Armies of Heaven (60 page)

26
AA 6, 15, pp. 422–423; RA pp. 148–149.

27
BB 4, 14, p. 101; AA 6, 16, pp. 422–423; RtM 9, 7, p. 866, and 8, 14, p. 855; HBS 121, p. 221; RA, p. 149.

28
RA, p. 149; PT, pp. 140–141; Ripoll Account, p. 649; Apoc. 19:12. See also France's commentary on the historical significance of the sermon (as well as the author's possible eyewitness status): “An Unknown Account of the Capture of Jerusalem,”
English Historical Review
87 (1972): 772–783. The rider on the white horse is first mentioned in Apoc. 6:2. See also Don Denny, “A Romanesque Fresco in Auxerre Cathedral,”
Gesta
25 (1986): 197–202. RA, p. 150.

29
On the first person over the wall: Lethold was the consensus candidate—mentioned in GF, pp. 90–91; PT, p. 91; GN 7, 7, p. 278 (predicting Lethold will be celebrated for generations); BB 4, 14, p. 102; and RtM 9, 7, p. 867 (adding that a certain Guicher followed Lethold). AA 6, 19, pp. 428–429, has the brothers climbing onto the walls together. HBS 122, p. 221, says that Bernard was the first, followed by Lethold and Engelbert, RA, pp. 150 and 151, says at first that Tancred and Godfrey were first but then notes a little later that several people saw Adhémar lead the way. On the battle details: AA 6, 18–19, pp. 426–429 (who mentions that local Christians warned the Franks about this fire); and RC 125, p. 693. RA, p. 150, describes
Godfrey's dramatic entry onto Jerusalem's walls. See also France (1994), pp. 351–353. AA 7, 3, pp. 488–491, elaborates on the mechanics of Greek Fire in a battle fought by Godfrey as king of Jerusalem.

30
GN 7, 7, p. 279, and 7, 10, p. 283; BN 35, p. 515; HBS 126, p. 223; RtM 9, 8, p. 868; RA, p. 150.

31
GF, p. 91; GN 7, 7, p. 279, and 7, 8, p. 280; BB 4, 14, p. 102; BN 35, p. 515; RtM 9, 8, p. 868.

32
RA, p. 150. Raymond would use a similar description in a letter written in September 1099 on behalf of Archbishop Daimbert of Pisa, later patriarch of Jerusalem, saying that the horses in Jerusalem rode through blood up to their knees: Hagenmeyer,
Epistulae
18, p. 171. EA 17, p. 24, borrows this language. See also Kedar (2004), p. 65.

33
RC 129, pp. 695–696; AA 6, 23–25, pp. 430–437. FC 1, 26, 9, p. 290, mentions in the Temple of the Lord, or Dome of the Rock, an “idol named Muhammad.”

34
AA 6, 26, pp. 436–439; BB 4, 14, p. 103; FC 1, 29, 2, pp. 304–305; RA, p. 151. Isa. 11:10, in the Vulgate, reads “
Et erit sepulchrum eius gloriosum
.” Robert discusses this verse as it applies to the crusaders: RtM 9, 9, p. 869. See also Riley-Smith (1986), pp. 142–143.

1
RA, p. 150.

2
FC 1, 28, 1, pp. 301–302; HBS 123, p. 222.

3
AA 6, 28, pp. 438–439. Albert says here as well that Raymond received a huge amount of money in exchange for their release. See also RA, p. 151; GF, p. 92; and PT, p. 141.

4
AA 6, 28–29, pp. 438–441; GF, pp. 91–92. PT, p. 141, unusually, says that Tancred ordered the killing himself.

5
AA 6, 29, pp. 440–441.

6
AA 6, 30, pp. 440–443 (I am closely following Edgington's translation).

7
GF, p. 92; FC 1, 33, 19, pp. 332–333, and note b. See also n. 51 on the same page; and Kedar (2004), p. 20, and n. 8. EA 20, p. 26, also comments on the stench around Jerusalem.

8
RA, p. 143.

9
RA, p. 152; AA 6, 33, pp. 444–446; GN 7, 11, p. 284.

10
FC 1, 30, 1, p. 308.

11
GN 7, 25, p. 318; HBS 130, p. 225. The epitaph reads, “
Rex licet electus. rex noluit intitulari. Nec dyademari. sed sub christo famulari
”; recorded in Brussels BR MS 9823–9824, fol. 138v. I discuss the origins of the “advocate” myth later in the chapter.

12
AA 2, 16, pp. 84–87; EA 11, p. 19.

13
AA 6, 34–35, pp. 446–449. Alphandéry and Dupront, p. 131, suggest that this story and the ones to follow were probably retrospective inventions made after Godfrey had become king, but there is no particular reason to see them as such. They are just as likely examples of the evidence mustered to support Godfrey's claim to leadership.

14
AA 6, 26–27, pp. 436–439. Albert refers briefly to Stabelo's activity during Baldwin I's reign: AA 9, 4, pp. 640–643.

15
AA 6, 36–37, pp. 448–451.

16
Vita beatae Idea
[in AASS Apr
.
2] 4, p. 142, with the vision of the sun mentioned at 3, p. 142. The later version is published in RHC
Oc
. 5, pp. 307–309; and is appended to a collection of crusade chronicles in Paris BnF Arsenal MS 1101, fol. 101v. See also WT 9, 6, p. 427.

17
RA, pp. 152–153.

18
RA, p. 71.

19
RA, p. 153.

20
Hagenmeyer,
Epistulae
18, pp. 167–174. Specifically in the preamble (p. 168), Godfrey is described as “by the grace of God now advocate of the church of the Holy Sepulcher.” On the composition of the letter, see Hagenmeyer's notes in
Epistulae
, pp. 108–110; John France, “The Election and Title of Godfrey de Bouillon,”
Canadian Journal of History
18 (1983): 321–329 (pp. 326–327); and Alan V. Murray, “The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem,”
Collegium Medievale
3 (1990): 163–178 (pp. 163–164).

1
GF, p. 93, says that Tancred and Eustace captured Nablus and then received a summons from Godfrey to return because of an impending battle at Ascalon. Within a few lines, the author reported that while returning, Tancred learned of an Egyptian army massing at Ascalon and sent warning to Godfrey. AA 6, 42, p. 456, has Godfrey carrying out reconnaissance work with Tancred and Robert of Flanders because of the rumored attack and learning himself of the army at Ascalon. Other potentially independent sources, such as FC 1, 31, 1–2, pp. 311–312, and RC 138, p. 703, are vague on the details of who discovered the army.

2
RA, p. 154.

3
The discovery of the True Cross is described in several places: RA, pp. 154–155; FC 1, 30, 4, pp. 309–310; BN 37, p. 516; EA 29, pp. 33–34; and AA 6, 38, 450–453.

4
GF, p. 94. AA 6, 41, pp. 456–457, says that Peter traveled to Ascalon with the army. In either case Peter was playing a remarkably prominent role. See the analysis of Flori (1999), pp. 457–461.

5
GF, p. 94.

6
RA, pp. 156–158; GF, pp. 94–95; FC 1, 31, 5–6, pp. 313–315; AA 6, 42, pp. 458–459, and 6, 44, pp. 460–463; GN 7, 17, p. 296. AA and GN are the only writers to argue that it was a deliberate ruse on the part of the Egyptians.

7
The herds are described at GF, p. 94; and RA, pp. 155–156. PT, p. 145, alone mentions the dueling sermons with Lance and Cross. AA 6, 42, pp. 456–457, observes that Raymond refused at first to go because of petulance, but relented owing to external pressures.

8
AA 6, 43–44, pp. 458–461.

9
RA, p. 157–158; GF, p. 96; BB 4, 20, p. 109; RtM 9, 16, p. 873.

10
GF, pp. 95; RtM 9, 19, p. 875, and 9, 23, p. 879; GN 7, 20, p. 299; BB 4, 20, p. 109. See also France (1994), pp. 362–366. Guibert specifies 7, that Robert had not captured the standard himself but had instead bought it from another soldier—captured the standard himself but had instead bought it from another soldier—still, a sign of the duke's marvelous generosity.

11
BN 39, p. 518. The German writer is Frutolf, p. 116. BB 4, 20–21, pp. 109–110; RtM 9, 21, p. 878. One of Baudry's earliest copyists spotted the potential embarrassment from this passage (given that wars with Egypt continued unabated) and excised it from the text. It appears to survive in only two manuscripts (of the fourteen that I have examined). See Apoc. 8:7, where at the sound of the first trumpet, fire and hail mixed with blood rain down from heaven.

12
FC 1, 31, 10, pp. 316–317.

13
BN 71, p. 541; FC 2, 35, 2, p. 507. More generally, FC 2, 34–35, pp. 503–509. BN is either a lightly revised version of FC's chronicle or (in my opinion the more likely case) a copy of the first draft of FC's chronicle, finished in 1106, preserving elements of that draft that have since been lost.

1
This anecdote about Galdemar was published as a continuation to Raymond's chronicle (henceforth, “Continuation”) in RHC
Oc.
5, pp. 307–308.The author only specifies Greek and Armenian; I am presuming the Latin. At one point Galdemar started to leave Hugh, but the archbishop ordered him by the oath he had made to him in life to return. See also Riley-Smith (1997), p. 75.

2
“Continuation,” p. 308.

3
The treaty appears in Fernand Vercauteren, ed.,
Actes des comtes de Flandre, 1071–1128
(Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1938), pp. 90–91.

4
CdA 233, pp. 284–285, for example; OV 5, 10, pp. 324–325; GN 5, 25, p. 228.

5
The literature on this topic is vast, but to hit the highlights: R. N. Swanson,
The Twelfth-Century Renaissance
(Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1999); R. W. Southern,
Medieval Humanism and Other Studies
(Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1970); Colin Morris,
The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200
(New York: Harper and Row, 1972). The most important recent foray into the topic is Rachel Fulton,
From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), which considers the question of the development of empathy in the twelfth century.

6
On Raimbold Croton, see Riley-Smith (1997), pp. 155–156.

7
GN 5, 11, p. 214; BN 35, p. 515; I Sam. 15:3.

8
BB 1, 4, p. 14. Robert uses the image frequently: RtM 2, 16, p. 747; 3, 14, p. 763; 6, 12, p. 812. See also RC 125, p. 693.

9
In particular, GN 2, 1, p. 109. On this theme generally, see Anthony D. Smith,
Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity
(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003), esp. pp. 44–65, 120–123, and 137–141; and Mary Garrison, “The Franks as the New Israel? Education for an Identity from Pippin to Charlemagne,” in
Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages
, ed. Yitzhak Hen and Matthew Innes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 114–161. Matthew Gabriele's book is titled
An Empire of Memory: The Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and Jerusalem Before the First Crusade
. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011).

10
Brett Edward Whalen,
Dominion of God: Christendom and Apocalypse in the Middle Ages
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). On the definition of C
hristianitas
, Rousset, pp. 102–103, makes this point. Denis Hay,
Europe: The Emergence of an Idea
(New York: Harper and Row, 1957), pp. 22–23 and 27–28, notes the word's ambiguities but draws too sharp a distinction between
Christianitas
as “the faithful” and
Christianismus
as the “faith,” which was not a universally understood distinction. See also BB prologue, p. 9; 1, 11, p. 20; 2, 3, pp. 35–36; 2, 7, p. 39; 2, 16, p. 49; 4, 21, p. 110; and RA, p. 110.

11
RA, p. 151; RC 57, p. 648; Henry of Huntingdon,
Historia Anglorum
, ed. and trans. Diana Greenway (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1996), 7, 14, pp. 436–437. See the recent study by Suzanne Conklin Akbari,
Idols in the East: European Representations of Islam and the Orient, 1100–1450
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009). I most certainly attribute more influence to the First Crusade for the propagation of these ideas than does Akbari.

12
GN 1, 2, p. 89, and, more generally, pp. 89–90; WM, 347, pp. 602–603, and 360, pp. 632–635. See also WM, 372, pp. 654–655, where he says it was a miracle that so many men, accustomed to cold weather, would willingly travel East. See the comments of Hay,
Europe
, pp. 3–5 and 32–33.

13
Paris BnF MS Arsenal 1101, fol. 101v, printed in the “Continuation,” p. 309. See also Ripoll Account, p. 649. The biblical passage here conflates Apoc. 6:2 and 19:14.

1
Deeds of the Franks
, or GF, has long enjoyed a reputation for being the most important of the crusade sources. I have presented a detailed interpretation of it in Rubenstein (2004). Historians, by contrast, have tended to discount the value of Raymond's book, seeing it as a revised version of GF, when in fact all evidence
points to the two books being composed at the same time (and it is indeed likely that the two writers would have known of each other's work during the crusade itself, perhaps helping to explain the similarities). Historians have only recently begun to appreciate the value of Albert of Aachen's chronicle (AA), thanks to the work of his most recent editor, Susan Edgington. I have disagreed with Edgington here by saying that Albert made use of a now-lost source (and am currently preparing an article to make this case more forcefully).

Abraham

Acre

Adela of Blois (wife of Stephen of Blois)

Adhémar (bishop of le Puy)

and Antioch

battle orations of

cross of

death of

and decapitation

and Dorylaeum

and Holy Lance

and Holy Lance, excavation of

and Kerbogah, defeat of

and Nicea

and nun from Trier

and Peter Bartholomew, visions of

and Peter Desiderius, visions of