Discovery of the Holy Lance

Posted on June 5, 2013 by Deanna Proach

The crusaders, under Bohemond’s command, engaged Kerbogha in hand-to-hand combat outside the city’s eastern wall. “The battle was waged with such force from morning to evening that nothing like it was ever heard of. There was a certain frightful and as yet unheard of calamity befell us, for amidst the hail of arrows and rocks, and the constant charge of javelins, and the deaths of so many, our men became unconscious. If you ask for the end of this fight, it was night,” observed Raymond d’Aguilers.

The battle raged on for days. Exhausted and terrified of the prospects of defeat, men began to abandon the siege. So many were fleeing, Bohemond and the Bishop Adhemar had to bar the city’s gates. There was even talk of treachery within the army, so Bohemond set fire to part of the city to root out the troublemakers and, perhaps, force them into submission.

Despite their dwindling resources and confidence, the crusaders had successfully prevented Kerbogha’s force from breeching the eastern wall. Determined to take Antioch as he was, Kerbogha settled on another strategy: starve the Franks into submission. He dispatched a large contingent of soldiers to blockade the Bridge Gate and the St. George Gate. By 14 June, he had successfully alienated the Franks from the outside world. Since the crusaders had plundered all the resources Antioch had to offer, there was very little food to be had. Once again, they suffered from starvation. “They cooked and ate the leaves of the fig tree, grapevine, and thistle, and all of the trees, so tremendous was their hunger.” To add to their misery, there were only 200 horses left. Many noblemen were reduced to near poverty, forced to ride on top of donkeys or mules.

In the midst of despair and intense suffering, a young peasant visionary, Peter Bartholomew, claimed that St. Andrew had revealed to him the lance, which had pierced the side of Jesus while he hung on the cross, lay underneath the Basilica of St. Peter. Peter’s story went like this: St. Andrew appeared to him before the crusaders captured Antioch. St. Andrew had a message for the Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy and for Raymond of Toulouse. St. Andrew, Peter recalled, denounced Bishop Adhemar for failing in his duties as spiritual advisor to the Christian army. Raymond, though, was revered. He was to be given a special task: Raymond would accompany Peter with twelve men to the Basilica and unearth the Holy Lance. Once they reach the River Jordan in Palestine, Count Raymond was to cross the river on a raft, re-baptize himself and then preserve his underclothes and the lance on that site forever.

The Holy Lance was apparently preserved underneath the south chapel. Peter knew this because, in a dream, he was transported there. St. Andrew disappeared underground, and then returned, holding the Holy Lance. He promised Peter that it would guarantee victory against the Turks.

St. Andrew instructed Peter to go to the leaders immediately and tell them of the discovery of the Holy Lance, but Peter feared they would berate him and then dismiss him. So, he did not seek them out right away. As time wore on, St. Andrew’s pleas became more urgent and irate. Peter could no longer ignore them.

As he predicted, not all of the leaders believed him, especially the Bishop Adhemar quite understandably. He disregarded Peter’s visions as rubbish, so too did Bohemond, Tancred, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders.

“Peter secretly had with him and Arab spear, which he had found by chance and had kept as useful material for deception. Seeing that it was rusty, eroded, old and different from what we were used to both in appearance and size, he judged that with this, credence would be given to his imaginings,” Radulph of Caen wrote in around 1108.

Peter’s visions were undoubtedly hallucinations, fed by his hunger, exhaustion and ardent belief that Christ was guiding them, fighting with them. In fact, the twelve men – including Count Raymond – dug in the spot where St. Andrew had instructed Peter to dig, but found nothing. As the men turned away, Peter, clad only in a shirt, slipped discreetly into the pit and produced a piece of iron that was — as Radulph suggested — probably nothing more than an old, rusted Turkish lance.

We, referring to the people of today, believe Peter’s visions are fantastical and ludicrous, but to the people who took part in the First Crusade, his visions were authentic. Most of the crusaders, especially the lower ranks, did not question Peter’s credibility. As far as they were concerned, the lance was the lance that pierced Jesus’s side. Its discovery filled them with a strong, renewed sense of hope. They believed God had not abandoned them. He was with them and He would lead them to great victory.

Sources Used:

Armstrong, Karen. Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World. Anchor Books; New York, 2001.

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

Krey, August C. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesss and Participants. Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1921.

Various contributors. Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of The Wars Between Christianity and Islam. Bramley Books; Portugal, 1997.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

The Second Siege of Antioch

Posted on May 24, 2013 by Deanna Proach

The second siege of Antioch brought the Crusade to its knees. Antioch’s defenses had been severely undermined because the citadel on Mount Silpius was still held by the Muslims. The crusaders desperately hoped that the Emperor Alexius would arrive soon with his army and relieve them. Alexius had planned to go to their aid, but he was preoccupied in Asia Minor, re-conquering land that had been held by the Turks. Though, Stephen of Blois ended all prospects of relief.

Believing that the Crusade was doomed as well as everyone who continued to take part in it, Stephen decided to flee Antioch. On the night of 2-3 June, while Bohemond schemed with Firuz the tower commander, Stephen slipped through a vacant gate. He rode north across Asia Minor where he came across the Emperor Alexius encamped at Philomelium with his army. According to a witness, Stephen told the Emperor; “you should know that Antioch has been captured though the citadel has not been captured yet; all our men are under a state of heavy siege and I think by now they have been killed by the Turks. So go back home as fast as you can, in any case they find you and your army.”

Not only did Stephen put the Crusade in deep jeopardy, he ruined Greco-Latin relations. But, rather than blame Stephen of Blois for his treachery, the crusaders pinned it all on Alexius and the Greeks. They never forgave the Emperor for turning his back on them in their time of greatest need. As for Stephen, he returned home, unwelcomed and disgraced. Even his wife branded him as a coward.

Meanwhile, at Antioch, the crusaders were struggling to come up with a strategy to defeat the equally formidable Kerbogha.

Kerbogha had not merely come to Antioch to relieve Yaghi Siyan and to oust the Franks. He had much greater ambitions: to unite all of Syria under his rule. Geographically, Antioch was in a strategic position: it was the gateway to Syria. Should Kerbogha capture the city, he would sweep down south and conquer all of the neighboring principalities with ease and while maintaining a strong garrison at Antioch.

Great things take time and much preparation, though, and in the Middle Ages, there was no exception to military campaigns. Kerbogha spent the six months leading up to his siege of Antioch planning his strategy and building an army. In that short amount of time, he had amassed large army. Warriors from all of Syria, Mesopotamia and even Damascus rallied to his call to arms. The interesting thing is; these Turkish warriors did not offer their allegiance to Kerbogha because they hated the Christians or because they were moved by religious zeal. They did so because they feared Kerbogha. Kerbogha was a man of immense military prowess, but he was also ruthless.

Kerbogha’s calculating nature manifested itself in the carefully organized strategy he deployed at Antioch. He actually camped his army a few miles away from the city walls, but established connections with the Muslims at the Mount Silpius citadel. He then deployed troops to blockade the eastern wall and the Gate of St. Paul on the city’s north side. From those positions, he planned to launch a frontal assault against the Franks.

To be continued…

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

Various contributors. Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of The Wars Between Christianity and Islam. Bramley Books; Portugal, 1997.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , | 1 Comment

Bohemond Claimed Antioch

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Deanna Proach

Bohemond was in contact with a tower commander. Evidence of this watchman is unknown, buried in the passage of time. Historian Thomas Asbridge suggests that the man who Bohemond befriended was an Armenian whose name was Firuz. Behomond learnt that Firuz despised Yaghi Siyan and was scheming to betray him. Yet, even those firsthand accounts of the fall of Antioch conflict with each other.

“The Franks came to an agreement with the commander of one of Antioch’s towers, a breastplate-maker called Firuz: they promised him silver and considerable wealth if he would betray the city to them,” wrote the twelfth century Muslim chronicler, Ibn al-Athir.

According to what had been written in the Gesta Account, “there was a certain Emir of the race of the Turks, whose name was Pirus, who took up the greatest friendship with Bohemond…Bohemond often pressed this man to receive him within the city in a most friendly fashion, and after promising Christianity to him most freely, he sent word that he would make him (Pirus) rich with much honor.”

Regardless of the tower commander’s real identity, he did willingly betray Antioch.

On the night of 2-3 June, several of Bohemond’s men scaled an isolated section of the city’s south-eastern wall to where Firuz awaited them while Bohemond waited below. Firuz and Bohemond’s men quickly and quietly killed the guards at the three nearest towers and then hastened to open a small postern gate below. Bohemond shattered the silence when he sounded the bugles. As if on cue, men rushed from the crusader camp, shouting, “God wills it! God wills it!”

Those Christians who had survived persecution at the hands of Yaghi Siyan turned on their Muslim overlords and opened the remaining gates. The crusaders rushed in and mercilessly slaughtered every Muslim they encountered, including women and children. “We cannot say how many Turks and Saracens then perished; it is, furthermore, cruel to explain by what diverse and various deaths they died,” wrote Raymond d’Aguilers. Among the Muslim dead were Christians, for in the black of the night, the crusaders could not see well who they were attacking.

Most of the soldiers of the Turkish garrison managed to escape, retreating to the citadel atop of Mount Silpius. However, not all of them remained at that citadel. Ibn al-Athir wrote that “Yaghi Siyan was seized with fear and, giving orders for one of the town gates to be opened, he fled, accompanied only by thirty attendants.” Before Yaghi Siyan fled Antioch, he left his son in charge of what remained of his garrison at the Mount Silpius citadel. Yaghi Siyan would have likely fared much better if he would have remained with his son because, in the countryside, he was spotted by a group of Armenian peasants. They pursued him and cut off his head.

In the midst of all the bloodshed and looting, Bohemond staked his claim to Antioch by raising his red banner high above the city. Meanwhile, Raymond of Toulouse rode through the Bridge Gate and claimed all of the buildings in that corner of the city, including the palace of Antioch.

Bohemond was ecstatic. He had coordinated Antioch’s capture and now the city was his. But his excitement was short lived. On 4 June, the next day, the vanguard of Kerbogha’s army arrived. The crusaders were back to where they had started. Only this time, they were the besieged, surrounded by Kerbogha’s much stronger army.

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

Krey, August C. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesss and Participants. Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1921.

Various contributors. Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of The Wars Between Christianity and Islam. Bramley Books; Portugal, 1997.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Crusade in Jeopardy

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Deanna Proach

By the spring of 1098, the crusaders had managed to cut off Yaghi Siyan’s connection to the outside world even though they had only maintained a partial blockade of the city. Turkish aggression against the crusaders also came to a halt. The Muslims were now on the defensive, faced with the same hardships as the Christians had endured since the fall of 1097: isolation, starvation and the fear of impending defeat.

The crusaders, though, did not continue the siege without trepidation. They despaired over the prospect of a large, unified, fierce Muslim army, marching on Antioch to Yaghi Siyan’s aid. Should that happen, the crusaders would be trapped between two enemies, severely outnumbered and unable to defend themselves.

Meanwhile, they took the advice of Alexius Comnenus and used the schism between Sunnis and Shi’ites to their advantage. In the summer of 1097, the crusaders had established friendly connections with the Shi’ite Fatimids of Egypt. When the vizier al-Afdal of Egypt learnt that the Latins were at Antioch, he sent an embassy to negotiate terms of settlement with them. Their visit was not short: the Fatimid embassy remained in the crusader camp for about a month. Both Christians and Muslims seemed to enjoy each other’s company even though they never reached an agreement. Regardless, the Muslims offered the Christians “promises of friendship and favorable treatment,” a pact the crusaders eagerly embraced.

An alliance with the Fatimids of Egypt did open up the road to Jerusalem, but it did not dispel the threat posed by the Turks. In May 1098, the crusaders’ worst fear became a reality: news spread throughout the camp that Kerbogha, the Sultan of Baghdad, had raised a large army and was marching on Antioch to crush the Latin threat once and for all. The princes hastily convened a council meeting and discussed a course of action. They came to the conclusion that their army was in no way prepared to confront that of Kerbogha’s. Not only were the crusaders outnumbered, they had lost many of their valuable warhorses, the only means for them to mount a strategic defensive on the battlefield.

The Christians were in dire peril. The Crusade was in jeopardy. The princes must have felt helpless and terrified. Except for Bohemond. Bohemond believed that all was not lost: they could capture Antioch, but they would have to do it quickly because Kerbogha was less than one week’s march from Antioch. He proposed to the other princes that whoever could engineer Antioch’s fall should have right to claim the city as his. The other men, especially Raymond of Toulouse, vehemently protested his idea. But after a brief debate, they came to an agreement: Antioch would be handed over to the Emperor Alexius if he came to claim it. Thus began the game of treachery, a game Bohemond was determined to win.

To be continued on Wednesday, May 15th.

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Photos of Castles in Syria by Hazel Singer

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Deanna Proach

Hazel Singer, a virtual acquaintance I connected with on Susan Abernethy’s renowned Medieval History Lovers Facebook page, was kind enough to share photos she had taken of Castles while in Syria.  She emailed me 25 photos, some of which I will share with you now. Most of these photos show the Templar castle, Krak des Chevaliers and Saladin’s castle.

Looking down at the 'entry plinth', Sal'adin. A bridge would connect to this plinth from the castle.

Looking down at the ‘entry plinth’, Sal’adin. A bridge would connect to this plinth from the castle.

 

Earliest chapel inside Krak des Chevaliers

 

Passageway, Krak des Chevaliers

 

Cloisters on the left at Krak des Chevaliers

 

Al Jaber, Lake Assad.

Al Jaber, Lake Assad.

 

Citadel above Palmyra/Tadmor

Citadel above Palmyra/Tadmor

 

 

 

Categories: Crusader Castles | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Treachery

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Deanna Proach

By early 1098, the suffering inside the crusader camp had reached its climax. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pilgrims, knights and foot soldiers had perished from illness and malnourishment. To add to their misery, Yaghi Siyan began to torture and kill Antioch’s Christian population. The Greek patriarch was dangled from the battlements by his ankles and beaten with rods. Many Greeks, Syrians and Armenians were slaughtered. Their heads were then chopped off and catapulted over the walls into the crusader camp while the crusaders looked on in horror and grief.

Naturally, they began to believe that God had abandoned them and their war for His Holy Land. When questioned why, the Bishop of Le Puy offered them only one answer: the Holy War had become tainted with sin. “The Bishop prescribed a fast of three days and urged prayers and alms, together with a procession, upon the people; moreover he commanded the priests to devote themselves to masses and prayers, the clerics to psalms,” Raymond wrote. Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy also blamed the women for leading the men to commit acts of sin. So they were cast out of the camp.

In the meantime, the princes learnt that a large, relief army under the command of Ridwan of Aleppo was encamped at Harenc, less than twenty-five miles away from Antioch. In response to this threat, Bohemond led a reasonably large force to the Iron Bridge and lured the Turks into an ambush. They roundly defeated the Turkish army thanks to their tight discipline and prowess, a victory that earned Boehmond an even greater reputation amongst his fellow crusaders. “Our enemies and God’s straightaway fled before us, trying to enter their city. They were trying to cross over the great river, but we were close on their heels. Many we cast into the river, many we killed on top of the bridge, and many we slaughtered in front of the entrance to the gate,” Stephen of Blois recalled in a letter to his wife.

In early March, their situation improved even more. Shortly after Ridwan was defeated, an English fleet arrived at St. Symeon, bearing food and military supplies, much to the crusaders’ greatest relief. They were now able to rest, eat and strengthen their hold on Antioch. They built a fort — Christened La Mahomerie (The Blessed Mary) — opposite the Bridge Gate, across the Orontes River.

Fort La Mahomerie was intended to block Turkish forays from travelling to and from St. Symeon, but it needed to be garrisoned. Raymond of Toulouse took on that responsibility: he paid a great deal of money out of his treasury in order to garrison Fort La Mahomerie, but his actions were not entirely altruistic. Raymond wanted to be recognized as the commander of the crusade, but he had two formidable rivals: Bohemond and Tancred.

Four weeks after Fort La Mahomerie was built and garrisoned, Tancred established a force at a fortified monastery opposite the St. George Gate. However, starvation and desertion had cut the Christian army down a size, leaving them unable to complete a full blockade of Antioch.

The crusaders were left with only one workable strategy: treachery. It would became a game played amongst the princes: the first man to trick a Turk into opening a gate would be given control of Antioch and possibly be recognized as the commander of the crusade

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

Hindley, Geoffrey. A Brief History of The Crusades. Constable & Robinson, Ltd; London, 2003.

Krey, August C. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesss and Participants. Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1921.

Various contributors. Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of The Wars Between Christianity and Islam. Bramley Books; Portugal, 1997.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

Suffering Inside the Crusader Camp

Posted on April 28, 2013 by Deanna Proach

The prospects of a swift defeat was far out of reach. By December, the crusaders had nearly exhausted their food supplies. They had stripped the surrounding countryside bare of its produce. For that reason, prices skyrocketed. Food was brought into the port at St. Symeon from Syria, the Island of Rhodes and Cyprus. Because these ships came from distant lands, the merchants charged the Franks an exorbitant amount of money and there wasn’t even enough food to feed the entire army. The Armenians also showed the crusaders no mercy: they demanded a profit on all food sold.

The crusaders encountered a new enemy: starvation. According to the Gesta Account, “Many of our men died because they did not have the means where with to buy at such a dear price.”

As autumn wore on, the suffering inside the crusader camp intensified. The unrelenting rains drenched and chilled them; rusted their weapons and rotted their bow-strings and armor. Come mid December, the princes decided they had to find food somewhere before malnutrition and disease decimated the entire army. They met to discuss their course of action and came up with only one solution: forage for food in the countryside. The princes had previously objected to leaving Antioch because of the Turkish threat. But at that point, they had no other solution for which to solve their dilemma. Bohemond volunteered to lead the expedition along with Robert of Flanders.

On 28 December, they set out with a large force, comprising of foot soldiers and mounted knights, to the district of Aleppo. They scoured the Aleppo countryside, seizing what little food they managed to find. Then, on 31 December, Bohemond and Robert encountered a large Turkish force — one made up of contingents from Jerusalem, Damascus and Aleppo — that was coming to aid Yaghi Siyan. The Turks divided their army in an attempt to surround the crusaders, but Bohemond and Robert’s combined forces defeated them, sending them fleeing in many directions.

Following that swift defeat, Bohemond and Robert continued their search for food, but after having found none, they returned to Antioch. Bohemond, though, did not give up: he searched the hilly landscape west of Antioch high and low. He discovered, much to his greatest dismay, that the wondering pilgrims had pillaged that land extensively. Furious, Bohemond berated them for their selfishness. He then returned to camp empty-handed, but was hailed victorious for trying.

In the eyes of the lower ranking knights, men-at-arms and pilgrims, Bohemond was a hero. Yet, he could not alleviate the suffering of his fellow Christians. None of the princes could for that matter. By early 1098, all of their food had run out. It seemed like the crusaders were fighting a losing battle. Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse were ill and the army was hemorrhaging soldiers: several men abandoned the siege and joined forces with Baldwin in Armenia or returned home. Robert of Normandy retreated to the fort of Laodicea (Latakya): Tatikios, commander of the Byzantine contingent, headed north with his entire force to aid his Byzantine brethren in their campaign for the reconquest of Anatolia. The crusaders anticipated he would return with soldiers, food and military supplies. In fact, Tatikios had promised them that the Emperor Alexius would arrive in due time with all of these provisions.

Not every man managed to desert though. Peter the Hermt and William of Melun were pursued by Tancred and escorted back to camp. William was forced to stand inside Bohemond’s tent all night long, then, in the morning, was harshly upbraided by the Norman prince. Since everyone looked upon Peter as the great champion of crusading zeal and as a man of God, he was let off with a mere reprimand.

To be continued on Thursday, May 2nd.

Sources Used:

Hindley, Geoffrey. A Brief History of The Crusades. Constable & Robinson, Ltd; London, 2003.

Krey, August C. The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesss and Participants. Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1921.

Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades: The First Crusade. Vol.1. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Yewdale, Ralph B. Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 1917.

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

Yaghi Siyan and the Franks

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Deanna Proach

Yaghi Siyan, the aging commander of Antioch’s garrison, watched with trepidation as this large, organized Frankish army prepared to attack his city. He regularly sent out spies to visit the crusader camp with the careful instruction to sell them provisions. These spies then brought back news of Frankish military strategy. Until they were caught in the act by Bohemond. Bohemond took several of these spies as prisoners and declared that he was going to slay and then eat them. Terrified, the spies escaped and fled Antioch, spreading news of Frankish ferocity to their Muslim cohorts everywhere they went.

It was clear to Yaghi Siyan that the Franks were not going to abandon the siege. He had 5,000 skilled and highly trained soldiers at his disposal and was confident in the strength of Antioch’s surrounding wall. But how long would Antioch hold out against the onslaught of Franks? Not all of Antioch’s citizens were Muslim either. In fact, a great many of them were Christian: Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Syrian, all under the yoke of a Greek Patriarch. Yaghi Siyan did not trust any of these Christians.

****

The crusaders had traveled as far south without being annihilated simply because of how badly fractured the Muslim powers of Northern Syria were at that time. Ridwan of Aleppo and Duquq of Damascus, brothers, were embroiled in a civil war with each other. The Emirs of Antioch and of Homs were, for their own reasons, also drawn into the conflict. Yaghi Siyan, a vassal to Ridwan, considered himself semi-independent, commanding the garrison at Antioch according to his own best interests.

For that reason, the Muslims did not organize a fierce resistance against the crusaders. To them, the crusaders were nothing more than mercenaries in the service of the Emperor Alexius. Yet, when Yaghi Siyan saw how determined the Franks were to have his city, he put aside his hard feelings against his co-religionists and called on them for help.

Meanwhile, the Turks did not wait for the Franks to strike first. They began to harass the Franks, brutally murdering pilgrims who wandered into the countryside. The crusaders also came under attack by the Turks from Harem, a fortress situated east of Antioch, along the road to Aleppo.

Whether they were ready to attack or not, the crusaders had to stamp out these Turkish raids immediately. So, in the middle of November, Bohemond led an expedition to put an end to these raids. Adopting Turkish strategy, Bohemond ordered his advance guard to hide in the woods near Harem while the rest of his troops rode with him to meet the Turkish force from Harem. Bohemond lured them into an ambush. Many Turks were massacred. “We brought back more than two hundred of their heads into the camp, so that the people of Christ could rejoice,” Stephen of Blois wrote in one of his many letters to his wife, Adela.

That one victory boosted Bohemond’s popularity within the crusader camp, although the other princes did not recognize Bohemond as the commander of the Crusade. In fact, they had chosen Stephen of Blois as its commander simply because of his wealth and his lack of interest in obtaining territorial wealth in the East. But in the eyes of the rank n’ file, Bohemond was the true leader: he had more energy, prudence and military might than Stephen of Blois, Robert of Normandy and Raymond of Toulouse combined.

Sources Used:

Yewdale, Ralph B. Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 1917.

Various contributors. Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of The Wars Between Christianity and Islam. Bramley Books; Portugal, 1997.

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Antioch: Mighty Fortress

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Deanna Proach

Antioch, the crusaders discovered, was a mighty fortress; much stronger than that of Nicaea. The landscape surrounding the city enhanced its defenses. Antioch is strategically located between the Orontes River and the foothills of two mountains: Staurin and Silpius.

In the sixth century, the Romans had built a massive wall – about 3 miles long – around the city. “So fortified was it with walls and towers and barbicans, that it had no need to fear the assault of any machine or the attack of any man, not even if all mankind were to come together against it,” said Raymond D’Aguilers*. The wall boasted sixty towers, about three stories tall; high enough for any watchman to see the enemy advancing miles ahead.

The northern and western walls ran alongside the bank of the Orontes River, making the land in that area marshy, unfit for an army to lay siege. The southern and eastern walls ran up and along the mountainside. Near the peak of Mount Silpius stood a citadel. This citadel had been weathered by time and by earthquakes, yet it was still formidable. It warded off any advantage an attacking force would otherwise have.

Antioch was also known for its gates. There were five large gates: St. Paul’s Gate located in the east, the Dog’s Gate opening to the marshes, the Duke’s Gate, so called because Godfrey of Bouillon had camped his army outside that gate, St. Georges’ Gate to the west and the Bridge Gate. There were several smaller gates that opened to the mountains, enabling messengers to slip out of the city, unnoticed and unharmed, to seek reinforcements and/or food from allies.

There was literally no flat, dry stretch of land from where the crusaders could attack the city’s garrison. So, they were left with only two methods of assault: starvation and treachery. But first, they had to camp their army. Bohemond settled his troops in the hills, close to St. Paul’s Gate. Raymond of Toulouse took Dog’s Gate with his army and Godfrey remained outside of Duke’s Gate with his force. But there were three gates left unblocked, not to mention the ones that opened to the mountains. The Turks inside the city could freely come and go as they pleased.

Possibly for those reasons, the crusaders and the Turkish garrison fell into an uneasy stalemate. Pilgrims and warriors took advantage of the fertile countryside, feeding off the apple orchards and grape vineyards. The princes also planned their first offensive. They realized they didn’t have moveable siege towers, mangonels or scaling ladders, so they built a makeshift bridge across the Orontes River from which point they would attempt to strengthen their stranglehold on Antioch via partial blockade.

*Raymond D’Aguilers was a chronicler of the First Crusade. He was also Count Raymond’s priest.

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

Hindley, Geoffrey. A Brief History of The Crusades. Constable & Robinson, Ltd; London, 2003.

Yewdale, Ralph B. Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 1917.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

At the Walls of Antioch

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Deanna Proach

In the fall of 1097, the crusading army marched on to the city of Antioch, a Muslim-held city located near the Syrian border (in southeastern Turkey). The crusaders could have easily negotiated a truce with the Muslim garrison and passed through the Antiochene countryside unharmed. But that was one chance they were not willing to take. The crusaders knew that if they left Antioch in Muslim control, they would cut themselves off from their allies, thus giving the Turks the upper hand in strategy. The crusaders needed help from Emperor Alexius I Comnenus and, whether they liked it or not, they were still bound to the oath of allegiance to him.

Antioch had at one time belonged to the Byzantine Empire. The city fell to the Muslims during the first Muslim expansion in the seventh century. The Byzantines recaptured the city in 969, but they didn’t keep it for long. The Seljuk Turks, advancing from the east, conquered Antioch in 1085.

Alexius coveted Antioch. He dreamt of the day when it would once again be the cornerstone of the Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire). Antioch’s close proximity to the Mediterranean Sea would allow for maritime trade, one that would profit Alexius and his empire greatly.

Antioch also held great spiritual significance for Greeks and Latins alike. According to the Bible, the Apostle Peter (later canonized St. Peter) founded the first Christian Church in Antioch. In fact, a large Basilica had been built there, dedicated to St. Peter.

Alexius, unfortunately, had a powerful rival: his arch enemy, Bohemond of Taranto. Bohemond wanted Antioch for himself and he was determined to have it even if it meant for him to break his oath of allegiance to Alexius. Bohemond was undoubtedly supported by his own troops and by other crusaders, including his own nephew, Tancred. Although, not every crusader supported Bohemond’s cause: Raymond of Toulouse firmly believed that Antioch, should they capture it, be handed over to the emperor as promised. Raymond schemed to thwart Bohemond’s plans to claim Antioch.

It is quite possible that Raymond wanted a principality for himself – even though he didn’t want Antioch – and he certainly didn’t want Bohemond, a lesser yet equally formidable rival, obtain access to land and wealth before he did. Regardless, this clash of interest within the crusading army drove the wedge between them deeper.

Unbeknownst to Alexius as to what Bohemond was really up to, he was ready and willing to help the Franks. Alexius had prepared to send a contingent of Greek warriors by sea to defend them. The crusaders themselves had maintained communication with the west. Those Latin warriors, who didn’t take up the cross in late 1095 and early 1096, now did so with the desire to aid their brethren at Antioch.

Confident that this help would come, the crusaders secured safe passage through the Belen Pass, the quickest, most direct route from Asia Minor to Syria. They arrived at the walls of Antioch in late October.

Sources Used:

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of The War For The Holy Land. Ecco; New York, 2011.

 

Categories: The First Crusade, The Siege of Antioch | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment