On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes- The Expendables

The Expendables

The last two knights on our list are known most for their mediocrity.  I dubbed this chapter The Expendables, they’re mentioned enough in history to include them in my narrative but history remembers them mostly for their less than stellar contributions to the first crusade.  (In order of most expendable/least impressive)

Expendable #1: Hugh of Vermandois,

Also known as Hugh the Great (A title either given him by himself, or by some ancient historian’s mistake) He was known for being “Great only in his boasting.”  He was brother to Philip I, King of France and joined the crusade on his brother’s behalf (King Philip had been grounded by the Pope/excommunicated for philandering and couldn’t go himself.)

He is most known for his haughty, abrasive personality, and his tendency to run away from danger and other inconveniences.  He sent a letter to Emperor Alexius, (the most powerful man in the world at that time), saying:

 "Know, O King, that I am King of Kings, and superior to all, who are under the sky. You are now permitted to greet me, on my arrival, and to receive me with magnificence, as befits my nobility.” 

He sailed with a large army to Constantinople but his fleet sank in a storm just off the coast.  Most of his army and all of his credibility perished.  Hugh’s letter however did arrive in Constantinople, so when he was rescued/captured by Byzantine forces Alexius had Hugh the Arrogant imprisoned.  He was held in captivity until he agreed to swear vassalage, and acknowledge Alexius as his liege lord.  His infamy was not earned among his peers however, until he left Antioch to “request aid from Alexius.”  He failed in his mission to secure aid for his brothers in arms, (If he even attempted to do so) and returned to Paris.

Upon his return he was sharply criticized along with the other deserters, but It wasn’t until he was threatened with excommunication by the Pope, and noogied by his brother, that he finally agreed to return to Jerusalem on the ill-fated Crusade 1.5 which was destroyed by Kilij Arslan and his allies. (Ill-fated may be too strong a word.  It was ill-planned, ill-executed, and ill-manned!)  He died in Tarsus of a festering wound, probably from an arrow in the back.

Expendable #2: Stephen “the Sensitive,” Count of Blois

           

            

            Some knights were more lovers than fighters, none perhaps more than Count Stephen.   He was one of the leaders of the First Crusade, and the son-in-law of William the Conqueror.  He is known for often writing enthusiastic letters to his wife Adela of Normandy, to whom he seemed completely infatuated with. Stephen was the head of the army council at the crusaders' siege of Nicaea in 1097 so he must have held the respect of his peers.  His leadership position was short lived. Perhaps unable to concentrate on anything but his Adela, (or because Stephen believed the neighboring lord was trying to move in on his old lady), he lost heart. 

After enduring severe hardship alongside the beleaguered crusaders at Antioch, he stole away in the dead of night.  leaving his men and honor behind.  It’s easy to gloss over details with the word “beleaguered”.  In truth I’m sure the thought of running away crossed the mind of each and every one of the crusaders.  Soldiers have been known for their affinity for complaining, it’s a coping mechanism that helps one find humor in a very unfunny business.  The siege of Antioch was a combat situation that even the most hardened, and enlightened modern veteran couldn’t comprehend: looming defeat, constant attacks, little hope of re-enforcement, disease, and starvation (to the point of rampant cannibalism). Though thousands soldiered on, it was a daily reality that Stephen and many others simply couldn’t cope with.  

On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes- What about Bob?

Robert  “The Jerusalemite”-his real nickname

Robert II of Flanders, byname, French Robert Le Hierosolymitain, Dutch Robrecht Van Jeruzalem   (born c. 1065—died Oct. 5, 1111, near Meaux, Fr.), count of Flanders (1093–1111).

 Though you may never have heard of him, he was one of the most celebrated of crusaders.  Robert’s aunt was the wife of William the Conqueror, King of England. 

And if Auntie and Uncle The Conqueror weren't enough to make a young Frenchman sprout some early chest hair, he was also close friends with his aunt’s son, Robert Curthose of Normandy.

He earned his stripes early on, fighting his uncle alongside Robert Curthose, (Curt Bobby to his friends)  and in his unsuccessful attempt(s) to regain the English throne from Curthose’s younger brother, King William II (William Rufus.)

He sailed for the Holy Land on the First Crusade in 1096 and earned fame second only to that of Godfrey of Bouillon.  His name pops up fairly often throughout the crusader histories and he even appears to have been close friends with both Baldwin and Tancred I found that Interesting because they were often at odds with each-other. By all accounts he was a true friend and an all-around stand up guy. As stand up as a guy with that background can be I suppose.

He returned home to Flanders shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to fight alongside the Normans and his suzerain, Louis VI “the Fat” of France,

against the “English”.   <See Side note at the end for elaboration.>

We know that he met his glorious end in battle, an end all warriors dream of.  We just aren’t sure exactly how glorious it was.  Some say he was drowned in 1111 while charging across a bridge, causing it to crash into the raging river below, taking with him 100 of his foes! Some say he managed to push his king safely to shore and give a final salute before slipping beneath the torrent.

Others say he was wounded, fell from a bridge into the water, and was drowned.  (By “Some” I mean “me”, and by “Others” I’m referring to “actual historians” using historical “evidence”.)

He was succeeded by his son, Baldwin VII, who himself died fighting the English in 1119.  And the moral of the story is, if you are French don’t fight the English.  I’m sure each time France declared war on England, French historians smacked their heads and said "PAS ENCORE!" 

Side note:

 It's important to remember that England had recently been conquered by Normans and this was the begining of the hostilities that would embroil the two powers in conflicts for generations to come. 

Step further back in time with me and we'll attempt to better understand the political situation:

The vikings under Rollo's command made a deal with the King of France.   Rollo's army would agree to stop raping and robbing France and even protect France from other viking invaders,  lF the king gave up the land that Rollo wanted, and also his smoking hot daughter.  The king began France's tradition of capitulation that day and Rollo became the first Duke Normandy and technically, a subject of the king of France. 

It was a medieval lease agreement and Duke William broke that agreement when he sailed off and conquered Briton.  Did Normandy belong to a duke and vassal of France or to the new King of England?  When William the Conqueror died things got more complicated, his sons fought over the English crown and the king of France sided with the loser. 

 At the time of the first crusade England belonged to William II, and the Normans that wanted to keep Briton from his older brother Robert "Bad Bob" Curthose. The King of France, rightfully concerned, sided with the Normans who believed it belonged to the Duke of Normandy ("Bad Bob").  

             

Robert “Bad Bob” Curthose, Duke of Normandy

Robert II of Normandy, byname Robert Curthose, French Robert Courteheuse   (born c. 1054—died February 1134, Cardiff, Wales), Duke of Normandy (1087–1106), 

British history remembers him as a weak-willed and incompetent ruler whose poor record as an administrator of his domain was partly redeemed by his contribution to the First Crusade (1096–99).  Then again British historians also remember that he attacked 2 of their kings and was loyal-ish to France.  In truth he was just more akin to his great, great grandfather Rollo, preferring cracking skulls and pillaging over managing an important kingdom. 

I've seen a documentary that claimed he went on crusade because he had lost his kingdom to his younger brother. Some say he agreed to mortgage his kingdom in order to finance his crusade.  What is certain, is that he literally gave up everything to “take up the cross” It was all very Mark 10:21 <Sarcasm>

The eldest son of William I the Conqueror, Robert, was recognized in boyhood as his father’s successor in Normandy. Apparently a glutton for daddy’s attention, he twice rebelled against his father and was in exile in Italy until his father’s death in 1087.

 He allegedly bested his father in single combat.  In the battle William I was unhorsed  by his young, albeit large son.  Robert withheld the killing blow, only when he recognized his father’s voice, (when he cursed him.)  William withdrew from the field humiliated, and perhaps emotionally hurt.  If TLC was around in the 11/12^th century I’m sure His family would’ve been on reality TV:

Robert claimed his birth rite after his father’s death but he turned out to be a poor administrator.  His administrative, and social skills were so poor that his own nobles sided with his younger brother William Rufus, stripping him of any rights to the English crown.

Shortly thereafter Robert left the drama and joined the crusade, fighting with distinction in every major engagement (meaning he kicked so much Jihadi tail that everyone noticed….. in every battle!)  Contemporary accounts say he was a brilliant field commander, and herculean warrior. 

When his youngest brother, Henry I, succeeded William Rufus as king of England (1100), Robert was in Italy. He hastened back to invade England, with ignominious results, and Henry in turn invaded Normandy (1105 and 1106). Eventually he was captured in the Battle of Tinchebrai and spent the rest of his life as a prisoner, dying in Cardiff castle.^[1]

---

[1] The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica -authors. “Robert II Duke of Normandy| Biography – Robert Curthose." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.

On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes- Bohemund & Tancred

The Normans of Italy

Not long before the crusade began, much of Italy was still considered part of the (Eastern) "Roman Empire" and its leaders swore fealty to the Emperor in Constantinople.  Rome itself was nominally independent but heavily influenced by the German empire, AKA: “ZE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE!”  Here’s a map to clarify:

South of ZE EMPIRE! Belonged to the monarch in Constantinople: 

As mentioned in previous posts, by 1096 Byzantium had lost most of its power to invading Muslim, and Viking/Norman forces.  One of the most infamous names in Alexius’s court was Bohemund.  Named after a mythical giant, he was the recently disinfranchised son of Robert Guiscard, a powerful Duke in Norman Italy.  Guiscard is known primarily for attempting and failing to conquer the Byzantine Empire.  As you might have guessed, Bohemund was likley the most motivated champions of The Crusade.  His role in the Crusade is the epidime of the saying: “The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.”  Alexius thought he could control one simple barbarian but discovered that he had in fact , made a deal with the devil.

Bohemund (A name and a title in and of itself): Scourge of Empires

Bohemund I, byname Bohemond of Otranto, French Bohémond de Tarente, original name Marc   (born 1050–58—died March 5 or 7, 1109, probably Bari [Italy]), prince of Otranto (1089–1111) and prince of Antioch (1098–1101, 1103–04), one of the leaders of the First Crusade, who conquered Antioch (June 3, 1098).-Encyclopedia Britanica

His exploits are almost too fantastic to believe. He inherited his father’s lust for Byzantine land and devoted his life to conquering the wealthiest, and most powerful kingdom in the world.  He tasted both victory and defeat but always with a heaping side of glory!  Fighting the Eastern Roman Empire, he learned ancient Roman tactics and discipline, along with modern eastern tactics, as well as multiple languages. 

Always outnumbered, he developed a shrewd mind for diplomacy and intelligence gathering.  By the time of the crusades, his small retinue had been forged into an elite, versatile, fighting machine.  His leadership and courage were famous on both sides of the conflict.  He emerging victorious in countless pitched battles, some of which his men were outnumbered 100-1.  He led the only special operations unit in the Crusader Army, which gave medieval poets their very own “Trojan epic” in the siege at Antioch. 

By the end of the Crusade Bohemund was a legend.  He was both feared and respected by his enemies, well… except for Raymond of course, he was always muddling up poor old Sir Raymond’s plans.

 Though I wouldn’t put him in the “good guy” category, his shrewd (or diabolical) political and military genius, combined with just the right balance of arrogance and humor make him one of my favorite figures in medieval history.

History records him as a handsome man, a warrior of genius, and a gifted diplomat. He was all these things, as well as treacherous, duplicitous, and ambitious.^[1]

Tancred, Greek’s Bane, Slayer of Saracens

Tancred of Hauteville, French Tancrède de Hauteville    (born c. 1075—died December 12, 1112, Antioch [now in Turkey]), regent of Antioch, one of the leaders of the First Crusade.-Encyclopedia Britanica.

Tancred was a Norman lord of south Italy. He went on the Crusade with his uncle, Bohemond (the future Bohemond I of Antioch), and first distinguished himself as brave, honorable, selfless (by comparison to his peers) and fiercely loyal to both his uncle and the crusader cause.

When he wasn’t praying, or rescuing women and children from Godfrey and Raymond’s hordes of mad raiders, also known as “crusader pilgrims” (civilian levies, and mercenaries). He was fighting Muslim warriors with one hand and Romans (Byzantines) with the other!

 He shared his family’s disdain for Byzantium, and was the only knight who staunchly refused to swear fealty to Alexius (A sort of non-compete clause), in exchange for logistical aid for the crusader enterprise.  He was ocaisionally attacked by the emperor’s forces, attempting to assassinate him while on the march, but sent them all crying home to momma. 

The attack/assassination attempt vindicated Tancred’s mistrust of the emperor, and supplied him with ample zeal for his uncle’s cause, and secret plans for Antioch >.>

He first gained notoriety for himself in Cilicia, where he captured Tarsus from the Turks and came into conflict with his fellow Crusader, Baldwin of Boulogne. He played a prominent part in most of the major battles of the Crusade, and after the capture of Jerusalem (1099) he received the title Prince of Galilee. He served as regent of the principality of Antioch for Bohemond while the latter was a prisoner of the Danishmends (1101–03)

Tancred never attempted to usurp his uncle’s rule and was rewarded for his fidelity with permanent control of Antioch after Bohemond returned to Europe in 1104.

As regent of Antioch, and also of Edessa from 1104 to 1108, Tancred became the chief Latin magnate of northern Syria, engaging in continual warfare with both the Turks, Raymond, and the Byzantines until his death.  Like so many of his peers, he died young.  Though no sword could touch him, a Typhoid epidemic swept Antioch and he was among the many casualties.

That was the “official” report anyway, I like to think he left public life to serve as a lonely Templar (The creation of the order is attributed to Godfrey).  Traveling the land slaying bad guys and rescuing damsels in distress until he finally met his end, shortly after Indiana Jones took his cup. 

---

[1] Hugh Hill, John & Hill L., Laurita -authors. “Bohemond I| Biography – Prince of Antioch." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.

On Halloween

History on Halloween

As a Christian historian, one of my pet peeves is people that find a non-Christian aspect of one of their culture’s traditions, condemn it, and those whom continue to enjoy it. When Halloween rolls around I’m inundated by various social media crusaders, and old people that still participate in email chain letters about Christians worshiping Satan one night a year. 

The truth is, “Satanism” is a recent religion which developed long after Halloween, and is more about sexual promiscuity and substance abuse, than Lucifer. 

That it is not to say that evil, or evil religious practices/worship are new, they are in fact far older than the Christian faith itself (See the Old Testament).  All religions of note recognize the existence of good and evil, though gods are often capable of both, and have since man’s creation. 

(That flapping sound you just heard was my credibility flying out every atheist’s, reading this article, window)

Most ancient, we’ll say, Pagan faiths are/were polytheistic:  permits worship, recognition, and supplication to many gods and goddesses. Some deities were kind, even jovial, and some were more sinister, even downright evil. (I believe this ancient, universal struggle of man to find his god, to be strong evidence in favor of the Gospel narrative.) The early church struggled to make its message relative to such cultures, as it spread throughout the Iron-age world.  The trick in missions is, as it was then, to make the Gospel of Christ relate to a culture without altering, or changing the message itself.  It can often be challenging to walk the line between Acts 15:10 and Revelation 22:18, and in the process things can get a little weird...

There’s a term you may remember from high school geography class, Cultural Diffusion. The exchange of goods, people, and ideas inevitably leads to changes in culture. When Rome for example, conquered one barbarian tribe and encountered another, there were more than harsh words and blows exchanged.  Culture is: religion, tradition, customs, food, art, and etc.  All of which, were exchanged in ancient times through both war and trade. When Constantine made Matt 28:16 government policy, he was more concerned with unity than with policing specific observances.

Rather than completely eradicate the competing religions and traditions, The Church simply “Christianized” them.  For example: Valkyries became angels, and shrines to Freyja, became shrines to Mary, Mother of God.  Holidays were Christianized as well, festivals meant to garner favor from the gods on winter solstice became, Christmas. (The whole tree thing was a remnant of a pagan Nordic/German tradition and didn't catch on in the states or the UK, until after WWI)  Many cultures venerated the dead/made sacrifices to the deities of the underworld. The Church’s solution was simple, yet brilliant!  They called on Christians to celebrate the Saints that had passed on.  All Hallow’s Even, (or eve) was followed by All Saints Day. 

 The American version of All Hallows Even/eve (Halloween) came from Ireland.  The Irish didn’t have much of a “Ghost” tradition until the Vikings/Normans showed up but they believe in fairies, or the sídhe (“Shee”) as they call them. Their priests or Druids, (we call witches) like most shamanistic faiths, worshiped nature.  They also believed in the existence of another world, where mystical beings, shape-shifters and such existed, and occasionally crossed over. The Irish Halloween, is the Christianized version of the celebration of the festival of Samhain, not the Samhain that witches and weirdos celebrated as below:

(If your Halloween looks like this, you're a witch/weirdo)

According to Irish lore, on the night of Samhain, our world and the “otherworld” (Fairyland) opened up and its inhabitants (good and bad) crossed over.  To placate the more mischievous fairies, clever Irishmen would build great fires, make lanterns from gourds, and wear masks. 

When the Potato famine and the ever antagonistic English displaced millions of Irish in the 1800’s, many sought refuge in the U.S.  It wasn’t long before everyone in the states started playing dress up, telling spooky stories, and eating sweets on the evening before a religious holiday they never heard of.  So if you aren’t worshiping Satan, dancing naked around a bonfire, or sacrificing animals on Halloween then you aren’t following an evil tradition, just a mix of several silly traditions that have been Christianized, diffused, corrupted, and passed down through our nations fascinating and diverse history.  So grab your Shrek or Gingerbread man mask, and have a good time with your kids!

Conclusion:

 To me Halloween is hardly a holiday, it's like Presidents' Day... Whenever that is....  I don't celebrate/participate in it, but I don't care if anyone else does either.  A wise man once told me: "when in doubt, glorify God."  If what you're doing, doesn't serve our calling, it's not required and if it causes sin to occur, stop it. I don't believe dressing up causes sin, but if you feel convicted, don't do it. BUT remember that if we judge our piety by the standards of those silly emails floating about, we may as well stop going to church on Sunday, throw out our calendars, Christmas presents, and Easter baskets...  Oh wait… You didn’t know we celebrate Christ’s resurrection on a pagan deity’s day?  

Believe it or not, we use a pagan calendar that was later made MORE pagan by a monk, that in another time would’ve been burned as a witch.  Aaaand it was all approved by the Pope!  There are non-Christian aspects to much of our culture but that doesn't make us bad Christians, it makes us human.  So my brothers and sisters, let’s focus on God and not fight over man made traditions. 

 I’ve included the breakdown of the calendar below:

Our pagan days of the week:

On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes-The Bouillon Brothers-Godfrey & Baldwin

Bouillon Brother #2: Duke Godfrey, Flayer of Fatimids

1

          Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, French Godefroi de Bouillon   (born c. 1060—died July 18, 1100, kingdom of Jerusalem [now Jerusalem, Israel]), duke of Lower Lorraine (as Godfrey IV; 1089–1100) Brother of Eustace III, and a leader of the First Crusade, who became the first Latin ruler in Israel after the capture of Jerusalem from the Muslims in July 1099.

Being the middle child he had to earn his fame by fighting for his king, the self-proclaimed Holy Roman Emperor. 

When the call for crusade came, his Norman blood boiled at the thought of someone else earning glory, and plunder! He promptly convinced his brothers, Eustace and Baldwin to help raise a mighty host and devote their combined strength to a good cause selling his castle and lands in the process. It was the knightly version of philanthropy!

He distinguished himself as a powerful and intelligent leader, able to find common ground with his rivals, and local Muslim and Armenian Christian rulers.  I was going to list something about his abilities as a warrior, but ALL of the knights I’ll be discussing were at the top of their class.  They were some of the best martial arts experts in the world, the professional athletes of their day.

And yes, they even had super fans!

He rose to prominence as the supreme commander of the crusading princes, primarily after Antioch but unquestionably after his role in the fall of Jerusalem.

Despite his faults, and though it took more than a little convincing, he saw to the continuation of the march to Jerusalem while others chose to peruse their own interests.  Godfrey certainly, had his own plans, evident by the many schemes and detours which strained his alliance between himself and the other Normans.  He also managed to maintain cooperation with the other princes, filling the void at least to some extent, left by Adhemar’s death. 

Along with his brothers, and Tancred, he successfully stormed the walls of Jerusalem and took the city.  Despite the tumulus relationship with Raymond, Godfrey became the first Duke of Jerusalem.  Shortly after the princes selected Godfrey as supreme commander of the city, they all united one final time, to defeat the Fatimid Caliph’s army and solidified the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 

Godfrey died not long after the battle that secured the Crusader presence and his own kingdom, in 1100.  Scholars debate his COD, but most believe it was caused by a prolonged illness.  It was likely caused by the slow working venom of the last Saracen witch or warlock he slew…  Records of his passing remain lost to most “scholars,” but I have it on good authority that he died, gazing over a field littered with the bodies of his conquered foes.

Bouillon Brother #3: Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem

1.      Baldwin I, byname Baldwin of Boulogne, French Baudouin de Boulogne  (born 1058ish?—died April 2, 1118, Al-ʿArīsh, Egypt), king of the Crusader state of Jerusalem (1100–18) who expanded the kingdom and secured its territory, formulating an administrative apparatus that was to serve for 200 years as the basis for Frankish rule in Syria and Israel. Like the other Normans, he was known for his relatively just treatment/dealings with people of ALL faith backgrounds, so long as it suited his purpose…

One of my least favorite members of the Crusade; he was a shrewd man, great tactician, and like his brothers, deadly in the field.  He is perhaps unduly cast as the most opportunistic and selfish of the knights.  His sullied background stems from his questionable methods during the acquisition of Edessa, which went something like this:

      While on a mission with Tancred to secure strongholds to protect the main army’s flank, he             was adopted as son and heir of the Armenian Christian ruler of Eddessa and his wife.   Not                    long after the bizarre adoption ceremony concluded, an angry mob swarmed the old man and              his wife.  The lord was killed in the fray and Baldwin assumed command of the city, even took            an Armenian Wife.  Historians are suspicious of such convenient regime changes because mob            assassinations were a common way for nobles to dispose of other nobles without soiling their              own reputations. 

Another incident throwing doubt on Baldwin’s exalted reputation comes from Tancred, another of my favorite knights (of all time).  Tancred was quite certain that his re-enforcements (some 400 knights) were ambushed and executed by Baldwin, whilst on their march to Antioch.

Lord Baldwin showed his true Ahole colors again when Antioch was secure, and he no longer needed the support of the Armenians, he shipped his Armenian wife off to a convent,

and married some other chick.  Though he was an important asset to the Crusader Army, and well-loved as King of Jerusalem, it is my opinion that he was everything Hugh the Great wished he could be: King of the Douche Bags.

*Because I decided to introduce the Crusader Princes by order of importance, Hugh will be discussed later… Much, much, later….

Baldwin’s death was one of the most unfortunate of the Crusader Princes:

   While fishing with some buddies, don’t ask if they used live or artificial!  These guys were              knights!  Not just any Sir Joe Tinhat mind you, these guys were knights knights. They spear-              fished crocs and hippos in the Nile with their lances. Seriously…

Unfortunately the river dragons had fled the area that day, so they had to settle for lancing fish.  After eating the fish Baldwin believed that his meal had caused an old stomach wound to open, and he died on his way back to Jerusalem in 1018.

His death was mourned by ALL, (accept his Armenian ex-wife) even his enemies were sad to see him go.  Despite my opinion of him, I must acknowledge that he was one of the greatest rulers that region ever had. Ever! 

·        He had fantastic diplomats

·        Kept order in the region

·        Created and maintained alliances that few rulers have held since, and they paid him tribute! (a              knight’s version of extortion)

·        His enemies were absolutely terrified of him (Many believed that he would eat them)

·        Maintained, and increased trade