First Contact: The Men of Iron
The People’s Crusade:
Both the Pope and the Emperor had hoped for an army well led
and organized, but many set out on their own and Christ was not their
motivation. They marched under the guise of crusaders and terrorized the
countryside, most of these bands were eventually destroyed in or around
Hungary. A massive rabble led by Peter the Hermit called
the Pauper’s Crusade, departed in mob fashion, and without
supplies. They were comprised of poor men and women, and a few
knights. Albert of Aix wrote:
In response to his (Peter the Hermit) constant admonition
and call, bishops, abbots, clerics, and monks set out; next, most noble laymen,
and princes of the different kingdoms; then, all the common people, the chaste
as well as the sinful, adulterers, homicides, thieves, perjurers, and robbers;
indeed, every class of the Christian profession, nay, also, women and those
influenced by the spirit of penance—all joyfully entered upon this expedition.
Due to starvation and other motivators, they attacked and
robbed the country along the route to Constantinople, over 10,000 are said to
have died along the road side due to starvation and exposure. Chaos
followed their march, Albert left an account that tells of a scene of
desperation. The harsh conditions, questionable
devotion, and lack of discipline lead to acts of cruel thievery and
murder. The evil actions committed by the “crusaders” were
immediately reciprocated by the host country:
They (The Hungarians) fell upon them (“Crusaders”) with
cruel slaughter, cut down the defenseless and unarmed and inflicted upon them
frightful slaughter, to such an extent (as those affirm for a truth who were
present and barely escaped) that the entire plain of Belgrade was filled by the
bodies of the slain and was covered with their blood.
Modern society often criticizes the crusade(s) as being an
example of the evils religion brings upon the world. Many Christians
even, view this period as a black eye on the Church. I however see
this period as a supreme example of the benefit of Christian Character in
contrast of the human condition. One of the reasons the enemies of
Christianity will bring up the crusades in their arguments, is due to the
events that occurred on the march to Constantinople but Ekkehard wrote:
Thus the men of our race, zealous, doubtless, for God,
though not according to the knowledge of God, began to persecute other
Christians while yet upon the expedition which Christ had provided for freeing
Christians. They were kept from fraternal bloodshed only by divine mercy; and
the Hungarians, also, were freed. This is the reason why some of the more
guileless brethren, ignorant of the matter, and too hasty in their judgment,
were scandalized and concluded that the whole expedition was vain and foolish.
The first army of crusaders to arrive at Constantinople were
the poor, haggard followers of Peter the Hermit. Emperor Alexius was well aware of their
conduct along their journey to his Empire so he denied them entry into the city. He soon conveyed them across the channel
where they were placed in an old fortification near the Turkish line to “await
orders” (The real Crusading Army). It is
said that driven by their fanaticism, they disobeyed the Emperor and marched
into enemy territory. It is more likely they were driven by a want of supply
(greed) and the sense of urgency felt by their leaders as their numbers and
discipline dwindled every day they remained idle. Unprepared for the steppe style of warfare
and poorly armed, they were almost completely destroyed by the local Turkish
Emir.
The
Turks however mighty and numerous, were far from the united power they would
become under the Ottoman banner. They
had inflicted a serious defeat on “Rum” as they called the Eastern Romans, but
like the princes of Western Europe, they would rather fight against one another
than work together. Amin Maalouf wrote a
fantastic book from the oft overlooked Muslim perspective called, The Crusades through Arab Eyes. Maalouf describes the harsh world of Turkish
politics, and gives a much better insight into the politics of the Middle East
than the Crusader accounts do. Unlike
the “Frang,” as the Western Europeans were called, Turkish successions were
never smooth transitions of power and were almost immediately followed by civil
war. The Turks’ were nomadic in nature,
and thus prefer leaving the governing of their conquered cities to slaves that
paid them an annual tribute. They would
destroy irrigated land and create pastures, so both the land and the cultures there
suffered greatly under Turkish rule.
Each Emir thought only of increasing his own power, reputation and
influence. Alliances were based on
mutual benefit and nothing more. Treachery
was the most common character trait in the East, honor based loyalty was a foreign
concept.
In July 1096 the rabble under the command of
Peter the Hermit entered the recently conquered territory of Kilij Arslan the
Sultan of Rum. (King of the Romans) Arslan was only 17 years old, but was already
trying to make a name for himself by conquering the territory of more famous
men. He was in the middle of just such a
campaign when word reached him from his spies in Emperor Alexius’ army (Alexius
used Turkish mercenaries) that an army of “Frang” had arrived at an old fort
near his capital of Nicaea. After hearing
of the slaughter and pillaging of the countryside around his capital, (where
his pregnant wife was living) he lifted his siege rode swiftly meet this
strange new threat.
The
rabble had been confiscating supplies in preparation for the siege of Nicaea. Under
the pretext of “foraging expeditions,” “crusader” villains slaughtered and
robbed men, women, and children of all faith backgrounds. Perhaps over confident in the lack of
resistance they had received, they ventured further and further into the interior.
“Because of the danger
of ambushes and attacks from the Turks, they (Byzantines) forbade Peter and his
whole army from marching towards the mountainous region of the city of Nicaea,
until a greater number of Christians should be added to their number. Peter heard
the message, and he with all the Christian people assented to the counsel of
the Emperor. They tarried there for the course of two months, feasting in peace
and joy, and sleeping secure from all hostile attacks. and so two months later,
having become wanton and unrestrained because of ease and an inestimable
abundance of food, heeding not the voice of Peter, but against his will, they
entered into the region of the city of Nicaea and the realms of Soliman. (The
Turks) They took as plunder cattle,
sheep, goats, the herds of the Greek servants of the Turks, and carried them
off to their fellows. Peter, seeing this, was sorrowful in heart, knowing that
they did it not with impunity. Whereupon he often admonished them not to seize
any more booty contrary to the counsel of the Emperor, but in vain did he speak
to a foolish and rebellious people. But
the Teutons, (Germans) seeing that affairs turned out so well for the Romans (Not
the Romans we think of today, but possibly men from the old Germanic-Roman
territory: Alamannia- just my guess, but they were certainly Latins) and the Franks, and that they returned
unhindered so many times with their booty, were inflamed with an inordinate
desire for plunder.” –Albert of Aix
Unfortunately for Peter’s forces, they had failed to realize
that the Greek, Arab, and Armenian inhabitants they had so effortlessly
destroyed, were not regular Turkish forces.
I had always imagined All the crusaders as being far superior to All the
Muslim forces. In my mind’s eye I
pictured them something like this:
No contest right!?
Turns out, though there is some
truth in this comparison, it’s a bit off.
The Turkish forces, had their own version of knights. In tactics, skill and appearance they were
more like the Mongolian horde than the forty thieves of Arabian Nights. Though the
“Frang” Knights were notoriously fierce and unrivaled in melee combat, the rank
and file of Peter’s army were little more than a starving mob of angry
peasants. The reality looked more like
this:
The result was just as you might expect, almost the entire
army, the pilgrims, and family members that followed were slaughtered or sold
into slavery. A few thousand managed to
take refuge in a nearby coastal fort, and though in ruins, they were able to
hold off the forces of Arslan long enough for the Byzantine navy to rescue
them.
The Real Crusade:
The Battle of Dorylaeum
Arslan had lost hardly any men defeating The People's Crusade. He returned to his capital and celebrated his victory. Once back to his usual self-aggrandizing shenanigans,
he ignored reports that additional Crusaders had arrived near his capital. To appease the troubled messengers, he sent a
small detachment of cavalry. After his
last experience with the “Frang” he was confident the small force he sent, was more than
enough to destroy the newly arrived infidels. A few days passed when, what remained of his
cavalry returned with news of their defeat and that the city was now besieged!
What
the Sultan of Rum had failed to realize was that multiple “armies” marched
out on crusade, but only one was the official Crusader Army. This army represented nearly all the Crown
heads of Europe, with their private armies of picked men. Aside from the thousands of volunteers, civilians, and pilgrims, the Army that marched out of Constantinople, was a massive experienced force of warriors, and merciless raiders.
Let's step out of the middle ages and into the future. Imagine for a moment, you are the governor of a small
state or county in a post-apocalyptic America.
You have a small army of professional soldiers of varying background and
experience, as well as hordes of armed locals.
You show up to the battlefield expecting an army of transient bandits,
only to find yourself facing a professional army of infantry and armored
cavalry, headed by thousands of Navy Seals. To make this proposed sci-fi thriller even more ridiculous than a Kevin Costner film, said army is lead by the clones of Gen. Patton, Sam Houston, Stone Wall Jackson, & George Washington. All of them are hell bent on your
destruction…
This is the situation
Arslan found himself in! He was wise enough to patch things up with his enemies, and unite against a common foe but he was wholly unprepared to face the force that awaited him. Hoping to take
advantage of his vast numerical superiority (A point that wikipedia and I differ on), and the element of surprise, he
attacked the besiegers at their weakest point.
The weakest point by his definition was the point with the smallest number of armed troops, and those furthest from re-enforcement. Unfortunatly for Arslan and his allies, it was Bohemund's camp. Arslan expected the crusaders to break and flee under such a ferocious surprise attack but Bohemund was a verteran. He ordered his knights to dismount and they successfully formed a line of battle, protecting the noncombatants and poorly armed troops from the Turkish mounted archers. The Turks discovered to their horror, that arrows couldn’t pierce the knights' armor. What was worse, when the troops engaged in close combat, they were easily cut to pieces. Bohemund fought constantly for some 7 hours, until eventually being relieved by the other crusader leaders. After this engagement these Knights were simply called: "The Men of Iron." Their line of battle: "The moving fortress"
The battle raged all day, the Turks were well supplied and the Crusaders were cut off. The battle was finally decided when the Papal legate, Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, maneuvered his forces under the cover of nearby hills to the enemy's rear. Once near the Turkish supply camp, he attacked the Turks from the rear, burning thier camp and scattering the muslim horde. Many of you may be thinking, "What's a Papal Legate"? You may think it strange that a Bishop, and Papal legate (Pope's enforcer) would be leading troops into battle. Interestingly, back in the good ol' days, there used to be Warrior Bishops. I'm not sure what they looked like in battle. Art from this period typically shows them in robes and halos, but I think Bishop Addy (That's what his friends called him) looked something like this:
I’ve talked about the appearance of the factions involved in
this epic contest quite a bit, but don't just take my word for it. Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Alexius I, left us a fantastic reference. She
was best known for her beauty and for writing a biography of her father: The Alexiad. A fascinating, though doubtless exaggerated,
account of the Byzantine Empire. Her account is important to this article because she describes
a Norman knight. She does so, so vividly it’s like being pulled into the pages of history, back in time, and
into his actual presence. What follows is her description of Bohemund, Prince of Taranto at
her father’s court (The place where all the nobles hung out):
Now [Bohemond] was
such as, to put it briefly, had never before been seen in the land of the
Romans, be he either of
the barbarians or of the Greeks, for he was a marvel for the eyes to behold,
and his reputation was terrifying. Let me describe the barbarian's appearance
more particularly – he was so tall in stature that he overtopped the tallest by
nearly one cubit, narrow in the waist and loins, with broad shoulders and a
deep chest and powerful arms. And in the whole build of the body he was neither
too slender nor overweighted with flesh, but perfectly proportioned and, one
might say, built in conformity with the canon of Polycleitus
(Polycleitus
was a famous artist in ancient Greece, best known for his sculptures of Greek
gods/goddesses)
His skin all over his
body was very white, and in his face the white was tempered with red. His hair
was yellowish, but did not hang down to his waist like that of the other barbarians;
for the man was not inordinately vain of his hair, but had it cut short to the
ears. Whether his beard was reddish, or any other colour I cannot say, for the
razor had passed over it very closely and left a surface smoother than chalk...
His blue eyes indicated both a high spirit and dignity; and his nose and
nostrils breathed in the air freely; his chest corresponded to his nostrils and
by his nostrils...the breadth of his chest. For by his nostrils nature had
given free passage for the high spirit which bubbled up from his heart.
A
certain charm hung about this man but was partly marred by a general air of the
horrible... He was so made in mind and body that both courage and passion
reared their crests within him and both inclined to war. His wit was manifold
and crafty and able to find a way of escape in every emergency. In conversation
he was well informed, and the answers he gave were quite irrefutable. This man
who was of such a size and such a character was inferior to the Emperor alone
in fortune and eloquence and in other gifts of nature.
Her
description of Bohemund must’ve been the inspiration for Ragnar’s character
in the History Channel’s hit show: Vikings.
The Fall of Nicaea
After his defeat, Arslan sent a messenger
to the governor of Nicaea telling him to act according to his own best interests. The governor promptly struck a deal with Emperor
Alexius, and secretly transferred the city back into Byzantine control. The crusaders awoke the next morning to find
Byzantine colors waving over the city.
Some were happy at the peaceful end but the Normans, and Teutons were enraged
at having been robbed of glory and plunder.
There was no bloodshed, the Sultan’s wife and child were cared for by
Emperor Alexius. Arslan fled into the desert and began to spread the word to the other Muslim lords of the impending threat to their recent conquests.
Bohemund’s mere presence may have been enough to weaken the
knees of young princesses and the walls of his enemies but his ambition and political
cunning were less amiable. Princess Anna
writes:
For when this man of evil
design (Bohemund) had left his country
in which he possessed no wealth at all under the pretext, indeed, of adoring at
the Lord's Sepulcher, but in reality endeavoring to acquire for himself a kingdom,
he found himself in need of much money, especially, indeed, if he was to seize the
Roman power. In this he followed the advice of his father (Duke Robert
Guiscard) and, so to speak, was leaving no
stone unturned. Moreover, the Emperor, who understood fully his wicked intention
and perverse mind, skillfully managed carefully to remove whatever might further
Bohemund's ambitious designs. Wherefore, Bohemund, seeking a home for himself in
the East and using Cretan scheming against Cretans, did not obtain it. For the Emperor
feared lest, after obtaining power, he would use it to place the Latin counts under
obligation to him, finally thus accomplishing easily what he wished. But since he
did not want Bohemund to surmise that he was already discovered, the Emperor misled
him by this hope: "Not yet," he said, "has the time come for the
thing which you say; but after a little it shall come about by your fortitude and
trust in me."
From about 1080-1085, Bohemund had commanded most or the Norman
knights that would go on to follow him on “crusade”, during his father’s
attempts to take the Byzantine throne for himself. Robert was the effectual king of Viking (Norman)
Italy. Bohemund was ambitious for two historically
known reasons:
- Being the first born and likely favored son of Robert, he was to inherit his father’s kingdom. Unfortunately Robert’s shield maiden and 2nd wife Sikelgaita, wanted her son to inherit the kingdom and was vehemently against the war with Byzantium. Bohemund was dis-inherited by his younger half-brother Roger II, King of Sicily.
- Bohemund had pledged to his father, that he would carry on his dream of conquering Byzantium. His actions on and after the crusade corroborate this narrative.
It’s obvious that the leaders of the Crusade had various intentions
but the Normans’, specifically Bohemund’s intentions, heavily influenced and
marred Byzantine-Crusader relations. The peaceful transition of the city of Nicaea back into Byzantine hands infuriated the Normans, even though they had pledged to return control of ALL formerly Byzantine cities back to Byzantine control. Nicaea was the turning point in relations between the Greek and Latin powers, the
mistrust and political intrigue almost destroyed the entire expedition.
No comments:
Post a Comment