Hero Profiles: The Bishop & the Count of St. Gilles
It has been brought to my attention that my Blog on the
Crusade has been a bit content heavy, and for that I apologize. Being a geek, I tend to assume everyone is as
interested in the subject as I am. Naturally, I’ve found this is rarely the
case. I’ve decided, rather than blogging
another massive post, I’ll do short parts.
The First Crusade was comprised of a veritable dream team of “knights.” Though there were many knights of renowned in the crusader period,
history has left us only a few accounts and most of them are of the
commanders, mentioning only a few names and deeds of the lesser nobles.
As I discuss the Crusade, several names pop up and it gets
very confusing. “So and So of So and So,
Duke of Someplace," and etc. I’ve
embellished their titles a bit to help their names stick. So this post will begin to introduce what I
call, the Crusader Heroes. A sort of profile for the individuals that will play primary roles in the narrative as I discuss the siege of Antioch, Jerusalem, and the Battle of Ramla. These men
commanded their troops in person, and are responsible for the success of the
Crusade of 1096-1099 and the Crusader kingdoms that ruled the region for the next two
centuries.
(Keep in mind, these
knights lived well before the age of chivalry, so their “knightly” conduct was
only as true as their faith, which after all, provided the means for of the age of chivalry)
I’ll begin in order of rank/importance, at the time of the
call for crusade.
Adhémar the Righteous, Turksbane, the Bishop
of Puy
Adhémar
of Monteil, also called Adhémar of Puy, Adhémar was made bishop of Le Puy
in 1077. He made a pilgrimage to the East in 1086–87. Responding to Pope Urban
II’s call in November 1095 for a holy expedition to the East, he was appointed
papal legate of the Crusade. Wounded and temporarily captured, he recovered and
entered Constantinople (now Istanbul) with Raymond IV of Toulouse and his
troops and had friendly audiences with the Byzantine emperor.
Much more than a minister, or official papal snitch,
he was the primary authority figure of the Crusade. His task was monumental: to keep the peace, and mediate
between the crusader leaders and the Emperor. He maintained unity and kept up
the army’s moral, all while still commanding his own army in battle.
He led honorably, and well. His quick thinking, and fierceness in battle
saved the entire Army at Dorylaeum.
He sharply chastised and or criticized evil, including Raymond’s shameless, albeit successful, attempts to curry favor among the masses by fabricating miracles.
He sharply chastised and or criticized evil, including Raymond’s shameless, albeit successful, attempts to curry favor among the masses by fabricating miracles.
Raymond the Hapless, Champion of the Empire, Count of Toulouse
1.
Count Raymond
IV, byname Raymond of Saint-Gilles, French Raimond de Saint-Gilles (born 1041 or 1042, Toulouse, county of
Toulouse, France—died February 28, 1105, near Tripoli [now in Lebanon]) He held only nominal allegiance to King
Philip, as he was powerful enough to rule as a king himself.
Compared to the other crusader leaders,
Raymond was unrivaled in wealth and power.
He was a shrewd populist leader, and expert manipulator. He shared many of the same qualities as our president, but a french version... Baroque Obama?
That being said, he was the only Crusader leader to fulfill his oaths to God, the Church, and Emperor Alexius. So in that sense he was absolutely nothing like the sitting POTUS...
He was one of the few major nobles who took up the quest for primarily unselfish reasons. (All knights earned their title and keep through glorious deeds) While true to his oaths/loyalties, he was also treacherous, and not above using dishonorable means to achieve his political ends. (Such as fabricating miracles or assassinating his enemies)
That being said, he was the only Crusader leader to fulfill his oaths to God, the Church, and Emperor Alexius. So in that sense he was absolutely nothing like the sitting POTUS...
He was one of the few major nobles who took up the quest for primarily unselfish reasons. (All knights earned their title and keep through glorious deeds) While true to his oaths/loyalties, he was also treacherous, and not above using dishonorable means to achieve his political ends. (Such as fabricating miracles or assassinating his enemies)
Whether or not he actively participated in dishonorable deeds, or simply allowed them to occur, he did so only to his enemies (the Normans became his enemies at Antioch). Though most armchair historians prefer that he be remembered as a selfish, ill-tempered, old man. I remember him as one of the good guys, and most knightly of the great crusader princes.
He was fearless in battle and
intrigue, a practitioner of total war. He is said to have often used
Virgil’s quote: “Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat” which basically means:
It’s war and I’ll win by ANY means at my disposal. Raymond had a large and well-practiced
network of spies and assassins. He used
them against both rival knights, and troublesome clergy. His schemes against Bohemund and Tancred, were constantly foiled.
Bohemund was always one step ahead of the Count, likely contributing to
his “ill temper.”
Perhaps the most notable example of Raymond’s plans being turned against him was the minor Crusade of 1101, or as I like to call it, Crusade 1.5. ( I’ll put the summary of those circumstances at the end of this profile)
Perhaps the most notable example of Raymond’s plans being turned against him was the minor Crusade of 1101, or as I like to call it, Crusade 1.5. ( I’ll put the summary of those circumstances at the end of this profile)
He was a loyal champion of the Emperor
Alexius (Alexios Komnenos), conquering territories for his patron without seeking personal gain.
(Other than those attained by standard looting practices) He is most remembered
for his refusal to be crowned King of Jerusalem, saying: “How could I wear a
crown of gold, where my savior wore a crown of thorns?” He allowed Godfrey to take command, though
Godfrey also refused the tittle “King of Jerusalem” for the same reasons he was more than happy to assume command of the city. After the Egyptian Army was defeated, and
Jerusalem secure, Raymond went on fighting Muslim and Norman opposition. He succumbed to illness endeavoring to create his own crusader state in Tripoli, however his men won the city and established a third crusader state.
Raymond & Crusade
1.5
Raymond, along with several other nobles that were unable, or unwilling to attend/complete the first crusade, marched out to help consolidate Christian power in the region. Raymond led a large army back down the relatively secure road of 1097, but the majority of his infantry (the bulk of his army was made up of Lombards) betrayed him, and forced him to make a detour. Unfortunately for the count, he had unwittingly attached himself to friends of Bohemund. They refused to march to Tripoli, until they had rescued Bohemund from Danishmend Gazi “the Wise.”
Poor communication, intelligence, and
discipline (of the Norman/Lombard army) resulted in disaster. The entire force was surrounded and
eventually destroyed. Raymond’s conduct
in the hapless conflict was epic. Considered
an old man by medieval standards he still fought his way to an outcropping of
rock, where he stood alone amidst a sea of blood thirsty Turks and Arab
warriors. He was rescued in true
knightly idiom by Count Stephen, formerly “Stephen The Sensitive” now “The
Redeemed.” They fled the field with a
handful of others, leaving the women and children in camp behind to slow their
pursuers, in not so knightly a fashion…
No comments:
Post a Comment