Armies of Heaven (58 page)

8
BB 3, 26, p. 86, writing about the battle of Ma‘arra at the end of 1098; and GN 5, 7, pp. 207–208, writing about the capture of Antioch in June 1098.

1
On Kerbogah, see Hillenbrand (1999), pp. 56–58; France (1994), pp. 257–261, and 269–296; and Asbridge (2004), pp. 202–204. His name is also written as Kirbo-gah, Karbuqa, and Curbaram.

2
GN 6, 2, p. 234, and 5, 11, p. 214; BB 3, 2, pp. 61–62. The letter is in BB 3, 3, p. 62. The biographer of Saladin, the Muslim hero who would reconquer is Jerusalem in 1187, reported a century later that his hero had proposed a similar war in Europe: Gabrieli, pp. 101–102.

3
GF, p. 50. PT, p. 90, uses slightly different language for the crucial oath that Sensadolus offered: “I will faithfully give my estates to you and then I will be made your man in connection with all of them, and in fidelity to you I will guard this citadel.” I have discussed this scene and what it suggests about the composition of the early crusade sources in Rubenstein (2004), pp. 198–200.

4
The word choice “extort” (
extorquebat
) is Guibert's: GN 5, 8, p. 210.

5
GF, p. 51. Robert has him make the slightly sillier request that if the Franks win, he be allowed to run away: RtM, 6, 9, p. 810. The sequel to the story appears in HBS 66–67, pp. 198–199. See also France (1994), p. 269.

6
HBS 67, p. 198.

7
GF, pp. 53 and 51; GN 6, 3, p. 235. On the chains, see AA, 4, 45, pp. 318–319, and 4, 8, pp. 258–259. The last two boasts are AA 4, 5, pp. 254–255; and BB 3, 16, p. 76.

8
GF, p. 53, and, more generally, pp. 53–56. The scene with Kerbogha's mother is also described in PT, pp. 93–96; BB 3, 4, pp. 62–64; GN 5, 11–12, pp. 212–216; and RtM 6, 12, pp. 812–813. Natasha Hodgson analyzes this scene with a particular emphasis on gender in “The Role of Kerbogha's Mother in the
Gesta Francorum
and Selected Chronicles of the First Crusade,” in
Gendering the Crusades
, ed. Susan B. Edgington and Sarah Lambert (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), pp. 163–176.

9
GF, pp. 55–56, asking his mother whether Bohemond and Tancred were gods and whether the rumors were true that sometimes at a single sitting they could eat 2,000 cows and 4,000 pigs. RtM 8, 12, p. 813. Guibert uses a similar tactic: GN 5, 12, pp. 215–216.

10
AA 4, 28, pp. 288–291; RtM 6, 8, pp. 808–809.

11
AA 4, 33, pp. 296–299; GF, p. 56; RA, pp. 67–68.

12
RtM 6, 5–6, p. 807. I am translating
tormentum
as “missile” in the sense of a “bolt” fired from a catapult. Hugh is mentioned elsewhere at BB 3, 10, p. 68; GN 5, 10, p. 223; PT, p 102; and GF, p. 61, without discussion of the suicide.

13
BB 3, 10, p. 69; RC 77, p. 661.

14
AA 4, 34, pp. 300–301; RtM 6, 14, p. 815. The price list is PT, p. 104. The biblical passage is 2 Kings 6:25. Hagenmeyer,
Epistulae
18, p. 169.

15
OV 5, 9, pp. 96–99; AA 4, 37, pp. 304–307.

16
AA 4, 38–39, pp. 306–309.

17
GF, pp. 57–58, says that the priest, who is not named, recognized Christ by his cross, mentioning as well the stench unto heaven. RA, pp. 72–74, describes the vision, adding the detail on p. 74 that Stephen recognized the cross behind Christ's head as a feature from
imagines
of the Lord. GN 5, 17, pp. 218–219, uses similar language. See also BB 3, 7, pp. 66–67; and RtM 7, 1, pp. 821–822.

18
RA, pp. 70–72. RA's account of Peter's story begins with the fifth vision (p. 68) and then relates the first four.

19
Peter contrasts
paupertatis mee abitum
(the garment of my poverty) with
ves-tram magnitudinem
(your splendor) while speaking with Adhémar and Count Raymond: RA, p. 70. Raymond says on the previous page that Andrew was not happy with Adhémar's preaching. The quotation about dreams is GN 5, 19, p. 221.

20
RA, pp. 95–96. France's commentary on this topic is judicious. “Holy poverty was a powerful idea with a wide appeal amongst Christian people which is not confined to the poor themselves”: France (2006), p. 19. See also Alphandéry and Dupront, pp. 98–119.

21
On Adhémar's doubt and Raymond's belief, see RA, p. 72; and FC 1, 18, 2, pp. 236–237.

22
RA, pp. 74–75; GF, p. 62.

23
RA, p. 75. RA, p. 74, specifies twelve men digging. GF, p. 65, puts the number at thirteen, a figure that PT, p. 107, corrects to twelve.

24
FC 1, 20, 2, pp. 246–247; RA, p. 78.

25
GF, pp. 65–66; Flori (2007), pp. 165–166. Asbridge (2004), p. 229, suggests that Peter was selected as a “disgraced deserter and demagogue to the masses,” though neither of those qualities would particularly recommend him as the person in whom the lives of the entire garrison ought to be entrusted. A more straightforward reading would be that Peter, as the long-standing eschatological conscience of the crusade, was now seen as the best, surest person to carry out a prophetically charged task.

26
RA p. 79; GF p. 66; BB 3, 15, p. 74; GN 6, 2, p. 234. The much later description is from CdA 345, p. 432, ll. 8768–8774. HBS 84, p. 206, reports that Bohemond sent Kerbogah's tent to Bari as a gift.

27
RtM 7, 5–6, pp. 825–826, mentions the offer of trial without bloodshed. FC 1, 21, 1, pp. 247–248, suggests an ordeal by combat involving ten, twenty, or one hundred men from either side. AA 4, 45, pp. 318–319, says that the ordeal would involve twenty men from each side. See also GF, p. 67; PT, p. 109; and RtM 7, 6, p. 826. On the Norman Conquest, see WP 2, 12, p. 120–123.

28
See the comments of Asbridge (2004), pp. 229–232, which are echoed in France (2006), p. 10 and n. 38. Asbridge, p. 232, argues that this version of the negotiations suggests “a subtly different species of crusader: one for whom spiritual devotion was still an extremely powerful motivating force, but perhaps not an all-conquering inspiration.” To strengthen this case, Asbridge uses evidence from Matthew of Edessa 120, p. 171. Matthew says that the crusaders decided to surrender (as Asbridge quotes) but then decided against doing so as soon as the Lance was discovered (which he does not quote). Since the gist of Asbridge's argument is to downplay the impact of the Lance upon the morale of the army, this omission seems remarkable and worthy of mention.

29
AA 4, 46, pp. 320–321.

30
GF, pp. 67–68; RA, p. 78.

31
The game is mentioned by FC 1, 22, 5, p. 253. It is described as “checkers” (
scaccias)
by RA, p. 80; and as a “game” (
ludum)
by RC 86, p. 667. RA, p. 80, describes the Turkish advisor. RtM 7, 9, pp. 828–829, describes the heretic. On this battle in general, see France (1994), pp. 280–296.

32
RA p. 81; and FC 1, 22, 8, p. 254, both mention Kerbogah's last-second attempt to offer terms. Guibert describes a patient Kerbogah waiting to strike his enemy all at once: GN 6, 8, p. 238. In doing so, he agrees with Ibn al-Athir, reprinted in Gabrieli, p. 9.

33
RA, pp. 81–82; RC 87–89, pp. 668–669.

34
GF, p. 69; RA, pp. 70, 82, and 83.

35
FC 1, 23, 5, pp. 256–257. GF, p. 69, says that it was a signal to retreat. AA 4, 49–50, pp. 326–329, describes it as a battle tactic. RA, p. 81, says that it was a battle tactic to keep the Franks at bay rather than to aid the Saracens in their attack.

36
France (1994), pp. 281–282. AA 4, 28, pp. 290–291, puts the number of horses at around 150.

37
Ibn al-Athir's observation is recorded in Gabrieli, p. 7.

38
GF, pp. 70–71. GF, pp. 69–70, describes the grass fire. But see France (1994), p. 285, who says that this was a well-known tactic of Muslim armies.

1
RA, p. 87; FC 1, 25, 10, pp. 271–274. FC observes that by April, when the armies finally did advance deliberately to Jerusalem, the Franks were able to live off the harvests.

2
The contradictory sources are GF, p. 72; and AA, 5, 3, pp. 340–343. RA, p. 83, describes Bohemond's expulsion of rival soldiers from his tower. Hugh's delegation, as cited here in AA, was apparently attacked by Turks or Turcopoles during the journey. By the time the group reached the comforts of Constantinople, his heart had likely wearied of the adventure.

3
AA 5, 1–2, pp. 338–341; Hagenmeyer,
Epistulae
13, p. 155; RA, p. 87. James A. Brundage, “Adhémar of Puy: The Bishop and His Critics,”
Speculum
34 (1959): 201–212, attributes the appointment mainly to Adhémar (pp. 210–211), seeing it as part of a papal program of outreach to Byzantium. The evidence for this reading, however, is slight. It is a simpler and to my mind a more convincing reading of the sources that the Franks needed to restore order and make as many goodwill gestures as possible to a city whose Christian population they had brutalized a month earlier during the capture of Antioch.

4
RC 71, pp. 657–658; HBS 106, p. 216. The story in RC is problematic. In the text as we now have it, RC associates the miracle with the death of Bohemond's son, who died in 1130, although RC seems to have finished writing the book by 1118 (see RHC
Oc.
3, preface, p. xxxix). As Tancred's biographer and as a member of Bohemond's entourage in 1107, RC was well informed about Norman affairs. Presuming that the candle story is part of his original narrative, and not a detail inserted by RC or another writer, he likely associated it, at the time of the book's original composition, with Bohemond's checkered rule of the city and the failure of his 1107 crusade.

5
GF, p. 74; GN 6, 13, p. 246. On Adhémar as the new Moses, see BB 1, 5, p. 16; and RC 95, pp. 673–674. Baudry also has Urban II as Moses: BB 1, 4, p. 14. On Adhémar's death more generally, see RA, p. 84; and AA 5, 4, pp. 342–345. Why AA diverges so sharply from other accounts is difficult to say. He hears report of a ship from Regensburg arriving at Saint-Simeon, whose passengers all died of plague. He may simply connect this story to Adhémar's death and a few other pilgrims who died of illness, and from there he concludes that what was on the crusade normal mortality for six months was a great plague in which countless men and women
(AA outrageously says more than 100,000) died. On the ship from Regensburg, see AA 5, 23, pp. 364–367.

6
RA, pp. 84–85.

7
RA, pp. 86–88.

8
FC 1, 24, 14, p. 264; Hagenmeyer,
Epistulae
16, pp. 164–165. Riley-Smith (1986), p. 164, reads this passage as the crusaders saying that they were making an internal “monastic” pilgrimage as well as an external pilgrimage, a spiritual reading that seems to me far less likely than the anagogical one proposed here.

9
GF, pp. 73–74. See also France (1994), pp. 311–312. The observation that the city was densely populated is based on the fact that when it was conquered, Arab historians remembered the slaughter as the greatest massacre of the crusade.

10
GF, p. 72; RA, pp. 84, and 88–89 (the latter, a brief account of the affair at Azaz). RA says that Godfrey told Count Raymond that the defenders of Azaz had been seen making the sign of the cross. AA 5, 5–12, pp. 344–355, gives the whole affair a chivalric veneer, attributing Godfrey's intervention to a Christian woman who had gained influence at Omar's court. See also Asbridge (2000), p. 28.

11
AA 5, 15–17, pp. 356–361; GN 3, 14, pp. 164–165.

12
RA, pp. 90–91. Peter says that Raymond had offered the first candle five days earlier on St. Faith's Day, which falls on October 6—hence my date for the vision on October 10. Accepting this date would mean that Raymond's expedition to Albara would have to be pushed back later than c. September 25, the date to which Hagenmeyer assigns it in his
Chronologie
.

13
On this phase of the crusade, see Thomas Asbridge, “The Principality of Antioch and the Jabal as-Summaq,” in
The First Crusade: Origins and Impact
, ed. Jonathan Philips (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1997), pp. 142–152.

14
GF, p. 75; RA, pp. 91–92. GN 6, 14, p. 247, writes of settling
colonis
there.

15
GF, pp. 75–76. RA, pp. 92–93, tells of Godfrey's exploits and describes the council on pp. 93–94, saying that a date for departure had been agreed upon.

16
GF, pp. 77–78; RA, pp. 94–95.

17
RA, pp. 94–96 and 98.

18
FC 1, 25, 2, pp. 266–267; RC 97, p. 675 (the recent translation of RC, p. 116, n. 157, says, somewhat inexplicably, that this passage refers not to actual cannibalism but to scarcity); RA, p. 101.

19
AA 5, 29, pp. 374–375; GN 7, 23, pp. 310–311; GF, p. 80. The Bible verses are Isa. 49:26, Mic. 3:3, Apoc. 19:17–18, and 1 Kings 14:11.

20
The best battle accounts are RA, p. 97; and GF, pp. 78–80. See also RtM 8, 6, p. 847; and GP 8, ll. 198–202, pp. 208–209, where the dog image appears.

21
The Arab historian Ibn al-Athir places the number of dead at 100,000: Gabrieli, p. 9. The
Damascus Chronicle
of Ibn al-Qalanisi, published as Roger le Tourneau, trans.,
Damas de 1075 à 1154
(Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1952), pp. 42–43, refers to Frankish treachery, the Franks killing of citizens of Ma‘arra after promising them safety. See also the Aleppo chronicle in RHC
Or
. 3, p. 579; RA, pp. 97–98; and GF, pp. 79–80.

22
RA, p. 99.