated soldiers were beheaded and their heads put
on pikes and paraded in front of the walls in a
public display, once again to the Muslims despair.
In this battle, the crusaders felt victorious and
despite the impending threats morale somewhat
returned to the camp.
Soon after this attack, Bohemond’s bargain
would finally be put into action. In the dead of the
night, a rope ladder was dropped from the tower of
the two sisters by Firouz. Bohemond and sixty of
his men ascended the walls of Antioch and swiftly
took the city (William 73). The gates were opened
from inside and the encamped crusader army
rushed through the walls they had cursed night and
day. They flooded into Antioch in a blind rage
killing indiscriminately, the remaining Turkish
guards helpless to the pilgrims attacks. Men,
women and children were killed at the hands of the
knights until not a single Muslim soul was left
breathing, save those in the citadel which stood
atop a mountain at the end of the city’s walls.
Yaghi-Siyan was beheaded and his body publicly
desecrated. The dead bodies thrown throughout the
streets raised an immense and violent stench
making many areas of the city uninhabitable, but in
the midst of this bloodshed, the Crusades rejoiced.
Bohemond’s flag flew over their hardened
structures as they helped themselves to the
Muslims’ remaining food and supplies. For the first
times in over a year, the pilgrims had hope for
tomorrow and were ready to fight another day. The
Siege was victorious. Antioch was conquered but
their troubles were far from over. Kerbogha’s army
would soon be upon them and these crusaders must
fight their way out of a city that they gave
everything to enter.
41

42

The Battle
of
Antioch
Vanessa Dasilva
After eight months of tireless fighting, the
crusaders had finally captured the city of Antioch
which signalled the advent of a new kind of war,
a religious war (Rubenstein 1 99). By June of
1 098, the Franks had found themselves trapped
in the city they had battled to enter thus “the
besiegers had become the besieged” (Asbridge
211 ) as an immense Turkish relief army reached
Antioch only twenty-four hours after the Franks
had captured the city. The army was led by
Kerbogha, the Emir of Mosul, who possessed the
ability to easily capture the attention of the
Franks at Antioch and for a good reason
(Rubenstein 1 99).
Kerbogha was a prominent leader of the
Sunni Turkish world as he had a high status and a
golden reputation for being a military genius and
for his ferocity in battle. Kerbogha entered the
Crusades with full knowledge and support of the
Sunnis Caliphate but many suspect he may have
also entered the crusades as an attempt at
advancing his own ambitions in the fractured
political network of Northern Syria (Rubinstein
206). With his personal ambitions in mind,
Kerbogha managed to assemble a formidable
army in advance of the battle with support from
many of the independent and semi-independent
Turkish cities. However, the exact size of
Kerbogha’s army is mostly guesswork as the
estimates from the middle ages point to around a
million men whereas historians today believe the
number is closer to around 40,000 men, which in
turn, is much more realistic (Rubinstein 206).
With his mighty army in tow, Kerbogha came to the
relief of Yaghi-Siyan, the former governor of
Antioch who was deceased by the time Kerbogha
had arrived (Asbridge 21 2).
Soon after capturing Antioch the Crusaders
had another problem on their hands. Advancing
scouts from Kerbogha’s immense army began to
arrive outside Antioch’s walls. The daunting three
hundred cavalry scouting party initially made a
dunting approach towards the walls, sending a
thirty men detachment to reconnoiter the city. As
the crusaders within the walls watched, they saw
the detachment as an isolated force and sent Roger
of Barneville, a renowned southern Italian Norman
Knight and member of the Franks, alongside fifteen
of his most capable men to charge upon this group.
The Muslims fled while the Franks raced on in
pursuit. Little did the Franks know that they had
been lured into a fatal error and had quickly fallen
foul to one of the Muslims’ favourite tacticsfeigned
retreat (Asbridge 21 2). As Roger of
Barneville was drawn farther and farther away from
the safety of the city walls, the remainder of the
Muslim scouting force poured out from their
hidden positions within the valley. He quickly
realized his error and made a break for the city,
Turks on galloping horses close behind them. As
Roger of Barneville drew near the town wall,
nearly escaping across the shallows of the Orontes
with his men, the noble champion was pierced in
the back. In full view of those standing around the
ramparts, the arrow penetrated both his liver and
his lung. The deceased soldier was then decapitated
43

44
by the Muslims, who took the removed head and
placed it upon a spear, using it as a twisted
trophy of victory that was to be paraded around
the walls ofAntioch (Asbridge 21 3).
After the scuffle, the crusaders quickly
decided that they were in no position to meet this
new threat in a full-scale battle as they were
tragically outnumbered two to one. In addition,
the crusaders themselves were critically short on
cavalry, with hardly 1 50 trained war horses
remaining, and sadly those were enfeebled by
shortages of fodder (Asbridge 21 3). Despite the
unfortunate predicament of the crusaders, the
Turkish threat continued to grow as twelve
kilometers north of the city, Kerbogha’s army
reached the Iron Bridge, the key crossing to the
River Ortonos. The Crusaders had thought ahead
as to leave a garrison to guard the bridge should
any intruders attempt to take it but unfortunately
the garrison was no match for the Muslims
(Asbridge 21 4). Kerbogha’s army came in with
an alarming force that overran and slaughtered
the entire garrison, sparing only the Frankish
commander, who was left in the bridge’s tower to
rot. With the bridge gates now open, Kerbogha
was able to establish a main camp some three
kilometers north of Antioch. Here, Kerbogha had
the ability to assess the city’s defences and
contact the Muslims still hiding in Antioch’s
citadel (Asbridge 21 4).
With his base established, Kerbogha
could now focus his attention on La Mahomerie,
the siege fort built by the crusaders that lay in
front of Antioch’s bridge gates. During this time,
the Franks had seemed to suddenly abandon their
two other forts - Malregard and Tancred’s Towerbut
they were deeply determined to maintain
control of their strategically crucial zone around
La Mahomerie (Asbridge 21 4).The area itself
was of tactical advantage as its construction was
crucial in closing the siege of Antioch and the
Franks hoped it would be equally as useful in
keeping Kerbogha at bay and maintain the open
road to Saint-Simeon (Rubenstein 21 0) which
was frankly the crusader's sole surviving line of
supply (Asbridge 21 3). Robert of Flanders was
tasked with the job of resistance even though
Raymond of Toulouse had jealously guarded his
position as commander of La Mahomerie before the
fall (Asbridge 21 4). For two consecutive days,
Robert made a valiant attempt to hold the fort with
only 500 men flanking him fighting solely with
lances and crossbows (Rubenstein 21 0).
Meanwhile, Kerbogha threw 2,000 men against the
defences in order to test the Frankish resolve. By
day three the battle had become brutal and several
defenders died while others sustained serious
injuries. Finally, on the night of June eight through
to the early hours of June ninth, Kerbogha’s army
retreated to seek reinforcements while Robert
simultaneously realized that maintaining possession
of La Mahomerie was a lost cause (Rubenstein
211 ). He moved his weary and bloodied troops
back into the city under the shield of darkness and
set fire to La Mahomerie, effectively destroying the
fort to prevent it from falling into enemy hands
(Asbridge 21 5). The next morning, 4,000 Turks
returned to La Mahomerie ready for battle but
found nothing but a pile of ash that had become the
siege fort (Rubenstein 211 ).
Amidst the destruction of La Mahomerie,
Kerbogha contacted Yaghi-siya’s son, Sham ad-
Daulah, who was in command of Antioch’s citadel
and as well as the governor of Antioch. The two
entered negotiations for the possession of the tower
but Kerbogha had difficulty agreeing to Sham ad-
Daulah’s unrealistic terms. After his terms were
refused several times, Sham ad-Daulah quickly
realized that he was in no position to negotiate and
quickly relinquished his claim to the fortress
(Rubenstein 207). Shortly after, Kerbogha turned
the property over to a gentle and peaceful man
whose loyalty could be depended on by the name of
Ahmad Ibn-Marwan who was more commonly
known as “the Amir” (Rubenstein 207). By June
eighth, Kerbogha had begun amassing forces in and
around the fortress on the eastern slopes of mount
Silpius all the while deploying further troops to the
north of the city to form a blockade on the Gate of
St. Paul (Asbridge 21 5). On June 1 0th, Kerbogha
was finally ready to unleash a massive assault upon
the crusaders. He could do this as he now had
control of the citadel which put him in the key
position to be able to threaten the entire length of

the walls running atop Mount Silpius as well as
also giving him access to the small path that led
to the main city (Asbridge 21 5).
Bohemond knew full well of the strategic
significance of the citadel and began constructing
a plan to attack its fortifications. He had already
rejected the idea of mounting a frontal assault on
the citadel itself as he knew by just looking at it
that the citadel’s fortifications were meant to
resist attack from both outside and within the
city. While Kerbogha was busy taking his
fortress, Bohemond and his crusaders were able
to establish a camp opposite and to the south of
the citadel, along the ridges of Mount Silpius.
From that position, Bohemond now had control
of a large section of the city walls and a series of
towers from which he hoped to police the path
that the could give the Turks access to Antioch.
On June 8th, while Kerbogha continued to amass
the bulk of his forces around the citadel,
Bohemond was joined by Robert of Normandy
and Robert of Flanders. This was a critical move
by the crusaders as they knew that they could not
spread themselves too thinly, so Godfrey
remained below in the city to defend the Gate of
St. Paul while Raymond divided his time
between fighting at the citadel and defending the
Bridge Gate (Asbridge 21 6).
On the 1 0th of June, the crusaders came
to realize that Kerbogha was almost ready to
launch an attack via the citadel and decided to
launch a preemptive strike. Using a small postern
gate further south along the ridges of Mount
Silpius they deployed a force to harry Kerbogha’s
camp. The attack caught the Muslims completely
off-guard which allowed the crusaders to drive
the army into retreat. Unfortunately, the
crusaders began looting the camp, overjoyed by
their apparent success only to be overrun by
Kerbogha counterattack. Instantaneously the
Franks made a chaotic flight back to the postern
gate. Kerbogha then proceeded to launch a
combined offensive, pouring his troops from both
the citadel towards Bohemond’s upper camp and
along the path to the city as well as attacking the
city walls running south of the citadel, forcing
the Franks to be stretched to their limit
(Asbridge 21 6). For two full days the fighting raged
on without pause, with Kerbogha unleashing a
seemingly unending stream of attackers. The sheer
brutality and intensity of the attack was enough to
send some crusaders over the edge (Asbridge 21 7).
The battle raged from dawn to dusk, as the
panic spread feverishly throughout the city
prompting even well-known knights to desert.
These knights deserted due to fear from the
previous days battle. In the dark of the night, these
men lowered themselves down from the wall and
fled on foot to the sea. These men became
commonly known as the “Secret Rope Dancers”
(Asbridge 21 7). This became such a phenomenon
that the Crusade leaders were forced to swear an
oath to their troops to not abandon Antioch,
prompting Bohemond and Adhémar to close the
gates in order to prevent a large-scale evacuation.
Those who stayed, though, managed to hold their
ground on Mount Silpius for four days, surviving
through sheer bloody-minded determination and
martial skill (Asbridge 21 8). Despite this, the
casualty rate was high and on June 1 2th the
shortage of Frankish manpower on Mount Silpius
became so desperate that Bohemond ordered
building in the southwest quarter of the city be set
alight as he believed that some crusaders were
hiding. This did in fact persuade some to rejoin the
fight (Asbridge 21 8).
On June 1 4th, Kerbogha decided to
redeploy his forces based on strategic judgement.
Throughout the entirety of the four day battle he
had been trying to break the crusader lines by
spreading his forces more evenly. By doing this he
was throwing a wider enclosing net around the city
while still maintaining a substantial force around
the citadel. Kerbogha was also able to strengthen
the guard at the Gate of Saint Paul thus allowing
him to create a concerted effort to blockade the
Bridge Gate and the Gate of St. George. The Turks
had now besieged the city on all sides in hopes of
squeezing the crusaders into submission. With the
city completely surrounded and all forms of
communication with Saint Simeon severed, the
crusaders were effectively cut off from the outside
world. Over the next two weeks, the second siege
ofAntioch would commence (Asbridge 220).
45

46
During the initial two weeks, Kerbogha
adopted a new strategy of containment and as a
result a more insidious and debilitating threat
began to unman the crusaders- starvation. The
crusaders had already endured their fair share of
food shortages through the preceding winter,
although now, they were completely stranded in a
city that had already previously been stripped of
resources by the eight-month siege (Asbridge
220). They could not hold out in the city for
much longer, with minimal food and water and
the stench of the scattered bodied became more
and more insufferable by the minute. Their only
hope was that the emperor would come to their
rescue with his Byzantine army. To their luck,
Alexius I was on his way, but the advancing
emperor met the deserting Stephen of Blois, who
reports that Antioch has been lost and that the
Christian army must be completely decimated by
that point in time (Williams 74). Unfortunately,
Alexius retreats to Constantinople leaving 30,000
half-crazed and starving crusaders crying out for
deliverance (Williams 74). At this point, the First
Crusade had reached its nadir. The crusaders
were too tormented by the constant threat of a
full-scale Muslim attack, too terrified to
contemplate a counter-attack all the while
weakened by hunger and death. The Latin army
was now officially in crisis of morale leaving
them utterly paralyzed within Antioch (Asbridge
221 ).
On the tenth on June, a bedraggled
peasant for Provence by the name of Peter
Bartholomew, came to seek the attention of
Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy and Count Raymond
of Toulouse. The two men begrudgingly agreed
and in a private interview with Peter, he
confidently stated that since December 30, 1 097,
he had been visited in visions by Saint Andrew
the Apostle accompanied by Christ on no fewer
than five occasions (Asbridge 221 ). The latest
vision had come to Peter the very day that he had
requested their audience which also happened to
be the very day that he narrowly escaped death
while fighting atop the walls of Mount Silpius.
The visionary explained that since the first visit
of St. Andrew, it was clear that the apostle had a
specific message to deliver specific message to
deliver to Peter. The message was regarding the
Christian tradition that stated that at the time of
Jesus’ crucifixion, his body had been pierced in the
side by a spear wielded by the Roman soldier
Longinus. The spear had come to be known as the
Holy Lance and as revealed by Saint Andrew in
Peter’s visions, the most sacred relic was buried in
the depths beneath the Basilica of Peter which had
become the main church of Antioch (Asbridge
222). Peter Bartholomew’s revelation of the
Lance’s location came at a time when the Christians
were dependent on their spirituality for survival and
thus this revelation was met with mixed receptions
(Asbridge 223).
In the eleventh century, saintly visions and
empowered relics were firmly established elements
in the Christian cosmology. The western European
society had been conditioned to believe that saints
could act as intercessors in heaven for ordinary
Christians on earth petitioning God for aid on their
behalf and appearing through visions and miracles
to manifest his divine will on earth. This belief also
extended to holy relics, with relics associated with
Christ’s life and death being considered the most
precious and powerful. As a result of this belief, the
potential nature of the Holy Lance was
immeasurable and brought both skepticism and
devotion towards itself. By the end of their
interview with Peter, the Bishop Adhémar
considered the story fraudulent and was hesitant to
pursue the tale. Adhémar's scepticism was quite
understandable as the Latin church and its clergy
certainly accepted that saints might appear in
visions and manifest miracle through their relics,

ut they were also keen to validate the
authenticity of such stories. They attempted to do
this through proof but as it was hard to come by
at the time, the decision whether to accept or
condemn the story often was made on the
visionary’s social status and their willingness to
swear a sacred oath in support of the story. This
was not to Peter of Bartholomew’s favour, as he
was a poor servant in the employ of the
Provençal knight William Peyre of Cunhalf,
which meant he had an impossibly low social
status which in turn did not in any way aid to
validate his story even though he swore it was
true. The real problem, though, had nothing to do
with Peter but everything to do with the fact that
Adhémar knew that a Holy Lance had already
been discovered and was sitting in the relic
collection of the Byzantine emperor in
Constantinople. This was believed as Greek
tradition stated that the Lance had been found in
Jerusalem by Saint Helen in the fourth century
and four-hundred years later brought to
Constantinople (Asbridge 224). Therefore,
naturally Adhémar greeted Peter’s tale with
caution. In contrast to Adhémar 's beliefs, count
Raymond of Toulouse immediately believed
Peter Bartholomew’s tale and promptly placed
him in the custody of his chaplain Raymond of
Aguilers (Rubenstein 21 7). As Kerbogha’s army
continued to encircle Antioch, Raymond of
Toulouse had decided to make a search for the
Holy Lance ofAntioch (Asbridge 225).
On the early morning of June fourteenth,
the same day Kerbogha implemented his
containment strategy, twelve men including Peter
Bartholomew, began to excavate the Church of
the Blessed Peter. They dug until evening came
but many began to give up hope of unearthing the
Lance. Seeing the exhaustion of the diggers,
Peter leaped into the hole, barefoot and clad in
only his shirt as he had disposed of his outer
garments. He then proceeded to beg the diggers
to pray to God to return this lance to the
crusaders so as to bring strength and victory to
his people. Minutes after the men began to dig
again, God revealed to them the Holy Lance of
Antioch. As the Lance appeared barely
protruding from the ground, Raymond of Aguilers
kissed the top of it. In physical terms, the relic of
the Lance was little more than a small shard of
metal but, nonetheless the First Crusader’s
wholeheartedly accepted the lance’s authenticity
and interpreted its discovery as an irrefutable
indication of God’s renewed support of the
expedition (Asbridge 225). From the edge of
defeat, the Franks were now motivated by the
lance’s electrifying impact and the morale of the
army was rejuvenated. With this boost in moral and
the crusaders united in determination they elected
to pursue a bold, aggressive, and dangerous
strategy, to break out of the city and confront
Kerbogha’s Muslim army (Asbridge 227).
The crusaders were inspired by the Holy
Lance, yet they would not go to battle against the
Muslims until two weeks after the discovery of the
Lance. The Franks now entered a two-week waiting
period that would see the basic supplies of food
grow scarcer and many Franks die from starvation.
Even so, it was highly unlikely that the crusaders
would have needed a full two weeks to prepare for
battle, since in February of 1 098, they were able to
defeat Ridwan of Aleppo with only a few days
notice. One of the reasons for the delay was that the
Holy Lance had in fact boosted morale, but it was
just not enough for the crusaders to charge into a
battle they had terrible odds of winning (Asbridge
227). There is no way to be certain that the news of
Alexius’ decision reached the Franks in Antioch
before they went into battle on the twenty-eight of
June, or if they simple lost hope of any
reinforcements at all. With morale beginning to
plummet once again and the hope of any
reinforcements shattered, the Franks had no choice
but to turn to other options for a chance to end the
second siege (Asbridge 229).
Around the date of June 24th, the Crusader
Princes sent two envoys into the midst of
Kerbogha’s camp. They chose Peter the Hermit, a
disgraced deserter who was seldom taken seriously,
and an interpreter named Herluin to be their
ambassadors to speak with Kerbogha. At least three
eye witnesses in Antioch ecorded that Peter the
Hermit had carried a bold message of extraordinary
defiance in order to confront Kerbogha with an
47

48
ultimatum (Asbridge 229). Peter the Hermit
announced that unless they peacefully evacuated
the region that had once belonged to the
Christians, they would surely wage a war against
them. Peter also proposed an alternative known
as the “Champion’s trial”, which would be a war
fought by five to a hundred men hand selected by
each side. This would allow for not all of the
army’s men to be fighting simultaneously and
thus would decrease the multitude of men that
would die. The dispute would be ended by the
party that overcame the other being granted the
city and Kingdom freely without controversy.
This option was proposed but not accepted as the
Turks were confident in their large numbers and
courage that lead them to believe they could
never be overcome by the crusaders (Asbridge
230). The decision to send Peter the Hermit on an
embassy to Kerbogha by the Crusader Princes
was in hopes of negotiating a legitimate
surrender. The Franks were isolated and utterly
exhausted, and the leaders were desperate to find
anyway they could to leave Antioch and arrive in
Palestine alive, even considering surrendering to
the Muslims. Unfortunately, Kerbogha refused to
accept anything other than complete,
unconditional surrender, which meant the Franks
were left with a difficult choice: fight or face the
death of captivity (Asbridge 231 ).
By the twenty-fifth of June, the Frankish
leaders decided to pursue a bold, aggressive and
extremely dangerous strategy of breaking out of
the city to confront Kerbogha massive army head
on (Asbridge 232). Bohemond was officially
elected as the temporary Commander-in-Chief of
the army. He was chosen as a result of his proven
track record as a General and was capable of
adjusting battle tactics to the tools he had. With
the battle fast approaching, the Franks began
undertaking a regime of spiritual purifications,
such as a three-day fast, confession of the sins,
and the receiving of Holy Communion. By the
end of the three days, the Franks were ready for
battle against Kerbogha and his army (Asbridge
233).
On June twenty-eighth at first light the
Franks began to march out of the city, zero
ready to face the obstacles that would be ahead,
while the clergy lined the walls and offered prayers
to God (Asbridge 233). Kerbogha army was
numerically superior in comparison to the
Crusaders and was also largely cavalry based. The
crusaders numbered around 20,000, including those
who were not involved in combat and they were
mainly infantry based as they had lost many steeds
in the siege and only had about 200 war trained
steeds remaining which left numerous knights
fighting on foot. Despite these unfortunate
circumstances, Bohemond was able to make the
best of the situation and arranged for a dominant
elite infantry force that was well armed. He also
reshaped the army to be able to fight on foot rather
than on horseback. Under the command of
Bohemond, the Crusaders had a solid plan. The
crusaders would have to first break through the
Muslim cordon surrounding Antioch and avoid
being cut into pieces during what would be a
painfully slow deployment out of the city. Once
arranged on the Plains, the crusaders would have to
overcome the enemy, even though the odds were
definitely not in their favour (Asbridge 234).
Bohemond’s plan was brilliant and the
execution was exceptional. He chose the Bridge
Gate as the sally-point, which placed the Franks on
the west banks of the Ortones which limited the
number of enemy troops because of the river
provided a physical barrier that hindered any
approach by the besieging Muslim forces stationed
at the other gates (Asbridge 235). Hugh of
Vermandois was selected to lead a squadron of
archers in the first wave of attack emerging from
the gate. Hugh unleashed an intense valley of
arrows that beat back the first line of Muslim
troops, thus leaving the way out of the city open.
With the exit out of Antioch now cleared,
Bohemond planned to deploy his remaining forces
onto the Plain of Antioch in the immediate wave of
Hugh’s shock attack. He would do this by throwing
his infantry to the front and then close the
deployment with his mounted men, in order to cut
down the Muslims’ ability to maneuver or use
missile weapons. To ensure that his army worked as
a cohesive unit during the battle Bohemond divided
the army into four contingents: the northern French

were placed under Robert of Normandy and
Robert of Flanders; Godfrey of Bouillon was
commander of the Lotharingians and Germans;
and Adhémar of Le Puy lead out the southern
French (Asbridge 235). As in previous battles,
Bohemond held the largest group in reserve, so if
needed, he could meet any sudden threat or plug
any gaps that may appear in the crusaders line.
Only Raymond of Toulouse, who was ill with the
disease that would soon claim Adhémar’s life,
was left within the city walls to protect the
citadel alongside a force of 200 men. Once the
Bridge Gate was cleared, the first contingent,
which consisted of the Northern French, marched
in column behind Hugh’s forces and then
deployed to his left, each contingent followed
suit, fanning out leftwards into a rough semicircle.
This deployment was extremely effective
(Asbridge 236).
As the Franks crossed the Bridges Gate
Kerbogha was alerted by the raising of a black
flag above the Muslim controlled Citadel.
Although Kerbogha failed to react to the news of
the advancing crusaders as he was in the midst of
playing a game of chess. Kerbogha was faced
with two options on how to handle the battle that
had begun and ended up making a faulty move
that would cost him the city. He had decided to
make a rather panicked tardy advance instead of
holding his ground for battle as he wanted all the
Franks to have been deployed in order for him to
kill them at once (Asbridge 236). After forcing
their way onto the Antiochene Plains, the crusaders
were immediately faced with a counterattack by the
Muslims who had been guarding the Bridge Gate,
with these troops soon being followed up by the
Turkish forces who had been stationed at the Gates
of Saint Paul and Duke. Most dangerously of all,
the Franks were attacked from the rear by a force
coming from the blockade at Saint George. The
Muslims had the Franks almost completely
encircled, but the crusaders held their ground. The
crusaders then dispatched Reinhard of Toul along
with his squadron, to act as a rear guard. This
squadron met the attackers coming from the east
with such ferocity that they fled the field, setting
the battleground on fire as an attempt to cover their
escape (Asbridge 237).
Even still the crusaders on the front lines
continued to hold their formation as Muslim attacks
swirled around them. The Turkish troops began to
scatter on all side as they tried to occupy the areas
surrounding the Franks in an attempt to surround
them once again as they believed they could kill all
the crusaders in this manner. However, the
crusaders were trained in Muslim battle tactics and
thus drove all them close together (Asbridge 237).
The Turks began to panic as they realized they
could not break the Frankish resolve, and so the
Muslims turned tail and fled as the crusaders
continued to advance to bring home their
advantage. Just as Kerbogha’s troops began to flee
the Commander himself arrived with his secondary
force and ran straight into his comrades, that were
now in headlong retreat. The forces in retreat
scattered the formation of the new troops, which
threw the whole Muslim army into disarray.
Kerbogha was unable to rally his army back into
formation and thus the contingents that he led to
Antioch only a short month earlier decided to cut
their losses and flee to the fields. The shock of the
sharp powerful attack and the unwavering solidarity
of the crusader’s formation exposed the deep-seated
fractures within the Muslim army. In many ways
the Turks under the command of Kerbogha had
already begun secretly plotting to betray and desert
him in the heart of battle, as Kerbogha’s ill
treatment towards his Knights lead him to become
alienated by his own men. The crusaders saw this
49

and used it to their advantage as they continued to push on, forcing Kerbogha into retreat as well as claim his
ignominious defeat (Asbridge 238).
The disgraced Kerbogha was to return to Mosul where he no longer posed a threat to the victorious
Franks. Kerbogha’s main camp was overrun and ravaged by the crusaders, as he and his entire army had left
all their provisions and luxuries behind in their hasty retreat. Although many Turkish women were also left
behind, the ones that were found by the Christians were not raped but rather pierced in the stomach with the
knight’s lance. Within hours of the attack, the Muslim garrison of Antioch’s Citadel surrendered, and the city
was at last safely and truly in the possession of the Crusaders (Asbridge 238).
Up to that point, the Great Battle ofAntioch was the single most important military engagement of the
First Crusade. Throughout the June of 1 098 the crusaders were faced with possibility of annihilation as the
Muslims were larger in numbers as well as better equipped than that of the Christian army. The crusaders had
taken an enormous risk by meeting Kerbogha’s force but with zealous conviction, gifted generalship and a
healthy dose of luck and spirituality, they were victorious against all odds. Many owe this victory to the
Frank’s religious devotion and fervent spiritual conviction in the face of battle. After immense sacrifice and
suffering over the duration of nine months the crusaders were at last in possession of the city of Antioch, that
had once stood as an impenetrable wall that barred their way forward to the Holy City of Jerusalem (Asbridge
239).
50

51

The Siege of
Jerusalem
Margarita Bajamic
52
After battles in Antioch ceased,
Bohemond of Taranto chose to stay and focus on
his principality rather than the ultimate goal of
Jerusalem. Although this was seen as a breaking
of the oath to give conquered land to the
Byzantine Empire, it was argued that Alexius
broke the oath made in Constantinople first, as
there was a severe lack of Byzantine forces.
Regardless, the remaining princes continued their
way to Jerusalem, without fear of an attack from
Antioch. However, the journey was not simple,
as the crusaders were lacking in food and water
in the heat of the summer, and the preparations
made by Iftikhar al-Daula, the governor of
Jerusalem, were no help in maintaining the health
and morale of the crusaders (Williams 80).
In preparation for the expected siege,
Iftikhar collected much food and water for the
city of Jerusalem and poisoned wells near the
city, giving the dwindling army much difficulty
in sustaining themselves. The city was fairly
recently in the hands of the Fatimids as well,
since “Iftikhar had killed or expelled the Seljuks
when he gained control of Jerusalem” (Williams
81 ), all while the crusaders were in Antioch.
While this made the trek to Jerusalem more
difficult due to lack of water on approach,
Iftikhar’s preparation also made the process of
preparing for the siege vastly more strenuous, as
the crusaders would have to leave the camp and
travel about two kilometres to the nearest water
source . Furthermore, Iftikhar decreased the
chances of betrayal from within the city as he
expelled the Christians, as he heard what
occurred at Antioch, and was not willing to allow
the same type of mistake in the city he governed.
The task of the siege was also made more
arduous with the impending threat of
reinforcements from the Fatimids that Iftikhar had
called for. Messengers were intercepted by the
crusaders, and these messengers were tortured for
information. The crusaders were given warning of
impending death and given much knowledge about
the relief force, as the reinforcements from the
Fatimids likely would have decimated the crusaders
in battle, eliminating all chances of taking
Jerusalem. Therefore, the crusaders had to act
quickly, but this was exceedingly difficult due to
the lack of supplies such as wood for siege warfare
(Jestice 39).
Due to the pressure to act quickly in spite of
being ill-equipped, hermits who joined the crusade
urged for an immediate attack, saying that an attack
without proper equipment would still give an
instant victory from God (Phillips & Taylor 79).
However, partially due to fighting between Tancred
and Raymond, with Tancred on the north side of the
city with Godfrey’s army and Raymond at the south
with the Provençal knights, there was much
disagreement on whether or not to attempt such a
pitiful attack. Godfrey’s army chose to agree with
the hermits while the south did not participate in
this escalade, and the initial poorly supplied attack
failed. Iftikhar’s well-preparedness also made the
crusaders’ preliminary attack vastly more hopeless,
as there were nine stones sent back for every one
stone launched by the crusaders. Morale dropped
even lower, and there was still a severe lack of
food, water, and supplies for siege warfare
(Kostnick 1 02).
As troops became hungrier and thirstier, it
was decided that groups go on raids of nearby cities
for supplies. Although many cities had already been
stripped thanks to Iftikhar’s extreme readiness,

supplies were eventually found by Count
Eustace, who was Godfrey’s brother, and
Tancred, who rode out to Nablus with one
hundred knights, finding large amounts of food
on the second day, and as they returned on
Wednesday July 1 3th, there was finally no lack
of food (Kostnick 1 02). However, this was after
towers were already built, as wood was found
much earlier than food. Of course, siege
equipment at the time was reliant on much wood
as a resource, which was scarce in the crusaders’
camp. During these desperate times, Tancred
became afflicted with dysentery, and he tended to
prefer privacy when he had to relieve himself
(Williams 83). So, as Tancred searched for
supplies for siege equipment with his men, it was
an extremely lucky find that he discovered
hidden timber in a cave (Phillips & Taylor 79),
surprisingly while he was relieving himself, and
it was with extreme fortune that about six ships
from England, Genoa, and Pisa which arrived at
Jaffa were able to provide the crusaders with
wood, nails, bolts, and other supplies, with two
ships being taken apart for even more wood
(Phillips & Taylor 79). While motive for these
merchant ships may be speculated, when it
comes to Genoa and Pisa, it was very likely they
were attempting to establish a trade relationship,
and should the crusaders take Jerusalem with the
help of these supplies, the merchants would be
able to establish a trading market in the city, and
possibly other cities near the area. Thanks to the
ample supply given by others, the crusaders
would be able to siege Jerusalem with proper
equipment and supplies (Williams 83).
Now that supplies were available for the
crusaders to build siege equipment, then came
the task of building with enough haste that the
siege could begin and end before Fatimid
reinforcements arrived. The siege tower in the
south was built by a knight named William
Embracio, and this tower was superior compared
to that of the tower built in the north by Gaston
of Bearn (Kostnick 92). A third, somewhat
smaller, tower was built to be placed on the north
west section of the defences, with work being out
of view of the garrison soldiers (Runciman 285).
The building of the towers increased morale for the
crusaders, as the sight of proper equipment would
instill hope that taking Jerusalem and winning the
crusade was within the realm of possibility. Iftikhar
was prepared for these tactics as well, however,
with ditches being dug around the city walls so
towers could not be moved close to them and his
decision to increase the height of the walls by
adding wood to the top of them so crusaders would
be unable to climb over with their towers.
Furthermore, the Fatimids employed Greek Fire, a
weapon that would cause wood to set on fire, which
would be devastating to the siege equipment.
Trebuchets and mangonels were also prepared by
both sides to launch rocks towards the opposing
side. Iftikhar was not going to take any chances
when it came to defence, as he “ordered ceaseless
construction” (Kostnick 99) of equipment to
prevent the crusaders from taking the city. Both
sides seemed to be able to match each other, but
Jerusalem had another defensive advantage to it, as
the city had two layers of walls. A gate from one
wall would be difficult enough to open using a ram,
which the northern crusaders built, but the second
layer made entering the city even more difficult for
the crusaders (Williams 81 ). This task would need
extreme skill and strength, and with Greek Fire,
flaming arrows, and other defensive tactics from
the Muslims, it would seem that even with proper
equipment, taking Jerusalem would prove to be
incredibly arduous to complete (Jestice 44).
In an effort to inspire troops even more, as
well as attempt to unite the southern and northern
crusaders, an enormous crowd of noble and peasant
members of the crusading army marched in a
clockwise circle around Jerusalem on the morning
of Friday July 8th. Peter Desiderius claimed he was
told by the late Adhemar to hold this procession in
a dream. Considering that Peter Desiderius was
considered a lunatic by many, it was quite
surprising he was believed, and this is likely due to
how beloved and respected Adhemar was. Being
told to do something by a religious figure meant
much in the times, and because a procession was
held in biblical times at Joshua, so the Israelites
could take the city, it was thought to be a sign from
God. The knights and foot soldiers were armed, and
53

54
the large group gathered at the Mount of Olives,
where the disciples learnt the Lord’s Prayer. Peter
the Hermit and Arnulf of Chocques, who was the
Norman-Italian bishop of Marturana, preached
for the crusaders to stop fighting with each other,
as a divided and upset army would be no help in
fighting the Fatimids. Tancred and Raymond
were able to settle their differences, as they were
much cause to this divide between the northern
and southern armies. The Muslims did end up
disturbing this small moment of peace, as they
spat and peed on crosses, made general mockery
of the Christians, and smashed crosses saying
“Franks, how wonderful is this cross?” (Kostnick
99). This infuriated the crusaders, and the need to
act quickly was greatly increased, but the
crusaders were still at a disadvantage due to the
strong defense made by Iftikhar’s preparations
(Kostnick 99).
While defense was overall strong on
Iftikhar’s part, he focussed most of the
machinery where the siege towers was built, and
due to this, there was one section of the northern
wall further east that was less strongly defended.
Therefore, Godfrey decided to take advantage of
this oversight and with the help of many
crusaders, changed the location of the tower on
the night of July 9th. A large amount of people
assisted in filling the ditch at this location, and
many moved the tower across approximately a
kilometre of rough ground, as well as trebuchets
and ammunition. This was done without the
knowledge of the southern camp, as the crusaders
had to act quickly and quietly, as any possible
knowledge spread to the enemy would mean that
the advantage would be lost. Thus, as the Fatimids
awoke the next morning to discover the northern
siege tower and other equipment in a completely
different spot, there was a rush to move defensive
equipment to the new area of the wall. Because of
the tactics of Godfrey, Iftikhar lost the advantage of
the extra height added to the original section of the
wall the crusaders’ equipment was placed and the
ditches dug around the northern part of the wall
was lost. Soon, the siege would begin, and the
northern crusaders had just tipped the scales in their
favour, in spite of the meticulous preparations done
by Iftikhar. In addition, Iftikhar was forced to move
much defense equipment in a short amount of time,
something quite disadvantageous with the
impending threat of the crusaders. Overall, the
switching of the towers done by Godfrey was a
game changer in the outcome of the siege (Kostnick
1 00).
Finally, on the morning of July 1 5, 1 099,
the siege of Jerusalem officially began, with the
peace of dawn broken by the crusaders. With a roar
of “Deus vult”, stones flew down and the battle
commenced. In the north, Robert of Norma and
Robert of Flanders formed two clusters in different
areas. These clusters were meant to close the walls
with many stones and arrows to prevent the

Fatimids from gathering at points that would give
them more advantage. East of Robert of Flanders
and Robert of Norma was a bigger army handling
the ram and the tower. The crusaders covered the
tower with wet hides and woven osiers in order
to protect the structure from the shock of rocks
being launched towards it by the Fatimids and to
protect it from setting on fire. On the top of the
protected tower, there was Godfrey and his
brother Eustace along with a gold cross with a
statue of Christ mounted on the top of the tower.
As Godfrey commanded the troops, in the
shadow of the tower, crusaders were able to place
ladders in order to climb the wall, a necessary
and dangerous part of a siege. There was a large
number of troops at the Mount of Olives, and
behind the professionals there were unarmed and
untrained crusaders, from old men to young
women with crude weapons. The ground floor of
the tower was covered with people pushing the
tower closer to the wall with the battering ram
leading the attack. The ram wasa large iron
headed beam, and would be essential in allowing
the crusaders in the city. So, in an effort to
destroy the ram, the Fatimids tried to burn the
ram with flaming arrows, fire pots, and Greek
Fire, but the ram was able to break through to the
first wall. However, the ram was unsuccessful in
breaking through the second wall that protected
Jerusalem and blocked the entrance to through
the first wall, so the crusaders set it on fire.
While the north was beginning to face some
problems, their issues were not nearly as difficult
to handle as those of the south (Kostnick 1 04).
The start of the siege in the south began
similarly to the north, with Provençal army at
Zion for some time and the poor crusaders
behind them. This is mostly where similarities
end, however. The south chose to create shields
out of branches, which would easily catch fire, so
the Fatimids chose to fight the crusaders with
fire. The south also did not have the advantage a
surprise switch in tower location, so the
defenders of Jerusalem knew more of what to
expect from the crusaders. The Muslims created
fireballs out of fat, hair, and other combustibles
and launched them at the crusaders, and this
ended up causing large fires in Raymond of
Toulouse’s camp. The fireballs also damaged the
southern tower so terribly that it was unable to be
brought to the wall, giving the south an extreme
disadvantage in the siege (Jestice 44-45). Even
though hope seemed to be lost at this point, the
crusaders in the north would turn the tide.
Eventually, the north was able to make a
bridge from the top of the siege tower to the wall,
capturing a section of the wall. Men were sent to
open the Gate of the Column so the main forces
could enter the city, and “Tancred and his men...
penetrated deep into the city streets” (Runciman
286). Many fled towards southern Jerusalem after
those who sought sanctuary at the Dome of the
Rock and the Mosque al-Aqsa surrendered to
Tancred, who gave them his banner in exchange for
money, and found Iftikhar was still battling with
Raymond of Toulouse. Early in the afternoon,
Iftikhar withdrew to the Tower of David,
understanding that the city had been lost, and
surrendered treasure and the Tower of David to
Raymond in order to save the lives of himself and
his bodyguards (Runciman 286). Raymond agreed
to the large ransom money and occupied the tower,
and gave the Muslims his word, which would later
help at the Battle of Ascalon, since the Muslims
would recognize Raymond as a man of his word,
and would end up only wanting to surrender to him.
Iftikhar then was permitted to join the garrison at
Ascalon (Phillips & Taylor 83). After this, the true
slaughter happened, with no lives being spared,
regardless if a person was Jewish or Muslim.
The crusaders had a strong bloodlust that
likely was built up from the trial and tribulation
faced until they managed to enter Jerusalem.
Defenders were dismembered as they ran to the
Temple of Solomon, and many women and children
also fell victim to the swords of the crusaders. The
crusaders looted and pillaged the city, almost as if
they were the barbarians that had sacked the city of
Rome so long ago. The Jews fled to the chief
synagogue, but due to the fact they assisted the
Muslims, they would not be given mercy. The
crusaders set fire to the synagogue and the Jews
were killed inside (Phillips & Taylor 80-81 ). The
Muslims in the mosque under the protection of
55

Tancred’s banner faced a similar fate, as a band of crusaders forced themselves into the building and
massacred its inhabitants. According to chronicler Raymond of Aguilers, the blood and corpses in the Temple
area reached his knees when he visited the area later that day. The crusaders also took, prisoners, but chose to
slaughter them as well so no Muslims would be in the city when Iftikhar’s relief force arrived, but women and
children were still not spared, so it was likely they were slain out of spite (Jestice 47). However, it is equally
important to remember the fact that some were able to escape the slayings, as the walls were left unguarded
by the crusaders (Madden 47). The massacre in Jerusalem would be felt by Muslims, Jews, and Christians
alike for long after, as the brutality and bloodthirstiness of the crusaders could not simply be forgotten. With
Jerusalem without any Muslims, the crusaders had finally won the First Crusade, and now, with Jerusalem
now won by the crusaders, it was necessary to clean up the mess of blood and gore that washed the streets
(Jestice 47).
The crusaders had finally succeeded, there was much celebration of the completed pilgrimage, with
the massacre being praised by clergy, as Jerusalem was now rid of the people who they believed desecrated
the land. Mass was held in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, with priests singing the Office of the
Resurrection. After this celebration came the need to remove the bodies, and while Raymond wanted to dig a
large pit for the bodies to be buried in, it was argued that these bodies did not deserve proper burial and that
there were simply too many to be buried. Therefore, the approximately 70,000 bodies were burned, and the
task of choosing a leader for Jerusalem had to be done (Williams 87).
Today
for
the
MNN
funnies:
The Schedule Crusade
56

57

The Defender of the
Holy Sepulchre and
the Battle of Ascalon
58
Vanessa Dasilva
The Holy City was awash with blood
when Jerusalem fell on the fifteenth of July 1 099.
Its streets were lined with Muslim corpses and
the stench of death hung heavy in the air. The
mutilated Muslim bodies, rotting in the
sweltering sun, threatened to overwhelm the
Latins with disease. This prompted the Crusader
Princes to order the grim job of clearing of the
city by the hands of the few Muslim survivors.
The bodies of the dead Saracens were dragged
out of the gates and burned on the pyre. Only the
Fatimid commander, Iftikhar ad-Daulah, and his
troops were able to escape the slaughter. They
alone had managed to negotiate terms of
surrender that were upheld. Iftikhar ad-Daulah,
having turned over the Tower of David to
Raymond of Toulouse, was granted safe passage.
Therefore, escorted by the count himself out of
the city, to the nearest Egyptian stronghold, the
southern port of Ascalon (Asbridge, The First
Crusade 320). With the Muslim threat absent, the
princes of the crusade went solemnly through the
desolated Christian quarter of Jerusalem,
journeying to give thanks to God in the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre (Runciman 238).
On the seventeenth of July, the remaining
crusader princes met in council to discuss the fate
of their newly held Jerusalem. In the many weeks
leading up to the sack of Jerusalem, the Latin
expedition had come frighteningly close to being
torn apart by an unruly leadership struggle. The
right to rule the Holy City now became the focus
of this friction (Asbridge, The First Crusade
321 ). Out of the great princes that had set out
from Constantinople, only four remained with the
crusade: Raymond of Toulouse, Godfrey of
Bouillon, Robert of Flanders and Robert of
Normandy (Runciman 240). Yet the greatest
friction was struck between the two most
formidable applicants, Raymond and Godfrey as
both Robert of Flanders and Robert of Normandy
were more than eager to return to Europe.
Raymond of Toulouse, the once prospective leader
of the Crusade, had lost a great deal of support as a
result of the debacle at Aqra and his continued
patronage to the widely discredited Holy Lance
(Asbridge, The First Crusade 321 ). Although
Raymond had an asset no other candidate
possessed, the late Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, who
was a long-time associate of the prince (Runciman
241 ). However, Raymond’s assets were soon
eclipsed by Godfrey of Bouillon, as the crusaders
saw him as a gallant, Godly man, who was devoted
to their cause. Having played an instrumental role
in the capture of Jerusalem, Godfrey could also
claim right to the Conquest of the Holy City
(Asbridge, The First Crusade 321 ). Although the
choice seemed clear, the clergy continued to resist
the idea as they argued that a site of such ratified
sanctity should not be subjected to the rule of a
secular king. They proposed an alternative option
through the creation of a church-run realm, with
Jerusalem as its capital. Yet, in the absence of
Jerusalem's late Greek patriarch Simeon, only
recently deceased in exile in Cyprus, the church
was left with no obvious candidate to promote
(Asbridge, Crusades 1 03). Consequently, the crown
was offered to Raymond of Toulouse. To
everyone’s surprise, he refused the crown and
announced that he did not in fact wish to be the
king of Christ’s Holy City. News of this

spread quickly, forcing the electors to turn to
Godfrey to take the position (Runciman 242). On
the twenty-second of July 1 099, Godfrey of
Bouillon accepted power over Jerusalem. As a
nod to the Clergy’s apprehensions towards a
secular king, he decided upon adopting a less
assertive title of ‘Advocate of the Holy
Sepulchre’. The title itself implied that he would
simply act as Jerusalem’s protector, therefore
subordinate to the church (Asbridge, The First
Crusade 321 ).
Defeated once again, Raymond of
Toulouse would no longer accept the authority
Godfrey now held over him. Thus, when Godfrey
invited him to vacate the Tower of David, he
stubbornly refused. Raymond continuously
insisted that he would be staying in the region
until the Easter of 11 00 and needed a suitable
place to live. Raymond knew, after the events
that occurred at Antioch earlier in the year, that
such a significant Citadel could enable him to
contest the rule of the Holy City. His continued
stubbornness earned him a significant amount of
unpopularity as both Roberts sided with Godfrey
as well as several of Raymond’s very own men
who secretly opposed him (Rubenstein 301 ).
Under the intensifying pressure, Raymond turned
to the recently elevated Bishop of Albara and
long-time ally, Peter of Narbonne. Yet, even Peter
had now decided that the tide of political fortune
had turned and swiftly betrayed Raymond. The
Bishop of Albara handed the Tower directly to
Godfrey, as he opened the Citadel to the
Advocate’s men without a fight (Asbridge, The
First Crusade 321 ). The Bishop later excused
himself before Raymond saying that he was
defenceless and obliged to give it away
(Runciman 242). By the end of July, Raymond of
Toulouse and his few remaining Southern French
supporters had been neutralized. The once likely
Candidate for the Kingship of Jerusalem now left
Godfrey in full possession of the city. Raymond
continued on, setting out to the River Jordan to
be baptised and later established a camp in the
nearby town of Jericho (Asbridge, The First
Crusade 322).
In Raymond’s absence, a new patriarch of
Jerusalem was elected. The man chosen was a
Norman French Crusader by the name of Arnulf of
Chocques. Arnulf had recently grown in prestige as
a moderate politician as well as a vocal opponent of
the highly discredited Holy Lance. Arnulf’s formal
elevation in August of 1 099 signalled a significant
turning point in the course of the First Crusade.
One year after the death of the papal legate
Adhémar of Le Puy, Rome’s policy of co-operative
deference to the Byzantine Church was in tatters.
The creation of a Latin patriarch was seen as an
open attack against Greek rights. Although Arnulf
had stopped just short of ostracising the Orthodox
clergy, he still managed to earn a rather unsavory
reputation (Asbridge, The First Crusade 322). This
reputation was in part a result of a foul rumour that
had stated his election had been uncanonical, given
the ecclesiastical status from which he had been
raised. Seeing as he had never held the position of
sub deacon prior to becoming the patriarch of
Jerusalem. Arnulf also demonstrated a particular
predisposition for religious intolerance. Rather than
embracing the eastern Christian sects such as the
Armenians, Copts, Jacobites and Nestorians, the
new patriarch oversaw their expulsion from the
church of the Holy Sepulchre. These sects were
banned from holding services within the church, as
it could only now be used to celebrate the Latin
rite. Soon, the eastern Christians began to discover
that they may have in fact been better off under
Muslim rule than they were in a ‘liberated’
Jerusalem (Runciman 243).
59

60
Against this background of crude
discrimination, Arnulf sought to cement his
position by cultivating a new relic cult. The
cultivation of this cult was destined to banish the
rather soiled memory of the Holy Lance that was
discovered in Antioch. Around the fifth ofAugust
a piece of the True Cross was unveiled. This
relic, presumably a rather battered silver and gold
crucifix, was believed to contain a chunk of
wood from the cross of Christ. It had allegedly
been hidden by the indigenous Christian
population of Jerusalem throughout generations
of Muslim rulers. Once the relic was unearthed it
was seized by Arnulf and his loyal supporters.
Arnulf cult widely promoted the relic through
special celebratory services in the Church of the
Holy Sepulcher. Patriarch Arnulf was determined
to use this new remnant of Christ’s life to finally
eradicate any lingering memory of the Holy
Lance and to legitimize the New Latin order in
Jerusalem (Asbridge, Crusades 1 04).
Although, neither the patriarch nor
Godfrey had an opportunity to relish their
newfound status as a dreadful danger still
threatened to obliterate their achievements. The
Fatimid ruler of Egypt, the vizier al-Afdal, was
leading a powerful strike force through Palestine
in an attempt to recapture the Holy City. The
Franks had minimal time to decide how they
would react to the imminent Egyptian attack.
However, the idea of depending on Jerusalem's
fortification was quickly rejected and the
decision to face the Fatimids head on in battle
was made (Asbridge, The First Crusade 324).
In early August Tancred, who was
patrolling the Palestinian coast line, procured
intelligence proving that an Egyptian offensive
was only days away. It was only days later that
Tancred also captured a group of advancing
Fatimid scouts. The scouts, under interrogation,
revealed that al-Afdal was massing his forces
eighty kilometers south-east of Jerusalem, at
Ascalon. This location was the only major port
between Palestine and Egypt. With this news
Godfrey realised that the crusaders must unite to
survive. However, Raymond of Toulouse, who
had recently returned from Jericho, and
Robert of Normandy refused to answer his urgent
call to arms. Both Raymond and Robert felt that
they needed further confirmation that a Fatimid
attack was indeed imminent (Asbridge, The First
Crusade 324).
Consequently, on the ninth of August,
Godfrey was forced to march out of Jerusalem with
only the support of Robert of Flanders. The united
leaders left the Holy City as penitent soldiers of
Christ, accompanied by Patriarch Arnulf and the
relic of the True Cross. Unfortunately, without the
full force of the Turkish army, their fate looked
unpromising. As the troops reached Ramleh that
night, Godfrey issued one last desperate appeal. He
wrote, that from their current advanced position
there was no doubt that battle would be joined
(Runciman 244).
On August tenth, as a result of the pressure
posed by many of their followers, Raymond and
Robert of Normandy conceded and set out to join
Godfrey at Ramleh. Even though the Holy Lance of
Antioch was now widely discredited, Raymond’s
Provençal supporters still carried the Lance with
them as a token of victory. With the united force of
troops setting out for battle, Jerusalem was now
stripped of all its Latin forces. Only Peter the
Hermit was left in the city to organize propitiatory
prayers amongst the Clergy. It became crystal clear
that if the Frankish forces were defeated in the
upcoming confrontation, the Holy City would
undoubtedly fall back into Islamic control
(Rubenstein 307).
The Frankish army, patched together by a
vague semblance of ideological unity, gathered
together at Ramleh. It was the sheer lethal force of
the ordeals these soldiers had endured, on the road
to Jerusalem, that enabled them to function as an
army. Through the three long years of the crusade,
only the toughest, most able, and the luckiest were
able to survive and continue on fighting. Thus, a
deeply experienced yet slightly divided force of
elite troops - some 1 ,200 knights and 9,000
infantrymen - marched southward towards Ascalon
on the eleventh ofAugust. Towards the end of the
day they captured another group of Egyptian spies
who confirmed al-Afdal’s battle plan along with the
size and disposition of his forces. The Fatimids had

aised an immense army, 20,000 men strong,
with a heavy cavalry at its core and an array of
north African troops. This formidable Fatimid
force was camped on the fields just outside
Ascalon, preparing to march on Jerusalem the
very next day (Asbridge, The First Crusade 325).
Recognizing that they would be
outnumbered two to one, the crusaders quickly
decide that their only hope lay within the element
of surprise. Before dawn on August twelfth, with
Raymond of Toulouse on the right flank, Godfrey
on the left and both Roberts along with Tancred
holding the center, they closed the distance, and
at the sight of the Fatimid camp they charged at
pace. Al-Afdal was over confident and as a result
failed to post enough watchmen, and in the halflight
the Franks fell on their sleeping, stunned
enemy. Robert of Normandy drove his knights
into the heart of the camp, managing to seize al-
Afdal’s personal standard and most of his
possessions. Racing along the coastline,
Raymond was able to drive most of the enemy
forces into the sea to drown, while elsewhere the
others ran to the gates of Ascalon only to be
crushed to death as they tried to gain entry. The
Fatimid army could not recover from the initial
shock attack and as a result the battle soon
became a rout (Runciman 245).
In a state of horrified shock, al-Afdal and
a few of his officers escaped into Ascalon. They
were utterly astonished at how easily they had
been crushed by a force their vizier had assumed
would be a spent rabble and in sheer terror they
set sail for Egypt. The crusaders secured a rich
assortment of treasure and weaponry amid the
Fatimid camp. The First Crusade had survived its
last test, although, jealousy and factionalism
continued to eat away at the expedition. In the
wake of battle, the terrified garrison of Ascalon
sought to arrange terms of surrender. However,
they refused to hand the city over to anyone but
Raymond of Toulouse as he alone was the only
crusader prince to have upheld his promise of
safe passage, to Iftikhar ad-Daulah, during the
massacre of Jerusalem. Fearful that Raymond
might thereby establish his own independent
coastal lordship, Godfrey interfered. The
negotiations collapsed and Ascalon remained in
Muslim hands. Due to this petty rivalry between the
princes, a resurgent Fatimid navy proved able to
defend a Palestinian foothold, thus leaving
Jerusalem dangerously exposed to an Egyptian
attack (Asbridge, The First Crusade 326).
With the victory at the battle of Ascalon, the
main armies of the First Crusade reached the end of
their remarkable journey. The Holy City of
Jerusalem had been captured against incalculable
odds and the immense strength of Islam had been
broken by the Latins. Of the tens of thousands who
had taken the cross years earlier, only a fraction of
those men remained. Ultimately, the majority of
these men looked to return home. In early
September 1 099, Robert of Normandy and Robert
of Flanders along with the vast majority of the
remaining crusaders set out for Europe. They took
ship from Syria to Constantinople and beyond
(Asbridge, The First Crusade 327). Count Raymond
of Toulouse, who vowed to spend the remainder of
his life in the Holy Land, ventured north into Syria.
There, he carved out the Country of Tripoli in a
narrow strip of land between Mount Lebanon and
the Coast. The Latin east had officially been
created. Bohemond remained as the ruler of the
Principality of Antioch, with Baldwin returning to
his throne in Edessa. Count Raymond governed the
newly created country of Tripoli and Godfrey
continued to hold the title of ‘Advocate of the Holy
Sepulcher’ in Jerusalem (Williams 94). By the
closing of the First Crusade, the Franks had
managed to carve out four major settlements that
would come to be known as the Crusader States:
the country of Edessa, the principality of Antioch,
the kingdom of Jerusalem, and the country of
Tripoli (Asbridge, The First Crusade 11 5). The
expedition of the First Crusade had come to a
successful end as against all odds the Franks had
managed to complete the call of the late Pope
Urban II to fulfill God’s will.
61

An Interview with
62
Stephen of Blois, known for his “careful
words which seemed to the bolder spirits more
like timidity than wisdom” (Foss 73), has sat
down and spoken to us about the first crusade.
This rich, “well connected, being master ‘if fame
speaks truly’” (73) answers the circulating
questions on his fleeing, his wife, his allies, and
Antioch.
Q: What were your motives to join the
Crusade besides money and the eternal
salvation promised to you?
A: One may know that Blois is very wealthy. The
reasons for me to join the crusade were more
than the money and riches (Madden 36). I did not
have any intention to join except for religious
reasons. Pope Urban II stated that “if a man sets
out from pure devotion, not for reputation or
monetary gain, to liberate the church of God at
Jerusalem, his journey shall be reckoned in a
place of penance” (38). The promise of the
security of Blois and the salvation from the fires
hell was comforting, but not needed in my state
(36).
Q: Did you feel pressure from anyone to join
the Crusade?
A: Well, yes. I knew it was my duty to fight for
the land that belongs to God. However, the
pressure from the neighbouring counts and
princes like Robert of Flanders II, Duke Robert
of Normandy, and Count Eustace of Boulogne
joining in did put pressure on me. Even Godfrey
of Bouillon, who was Pope Urban II’s most wellknown
enemy, followed. Although when
Raymond of Toulouse and Count Robert of
Flanders joined I received the most trouble
because, like me, they were in no need of gold
(36).
Q: What was your wife’s role in your
involvement in the Crusade?
A: My father in law is William the Conqueror, so I
received a great influence from him to join the
Crusade. He motivated and influenced me to fight
for the Holy Land as he fought for England (Foss
72) My wife, Adele, also encouraged me urged me
to “‘pluck up the courage for which [I] renowned in
[my] youth, and take arms in a noble cause for the
salvation of thousands’” (207).
Q: Did your wife also take up the noble cause
and help in some way?
A: When I left for the crusade in the fall of 1 096
my wife took a large role in the city of Blois
(Madden 38). Adele ruled Blois while I was in the
Crusade and did an excellent job of keeping the city
safe while still making time to write to me while I
was gone (Nicholson 1 29). Usually, it is I who
takes care of our many castles and protects the city,
but Adele did as well as any other prince (Foss 73).
Q: What were your thoughts on Alexius I
Comnenus when meeting him in
Constantinople? How did this differ from your
allies’ opinions?
A: Alexius was an important man and Fulcher of
Charles thought that it was necessary to maintain
relationships with Alexius. My initial reaction
before meeting Alexius was the same as the Fulcher
of Charles that we needed Alexius for guidance and
support (1 05). However, when I met the Emperor in
Constantinople, I thought “‘there [was] no man
under heaven like [Alexius], for he [enriched] all
our princes most generously, relieving all our
knights with gifts, and [refreshed] all poor folks
with feasts’” (1 06). From the generosity Alexius
showed to my troops, knights, and soldiers, I was
captivated by the Emperor. My fellow princes

Stephen of Blois
Julia Banco
and counts thought otherwise. Especially
Bohemond of Taranto, who thought Alexius was
“‘a wretched man,’ an ‘abominable emperor,’ and
‘a fool as well as a knave’” (1 06).
Q: What did Alexius I Comnenus think of
you? How does this differ from your allies
opinions?
A: Alexius “‘received me with dignity and
honour and with the greatest affection, as if I
were his own son, and he loaded me with the
most bountiful and precious gifts. In the whole of
our army of God, there is neither Duke nor Count
nor other Noble person whom he trusts and
favours more than myself’” (1 05). I imagine the
people in the army thought the same of me. I was
a high prince, a good husband, and likeable but I
did overhear some leaders mention that I was a
poor soldier and leader (1 32).
Q: With your faith in God, what do you
believe His role was in the Crusade?
A: I wholeheartedly believe that God was helping
throughout the Crusade and that all the men who
met their fate beside me met God in heaven
(Nicholson 1 29). With “‘Christ [as] our
commander we have met and attacked [the
Turks] with fiercer spirits… with the help of our
Lord, God, we have conquered and we have
killed countless members of them’” (1 30-1 31 ).
“Through the grace of God, we bore many
labours and countless evils in attacking these
enemies of the same God and us” (1 31 ).
Q: What was the state of the army before
Antioch?
A: “‘We certainly found Antioch to be an enormous
city, much stronger and more difficult than can be
believed’” (1 31 ). Troops experienced “‘death from
hunger… [and] suffered excessive cold and endless
rain through the whole winter outside of Antioch’”
(1 31 ). Antioch started to look hopeful when extra
equipment and new crusaders were carried in from
English ships to our bases. When spring came
about, food was available and we found ourselves
stronger, especially with Baldwin conquering
Edessa, and we were able to conquer the major
gates ofAntioch (Madden 42).
Q: What events leading up to fleeing Antioch did
you witness?
A: The crusaders made an alliance with the
Fatimids against the Seljuk Turks. The alliance
caused Yaghi-Siyan, the leader of Constantinople,
to create an alliance with Kerbogha of Mosul, the
leader of the Turks. Kerbogha raised an army and
captured Edessa to warn us. We were still in high
hopes until Bohemond declared himself as the
leader if Alexius came, but the tower commander
betrayed him. On the second of June, the crusaders
arrived at the city and massacres started. Two days
later, Keborgah came to Antioch and laid siege on
us (42).
Q: Why did crusaders, including yourself, leave
Antioch?
A: The large city of Antioch caused distress in the
army. People left for poverty, out of cowardice, and
fear of death (Foss 1 37). I feel I fulfilled my duties
and I was unhappy and wanted the crusade to be
over (Nicholson 1 29). I knew I had taken the vow
“to persist the way of God until the end,” but I
assumed Antioch was the end for the Crusade
(Madden 36). These thoughts came when I went to
a nearby mountain in Antioch and saw many tents
63

of Keborgah’s army, enough to finish the crusade. When seeing this, I left with my troops, thinking we would
die if we did not (Foss 1 40).
Q: What did you say to other leaders after fleeing Antioch?
A: I met with Alexius on June 20th, right after I had fled Antioch. The troops had thought that Alexius was
coming with support from the Byzantine, but when I met him, I told him all was lost (Madden 43). When my
troops and I had made our way to Philomelium, we told the Emperor that “Antioch [had] fallen to our men,
but now we ourselves are closely besieged, and by this time all will have been killed by the Turks” (Foss
1 40).
Q: How did you redeem yourself after deserting Antioch? Why did you feel the need to do this?
A: I left the day after Antioch fell, which disgraced me (1 37). My wife was not pleased with my return home
early from the crusade (Jones 1 8), and I was not too happy with the reputation I received either. Fulcher of
Charles described those who left the crusade as “held worthless by God as well as men, and they became
utterly disgraced” (Foss 73). From these opinions held by others, I had to return to the second wave of the
Crusade (Madden 48). I tried to redeem myself by aiding the “infant Christian community in the Holy Land”
(Foss 207). In 11 01 , I went to go finish the crusade along with William of Aquitaine, Hugh Lusignan, and
Raymond of Toulouse (208).
Before he had departed, Stephen told us about his plans to follow the second wave. As we admire his
bravery, we have learnt that he had met his fate while finishing the Crusade of 11 01 . Stephen was killed in
“sudden skirmish outside Jaffa as he was waiting to be shipped home” (208). May he receive eternal life in
heaven bypassing the waiting in purgatory.
64

Letters
to the
Magazine
Dear Editor,
I love Peter the Hermit, and he is not this
“crazy” person that this magazine has portrayed
him (Williams 40). Peter tells the other peasants
as well as myself that the Holy Land is filled
with milk and honey, just like Jesus said. Peter
has called us to join and take back the Holy Land
from the Turks who are currently holding it. My
master told me not to go to the Holy Land
because he wants me to work for him. Because I
want to leave and help in this peasant army, my
master hates Peter the Hermit for calling me to
help. I shall go because Peter said that God's
children can take back the Holy Land, and we
will!. Even though no peasants or members of
this army know how to hold a sword, let alone
use one, we will succeed because we pray, so
God will give us weapons. For all of those
peasants slaving away that are starving, thirsty,
and wasting their lives away, join the People’s
Crusade. For the love of God and the love of our
neighbours, the children of God need to take the
Holy Land back from the Turks.
Dear Editor,
My name is Gullus Columella, and I am a
peasant from Rome. I was lucky enough to have an
educated uncle when I was a child, and he taught
me how to read and write. I am no poet, but I try. I
feel very mixed feelings about this Holy
Pilgrimage. Many of my friends have left the city to
go, and I fear for their safety. They do not know
much about fighting. One of them was at the Pope’s
speech, and he said it was amazing. Maybe it will
be worth the risk. The Muslims are absolutely
terrible. They disgrace the Holy Land, and they
must be stopped. We need to be able to travel to the
Holy Land, for pilgrimages, but we cannot. If only
there was a way for the knights to go, not our
family friends! The rich men have been causing
many problems in the city, too. They fight each
other because they have nothing better to do. The
Holy Land must be helped, but not by us. The
nobles should go. Either way, I know God will
protect them.
Sincerely,
An educated peasant
Letters graciously provided by:
Julia Banco (A member of the People's
Crusade)
Romina Difluri (An educated peasant)
Alessio Pizzolato (A Muslim soldier)
Marlon Miral (Shachar, Cluniac monk)
Margarita Bajamic (A Norman knight under
Bohemond, Brother Jimmy, Horse)
From,
A member of the People’s Crusade under Peter
the Hermit
65

Dear Editor,
Ha! First Crusade my eşek! This Frankish
aggression started years before Pope Urban’s
speech in 1 095. This ‘holy pilgrimage,’ as the
Franks like to call it, is merely another wave of
hate and torment against the great Allah and
Muhammad's selfless works on Earth. This entire
magazine is completely false and dishonest.
Complete saçmalık written by a bunch of
Frankish morons! These series of attacks
sprouted nothing but confusion and suffering just
so some half wit Christians could fill their pitiful
need to rule over Jerusalem. And for what! This
so called people’s crusade was a murderous
disaster. How could this Church, the Franks
favour so much allow this horrendous series of
events to take place? The rest of this pilgrimage
killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim soldiers
only protecting their land. My brother Aaban
perished while defending the land of Jerusalem
which had been under Muslim control for four
hundred and fifty years! They had no right to
take what was not there’s and because of that
many children will never see their father, or
mother for that matter, again. The first crusade
was a horrendous outrage! A blithering foolhardy
massacre that these Frankish simpletons dare call
a pilgrimage. Tüm moronik aptallar!
With hate,
A Muslim soldier
P.S. May peace NOT be upon you!
Hello Tempus Magazine,
My name is Shachar. Living life as a Jew in
Jerusalem was a challenge every day. The Seljuk
Turks treated us like savages and stripped away all
our dignity. But most importantly, they took away
our culture. I cried myself to sleep every night
hoping this nightmare would end. And sadly, the
worse had yet to come. When the Crusaders
arrived, they looked at us with evil hearts and fiery
eyes. They saw no difference between us and the
Muslims. Unfortunately, only a few of us managed
to make it into the synagogue. We prayed and
prayed that God would have mercy on our lives. It
was only a short while after until we realized that
we were no longer safe. Then, a lightbulb went off
in my head. I saw a small crevice in the wall and
planned my getaway. I dropped to the floor and
squeezed through with all my might. There were
Crusaders all over the place but somehow, they
didn’t spot me. I ran as far as I could with my long
and lean legs. As I took one final look back, I
watched as a cloud of smoke flared up into the
clouds. I could hear the screams of mercy from my
family and friends as the synagogue was flaming. I
felt guilty and cowardly ditching them to perish in
the synagogue but I had no other choice. Now, I
spend my life wandering the roads feeling sorry for
myself. Sometimes, I think about taking my own
life but I’m convinced that God has a calling for
me. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read
this and listening to my story. Bless Up!
Sincerely,
Shachar
Dear MNN,
I don't like this anti-Bohemond rhetoric from you pansies. Bohemond is the greatest prince that Antioch
has ever seen! He has made Antioch great again! He has a pretty, European wife and has the best beard and
hands ever. He could never be insecure about his beard, nor would he ever sponsor a beard treatment, because
he was born with a perfect beard. The Venetians are just illegals and criminals who don't know a good beard
when they see one. If you don't like Bohemond, you don't like Taranto or Antioch and are an enemy to
Christians! If you side with crooked Alexius, then you might as well be the antichrist. Keep Antioch great!
66 From,
A Norman knight under Bohemond

Hello Tempus Magazine,
Greetings. My name is Brother Aquilo. When I
first heard that Pope Urban II was organizing a
religious pilgrimage, I was overwhelmed with
excitement. I wished to embark on this journey to
Jerusalem and visit the land where our Lord
Jesus Christ once lived. Then, when he started to
condemn these Muslims for committing
despicable acts in the Holy Land, I was
somewhat skeptical. I look up to our fellow
brother Odo as a role model and to hear him
speak about these Muslims absolutely devastated
me. The Father Almighty has spoken to us
through the Scripture and has constantly taught
us to love thy neighbour and not bear false
witness against him. A valuable opportunity was
present in negotiating with these Muslims and
sharing the Holy land with them. This armed
militia only caused chaos and mayhem in
Jerusalem, which is contrary to everything I
believe in. Greed is a cardinal sin in itself. Every
day, I pray that God may have mercy on these
innocent souls who were blinded by the devil’s
wicked curse. He tries his very best to inflict
violence in society so that we may turn away
from God. This is how the world is going to end,
isn’t it? I’m talking too much now, aren’t I? God
bless me.
Dear Tempus Magazine,
Greetings. I am the famous brother Jimmy,
master of the lavatorium. In the First Crusade, I
decided to join up with the members of the crusade
so I could get out of cleaning up all the bathrooms
for once. Little did I know that I'd have to burn
bodies! After the massacre, Jerusalem stunk of
corpses for an extremely large amount of time, and
that smell is far worse than the lavatorium. At least
I wasn't in the lavatorium all the time! The stench
seemed to be endless, and it makes me wonder how
moral the First Crusade really was. Sure, I might be
going to heaven for sure even though I forgot to
ring the bell for matins (a grave sin indeed), but I
witnessed so much killing just for Jerusalem! I
mean seriously, why did the women and children
have to do? I should set up a monastery relatively
near Jerusalem, just so I can pray for all those
knights, should they donate of course. That way I
can make someone else ring the bell for matins and
take the lavatorium job! What do you guys think?
Let me know!
With love and peace,
Brother Jimmy
Warm regards,
A Cluniac monk
Deer Magsin,
I am horse. I use horse to Englich translater to kommunikate wit u. Srry if Englich not too goodly,
translater not so good. 1 st Croosaid so anoying 4 mee! So manie nights tride too eet mee!! Mee thinks it
stoopid too go on croosaid with out enuf food, cuz I saw so many cuzins and siblings killd! Poor me :((.
Maybee nex tim take moar food! >:(. OK, I go now. Bi bi.
Neigh,
Horse
67

Editorial
68
Romina Difluri, Margarita Bajamic, Mika
Colonia, Marlon Miral, Julia Banco, Vanessa
Dasilva, Alessio Pizzolato, and Cole Canofari
The First Crusade has been a major
source of conflict, both within the Church and the
secular world for decades. As an incredibly
complex series of events with countless
perspectives, it is infeasible to judge its moral
implications. Historical context plays a
significant role, while Just War Theory, Objective
Morality and the concept of self defense provide
thought-provokingly contradictory factors to
consider. Using the Catholic Church’s arsenal of
morality-judging methods, one can analyze the
First Crusade in an attempt to reach a solid
conclusion.
For any hope of fair judgement, it is
imperative to consider the historical context of
these events. By today’s standards, the First
Crusade would have been terribly frowned upon.
As a secular society, wars of religion seem
unnecessary and somewhat irresponsible. To a
certain degree, the Catholic Church currently
faces a scenario uncannily similar to Pope Urban
II’s in 1 095. Jerusalem, the Holy Land, is under
the control of another religion. It was dangerous
to travel there for a pilgrimage without a proper
guide, and as a result of the tense political
climate, most foreigners would admit to feeling
unsafe on such a journey. However, if Pope
Francis decreed that the Church ought to take up
arms and invade the Middle East, it is safe to say
he would not receive a positive response. There
is a reason that Pope Urban II was met with the
cry “Deus vult” (Armstrong 3) at the Council of
Clermont, whereas Pope Francis would likely be
institutionalized; the eleventh century placed the
same merit in Church and State through the
practice of Christendom. A threat to one’s ability
to go on a pilgrimage equated to much much
more than it would have today. Through the eyes
of the eleventh century, the Muslims in the Holy
Land were a direct threat to society, one that
absolutely needed to be stopped. It wasn’t a matter
of preference, or an ideal reality, but an imminent
danger to the chance of ever seeing heaven for
Christians.
Additionally, the world’s view of violence
has been altered beyond recognition compared to
the views of those in the First Crusade. The ideal of
Pacifism did not exist at the time, and people were
exposed to copious levels of violence both at home
and at war. Barbarian attacks, gang warfare, and
fatal illnesses are only a handful of sources that
made death far more trivial than modern society
may perceive it to be, though this was balanced by
an incredibly passionate belief of Heaven. It is
eternal joy and pleasure that awaited good humans
post-mortem, so long as they were a good Christian
on Earth. Practically every member of the Roman
Empire believed this as confidently as North
Americans today believe two plus two equals four,
so violence and death simply was not regarded in
the same matter as it is by the twenty-first century.
Keeping all this in mind, the Catholic
Church has devised a manner of determining
clearly whether or not a battle is excusable
according to Christian faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
one of Catholicism (and the world’s) most
renowned philosophers built off the work of St.
Augustine to form Just War Theory. He detailed it
all out in Summa Theologica, his massive, multivolume
masterpiece. Saint Thomas stated that three
main principles must be met for a war to be morally
sound - It must be called by a legitimate authority,
have a just cause, and be backed by the right
intentions. The secular world, too, uses Saint
Thomas Aquinas’ work in the United Nation’s Jus
ad bellum. After World War Two, they expanded
and specified the three points from Summa
Theologica into seven requirements, and still
consider it to be valid to date. For the purposes of
judging Christian Morality pertaining the First
Crusade, Saint Thomas’ original three points will

e considered.
First, it is necessary that “the authority of
the of the sovereign by whose command the war
is to be waged” (Summa Theologica, II-II Q. 40
A. 1 ) is attained. Saint Thomas meant this to
assure that there was no private biases factored in
to the initiation of a just war. In the case of the
First Crusade, this requirement was met. Pope
Urban II himself called for the armed pilgrimage
to take place, rightfully using his Papal Primacy
to make the request. There was no case of
personal vendettas or biased ulterior motives (at
least, not in the beginning), at the level of the
Church as a whole. However, one could argue
that Pope Urban II may have been slightly biased
himself. Though he most definitely had the
honourable goal of regaining access to the Holy
Land at the forefront, he also saw the potential to
rejoin the Roman and Byzantine Empire. This
would make him the recognized Pope of both the
East and Western Empires, which could have
been a tainted personal goal. Regardless, Pope
Urban II was, in fact, the rightful Pope of both
empires according to Christian theology, making
this personal motive permissible. Pope Urban II
also saw the armed pilgrimage as a convenient
opportunity to redirect the gang warfare
occurring within his own State towards the
Muslims. It could be said that this motive
possessed slightly impure morality, as it was an
easy solution to an irritating problem that saved
him the effort of dealing with properly. Beyond
this, Pope Urban II did have the personal desire
to fulfill the dreams of Pope Gregory VII, his
predecessor and personal hero (Runciman 56).
Despite the discrepancies, Saint Thomas
Aquinas’ first requirement is technically met; the
war was called by the proper authority, and not a
private body.
Secondly, “a just cause is required,
namely that those who are attacked, should be
attacked because they deserve it on account of
some fault” (Summa Theologica, II-II Q. 40 A.
1 ). This requirement is met, undoubtedly. Again,
taking care to consider the context of the time
period, the Muslims’ actions within Jerusalem
were severe enough to inspire war in the eyes of
the Church. To Christians, this occupation would
have been equivalent to the Nazi invasion of Poland
directly prefacing the Second World War. During
the time, Christendom was being practiced as a
form of government. The Church and State were
tied together as equal partners, in principle, and a
threat to the Church was as terrible as a threat to the
State. The Seljuk Turks had essentially run into the
home of the Christians, started tearing everything
apart, and then began to beat them up should they
attempt to revisit. The Christians were incredibly
threatened by the Turks, and rightly so. By the
standards of their time, they had every reason to go
and attack the Muslims.
Thirdly, Just War Theory decrees that the
“belligerents should have a rightful intention, so
that they intend the advancement of good, or the
avoidance of evil” ((Summa Theologica, II-II Q. 40
A. 1 ). This too, is more or less met. The Crusaders
had the intention of casting out the evil Muslims, to
reclaim the land Jesus died and resurrected on.
There was no peace when they began, as if they
tried to approach Jerusalem on a pilgrimage, they
would be attacked. It would seem as though this
point is met easily, too. However, this is only when
looking from their perspective. If one takes a step
back and considers the entire situation, it may seem
a little backwards. The Christians had peace by not
seeking out the danger that awaited them in
Jerusalem. God accepts any form of intercession,
and though it may help to be in Jerusalem, he loves
and listens to everyone the same no matter where
on the Earth one may be. This Catholics know to be
true today, however the sentiment, as always,
differed in their time period. The intention seems
mostly good, but still slightly grey.
For the greater part, the First Crusade aligns
fairly well with the concept of Just War Theory.
Unfortunately, the matter grows increasingly
complex the deeper one searches, and there are still
several serious discrepancies to dissect. Building
the last point of intention, this war was not
necessarily one of self defense. The Christians
actively travelled to Jerusalem, claiming to be on
an “armed pilgrimage”. Calling it so seems to be a
loophole, which is not desirable in the world of
morality. The Christians believed their God was
69

eing attacked in Jerusalem and that He had to be
protected. This mentality would be seen as a need
for defense, but it is a highly subjective view on
the scenario. Additionally, the very beginning of
the story is riddled with misunderstanding and
prejudices that were not accurate. It was not the
Muslims entirely who deserved to face the wrath
of the Christians. The sect of Sunnis, too, would
likely have been upset with their leadership, as
Kerbogha, who was only an ally of the sultan of
Baghdad, was a major leader in their warfare
(Asbridge 203), and according to many
descriptions of him, he was apparently a rather
“‘dreadful man’” (Asbridge 202). Kerbogha also
had ambitions of his own to take over Antioch
and other cities, which makes him seem as
someone more self-serving than someone who
cares for the Muslim cause for jihad. This would
make Kerbogha an unfavourable leader, as the
Sunnis greatly valued jihad and still do today. If
more communication had occurred, the Crusades
may not even have had to happen, as without
Kerbogha, it would have been somewhat possible
for crusaders to pilgrim to the Holy Land without
the need of using force. Alas, this sort of
cooperation was not very feasible within their
political climate. Furthermore, there are certain
situations where there is simply no case at all for
self defense or Just War. Following the Fatimids’
occupation of Jerusalem, there are absolutely no
grounds to argue that the slaughtering of innocent
women and children with no means of protecting
themselves is at all a morally good act. It is quite
likely that the defenseless were slaughtered out
of spite, which is not justifiable in warfare
(Jestice 47). Furthermore, it is much more
feasible that the Fatimids would have cooperated
with Christendom’s wish to pilgrim to the Holy
Land, as they were a different group than the
Sunnis, and actually faced persecution by the
Sunnis (Medieval Muslim Societies). However,
the crusaders, being from Europe with very little
knowledge or contact with Muslims
Unfortunately, diplomacy clearly was not very
valued by the crusaders, as they decided to
slaughter the majority of the Jews and Muslims
they met in battle.
In the New Testament one is given four
main pillars of the Church, which all align nicely
with the First Crusade. Christian Witness (Acts 1 :8)
is fulfilled without doubt, as the Crusaders
recognized the injustice occurring in Jerusalem and
immediately went to do something about it. In
attempting to secure Jerusalem, they would have
ceased the influence of other religions and
reinstated Christianity in the Middle East. This
would have had monumental positive repercussions
in the eyes of the Church. The Primacy of Peter (Mt
1 6:1 8) was used properly through Pope Urban II’s
summoning of the armed pilgrimage in the Council
of Clermont. Urban II was the rightful Pope,
despite the claims of the Byzantine Empire, and
had every right to make a decision of that calibre.
Third, Church and State relations (Luke 20:25)
existed properly, as Pope Urban II called the
crusade partially with the goal of recreating
Christendom. He was troubled by the creation of
the Byzantine Empire, as it resulted in two
government and religions where only one was
meant to exist, which contributed to division within
Christianity due to the Great Schism brought upon
by the development of the Eastern Orthodox
Christians because of the distance between the
Byzantines and the pope. The First Crusade helped
realign the political atmosphere to where it should
have been, repairing relations with the Byzantine
Empire. Lastly, the Religion and Science (Mark
4:21 ) can be applied with the development of
tactics in warfare. With each war throughout
history, there is typically some kind of
advancement in either technology or tactics. World
War II gave the world the nuclear bomb, and there
were some developments in warfare made due to
the First Crusade. Due to the fact that Christians
and Muslims had not met each other in major battle
beforehand, it is only plausible that due to the two
forces clashing, both sides mad advancements in
tactics to use against each other. For example, the
crusaders learnt the advantage that their heavier
armour had compared to the Muslims’ light armour
meant for speed, as the crusaders had the ability to
simply run down the Muslims if conditions were
right. On the other hand, the First Crusade helped
the Muslims to develop tactics against the
70

crusaders, being able to use their speed as an
advantage against the stocky crusading force
(Hill and Hill 1 49). Furthermore, siege warfare
was likely improved upon as the crusaders laid
siege to many cities, where they learnt how
Muslims defended themselves in Jerusalem by
making fireballs out of seemingly ordinary things
such as hair. Also, the use of Greek fire during
the crusade helped the crusaders to learn how to
defend themselves against this type of war
technology, as they placed wet hides on siege
towers so the towers would not be set aflame
(Kostnick 1 04). Altogether, the four pillars of the
New Testament are present in the First Crusade,
and perhaps due to the advancements in these
pillars made, the crusade can be somewhat
justified.
One final method of concrete judgment
remains to be approached. It is that of objective
morality, and analyzing an act’s object, intention,
and circumstances. This tool is implemented
heavily in Catholic practices on account of its
simple, effective manner. In considering these
three aspects of the moral act, certain facets can
outweigh the others, resulting in a clear good or
bad moral award. Considering the object,
intention, and circumstances of a soldier taking
the life of a Muslim enemy, one can perhaps
conclude whether or not the act is morally
permissible. It is extremely difficult to control an
incredibly large amount of bloodthirsty men,
however, these men also should not have been
inspired to commit atrocious acts such as setting
fire to a synagogue filled with Jews in Jerusalem.
This particular act is considered even more
detestable when one considers the fact that
Jerusalem is the homeland of the Jews, and this
land was simply under Muslim occupation. The
Jews were caught in the crossfire, and this crime
of passion should not be justified. With this
extremely hateful act, it is also important to note
that none of the crusading princes evidently
commanded that a band of crusaders burn the
synagogue or slaughter the mosque where
Muslims were seeking protection. In fact, the
crusading princes sought for ransom money
instead of simply slaughtering and looting,
especially in the case of Raymond of Toulouse,
who was given a better reputation amongst the
Muslims. Because Raymond of Toulouse was given
respect due to his successful protection of Iftikhar,
the governor of Jerusalem, when the crusaders later
attempted to lay siege to a city, the Muslims would
only surrender to Raymond, as they recognized him
to be an honourable man. Because Raymond was
merciful to the point that even the Muslims
believed him to be a man of virtue, it is clear that
not all acts committed during the First Crusade are
completely dishonourable (Phillips & Taylor 83). It
is also necessary to point out that a crime of passion
is considerably less evil than first degree murder,
and one can argue that the crusaders’ massacre of
Jerusalem was a crime of passion, as during their
processional march around Jerusalem, the Muslims
mocked them and urinated on Christian crosses,
which would only infuriate the crusaders and instill
an even greater bloodlust within them (Kostnick
99). This act likely set off, essentially, a bomb of
rage within the crusaders. When added to the years
of resentment and hatred for Muslims, it is within
the realm of possibility that the massive slaughter
inside Jerusalem was mostly out of rage, without
the premeditation of deciding to kill Muslims under
the protection of Tancred and the heinous act of
murdering women and children without the
justification of self defense. However, with all the
blood spilt in Jerusalem, it is important to mention
that due to the bloodlust of the crusaders, sections
of the walls of Jerusalem were left undefended,
allowing for people to escape the slaughter
(Madden 47). Perhaps it is because of the crimes of
passion committed by crusaders as opposed to
premeditation that some were able to escape, as if
the idea of complete massacre was premeditated,
the crusaders would likely defend many sections of
the wall in order to ensure none would be able to
escape, which would allow for more killing.
Overall, while the extremely heinous acts
committed in Jerusalem during the First Crusade
are immoral, it is important to keep in mind the
difficulty of controlling a large, bloodthirsty army
as well as the possibility that the acts were
committed out of passion and not premeditation.
71

In this case, the object or acts committed during the crusade concerns taking the life of another human.
According to Catholic theology, this is neither morally evil or good, but considered neutral. The Sixth
Commandment clearly states that “[one] shall not kill” (Exodus 20:1 3), though as previously discussed, there
are certain exceptions to this rule. In the case of self-defense or Just War, Catholic theology dictates that the
act may be permissible, should the intention and circumstances deem it so. The intention would be considered
good, as it is interpreted as the preservation of the lives of future Christians endeavouring to go on a
pilgrimage. The circumstances, however, are less affirmative. The soldier takes the life of the Muslim after
initiating the violence himself by going on an “armed pilgrimage” to Jerusalem. No one is forcing Christians
to go on a pilgrimage; a relationship with God is equally attainable regardless of whether or not one has had
the privilege of seeing the Holy Land. Again, however, the severity of the situation is difficult to grasp with a
modern mentality. A blurry object, good intention, and blurry circumstance do not result in an entirely morally
good act.
Ultimately, a paradoxical pattern is becoming evident which makes a black-and-white conclusion
essentially impossible to attain. The concept of objective morality will be forever locked in a battle against the
concept of historical context. Yes, Pope Urban II’s original intention was honourable, but it most certainly did
not stay that way throughout the entire Crusade. Certain events are justified, without doubt, given the time
period and circumstances, but are objectively evil and inexcusable at the same time. The fact is, there is no
clear answer the question. There are countless opposing factors that are incredibly complex on moral and
historical levels. Judging a series of events such as the First Crusade is simply a task above the ability of
humans. It requires great knowledge and understanding - knowledge and understanding that one being alone
possesses. Though humans can attempt to form opinions and lean towards one side or the other, it is God
alone that can truly say.
During the process of creating this magazine,
much time was spent with books, and the true
expert on books and secret knowledge of specific
history is seen in this photo. Thanks to this
wonderful librarian historian, the Tempus writing
team was able to completely slay this magazine
much more easily, so special thanks to Mr. Dharm!
72

Bibliography
Council of Clermont
Armstrong, Karen. Holy War. Anchor Books, 2001 .
Frankopan, Peter. The First Crusade: the Call from the East. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
201 6.
Jones, J. Sydney., et al. The Crusades. UXL, 2005.
Peters, Edward. The First Crusade "The Chronicle ofFulcher ofChartres" and Other Source Materials.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011 .
Phillips, Jonathan. Holy Warriors: a Modern History ofthe Crusades. Vintage Digital, 201 2.
Runciman, Steven, and Steven Runciman. The First Crusade. Cambridge University Press, 1 980.
Pope Urban Q & A
Foss, Michael. People ofthe First Crusade: The Truth about the Christian-Muslim War Revealed. Arcade
Publishing, 2011 .
Jones, J. Sydney. The Crusades Primary Sources. Thomson Gale, 2005
Madden, Thomas F. Crusades: the Illustrated History. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Nicholson, Helen J. The Crusades. Hackett Publishing, 2009.
People’s Crusade
Frankopan, Peter. The First Crusade: the Call from the East. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
201 6.
Foss, Michael. People ofthe First Crusade: The Truth about the Christian-Muslim War Revealed. Arcade
Publishing, 2011 .
Hanawalt, Barbara A. The Middle Ages: An Illustrated History. Oxford, 1 998.
Jones, J. Sydney. The Crusades Primary Sources. Thomson Gale, 2005.
Lambert, Malcolm. God's Armies Crusade and Jihad: Origins, History, Aftermath. Pegasus Books, 201 6.
Madden, Thomas F. Crusades: the Illustrated History. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
73

Phillips, Charles and Craig Taylor. An Illustrated History ofthe Crusades and the Crusader Knights. Lorenz
Books, 2009.
Williams, Paul H. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades. 1 st edition, Alpha, 2001 .
Arrival at Constantinople
Billings, Malcolm. The Cross and the Crescent. BBC Publications, 1 987.
Phillips, Charles, and Craig Taylor. An Illustrated History ofthe Crusades and the Crusader Knights: the
History, Myth and Romance ofthe Medieval Knight on Crusade, with over 500 Stunning Images ofthe
Battles, Adventures, Sieges, Fortresses, Triumphs and Defeats. Lorenz, 2011 .
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades. I, Cambridge University Press, 1 962.
Raymond of Toulouse Profile
Asbridge, Thomas S. The Crusades: The Authoritative History ofthe War for the Holy Land. HarperCollins
Publishers, 201 0.
---.The Creation ofthe Principality ofAntioch 1098-1130. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000.
Hill, John H., and Laurita L. Hill. Raymond IV Count ofToulouse. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1 962.
Krey, August C. The First Crusade; the Accounts ofEyewitnesses and Participants. Gloucester, MA: P.
Smith, 1 958. Print.
Phillips, Charles. An Illustrated History ofthe First Crusades: A Fascinating Account ofthe First, Second and
Third Campaigns to Win Jerusalem, Illustrated With Over 300 Fine Art Paintings. London:
Southwater, 201 2. Print.
Setton, Kenneth M., editor. A History ofthe Crusades. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1 955.
Williams, Paul L. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. Print.
Siege of Nicaea
Billings, Malcolm. The Cross and the Crescent. BBC Publications, 1 987.
Phillips, Charles, and Craig Taylor. An Illustrated History ofthe Crusades and the Crusader Knights: the
History, Myth and Romance ofthe Medieval Knight on Crusade, with over 500 Stunning Images ofthe
Battles, Adventures, Sieges, Fortresses, Triumphs and Defeats. Lorenz, 2011 .
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades. I, Cambridge University Press, 1 962.
74

Bohemond of Taranto Profile
Comnena, Anna, and E. R. A. Sewter. The Alexiad ofAnna Comnena. Penguin Books, 1 988.
Kostnick, Conor. The Siege ofJerusalem. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009.
Phillips, Charles, and Craig Taylor. An Illustrated History ofthe Crusades and the Crusader Knights: the
History, Myth and Romance ofthe Medieval Knight on Crusade, with over 500 Stunning Images ofthe
Battles, Adventures, Sieges, Fortresses, Triumphs and Defeats. Lorenz, 2011 .
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades. Vol. I, Cambridge University Press, 1 962.
Yewdale, Ralph Bailey. Bohemond I, Prince ofAntioch. Princeton Department of History and Politics, 1 91 7.
Battle of Dorylaeum
Asbridge, Thomas S. The Crusades: The Authoritative History ofthe War for the Holy Land. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 201 0.
Pavkovic, Michael F. "Battle of Dorylaeum" in Battles ofthe Crusades 1097-1444: From Dorylaeum to
Varna, ed. Kelly DeVries. New York: Barnes & Nobles, 2007. Print.
Phillips, Charles. An Illustrated History ofthe First Crusades: A Fascinating Account ofthe First, Second and
Third Campaigns to Win Jerusalem, Illustrated With Over 300 Fine Art Paintings. London:
Southwater, 201 2. Print.
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades: Volume 1: The First Crusade and the Foundation ofthe
Kingdom ofJerusalem. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 1 987. Print.
Williams, Paul L. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. Print.
The Capture of Edessa
Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2005. Baldwin, Marshall
Whithed. The First Hundred Years. Vol. 1 , University of Wisconsin Press, 1 969.
Konstam, Angus. Historical Atlas ofthe Crusades. Checkmark Books, 2003.
Phillips, Charles. An Illustrated History ofthe First Crusades. Southwater, 2011 .
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades: The First Crusade and the Foundations ofthe Kingdom of
Jerusalem. Volume 1 , Cambridge University Press, 1 987.
75

Siege of Antioch
Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Riley-Smith, Jonathon. The Crusades: A History. 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 201 4. Print.
Madden, Thomas F. Crusades: the Illustrated History. Univ. of Michigan Press, 2005.
Sweetenham, Carol. Robert the Monk’s History ofthe First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005. Print.
Stark, Rodney. God’s Battalions; The Case for the Crusades. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.
Williams, Paul L. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Crusade. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. Print
Battle of Antioch
Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: a New History. Free Press, 2005.
Rubenstein, Jay. Armies ofHeaven: the First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. Basic Books, 2011 .
Williams, Paul. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades. Alpha, 2002.
The Siege of Jerusalem
Jestice, Phyllis G. "Jerusalem, 1 099" in Battles ofthe Crusades, ed. Kelly DeVries. Amber Books Ltd., 2007.
Kostick, Conor. The Siege ofJerusalem. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009.
Madden, Thomas F., editor. Crusades The Illustrated History. Univ. of Michigan Press, 2004.
Phillips, Charles, and Craig Taylor. An Illustrated History ofthe Crusades and the Crusader Knights: the
History, Myth and Romance ofthe Medieval Knight on Crusade, with over 500 Stunning Images ofthe
Battles, Adventures, Sieges, Fortresses, Triumphs and Defeats. Lorenz, 2011 .
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades. I, Cambridge University Press, 1 962.
Williams, Paul L. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades. Marie-Butler Knight, 2002.
76

The Defender of the Holy Sepulcher and the Battle of Ascalon
Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. New York: Oxford U Press, 2004. Print.
---. The Crusades. New York: HarperCollins, 201 0. Print.
Rubenstein, Jay. Armies ofheaven: The First crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. New York: Basic, 2011 .
Print.
Williams, Paul L. The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2002. Print.
Runciman, Steven. A History ofthe Crusades, vol. 1: The First Crusade and the Foundation ofthe Kingdom
ofJerusalem. Vol. 1 . London: Penguin, 1 991 . Print.
Stephen of Blois Q and A
Foss, Michael. People ofthe First Crusade: The Truth about the Christian-Muslim War Revealed. Arcade
Publishing, 2011 .
Jones, J. Sydney. The Crusades Primary Sources. Thomson Gale, 2005
Madden, Thomas F. Crusades: the Illustrated History. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Nicholson, Helen J. The Crusades. Hackett Publishing, 2009.
Editorial
Book Sources
Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Armstrong, Karen. Holy War. Anchor Books, 2001 .
Hill, John H., and Laurita L. Hill. Raymond IV Count ofToulouse. Syracuse University Press, 1 962.
Jestice, Phyllis G. "Jerusalem, 1 099" in Battles ofthe Crusades, ed. Kelly DeVries. Amber
2007.
Books Ltd.,
Osborne, Rick, and K. Christie Bowler. The Bible. Zondervan Pub. House, 1 998.
Runciman, Steven. The First Crusade. Cambridge University Press, 1 980.
Website Sources
Aquinas, Saint Thomas. “Question 40. War.” CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Sublimus Dei (1 537),
www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm.
77

Elshaikh, Eman M. “Medieval Muslim Societies.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,
www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/social-institutions-in-the-islamicworld/a/medieval-muslim-societies.
Peterson, Eugene H. The Message. Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com.
Dharm's face at all the mistakes he will find in this magazine (that are probably either stupid or something we
didn't know, or both!)
78

Extra Credits
Margarita Bajamic: layout, editing, Dharm as Giles edits, Bohemond
smoothie meme, and monk doodles
Mika Colonia: Front and back cover, Buffy ad, Aquafina ad, Beard ad,
Join the First Crusade ad, Smash Crusades ad
Romina Difluri: Pelagianism Bayulock edit, Deus Vult ad, Monty Python
and the People's Crusade ad, and Hardy Spanish Inquisition
Julia Banco: Alexius meeting the People's Crusade (colourized), The
Schedule Crusade comic
Alessio Pizzolato: Uncle Crusader ad, Antioch adapt meme
Marlon Miral: Coke ad
79

80