Leadership in the First Crusade

The modern view that the Crusades were a unified thrust of Christianity into the heart of the Islamic world ignores not only that Crusades had nothing to do with Islam, but that the Crusades were, in fact, far from "unified." Crusaders would have been attacking Hindus had they held Jerusalem. The motive of Crusaders was ambition Scholars spend their lives even today debating what the word "Crusade" meant to different people in the Middle Ages. Each of the principal figures involved in the Crusades had different goals and incentives. These goals were, for the most part, radically different from the goals of the instigator of the Crusades, Pope Urban II.

Without a unified plan, and without a supreme leader of this massive, armed pilgrimage into the East, each ruler had a dramatic effect on the process and outcome of the Crusades. Technology of the times didn't allow for an overall leader of such a massive movement. Lines of communication were slow, meaning that any leader of either the Crusades themselves or of the precarious Crusaders States had to be on the scene. If the King of Jerusalem couldn't control what was happening in Edessa most of the time, how could someone in Rome?

The individuality of leadership seen in the first Crusade is also due to the complex nature of the feudal system itself. The military power of every ruler in the Middle Ages was dependent on the number of loyal vassals he could call on. The range of a ruler's influence was limited by the archaic methods of communication and transport. Thus there was a limit to the military might one man could conceivably call upon. A massive venture such as the Crusades required a multitude of local lords, counts and dukes working together; while a supreme authority figure might have made the process run much smoother, choosing such a figure without loosing a significant portion of support would have been problematic.

There was pressure placed upon Pope Urban II to appoint a secular leader of the Crusades. The fact that he did not speaks to his desire to keep the Crusades a purely religious endeavor, and as such, under the purview of the Church. Raymond of Toulouse particularly wanted leadership of the venture. As a notably pious man, he probably would have remained as loyal to the papacy as Urban could have hoped for. Instead, Raymond brought into his camp the man appointed by the Pope to be the sacred leader of the Crusades: Adhemar of Le Puy.[1]

In order to examine the effects of this disparate leadership, we must first take into account the actual objective of the Crusades. According to most contemporary accounts of Urban's preaching at Clermont, it seems that one of his primary reasons was to aid the Byzantines against the Turks who had recently conquered Asia Minor. Urban undeniably wanted a closer communication with the Byzantine Christians. The Papal Legate, Adhemar, certainly advocated greater cooperation with the Emperor Alexius.

It soon became obvious however, that nearly every prince who took up the cross in the First Crusade felt completely differently about the Byzantines, the sole exception being Raymond of Toulouse. The feeling of most crusaders was that the Byzantines had betrayed their faith by treating for too much with Muslims. Certainly there was an incredible amount of friction between the Crusaders and the Byzantines while passing through the Empire.

A great deal of friction stemmed from the simple, but near insurmountable, problems of logistics in the Middle Ages. Armies then primarily lived off the land when on campaign. It simply wasn't feasible to bring all the foodstuffs needed to feed thousands of people for months at a time using pack animals. So unless the army was camped outside a friendly city with a surplus of food, that army had to raid villages along the way to keep from starving. This was bound to cause enmity between a populace and an invading army.

Another objective that was widely preached just prior to the First Crusade was that Jerusalem was the Legacy of Christ; his literal kingdom on earth. This concept rang true with feudal Europe; Christians everywhere were vassals of Christ and the Crusades were a feudal obligation to defend the lands of their lord.

In some ways the wide popular support that reached the crusades was a detriment to the cause itself. One very popular preacher of the Crusades was a Frankish priest named Peter the Hermit. Peter inspired thousands to take the cross, most of them unarmed pilgrims. This disorganized horde swept down from Cologne, reaching the Byzantine Empire after losing many to Slavic raiders. This was Emperor Alexius' first taste of the Crusades. Unprepared to feed, arm, or contain such an unruly mob, Alexius pushed what was later to be called the People's Crusade out of his territory into Asia Minor. Once there, the Crusaders formed a schism along ethnic lines, and soon split up, different groups attacking or retreating at various times, and after a few failed sieges, the People's Crusade was destroyed by Turks. Peter the Hermit had returned to Constantinople, hoping to gain war material that might unite the rabble once again under him.

Peter the Hermit, and his fellow Crusader Walter Sans-Avoir, or Walter the Penniless, had jumped the gun. Their disorganized mob left the Byzantines with a poor regard for Westerners in general, and Crusaders in specific. It also drew potential troops and supplies from the actual Crusades, led by actual militarily experienced leaders. It is likely that Peter did not see the Crusades as a necessarily military venture. Perhaps he and his companions thought that their mere presence and piety would shield them from harm, while winning Jerusalem.

The First Crusade was not so bereft of capable leadership as the People's, though Peter the Hermit does reappear occasionally. The Crusades attracted a particular type of leader, a fact that would greatly affect its outcome. Powerful nobles had little reason to go gallivanting off into the East. They frequently had enough troubles keeping the lands they already possessed prosperous and stable. So the glorified victors of the First Crusade tended to be either of moderately low birth, or were in a precarious position of some kind, usually something to do with land or the lack thereof. They were also highly ambitious. Who, aside from Stephen of Blois, would venture off into the incredibly dangerous unknown on a potentially lucrative religious endeavor, but driven, ambitious men?[2]

Bohemond, Tancred, Baldwin, Godfrey, even the ever-pious Raymond of Toulouse all wanted new and lucrative estates in the Holy Land. Baldwin settled down at his first opportunity in Edessa, despite having reluctantly sworn an oath to Alexius to surrender any lands captured to the Byzantines. All of the Crusader princes swore the same oath except for Raymond, who wanted to hand over the lands anyway, and yet the Byzantines were forced to wrest any lands they wanted from those same Crusaders. Jerusalem was a fine goal, and widely sought after, but the real motive of the Crusader lords was ambition. It certainly had nothing to do with Urban's appeal for peace and assistance to be given to the Byzantines.

Once the Crusaders began conquering territory, conflicts arose between them. With Baldwin happily ensconced in Edessa, the next major prize worth fighting over was Antioch. After a long, difficult siege, the Crusaders found themselves in possession of Antioch due to the betrayal of "a maker of armor in charge of the defense of the towers."[3] Immediately after taking the city, Antioch, under its new rulers, was besieged by the armies of the Atabag of Mosul, Karbuqa. After weeks of hunger, the demoralized Christians were suddenly sparked again with holy fervor by a disreputable visionary by the name of Stephen Bartholomew. Steven claimed to have been told the location of the Holy Lance that had pierced Christ's side during the crucifixion. The "miraculous discovery" of the Lance inspired the beleaguered Christians to turn the tide of the siege, and defeat Karbuqa.[4]

The next pressing matter that came before the Crusaders was the question of what to do with the city they just captured. Bohemond obviously wanted Antioch for himself, and many supported him, but Raymond of Toulouse was adamant that the Byzantines should claim Antioch. To that effect, he sent a letter to Alexius telling of the capture of the city and advising the Emperor to come and collect his city. Bohemond, in the meantime, had completely occupied the Citadel of Antioch. Raymond, by contrast, was not doing so well for himself. He had fallen sick, which basically gave Bohemond the run of the city, a position that Bohemond used to gain the support of the Genoese.[5]

Raymond however, was not the only victim of illness. An epidemic of typhoid spread, killing the Papal Legate, Adhemar of Le Puy. The death of Adhemar eliminated any form of central authority that had existed among the Crusaders. It is possible that this respected man could have quickly settled the dispute as to the ruler of Antioch. Instead of Adhemar's authoritative influence, Stephen Bartholomew, finder of the Holy Lance, became vocal once more. Claiming to have seen Adhemar and St. Andrew in a vision (Adhemar had just escaped roasting in hell for doubting the veracity of the Lance) Stephen advocated that the Crusades move on to their noble goal, Jerusalem, and leave Antioch in the hands of Bohemond.

This recent vision placed Raymond in a tight corner. His authority was greatly enhanced by two things; possession of the Holy Lance, and his close connection with the late Adhemar of Le-Puy. Raymond could not discount Peter's recent vision without casting doubt upon the authenticity of the Lance, but Adhemar, like Raymond, had always advocated cooperation with the Byzantines. So either the Lance was valid, or Antioch went to the Byzantines, it wasn't possible to have both. Raymond tried anyway, only to discover that the majority of his troops had no interest in giving the city, or anything else to the Byzantines.

The true ownership of Antioch wasn't fully settled until November 1, the date the Crusaders had chosen to leave Antioch and head south for Jerusalem. Earlier there had been the dispute at the siege of Maarat an-Numan. Raymond, though largely responsible for the Crusader victory, found himself at a disadvantage to Bohemond, who had more troops ensconced within the newly captured city. Bohemond refused to surrender the city unless Raymond recognized him as ruler of Antioch. At the council held in Antioch in November, Raymond agreed, and in return became sole leader of the Crusade on its path to Jerusalem. By terms of the agreement, Bohemond had to accompany the armies to Jerusalem.

Raymond may have won supremacy over the Crusaders, but that didn't mean that he was good at it. His career as commander was an unpopular one. He continuously hesitated in the drive to Jerusalem, angering his troops, and still hoped to reconcile the Crusades with the Byzantines, which was something none of the other Crusaders were interested in. This habit Raymond made of advocating unpopular policies certainly cost him when the decision was made as to who would be king of Jerusalem.[6]

The selection and later appointment of the King of Jerusalem after the death of Godfrey of Bouillon is one of the most defining examples of the disunity of the Crusaders. With no direct descendents, Godfrey's closest relative was Baldwin of Boulonge, who was settled in Edessa. However, Baldwin was not well liked by Daimbert, the new Patriarch of Jerusalem recently sent by Urban. When Godfrey fell sick[7] his vassals, along with Tancred, decided to go ahead with their plans to besiege Acre. Because the pious Godfrey had announced that he would leave Jerusalem to the Patriarch, Daimbert felt it was safe enough for him to go with the army to Acre. In Daimbert's absence, Godfrey died, and the only man left in the city with any authority was Warner of Gray.

Warner apparently had no interest in Jerusalem falling into the hands of its far too worldly Patriarch. He also knew that the one man the army would likely follow was Godfrey's closest living relative, Baldwin, who was quietly sent for. Warner's letter of invitation to Baldwin was detained and read by Raymond of Toulouse who was in Lattakieh. Raymond's distaste for Baldwin led him to send for Bohemond, informing the Norman of the situation and requesting that he intercept Baldwin on his way to Jerusalem. Bohemond however did not receive the letter from Raymond.[8]

This infighting was a huge detriment to the Crusades. Resources and lives that the Crusaders spent skirmishing with each other could have been much more successfully spent in united attacks upon their enemies. This simply shows that the motives of individual Crusaders were very different from those of Pope Urban II.

If the ultimate goal of the Crusades was to have Jerusalem in the hands of Christians, there was no greater mistake made than to alienate the Byzantines. The Byzantine Empire was the only Christian state near the Holy Land that could have provided aid. The Crusader States were a precarious creation; so far from their base of support, isolated among hostile foes, and totally dependent for man power upon pilgrims coming from the West. There was no stability, and no hope of permanence. Every time the Crusaders went into a major battle, the stakes were for the success of the Crusades themselves. Had they lost a particularly sanguinary battle there would have been no protection for the conquered cities. Had the Crusaders been able to cooperate with the Byzantines, it is probable that the Crusader States would have become vassal states to the Empire, and could have called upon military aid.

Had Urban somehow been able to better control the Crusades and to guide them to his ultimate goal, it is possible that the Crusader States might have lasted as long as their potential allies, the Byzantines. The Crusades in actuality had little to do with Urban after 1095. They had spun well out of control, and their fate lay in the hands of their leaders; Godfrey, Raymond, Bohemond, and many others. The First Crusade was a collective endeavor of individuals, and each individual shaped the fate of the movement just as he shaped his own fate.

Works Cited:

• . Bachrach, Bernard S and David S. Bachrach. The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen. Ashgate Publising Limited; 2005
• Glubb, Lieutenant-General Sir John. The Course of Empire, The Arabs and Their Successors. Hodder and Stoughton LTD; 1965
• Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Al Saqi Books; 1984
• Runciman, Steven, A History of The Crusades, volume 1 The First Crusade. Cambridge University Press; 1951
• Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech
  • http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

[1] Chronicle of the First Crusades, Runciman

[2] Stephen was convinced to take up the Cross by his overbearing wife, Adela. When he returned home in one piece, she convinced him that by not reaching Jerusalem the first time, he had not fulfilled his crusading vow. Steven was killed at the battle of Ramla in 1102 when he went back the second time.

[3] The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, Amin Maalouf

[4] The Course of Empire. Sir John Glubb

[5] Chronicle of the First Crusades, Runciman

[6] Raymond was actually offered the crown of Jerusalem, but he declined, knowing that he was far too unpopular to succeed as King. Oddly enough, the people who did seem to respect Raymond the most were his enemies. Ascalon and several other cities said that they would surrender only to Raymond

[7] According to Amin Maalouf (quoting Arab chronicler Ibn Al-Qalanisi) Godfrey was struck by an arrow during the siege of Acre.

[8] Chronicle of the First Crusades, Runciman