alan v. murray - the army of godfrey of bouillon, 1096-1099.pdf

Alan V. Murray

The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099 : Structure anddynamics of a contingent on the First CrusadeIn: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire. Tome 70 fasc. 2, 1992. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine —Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 301-329.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Murray Alan V. The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099 : Structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade. In:Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire. Tome 70 fasc. 2, 1992. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine —Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 301-329.

doi : 10.3406/rbph.1992.3824

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rbph_0035-0818_1992_num_70_2_3824

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rbph_2675

http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rbph.1992.3824

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rbph_0035-0818_1992_num_70_2_3824

ARTICLES ET MÉLANGES ARTIKELEN EN MENGELINGEN

The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099 : Structure and dynamics of a contingent

on the First Crusade

Alan V. Murray

The army led in the First Crusade by Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lower Lotharingia, set off on its journey to the Holy Land about the middle of August 1096. It marched up the Rhine, down the Danube and through the Balkans, arriving at Constantinople on 23 December (}). Only at this point did the army encounter other groups which had travelled through Illyria or over the Adriatic from Italy, as well as those crusaders traditionally, if somewhat inaccurately referred to as the 'People's Crusade', who had arrived the previous summer and remained in Asia Minor since their defeat at the hands of the Turks at Nicaea on 21 October. From this point these diverse groups constituted a united Frankish army, but nevertheless each of the original contingents, usually described as exercitus by the writers who wrote about the crusade, clearly retained its separate identity within it, and continued to function as the basic military unit in battle and on the march at least until the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 1099.

Historians have traditionally stressed the composition of these contingents as an important factor in determining the character of the nobilities of the

(1) Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux, IV (Paris, 1879) [henceforth cited as AA], 299, 305- 306 ; Heinrich Hagenmeyer, 'Chronologie de la première croisade (1094-1 100)', Revue de l'Orient latin, 6 (1898), 214-293, 490-549, 7 (1899), 275-339, 430-503, 8 (1890-1), 318-382 [items numbered consecutively throughout], nos. 67, 107.

302 Λ. V. MURRAY

four crusader states subsequently established in Syria and Palestine. However the composition of only two contingents has been discussed in any detail, those of the Normans of Normandy, led by their duke, Robert, and the Normans of Southern Italy, led by Bohemund and his nephew Tancred (2). The army led by Godfrey has by contrast been surprisingly neglected considering how it is generally assumed to have contributed to the nobility of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem (3). Leaving aside the vexed question of numbers, the aim of this essay is to examine the composition of this army, in the first instance by identifying as many of its participants as possible, and discussing their relationship to Godfrey and to one another. It also examines those political factors which may have influenced participation in the crusade, and conversely, non-participation, and goes on to discuss how the composition and structure of this army developed in the course of its march from Western Europe to Palestine.

Godfrey was accompanied by his younger brother Baldwin and Baldwin's wife Godechilde (or Godevere), daughter of the Norman lord Ralph of Tosny (4). Besides this immediate family group, a central element in Godfrey's exercitus comprised knights who had been in his service prior to the summer of 1096. These included the household officers Ruthard the butler (5), Baldric

(2) C. W. David, Robert Curt hose, Duke of Normandy, Harvard Historical Studies, 25 (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), Appendix D, 'Robert's Companions on the Crusade', pp. 221-229 ; Ε. Μ. Jamison, 'Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade', in Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope, Publications of the University of Manchester, 268 (Manchester, 1939), pp. 195-204.

(3) Joshua Prawer, 'La noblesse et le régime féodal du royaume latin de Jérusalem', Le Moyen Âge, 65 (1959), p. 42, cites two studies in support of his claim that the early Jerusalem nobility was predominantly Lotharingian in character. The first, John C. Andressohn, The Life and Ancestry of Godfrey of Bouillon, Indiana University Publications, Social Sciences Series, 5 (Bloomington, Illinois, 1947), does give a detailed account of the march, but primarily from a biographical perspective. Andressohn's discussion of the participants other than Godfrey and Baldwin is limited to the naming of twelve crusaders, most of whom are identified either wrongly, as I hope to show, or not at all. The second, Charles Moei.ler, 'Les Flamands du Ternois au royaume latin de Jérusalem', in Mélanges Paul Fredericq (Bruxelles, 1903), pp. 189-202, is not a study of Godfrey's army, but an analysis of the Versus de viris illustrious dioecesis Tarvanensis qui in sacra fuere expeditione, a short but valuable source dealing only with crusaders from the Flemish diocese of Thérouanne. See also the discussion of research on Godfrey and his crusading army in Georges Desi'y, 'Godefroid de Bouillon, mythes et réalités', Académie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e série, 71 (1985). 249-275.

(4) AA p. 358. (5) AAp.481.

THE ARMY OF GODFREY OF BOUILLON 303

the seneschal (6) and Stabelo the chamberlain (7). Others can be identified by their surnames as Bullonienses, that is, vassals holding fiefs in Godfrey's allodial territory of Bouillon in the Ardennes. The most prominent of these were Heribrand, castellan of Bouillon, and a relative of his, Walter of Bouillon (8). We also know of a Folbertus de castello Bullon and a Philippus de Bulon either on crusade or from so early a time in Palestine that they must have been on crusade (9). However we cannot simply assume that Godfrey's household accompanied him in toto to the East. We will discover that numerous knights entered his service in the course of the crusade, and therefore cannot be certain whether the chamberlains Adelolf and Godfrey and the seneschal Matthew had previously been vassals of Godfrey or whether they had come to him from other contingents (10).

The army also included various lords from those parts of Lower Lotharingia which surrounded Godfrey's lands. Warner, count of Grez, later became the most prominent of Godfrey's vassals in Jerusalem. He was a kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin and is mentioned immediately after them in the list of departing crusaders given by the chronicler Albert of Aachen (n). In 1095 he sold the allod of Vaux (Belgium, Liège, arr. Huy) quod in divisione patri- monii cum fratre suo Henrico in partent suscepit to the church of Fosses in order to raise funds to go to Jerusalem with duke Godfrey (l2). He and his brother Henry, also described as count of Grez, were present with other crusaders at the sale of the allods of Baisy and Genappe by Godfrey (I3). Warner's name appears immediately after that of Rainer, the advocate of Liège, among the laid nobiles who witnessed the purchase of the castle of Couvin by bishop Otbert of Liège on 14 .June 1096, suggesting that he was a vassal of the ecclesiastical principality. The small county of Grez lay sand-

Co) A A pp. 300,412,481. (7) AA pp. 300, 481-482, 593. His name seems to be the basis of the non-existent

and erroneous 'Baldwin of Stavelot' mentioned by Andressohn (p. 53) and Steven Runciman, History of the Crusades (Cambridge, 1951-5), I, 147.

(8) AA pp.317, 440; La chronique de Saint- Hubert dite Cantatorium, ed. Karl Hanquet (Bruxelles, 1906) [henceforth cited as Cantatorium], pp. 38, 53, 64-65 ; Alan V. Murray, 'The Origins of the Frankish Nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1 118', Mediterranean Historical Review, 4 (1989), 285.

(9) AA pp. 435-436, 593. (10) Adelolf : AA p. 481. Geoffrey : AA p. 526. Matthew : AA p. 522. (11) AAp.299. (12) 'Documents extraits du caitulaire du chapitre de Fosses', Analectes pour servir

à l'histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique, 4 (1867), no. 1, pp. 369-398. There is thus no justification for Runciman's identification, 'the Burgundian count, Warner of Gray' (History of the Crusades, I, 313).

(13) Heinrici IV. Diplomata. Die Urkunden Heinrichs IV, ed. Dietrich von Gladiss and Alfred Gawlik, MGH Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae (Berlin, Weimar, Hannover, 1941-78) [henceforth cited as MGH DD Heinrich IV], no. 459.

304 Λ. V. MURRAY

wiched between the county of Leuven and the territory of Liège proper and probably recognised the suzerainty of the prince-bishop ; possibly Warner's share of the inheritance lay within Liège territory, as was undoubtedly the case with Vaux, his hereditatis portio in the episcopal county of Huy (I4).

The crusader Henricus de Ascha, who was accompanied on crusade by his brother Godfrey, is described asfilius Fredelonis, unus de collateralibus duds Godefridi (15). Their father can be identified with a certain Frithelo, described by monkish chroniclers at the end of the eleventh century as both advocate and despoiler of the abbeys of Malmedy and Echternach. Henry and Godfrey belonged to the family which held the castle of Esch-sur-Sûre in the Ardennes, and were probably vassals of the count of Luxembourg, although Albert of Aachen indicates that Henry and possibly also his brother had previously been in the service of Godfrey of Bouillon (l6). With them on crusade were kinsmen of theirs from further north, the brothers Franco and Sigemar of Maasmechelen (I7). As in the case of Warner of Grez it is impossible to determine the exact degree of kinship between these four crusaders and duke Godfrey.

Cuno (or Cono), count of Montaigu, who was accompanied on crusade by his sons Gozelo and Lambert, was the eldest son of Gozelo, count of Behogne (18). Montaigu, the Mons Acutus which was the focal point of his domains, was a castle on the left bank of the River Ourthe near Marcourt in the Ardennes. Cuno was one of the most important vassals of the church of Liège. As well as being advocate of Dinant he was episcopal count of Huy, the fortress which lay at the centre of the prince-bishop's dominions and which was his place of refuge in times of danger. His brother, the Archdeacon Henry of Montaigu, was dean of the church of St. Lambert, while one of his sons, another Henry, was also an archdeacon and provost of the church of Fosses (I9). The claim of the historian Orderic Vitalis that Cuno

(14) St. Bormans and E. Schoolmeesters, Cartulaire de l'église de Saint- Lambert à Liège, (Bruxelles, 1893-1933), I, n° 29.

(15) AA pp. 299, 300, 305-307, 328, 366, 423, 427, 435. (16) Triumphus S. Remacli, MGH SS, XI, 447-448 ; Thiofrid of Echternach,

Vita S. Willibrordi, MGH SS, XXIII, 26 ; J. Vannérus, 'Les anciens dynastes d'Esch- sur-la-Sûre', Ons Hémecht, 11 (1905), 308-390, 432-442, 485-493, 532-540 ; 12 (1906), 18-23, 51-56 ; A A pp. 427, 300.

(17) AA pp. 413, 519. (18) AA pp. 306, 310, 317, 359, 366, 422, 464, 495, 504 ; Alberic of Troisfontaines,

Chronicon, MGH SS XXIII, 804, 815 ; La Chanson d'Antioche, éd. Suzanne Duparc- Quioc (Paris, 1976), lines 1397, 251 1-2544.

(19) C. G. Roland, 'Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort', Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur, 20 (1893), 63-141 ; André Joris, La ville de Huy au Moyen Âge, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 152 (Paris, 1959) ; Jean-Louis Küpper, Liège et l'Église imperiale, xie-xiie siècles, Biblio-


was married to a sister of Godfrey of Bouillon has no basis in fact. Godfrey's parents, Eustace II of Boulogne and Ida of Bouillon, are not known to have had any daughters, while the chronicle of the abbey of Saint-Hubert states that Cuno's only known wife, Ida, was a daughter of Lambert the Old, a nobleman of the territory of Liège who was buried there (20). Nevertheless the name Gozelo, a variant form of Godfrey, borne by Cuno's father as well as his eldest son, clearly points to some kind of blood relationship with the Ardenne- Verdun dynasty which used both Godfrey and Gozelo as Leitnamen (2I).

The younger Gozelo died on crusade and so Cuno was succeeded by his younger son Lambert, who also became count of Clermont, a fortress on the right bank of the Meuse between Huy and Liège. The manner in which the family acquired the county throws light on the identification of another crusader who has escaped the attention of historians. The previous count of Clermont was called Giselbert ; a document of 1083 relates how the church of St. Paul at Liège possessed a domain at Nandrin near the castle of Clermont. The count Giselbert and his accomplice Fredelo continually committed depredations on this land, so that its inhabitants did not dare to gather wood or till the soil. The prince-bishop Henry of Verdun gave the advocacy of this domain to count Cuno, in whose county the land was situated, and forced Giselbert and Fredelo to restore what they had usurped (22). This information provides a revealing personal constellation. Cuno was of course the count of Montaigu ; Fredelo was in all probability the same person as the despoiler of Malmedy and Echternach and father of the crusaders Henry and Godfrey of Esch. Giselbert of Clermont appears again with his wife Longarde and brother Herman in 1091 when they gave the church of Saint- Symphorien to the abbey of Cluny (23). By 1095 the castle of Clermont had become such a menace to shipping on the Meuse that Otbert, the new prince- bishop, organised an expedition to besiege it as part of the campaign to enforce the Peace of God in his diocese. The siege lasted from 29 June to 9 August 1095 and ended unsuccessfully, partly because Godfrey of Bouillon and other

thèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 228 (Paris, 1981), 396-W3, 146-54.

(20) Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford, 1969-80), V, 166 ; Cantatorium, p. 181 ; Nicolas Huyghebaert, 'La mère de Godefroid de Bouillon : La comtesse Ide de Boulogne', Publications de la Section historique de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg, 95 (1981), 43-63.

(21) Michel Parisse, 'Généalogie de la Maison d'Ardenne', Publications de la Section historique de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg, 95 (1981), 9-42.

(22) Joseph Daris, Notices historiques sur les églises du diocèse de Liège, 12 (Liège, 1885), n° 41, pp. 131-133.

(23) A. Miraeus, Opera diplomatica et historica, ed. J. F. Foppens (Bruxelles, 1723-48), II, 812.

306 Λ. V. MURRAY

nobles in the besieging army refused to attack the castle owing to an unresolved dispute concerning the deposed abbot of Saint-Hubert (24).

In his study of the counts of Behogne and Rochefort the historian Roland was unable to explain how Lambert of Montaigu acquired Clermont-sur- Meuse. He assumed that after the death of Giselbert his castle was occupied by brigands, leading to the siege of 1095, and that his daughter later married Lambert. However a different interpretation of the known facts provides a more consistent and plausible explanation. The activities of the anonymous occupants of Clermont in 1095 are entirely consistent with those of count Giselbert and his accomplice Fredelo in 1083 ; what a monkish chronicler regarded as brigandage was no doubt perceived by the noblemen as the legitimate levying of tolls on river traffic. Nevertheless this noble way of life was becoming increasingly redundant in the face of an energetic bishop determined to pacify his diocese. A terse entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval for the year 1095 reveals that what Otbert failed to achieve by force was now accomplished by purchase (25). The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to the episcopal vassal Lambert of Montaigu can be seen as part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and eventually, Bouillon itself (26). For count Giselbert the obvious avenue of opportunity and escape was the crusade. Far from having died in 1095 he seems to have in fact departed with Godfrey, appearing as a member of the household of Baldwin in Cilicia in the winter of 1097, described as Giselbertus de Claro Monte. His participation in the crusade would also explain that of Milo de Claro Monte, a knight of Godfrey's household in 1099, who may have been a relative or follower of Giselbert (27).

The crusaders discussed so far came either from the lands of Godfrey of Bouillon or from the surrounding areas of the Ardennes. According to a charter recording the sale of Baisy and Genappe by Godfrey in 1095, whose text was later incorporated into a diploma of Henry IV for the abbey of Nivelles, no fewer than eight crusaders were present at the transaction : Godfrey himself, Baldwin, Cuno of Montaigu, Warner of Grez, Henry and Godfrey of Esch, and Heribrand and Walter of Bouillon (28). It is possible

(24) Cantatorium, pp. 194-197. (25) Giles of Orval, Gesta episcoporum Leodiensium, MGH SS, XXV, 84 : Item

Clarimontis castellum beato Lamberto multo precio acquisivit. (26) René Deprez, 'La politique castrale dans la principauté episcopate de Liège

du xe au XIVe siècle', Le Moyen Âge, 65 (1959), 501-538. (27) AA pp. 350, 520, 526 ; William of Tyre, Willelmi Tyrensis archiepiscopi chro-

nicon, éd. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis, 63- 63 A (Turnhout, 1986) [henceforth cited as WT], pp. 219, 229.

(28) MGH DD Heinrich IV, n° 459.


that the sale and others like it presented an opportunity to formulate and discuss plans for the journey to Jerusalem.

Geographically removed from this close-knit group was Baldwin II of Mons, count of Hainaut (29). His preference for the company of Godfrey rather than that of his neighbour Robert II of Flanders can probably be explained in terms of dynastic politics. He was the second son of Richilda of Hainaut and Baldwin VI of Flanders who had jointly ruled both counties. However on his father's death his uncle Robert I usurped Flanders in a revolt in which his brother Arnulf III was killed. Baldwin and Richilda were left with Hainaut, guaranteed to them by the Emperor Henry IV at the diet of Liège in 1071, by which they became vassals of Godfrey III of Lower Lotharingia (uncle of Godfrey of Bouillon), and rear-vassals of Liège. On the death of Godfrey in 1076 Baldwin became a direct vassal of the prince-bishop (30). As ruler of a large county he was presumably accompanied by vassals of his own, of whom we can identify at least two : Gerard of Avesnes (France, Nord, arr. Avesnes-sur-Helpe) and Giselbert of Couvin (Belgium, Namur, arr. Philippe- ville) (31).

A third element in the exercitus of Godfrey consisted of lords and knights from the neighbouring duchy of Upper Lotharingia and adjacent areas of the French kingdom. The decision of these crusaders to join the army led by Godfrey was probably influenced by the fact that their own duke, Theoderic I, count of Bar and Montbéliard, had been released from his crusading vows because of illness and did not make the pilgrimage (32). He was, however, represented by his eldest son Louis, count of Mousson (France, Meurthe- et-Moselle, arr. Nancy), and another knight, Ralph of Mousson (33).

The Dudo de Cons mentioned twice as a member of Godfrey's army has been repeatedly identified in crusading scholarship as originating from Konz at the confluence of the Mosel and the Saar above Trier (34). He was in fact

(29) AA pp. 305, 315, 434-435 ; Alberic of Troisfontaines, p. 805 ; Giselbert of Mons, Chronicon Hanoniense, éd. Léon Vanderkindere (Bruxelles, 1904), 45 ; Chanson d'Antioche, lines 1 163, 8986.

(30) MGH DD Heinrich IV, n° 242 ; A. Hansay, 'L'inféodation du comté de Hainaut à l'Église de Liège en 1071', Bulletin de la Société d'art et d'histoire du diocèse de Liège, 13 (1902), 45-58.

(31) Gerard of Avesnes : AA pp. 499, 507, 516, 593. Giselbert of Couvin : A A p. 655. (32) Jacques Choux, Recherches sur le diocèse de Toul au temps de la réforme

grégorienne : l'épiscopat de Pibon (1069-1107) (Nancy, 1952), pp. 102-105. (33) AA pp. 317, 526, 531 ; Alberic of Troisfontaines, p. 804 ; Chanson d'Ant

ioche, line 8975. (34) AA pp. 299, 574 ; Runciman, I, 147 ; Peter Knoch, Studien zu Adalbert von

Aachen, Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Geschichte und Politik, 1 (Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 114, 157. Reinhold Röhricht, Die Deutschen im heiligen Lande (Innsbruck, 1894), p. 17, Andressohn, p. 52, and Duparc-Quioc {Chanson d'Antioche, p. 73) all mistakenly give Saarbrücken as a place of origin.

308 Α. V. MURRAY

lord of Cons-la-Grandville (France, Meurthe-et-Moselle, air. Briey) on the River Chiers in the Ardennes, and was a benefactor of the abbey of Saint- Hubert to which he donated the priory of St. Michael at Cons (35). His father was Adelo of Dun, Dun being a castle on the Meuse which had been given to the church of Verdun by Henry IV. On Adelo's death his lands were divided between his sons Walter who received Dun, and Dudo who received Cons. Dudo was accompanied on crusade by his wife Hadwida, daughter of Arnulf II of Chiny (36).

Similar problems of identification have arisen in the case of the crusader Petrus de Stadeneis, whom historians have almost unanimously referred to as 'Peter of Stenay' (37). This issue is an important one ; the identification with Stenay (France, Meuse, arr. Verdun) suggests Peter was a vassal of Godfrey of Bouillon who was lord of this domain on the Meuse midway between Bouillon and Verdun. However Peter was in fact count of the pagus Stadunensis or Astenois, a district on the plains of Champagne in the extreme east of the French kingdom. He was also known as Petrus de Dunperrun after his principal stronghold of Dampierre-le-Château (France, Marne, air. Sainte-Menehould) (38). With him on crusade was his elder brother Rainald III, episcopal count of Toul in Upper Lotharingia (39). They were sons of Frederick I, count of Astenois, and Gertrude, daughter of count Rainald II of Toul, and were kinsmen of Godfrey of Bouillon. Several authors allude to a blood relationship between Frederick's brother Henry of Verdun and Godfrey's uncle Godfrey III, at whose instigation Henry was installed as bishop

(35) Cantatorium, pp. 150, 164 ; Godefroid Kurth, Chartes de l'abbaye de St.- Hubert en Ardenne, I (Bruxelles, 1903), n° 63 ; Raymond Pagny, 'Les seigneurs et la seigneurie de Cons-la-Grandville', Bulletin de l'Association 'Les Amis du Vieux Longwy', 5 (1962), 3-9, 74-78.

(36) MGH DD Heinrich IV, n° 162; Kurth, ibid. : commemoratio Hawidis filiae comitis Arnulphi de Chisnei, quae cum viro suo Dudone Cunensi ab Hierosolymis reversa.

(37) Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Innsbruck, 1901), 62 ; René Grousset, Histoire des croisades (Paris, 1934), I, 12 ; Runciman, I, 147 ; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade (Paris, 1925), 112; H. Hardenberg, De Nederlanden en de kruistochten (Amsterdam, 1944) 57-58 ; Marcel Lobet, Godefroid de Bouillon. Essai de biographie antilégendaire (Bruxelles, 1943), 71 ; Knoch, pp. 167-169 ; Kenneth M. Setton et al., A History of the Crusades (Philadelphia, Madison, 1955-89), I, 296.

(38) AA pp. 299, 310, 317, 365-66, 422, 424 ; Laurence of Liège, Gesta episoporum Virdunensium et abbatum s. Vitoni, MGH SS, X [henceforth cited as LL], p. 494 ; Chanson d'Antioche, lines 2260, 8188, 8205 ; Anatole de Barthélémy, 'Le comté d'Astenois et les comtes de Dampierre-le-Château', Revue de Champagne et de Brie, 16 (1888), 410-416.

(39) AA pp. 299, 301, 317, 343, 365, 366, 398, 422 ; LL p. 494 ; Baldric of Dol, Historia Jerosolimitana, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux, IV (1879), 77.


of Liège in 1075. It is likely that Baldwin, father of Henry and Frederick, had married a daughter of the Ardenne- Verdun dynasty ΐ40). According to the chronicler Laurence of Liège Frederick was a carus et fidelis of both Theoderic, bishop of Verdun, and of Godfrey of Bouillon, who held the county of Verdun from the bishop until his departure on the crusade in 1096. It is likely that Frederick and his son held lands in the neighbouring county of Verdun and were thus vassals of both count and bishop ; certainly it is a significant reflection of the relative strengths of the two institutions that Peter had served as one of the commanders of the episcopal forces during Theoderic's campaigns against Godfrey (41). Among those who went to Jerusalem in the company of Peter and Rainald were one cleric, Louis, archdeacon of Toul, and six lords from the diocese : Rambert, son of Fraimer of Lironville (France, Meurthe-et-Moselle, arr. Toul), Bencelin, Aldo of Fontenoy-sur- Moselle (air. Toul), and the family group of Lanfroi, his son Olri and brother Hugh H.

The last known member of this category was the crusader known to contemporary sources as Balduinus de Burgo, later count of Edessa and second king of Jerusalem (43). Although often referred to by modern historians as 'Baldwin of Le Bourg', his surname in fact derives from Bourcq (France, Ardennes, arr. Vouziers) in the valley of the Aisne (u). He was a son of count Hugh I of Rethel and Melisende of Montlhéry, and was a kinsman of Godfrey. The county of Rethel, which had as its nucleus the territory of Omont, a fief of the church of Reims, was situated both in regno and in imperio and the counts were consequently involved in the politics of Lotharingia. Baldwin's grandfather had been an ally of Godfrey of Bouillon during the disputes over the latter's inheritance, and had invaded the bishopric of Verdun although his own castle of Sainte-Menehould was captured by episcopal forces (45).

It is likely that most of the crusaders from the other duchies of the empire had already gone with the various expeditions which had left prior to the official departure date under the leadership of Peter the Hermit, Walter Sans- Avoir, Emicho, Gottschalk and Volkmar. However a diploma of Henry IV

(40) Charles Aimond, 'Le nécrologe de la cathédrale de Verdun', Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, 21 (1909), 185; LL p. 495 ; Giles of Orval, p. 88 ; Lambert of Hersfeld, Annales, ed. O. Holder- Egger, NIGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum (Hannover, Leipzig, 1956), p. 225 ; Gesta Treverorum, MGH SS, VIII, 126.

(41) LL pp. 494-497. (42) AA pp. 375-376 ; Choux, pp. 102-105. (43) AA p. 299. (44) His surname was first identified by Jean Richard, Le Royaume latin de

Jérusalem (Paris, 1953), p. 19. (45) AA p. 527 ; WT p. 547 ; LL p. 494 ; Michel Bur, La formation du comté de

Champagne 950-1150 (Nancy, 1977), pp. 133-134, 412 ff.

310 A.V.MURRAY

dated 26 July 1097 reveals how a noblewoman called Cunihild had sold her estate of Obermeiser (Germany, Hessen, Kr. Kassel-Land) to the abbey of Helmarshausen, for which her son Reinhold had received '36 marks to go to Jerusalem with Duke Godfrey'. Since he came from a fairly distant part of Germany it was unlikely that Reinhold was a unique case (46).

The other crusading contingents, notably the Provençal army led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, included large numbers of clerics, both secular and regular, some of whom held fairly senior positions in the church. It was these men who tended to obtain the new ecclesiastical offices created by the crusaders in Syria. Thus the Provençal Peter of Narbonne became bishop of Albara while his compatriot Bernard of Valence became bishop of Artah and subsequently Latin patriarch of Antioch. The Norman Robert of Rouen obtained the see of Lydda while the Flemings Arnulf of Chocques and Achard of Arrouaise became patriarch of Jerusalem and prior of the Templum Domini respectively (47). However senior clerics of this calibre were conspicuously absent from Godfrey's army, a phenomenon which can be explained by the effects of the Investiture Contest. No Lotharingian or other German bishops were present at the Council of Clermont ; only Richer of Verdun sent legates and presents (48). Indeed the first news of the crusade to reach the western parts of the empire may have been brought by Peter the Hermit and his followers, which would explain why he rather than Urban II was depicted as the initiator of the crusade by many German chroniclers (49). It is also probable that the Lotharingian bishops and abbots were too heavily involved in the struggle between empire and papacy to consider leaving their charges at this critical time.

It is therefore not surprising that the only named clerics known to have travelled in Godfrey's company were the aforementioned Louis of Toul and Adalbero of Luxembourg, archdeacon of Metz, who was a son of Conrad I of Luxembourg and aproximus of Henry IV (50). On the other hand William

(46) MGH DD Heinrich IV, n° 457. (47) Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States (London, 1980),

11, 17, 23 ; Moeller, 189-202. (48) LL p. 497 ; Annales S. Vitoni Virdunenses, MGH SS, X, 526. (49) Knoch, 109-111. (50) AA pp. 370-371 ; Heinz Renn, Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus, Rheinisches

Archiv, 39 (Berlin, 1941), p. 9. The name Adalbero, relatively rare among laymen, was considered auspicious for bishops after the time of Adalbero, bishop of Augsburg (d. 909) and seems to have been especially popular in the Ardenne- Verdun, Bar and Luxembourg families for younger sons destined for the church. Adalbero III, bishop of Metz from 1047 to 1072, was an uncle of the archdeacon. These facts, and the details of the anecdotal vignette relating to his death at Antioch told by Albert of Aachen, suggest that he was a fairly worldly career churchman for whom the crusade presented a welcome diversion during the wait to secure one of the sees on which his family had traditional claims.

THE ARMY OF GODFREY OF BOUILLON 3 1 1

of Tyre relates that Godfrey took with him a group of monks who celebrated the divine offices for him during the crusade. After the capture of Jerusalem he settled them at their own request in the abbey of St. Mary in the valley of Josaphat (51). Where did these monks come from ? The chronicle of Saint- Hubert agrees that Godfrey took regular clergy with him, and it is possible that they were at least in part originally members of that community (52). On the death of Henry of Verdun in 1091, Henry IV installed the royal chaplain Otbert as bishop of Liège. Soon the passionate imperialist Otbert deposed Berengar, the reformist abbot of St. Laurence at Liège. Berengar fled with his supporters to Saint-Hubert, whose own abbot Theoderic was in turn deposed for offering his protection to the reformers. Eventually the two abbots and many loyal monks fled to properties in the diocese of Reims where they enjoyed the support of Godfrey of Bouillon and Dudo of Cons (53). The dispute was not finally resolved until the autumn of 1096, and therefore it would seem that in August of that year there were numbers of displaced monks, supporters of Berengar and Theoderic, who may well have been attracted by the prospects of a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the company of Godfrey, who was advocate of Saint-Hubert.

So far the examination of the composition of Godfrey's exercitus has yielded the names of thirty-nine individuals who were probably with him from the beginning of the expedition. Two of these were clerics and two were women. Undoubtedly the army included many more unnamed knights and their families as well as clerics, peasants and townspeople. Within the known group of thirty-nine individuals we can discern certain relationships and bonds which operated in the course of the expedition, and which give insights into the structure and hierarchy of the Lotharingian army.

Next in importance to Godfrey himself was his brother Baldwin of Boulogne. He was left in charge of the army at Brück an der Leitha during negotiations with King Coloman of Hungary and later acted as hostage to him. At Constantinople he commanded a detachment of 500 men, and guarded the hostage John Comnenus (54). The initial embassy to Coloman was entrusted to Godfrey of Esch, probably because he had been to Hungary some years before ; on the second approach he was accompanied by Warner of Grez, Rainald of Toul and Peter of Dampierre (55). Godfrey of Esch, Cuno

(51) WTpp.431. (52) Cantatorium, p. 208 : Nee mult o post dux Hierosolymam vadens ... multos

secum nobiles et religiosos abduxit. (53) Ralph of Sint-Truiden, Gesta abbatwn Trudonensium, MGH SS, X, 236 ff ;

Cantatorium, pp.153 ff. It was on account of Otbert's refusal to restore Theoderic that Godfrey abandoned the siege of Clermont-sur-Meuse in 1095.

(54) ΛΛ pp. 301-302,307-308. (55) ΛΛ pp. 300-301.

312 A.V.MURRAY

of Montaigu and Baldwin of Bourcq acted as envoys to the Emperor Alexius ; the latter two subsequently received the imperial representative John Com- nenus (56). Duke Godfrey was then accompanied to his meeting with Alexius by Warner of Grez and Peter of Dampierre (57). We later find Warner in charge of a force sent to secure the port of St. Simeon on the coast of northern Syria, and Rainald of Toul as commander of a reserve division at the Great Battle of Antioch in 1098 (58).

It is significant that these important military and diplomatic tasks were not entrusted to any of Godfrey's household officers, suggesting that his own vassals did not possess sufficient status. On the other hand the fact that such missions were repeatedly carried out by the same men suggests that they formed a close-knit inner group within the Lotharingian army which probably functioned as a council. It is improbable that the bonds which linked them were of a feudal nature as, apart from the possible cases of Henry and Godfrey of Esch, there is no evidence to suggest that they were his vassals. Lower Lotharingia was not a territorial principality, and its counts and lords were not vassals of the duke (59). On the other hand as military command was the most pronounced and the least disputed function of the duke it is probable that the lords from Lower Lotharingia were prepared to accept Godfrey as leader of the crusading army. In fact two of the Lower Lotharingians, Baldwin of Hainaut and Henry of Esch, went so far as to break military discipline by leaving the army in Thrace in order to hurry ahead to Constantinople in an attempt to share in the rumoured munificence of the Byzantine emperor (ω). Baldwin of Bourcq, Peter of Dampierre and Rainald of Toul all came from France and Upper Lotharingia, areas where Godfrey had no ducal authority. The most significant ties within the core group seem in fact to have derived from kinship ; each member of it was related in some way to Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin, a fact repeatedly reflected in the descriptions of them given by Albert of Aachen. The most important of Godfrey's kinsmen (apart from his brother) was Warner of Grez, who assumed the leadership of the domus Godefridi on Godfrey's death in July 1 100. In Albert's initial list of departing crusaders Warner is the only individual explicitly described as a kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin, although many of the others are subsequently marked as such elsewhere in his history. In the corresponding passage in the history of William of Tyre, who used Albert's

(56) A A pp. 306-307, 310. (57) AAp. 310. (58) AA pp. 383, 424 ; Baldric of Dol, p. 77 ; Orderic Vitalis, V, 108-1 10. (59) Matthias Werner, 'Der Herzog von Lothringen in salischer Zeit', in Die Salier

und das Reich, 1 : Salier, Adel und Reichsverfassung, ed. Stefan Weinf-urter and Helmut Kluger (Sigmaringen, 1991), 367-473.

(60) AA p. 305.


history or a source common to both, only Baldwin of Bourcq is similarly distinguished. This would appear to be a retrospective editorial decision influenced by Baldwin's subsequent importance as king of Jerusalem (6I). This, and the analysis of their respective military and diplomatic responsibilities, suggests that at least originally Warner was near the top of the hierarchy of the core group and Baldwin somewhere near the bottom.

Another significant factor may have been the bonds of alliance forged during the wars fought by Godfrey to defend his inheritance in the period before the crusade. In 1076 he had succeeded as designated heir to the Lotharingian lands of his uncle, Godfrey III (the Hunchback), but claims were also raised by his uncle's estranged wife, Mathilda of Tuscany, Albert III, count of Namur, and Theoderic Flamens, count of Veluwe on the lower Rhine. This coalition was joined by another Theoderic, the bishop of Verdun, and two local dynasts keen to share in the spoils, Waleran, count of Arlon and Limburg, and Arnulf II, count of Chiny. By contrast Godfrey's principal support came from his relative Henry of Verdun, prince-bishop of Liège (62). Turning to the crusade, we have already seen that Cuno, Gozelo and Lambert of Montaigu as well as Warner of Grez and Baldwin of Hainaut were all vassals of the ecclesiastical principality. Baldwin of Bourcq's family had fought on Godfrey's side against Theoderic of Verdun. Admittedly Peter of Dampierre and Rainald of Toul had fought on the episcopal side in this conflict ; however as far as the crusade was concerned this appears to have been outweighed by their particularly strong kinship ties (via a bishop of Liège) with Godfrey and Baldwin. Conversely, the continued importance of kinship and alliance would explain the lack of prominence accorded to Dudo of Cons, a son-in-law of Arnulf of Chiny, and to Louis of Mousson, cousin of the countess Mathilda.

Considering the peripheral position of Lower Lotharingia within the empire, as well as its accessibility to France and the preaching of the crusade, Godfrey's army included relatively few of the major nobles of the duchy, especially those of comital rank. As we have seen, the nobles of Lower Lotharingia were not vassals of the duke and were consequently under no obligation to follow him. In many cases the phenomenon of non-participation was also influenced by the political constellations obtaining on the eve of the crusade. Notable

(61) AA pp. 299, 520-524 ; WT p. 161. (62) Walter Mohr, Geschichte des Herzogtums Lothringen, II. Niederlothringen

bis zu seinem Aufgehen im Herzogtum Brabant (11.-13. Jahrhundert) (Saarbrücken, 1976), 63-69 ; P. C. Boeren, 'Overzicht der dynastie van Wassenburg-Gelre en verwante geslachten gedurende de elfde eeuw', Bijdragen en Mededelingen van de Vereeniging Gelre, 41 (1938), 1-23 ; P. C. Boeren, De oorsprong van Limburg en Gelre en enkele naburige heerschappijen (Maastricht, 1938), 71-86 ; H. Vanderlinden, 'Le tribunal de paix de Henri de Verdun (1082)', in Mélanges Henri Pirenne (Bruxelles, 1926), II, 589-596.

314 A.V.MURRAY

absentees were Albert of Namur, Arnulf of Chiny, Henry of Arlon and Limburg, as well as the three heirs of Theoderic Flamens : Gerard of Geldern, Henry of Kriekenbeek and Gosuin of Heinsberg. These were all members (or their successors) of the coalition which had waged war on Godfrey and his principal ally the church of Liège. A similar case was that of the count of Leuven, traditionally a rival of the Ardenne-Verdun dynasty and an adversary of the principality of Liège on which his lands bordered (63). In 1095-96, far from taking the cross, Henry of Leuven embarked on a new conflict with Liège over the county of Brugeron (M). Other important absentees were the count of Holland and the count of Luxembourg, while we know of no nobles at all from Lower Lotharingia north of Antwerp. It has been argued that the high degree of non-participation in Lotharingia was because most of the vassals of Henry IV were reluctant to become involved in what was essentially a papal enterprise (65). In fact it would appear that if anything, exactly the converse was the case. Under the bishops Henry of Verdun and Otbert the diocese of Liège was one of the areas which consistently offered the greatest support to the monarchy during the Investiture Contest i66). Notable non-participants included traditional enemies of the ecclesiastical principality ; key members of the crusading army were fidèles sancti Lamberti. Pope Urban had proclaimed that the property of crusaders should be placed under church protection until their return. For vassals of the powerful church of Liège this undoubtedly represented effective protection. On the other hand it is probable that many other lords were unwilling to leave home at a time when Lotharingia was being ravaged by the Investiture Contest and the various dynastic feuds which accompanied it (67).

From its departure in August 1096 until its arrival at Constantinople in December the army was therefore essentially Lotharingian in character, a

lthough it was by no means representative of the whole of Lotharingia. After crossing over to Asia Minor in the spring of 1097 the crusaders encountered

(63) Vita Balderici episcopi Leodiensis, MGH SS, IV, 727-729 ; Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium, MGH SS, VII, 467-469 ; Annales Laubienses, MGH SS, IV, 18.

(64) Giles of Orval, pp. 91-92. (65) C. D. J. Brandt, Kruisvaarders naar Jeruzalem. Geschiedenis van de eerste

kruistocht (Utrecht, 1950), 103. (66) Kupper, Liège et l'Église impériale, pp. 387-394. For recent numismatic

evidence of Otbert's imperialist stance, see Jörgen Steen Jensen, 'Λ Maastricht Coin Representing the Investiture of Bishop Otbert of Liège by the Emperor Henry IV in 109Γ, Spink Numismatic Circular, 98 (1990), 310-311.

(67) A case in point is that of Henry-Hezelin II, count of Grandpré, who had been Godfrey's principal partisan in the county of Verdun. Even after Godfrey reached a settlement with Bishop Richer he continued to wage war on the bishopric until he took the cross sometime after 1099, although he died before he could leave (LL p. 497).


the defeated remnants of the 'People's Expeditions', which seem to have been incorporated into the various newly arrived contingents in the course of the next stage of the march. Thus at Nicaea Godfrey and his army are described : Godefridus dux Lotharingiae ... cum universo comitatu Lotharingiorum constitutus est (68). However, by the time of their arrival at Antioch the descriptions have become fuller : Godefridus dux ... cum innumeris milibus Lothar ingiis, Saxonibus, Alemannis, Bawariis and Godefridus, cum Theuto- nicis, Alemannis, Bawariis, Saxonibus, Lotharingiis and again cum Alemannis, Bawariis, Saxonibus, Lotharingiis, Theutonicis et Romanis (69). As Knoch points out, these lists of tribes constitute a rhetorical device employed by Albert of Aachen to give greater weight to the German elements in the crusade. Nevertheless, the fact that these Germans are not associated with Godfrey until after the crossing to Asia Minor suggests that they were new additions to the army (70).

A section of the chronicle of Zimmern dealing with the First Crusade has long been regarded as the principal source for these new additions (71). The chronicle was the work of Froben Christoph, count of Zimmern (now Herrenzimmern near Rottweil, Baden-Württemberg) and lord of Meßkirch and Wildenstein. It was completed around 1566 and survives in two original manuscripts written in the Swabian dialect of Early New High German (72). The first historian of the crusades to draw attention to this source was Hagen- meyer, who originally intended to use it to clarify the role played by Peter the Hermit in the First Crusade (73). On account of its unique and detailed information it was accepted by Hagenmeyer, Röhricht, Runciman and later by Riley-Smith as a genuine prosopographical source for German participation in the crusade (74). The chronicle claims as its own main source for the crusade

(68) A A p. 315. (69) AA pp. 366, 422, 425. See also Orderic Vitalis, V, 108-1 10. (70) Knoch, pp. 116-119. (71) First published as the Zimmerische Chronik, ed. Karl August Barack,

Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 91-94 (Stuttgart, 1869), 2nd edn Freiburg im Breisgau, Tübingen, 1881-82. References are henceforth given to the best modern edition, Die Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern. Handschriften 580 und 581 der Fürstlich Fürstenbergischen Bibliothek Donaueschingen, ed. Hansmartin Decker- Hauff (Konstanz, Stuttgart, Sigmaringen, 1964-).

(72) Hans Baumgart, 'Studien zur Zimmerschen Chronik des Grafen Froben Christoph und zur Mainzer Bistumschronik des Grafen Wilhelm Werner von Zimmern' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Freiburg, 1923), 9-30 ; Beat Rudolf Jenny, Graf Froben Christoph von Zimmern. Geschichtsschreiber, Erzähler, Landesherr. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus in Schwaben (Lindau, Konstanz, 1959), 34-50.

(73) Heinrich Hagenmeyer, 'Étude sur la Chronique de Zimmern : renseignements qu'elle fournit sur la première croisade', Archives de l'Orient latin, 2 (1884), 17-88.

(74) Röhricht, Die Deutschen, 9-21 ; Runciman, I, 121-122, 131-132; Jonathan Riley-Smith, 'The Motives of the Earliest Crusaders and the Settlement of Latin

316 A.V.MURRAY

a codex described as ain alt geschriben buoch in the Black Forest monastery of Alpirsbach which was founded during the First Crusade by members of the Zimmern family among others, as well as a tapestry also supposedly belonging to Alpirsbach. The self-proclaimed intention of this section of the chronicle is to highlight the role of the High Germans in contrast to that of the Low Germans and French who, it was argued, had been amply treated by other writers, notably William of Tyre, Robert the Monk and the otherwise unknown Guido Remensis (75). After describing Pope Urban's appeal at Clermont, the chronicle goes on to give a detailed list of those Germans who departed for Jerusalem : 'Als nu die fürsten aus Gallia und aus andern nationen das eerlich, christenlich fürnemen vernamen, die auch zuvor durch den bapst Urbanum zu Clermant in Auergne darzu bewegt, erweiten sie herzog Gotfriden ainhelligclich zu irem obristen über den ganzen häufen. Sollichs möcht so baldt in deutschen landen nit kont werden, es namen etlich bischof das creuz an sich, als nemlich bischof Conradt von Chur und bischof Otho von Straßburg, herzog Friderrichs von Schwaben brüeder. Zu disen und andern bischofen mer verfliegte sich bischof Thiemo von Salzburg, dessgleichen herzog Egkhart von Bayern, ain sun grave Ottons von Scheyrn, und herzog Walther von Tegk. Dessgleichen so zogent mit dise nachvolgende graven und freiherren : grave Hainrich von Schwarzenburg, pfalzgrafe Hugo von Tübingen, grave Rudolf und grave Huldreich von Sarwerden, grave Hartman von Dillingen und Kiburg, grave Thiemo von Eschenloch, grave Hainrich von Helfenstain, grave Adelprecht von Kirchberg, grave Hainrich von Hailigenberg, ain grave von Fanen, herr Arnolt freiherr von Busnang, ain freiherr von Fridow, herr Ruodolf freiherr von Brandis, ain freiherr von Westerburg, grave Berchtoldt von Neifen, herr Albrecht freiherr von Stoffeln ; item ain grave von Salm, ain grave von Viernenberg, ain herr von Bolanden ; item grave Emmich von Lyningen, ain grave von Röttelen und ain grave von Zwaibrucken, darzu ain merkliche anzal von der ritterschaft, die alle zu errettung des christen- lichen glaubens mit denen ungleübigen zu streiten begerten' (76).

This list comprises twenty-seven named individuals, the majority of them from the duchy of Swabia ; to these can be added ain edelman von Embs und ainer von Fridingen as well as the brothers Conrad, Albert and Frederick of Zimmern who are all mentioned later (77). Thus this single source gives a total of thirty-two names, an amazingly high prosopographical yield for a relatively short account in a work written over four and a half centuries after the events it describes. The number is even more remarkable if we

Palestine, 1095-1100', English Historical Review, 98 (1983), 725; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), 50-51.

(75) Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern, I, 73-75. (76) Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern, I, 75. (77) Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern, I, 79.


compare it with the thirty-nine names for the original Lothanngian contingent arrived at by examination of all other sources combined, including the full- length account of Albert of Aachen.

Yet it is difficult to accept unquestioningly the evidence of the Zimmern list. Ten names are given only with the formula 'a lord of X', with no forename, and are thus valueless in prosopographical terms since none of these ten can be confirmed from any other source. Of the remaining twenty-two names, three are bishops, those of Chur, Strasbourg and Salzburg. At the time of the council of Clermont the bishop of Chur was Ulrich II of Tarasp. He died on 30 July 1096 and was succeeded by Guy who reigned until 1122. The first bishop of Chur to bear the name Conrad was not elected until 1123 (78). Otto, brother of duke Frederick of Swabia, was installed as bishop of Strasbourg by Henry IV before 1084. His participation in the crusade is problematic. As he was still in Strasbourg on 12 July 1097 he could not have left with Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans-Avoir (79). Although he is attested as having made a pilgrimage he was back in Germany by 9 November 1099, which hardly lends much support to the testimony of the chronicle of Zimmern (80). Similar confusion seemed to have led to the inclusion in the list of Thiemo, archbishop of Salzburg, who did not depart for Palestine until 1101 (8I). Thus none of these three could have taken part in the 'People's Expedition' whose German component is described in the chronicle.

The name herzog Egkhart von Bayern, ain sun grave Ottons von Scheyrn raises further problems. The duchy of Bavaria was held personally by Henry IV from 1077 until the summer of 1096 ; it was then returned to Welf IV who was succeeded by his son Welf V in 1098 (82). Bavaria did not pass to the Scheyern family until Otto of Wittelsbach was created duke by Frederick Barbarossa in 1 180. Count Otto I of Scheyern, who died before 1078, is known to have had a son called Ekkehard ; however since Ekkehard died before 1091 he could not have been on crusade. The Wittelsbachs (as the Scheyern line became known) were later involved in crusading and were keen patrons of crusading literature. One of the main sources of their family tradition were the tablets known as the Tabula Perantiqua, preserved in the abbey of Scheyern. One of these tells how Ekkehard forced King Henry II of Germany

(78) A. Bruckner, Helvetia sacra 1/ 1 (Bern, 1972), 474475. (79) P. Wentzcke, Regesten der Bischöfe von Straßburg bis zum Jahre 1202

(Innsbruck, 1908), 290, 295 ; E. Schfrer, Die Straßburger Bischöfe im Investiturstreit (Bonn, 1923), 111-120.

(80) Saxo Annalista, MGH SS, VI, 730 ; Bernold of St. Blasien, Chronicon, MGH SS, V, 466 ; Wentzcke, pp. 295-298.

(81) Gesta archiepiscoporum Salisburgensium, MGH SS, XI, 58. (82) Max Spindler, Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte, 2nd edn (München,

1981), I, 328-331.

318 A.V.MURRAY

to make him duke of Bavaria, whereupon both led an army to the east which captured Jerusalem. The historical core of this fantastic legend was probably an actual pilgrimage made by Ekkehard, possibly the great German pilgrimage of 1064-65, which was later conflated with accounts of the First Crusade and other crusading activities of the Wittelsbach family by Froben Christoph of Zimmern, or more likely, one of his sources (83).

Realising the difficulties posed by the inclusion of the three bishops and Egkhart, Hagenmeyer argued that these names could not have been derived from the claimed ultimate source, the alt geschriben buoch, although there are no textual grounds for this within the chronicle of Zimmern (84). Yet many of the other names accepted as genuine by Hagenmeyer also raise numerous difficulties. The first known duke of Teck was Adalbert, son of Conrad, duke of Zähringen, appearing with the title in 1187 (85). The duchy of Teck (near Kirchheim in Württemberg) was probably created as a result of a division of the Zähringen inheritance between Berthold V of Zähringen and his uncles Adalbert of Teck and Hugh of Ulmburg (Uilenburg) after the death of their elder brother Berthold IV in 1186. The division also explains the adoption of the ducal title by all three heirs (86). However the inclusion in this account of the First Crusade of a Teck with the ducal title, and with the name Walther which was otherwise unknown in the family, is quite anachronistic.

The counts of Tubingen are known to have used the Christian name Hugh in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. However this line did not receive the title comes palatinus until the time of Hugh III, on the extinction of the counts of Dillingen in 1 146 (87). The claim that the Count Palatine Hugh acted as obrist or commander of the Germans along with Walter of Teck and

(83) Albert Siegmund and Franz Genzinger, 'Zur Scheyerer Tabula Perantiqua' in Wittelsbach und Bayern. Beiträge zur bayerischen Geschichte und Kunst, ed. Hubert Glaser (München, Zürich, 1980), I/l, 154-163; Röhricht, Die Deutschen, 7. On the Witteisbachs as patrons of crusading literature, see Alan V. Murray, 'Reinbot von Durne's Der heilige Georg as Crusading Literature', Forum for Modem Language Studies, 22 (1986), 172-183.

(84) Hagenmeyer, 'Étude', 39^45. (85) Irene Gründer, Studien zur Geschichte der Herrschaft Teck, Schriften zur

südwestdeutschen Landeskunde, 1 (Stuttgart, 1963), 3. (86) E. Heyck, Geschichte der Herzöge von Zähringen (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1891),

418; Hartmut Heinemann, 'Das Erbe der Zähringer', in Die Zähringer. Schweizer Vorträge und neue Forschungen, ed. Karl Schmid, Vorträge zur Zähringer-Ausstellung, 3 (Sigmaringen, 1990).

(87) J. Förderer, 'Die Erbbegräbnisse und Stammgüter der Tübinger Pfalzgrafen', Tübinger Blätter, 36 (1948-49), 12-18 ; Förderer/Wic die Tübingen Grafen zur Pfal

zgrafenwürde gekommen sind', Tübinger Blätter, 49 (1962), 4-12 ; Heinz Bühler, 'Wie gelangten die Grafen von Tübingen zum schwäbischen Pfalzgrafenamt ? Zur Geschichte der Grafen und Pfalzgrafen von Tübingen und verwandter Geschlechter', Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte, 40 (1981), 188-220.


died in battle at Nicaea cannot be confirmed from any other source. In view of the anachronistic title it is possible that the inclusion of Hugh as a crusader derived from crusading activity of this family in the years 1190-1215 (88). The two brothers listed as counts of Saarwerden are also dubious ; the first documented count is known only from 1111, and the names Rudolf and Ulrich are unheard of in this family (89). Neither can the grave von Zwaibrucken be accepted as a crusader. The founder of the comital family named after Zweibrücken was Henry I, second son of Simon I, count of Saarbrücken (died 1182). The names Rudolf and Ulrich are equally unknown in this descendance, so that we may exclude any confusion between Saarbrücken and Saarwerden on the part of the chronicle of Zimmern. These three crusaders must therefore be regarded as pure fiction i90).

The first documented lord of Bussnang in the Thurgau was Albert I who appears between 1150 and 1180. The name Arnold is unknown in this family (9I). The first lord of Brandis, whose core lands were situated in the Emmental, does not appear until 1239, with the name Conrad, making the claimed hen Ruodolf freiherr von Brandis even more anachronistic than the duke of Teck. Indeed, the name Rudolf does not occur in the main line of this family until the fifteenth century (92). A Henry of Heiligenberg, in the Linzgau north of Konstanz, is known in the period around 1 100 as the brother of Arnold, imperialist bishop of Konstanz, and as advocate and despoiler of the monastery of St. George of Petershausen. However nothing is known of any crusading activity prior to this ; although the chronicle of Zimmern calls him a count, a county named after the Mons Sanctus did not appear until 1135 (93). The first lord of Neuffen near Esslingen am Neckar was Mangold, son of Berthold I of Sulmetingen-Sperberseck, who appears between 1087 and 1122, and built the castle of Neuffen after 1100. He was

(88) Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern, I, 79 ; J. Förderer, 'Die Tübinger Grafen und Pfalzgrafen als Reichsfürsten', Tübinger Blätter, 40 (1953), 16-20.

(89) Hans-Walter Herrmann, Geschichte der Grafschaft Saarwerden bis zum Jahre 1527, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Saarländische Landesgeschichte und Volksforschung, 1 (Saarbrücken, 1957), I, 73.

(90) C. Pöhlmann, Regesten der Grafen von Zweibrücken, Veröffentlichungen der Pfälzischen Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, 42 (Speyer, 1962), p. 42 ; Michel Parisse, La noblesse lorraine xie-xiiie siècle (Lille, Paris, 1975), II, 858-859.

(91) F. Stucki, 'Die Freiherren von Bussnang und von Griesenberg', Genealogisches Handbuch zur Schweizer Geschichte, IV (Zürich, 1980), 51-96.

(92) Placid Butler, 'Die Freiherren von Brandis', Jahrbuch für schweizerische Geschichte, 36 (1911), 1-151.

(93) Casus monasterii Petrishusensis, MGH SS, XX, 656 ; Ilse Juliane Miscoll- Reckert, Kloster Petershausen als bischöflich-konstanzisches Eigenkloster. Studien über das Verhältnis zu Bischof, Adel und Reform vom 10. bis 12. Jahrhundert, Forschungen zur Oberrheinischen Landesgeschichte, 24 (Freiburg im Breisgau, München, 1973), 114-117.

320 Λ. V. MURRAY

succeeded by his son Egino in 1122/25. Mangold had a brother, Berthold II, lord of Sperberseck, documented from 1087, who died a monk at Zwiefalten after 1145. Apart from the chronicle of Zimmern there is no evidence for participation in the First Crusade by any of these members of the family. However it is possible that the basis of the inclusion of a grave Berchtholdt von Neifen in the chronicle may been a tradition of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem known to have been made by Berthold U's son Berthold III sometime between 1130 and 1139H.

At first sight the name grave Emmich von Lyningen appears to hold more promise. Contemporary sources relate that a crusader called Emicho raised an army which persecuted the Jews of Speyer, Worms, Mainz and Cologne before departing for the East (95). On the evidence of the chronicle of Zimmern he has been identified by historians as count of Leiningen (%). However the first definite mention of an Emicho of Leiningen dates from 1128 (97). The accounts of Albert of Aachen, Frutolf of Michelsberg and Ekkehard of Aura do not actually identify the crusader with Leiningen ; they merely state that Emicho was a count or vir militaris with lands in the area of Mainz, and that he returned home after his army was defeated by King Coloman of Hungary in 1096. Furthermore a recent examination of the Hebrew sources reveals that the surname of the would-be crusader was written by them in the form VLNHJM, which would tend to exclude any place-name with the ending -ingen. A more probable identification would be Flonheim (Germany, Rheinland-Pfalz, Kr. Alzey-Worms) on the middle Rhine. A witness list of the year 1096 gives the name comes Emicho de Vlanheim (98). This would agree with Albert's information that Emicho returned home in the summer of 1096. The lack of prominence accorded to Emmich von Lyningen in the Zimmern account is another point against this source. According to Albert and Ekkehard Emicho was the leader of an important contingent ; in the

(94) Hans-Martin Maurer, 'Die hochadligen Herren von Neuffen und von Sperberseck im 12. Jahrhundert. Eine personengeschichtliche Untersuchung', Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte, 25 (1966), 59-130.

(95) ΛΑ pp. 292-295 ; Frutolfs und Ekkehards Chroniken und die anonyme Kaiserchronik, ed. Franz-Joseph Schmale and Irene Schmale-Ott, Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe, 15 (Darmstadt, 1972), 108, 126, 146 ; 'Chronicle of Solomon Bar Simson', in Shlomo Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders. The Hebrew Chronicles of the First and Second Crusades (Madison, 1977), 28, 44, 70-71 ; 'Narrative of the Old Persecutions', in Eidelberg, 107-115.

(96) Adolf Waas, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1956), I, 120 ; Runciman, I, 137 ; Setton, I, 263.

(97) Peter Acht, Mainzer Urkundenbuch (Darmstadt, 1968-71), 1, n° 554. (98) Ingo Toussaint, Die Grafen von Leiningen : Studien zur leiningischen

Genealogie und Territorialgeschichte bis zur Teilung von 1317/18 (Sigmaringen, 1982), 25-28 ; Acht, I, n° 395.


chronicle of Zimmern this role is given to the fictitious Walter of Teck and the doubtful Hugh of Tübingen, while Emicho is only mentioned towards the end of the list.

Even the participation of the three Zimmern brothers, Frederick, Albert and Conrad, is open to considerable doubt. The chronicle claims that their brother Godfrey married Elisabeth, daughter of Frederick of Teck ("). We know that Count William Werner of Zimmern later recorded the following information, probably drawn from a lost necrology of the monastery of Alpirsbach : Obiit Godefridus de Zimbarn liber dominus, sepultus in monas- terio Alpirsbach una cum uxore Elisabete ducisse de Deck (10°).

We have already seen that the first known duke of Teck is not attested until 1187. Assuming that this marriage connection did exist (and the only evidence for it derives from the two Zimmern sources) then it and the supposed crusading generation must be placed at least a century after the First Crusade, and most probably in the thirteenth century when we first find a member of the Teck line with the name Frederick. However the persistence with which the chronicle glorifies the Teck family could well be explained by such a marriage connection (101).

In fact the sole name in the Zimmern list which can be confirmed from other sources is that of grave Hartmann von Dillingen und Kiburg. Hartmann was the son of Hupold III, count of Dillingen (Germany, Bayern, Kr. Dillingen) in Swabia. He married Adelheid, daughter of Adalbert of Winter- thur-Kyburg, and succeeded to her vast estates in the Thurgau (l02). In 1095 he founded the monastery of Neresheim on his allodial possessions near Nörd- lingen. Since Ernest, the first abbot, is known to have been on the crusade it is likely that his benefactor was identical with the Hartmannus comes Alemanniae mentioned on three occasions by Albert of Aachen. He is recorded as having died in 1121 (103). It is quite possible that in this case Froben Christoph discovered his name in the history of William of Tyre, which he evidently knew and where he is one of relatively few crusaders explicitly

(99) Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern, I, 71. (100) F. J. Mone, Quellensammlung der badischen Geschichte, II (Karlsruhe, 1854),

134. (101) Gründer, 21-23. The Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern (ibid.) also gives

a fabulous story of a duke of Teck who was supposedly elected king in opposition to Conrad of Swabia on the death of the emperor Lothar II.

(102) On this family see Nikolaus von Salis-Soglio, 'Das Dillinger Grafenhaus und seine Stiftung Neresheim', Benediktinische Monatsschrift, 3 (1921), 197-214, 269- 289, although the author does not address the question of Hartmann's participation in the crusade.

(103) Annales Neresheimenses, MGH SS, X, 20-21 ; ΛΑ pp. 290, 322, 427 {Alemannia is probably used by Albert in the sense of 'Swabia*) ; Necrologii Neresheimensis, ed. F. L. Baumann, MGH Necrologii Germaniae, I (Berlin, 1888), 95-98.

322 Λ. V. MURRAY

identified as a German, and that William in turn derived his information from Albert or a source common to both (104). With this single exception, the jumble of anachronistic or non-existent names, as well as those of whom nothing is known, and above all the lack of external corroboration make it extremely doubtful whether the chronicle of Zimmern, composed over four and a half centuries after the First Crusade, can be considered as a reliable prosopographical source for the Germans who joined Godfrey's army after Constantinople.

A similar case is that of the sixteenth-century chronicle of Occo Scarlensis which gives an account of numerous Frisians with Peter the Hermit, and which was held to be accurate by Dirks and Röhricht (105). Among the Frisians according to Occo were the nobles Tjepke Forteman, Jarig Ludingaman, Feike Botnia, Eelke Lyauckama, Sikke Lyauckama, Epe Hartman, Ige Galama and Obboke Hermanna, most of whom later joined the main expedition. However a recent study has cast doubt on the reliability of this account, questioning in particular whether Frisians around the year 1100 could have had the surnames and forenames given by Occo. Eelke Lyauckama was supposedly installed as commander of Nicaea after its capture. As the city was returned to the Byzantine emperor by the crusaders then Eelke, if he existed, was probably a Varangian in imperial service rather than a crusader. That he was the leader of 9000 knights in the Frankish army is even more incredible. Thus while Frisians were undoubtedly present in Godfrey's army we cannot accept Occo's names as trustworthy (l06).

However contemporary sources do yield the names of some individual Germans and others who seem to have joined Godfrey or Baldwin after Constantinople. Apart from Hartmann of Dillingen, discussed above, they included Gunter (107), Reinhard of Hammersbach (l08), and Wicherius Ale- mannus, a ministerialis of Fulda (l09). Others can be identified with the help

(104) WT pp. 203-204, 338. (105) Occo Scarixnsis, Chronyke van Vriesland (Leeuwarden, 1597), 24 ff. ; J.

Dirks, 'Noord-Nederland en de kruistochten', De Vrije Fries, 2 (1842), 135-152; Röhricht, Die Deutschen, 10, 13-14.

(106) H. Brassât, Die Teilnahme der Friesen an den Kreuzzügen ultra mare vornehmlich im 12. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1970), 17-32.

(107) AA p. 526 ; John of Würzburg, 'Descriptio terrae sanctae', in T. Tobler, Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex saeculo VIII, IX, XII, AT (Leipzig, 1874), 154-155.

(108) AA pp. 422, 424, 435. (109) AA pp. 507, 522, 526, 531 ; Baldric of Dol, pp. 47, 50 ; Robert the Monk,

Historia Iherosolymitana, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux, III, 867 ; Alberic of Troisfontaines, p. 81 1. John of Würzburg, 'Descriptio Terrae Sanctae', 154-55 ; Die Kaiserchronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen, ed. E. Schröder, MGH Deutsche Chroniken, I (Hannover, 1892), 382 ; Metellus von Tegernsee, Expeditio Hierosolymitana, ed. Peter C. Jacobsen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 4 (Stuttgart, 1982), 125-126.


of eastern sources. Geoffrey the Monk, later lord of Marash in northern Syria and regent of Edessa in the 1120s, is called Gufra Almuin in the Anonymous Syriac Chronicle ; his surname would seem to be a corruption of Alemannus or Aleman (no). A similar case is that of William, later lord of Diiliik ; Matthew of Edessa gives him the surname Sancawel, which seems to be an Armenian rendering of a French name. He may therefore have been identical with William, brother of the leader of one of the 'People's Expeditions' known variously as Walter de Pexeio, Walter Sine Habere or Walter Senzavohir. It is likely that this family came from Boissy-Sans-Avoir (France, Yvelines, arr. Rambouillet), about forty kilometres west of Paris (! ' ')· Another Frenchman who joined Godfrey was Drogo of Nesle (France, Somme, arr. Péronne), who had been released from Byzantine captivity at the duke's intervention (112).

Such lords, it must be stressed, were in straitened circumstances. They were leaderless, and had lost baggage, arms, mounts and followers in the debacle at Nicaea. Their adhesion to the newly-arrived contingents is thus hardly surprising. Yet lords and knights from the other armies were also joining Godfrey about this time. Godfrey's brother Eustace III of Boulogne had left Europe in the company of his lord, Robert II of Flanders, and Robert of Normandy, arriving with them at Constantinople some time after Godfrey (113). Yet thereafter Eustace seems to have been associated more with his brothers than with the two Roberts ; he and his men were included in Godfrey's division of the united crusading army at the Great Battle of Antioch and again at the siege of Jerusalem where he fought in the same siege-tower as his brother (I14).

The same development is found with their younger brother, Baldwin. From the beginning of the crusade he and his wife Godevere were accompanied by their familia or household (115). During the march he attempted to establish himself as an independent prince, first in Cilicia, then at Edessa which he brought under his control by March 1098 (116). With the help of his brothers he now created a more substantial following of fighting men, described by

(110) 'Anonymous Syriac Chronicle', ed. A.S. Tritton and H. A. R. Gibb, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 92 (1933), 91-92 ; Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle, ed. Ara E. Dostourian (Ann Arbor, 1972), 419 ; Walter the ChancelijOR, Galterii Cancelarii Bella Antiochena, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck, 1896), 87.

(111) Matthew of Edessa, 335; Orderic Vitalis, V, 28; AA pp.274, 286, Baldric of Dol, 20.

(112) AA pp. 299, 304-305. (1 13) AA p. 314 ; Andressohn, p. 53. (1 14) Orderic Vitalis, V, 108-1 10, 168, 176 ; Baldric of Dol, p. 102 ; AA pp. 472,

477, 495 ; WT p. 330 ; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux, IV, 234.

(115) A A p. 302. (1 16) Hagenmeyer, 'Chronologie', nos. 247-249.

324 Α. V. MURRAY

Albert of Aachen as the comitatus Baldewini. At the beginning of 1098 this comprised seventy knights, but after his move to Edessa had grown to at least two hundred in addition to many others left as garrisons in the towns he had already captured (U7). Baldwin clearly drew troops from both his brothers. From Godfrey's contingent came Giselbert of Clermont, Baldwin of Bourcq, and Drogo of Nesle, and as we have seen, William Sans-Avoir and Geoffrey the Monk(118). From Eustace's came Udelrard and Pisellus of Wissant (France, Pas-de-Calais, arr. Boulogne-sur-Mer) (119). Others such as Peter of Dampierre and Rainald of Toul joined him on a temporary basis (12°). It is also about this time that we first hear of Baldwin's secretary Gerard who seems to have had a certain responsibility for financial affairs (l21). From the contingent of Stephen of Blois, who deserted from the army at Antioch, came Fulcher of Chartres, later lord of Saruj, as well as his namesake the historian (122). The number of men from Flanders and Artois who first appear in Jerusalem after Baldwin's accession as king in 1 100 also suggests that many of the followers of Robert of Flanders joined him at Edessa (123). It would be understandable for some of the more enterprising of Robert's followers to be attracted to the service of Baldwin who was the first leader to successfully carve out a principality of his own. The resources he obtained were considerable, including the accumulated treasure of the previous ruler of Edessa, the Armenian Thoros, part of the dowry received on his marriage to the daughter of another Armenian prince, Taphnuz, as well as large sums confiscated or extorted from some of the leading citizens who later conspired against him (l24). An illuminating passage in the history of Albert of Aachen reveals how the resources of many knights had been eaten up in the course of the long march and the siege of Antioch, and directly links this with the appeal of Baldwin and the resources he had access to as count of Edessa :

(117) AA pp.350, 358, 366; Radulph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Hierosolymitana, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens occidentaux, III, 632.

(118) A A pp. 350, 366, 442. (119) AA pp. 358, 446. (120) A A p. 366. (121) AA pp. 395, 446. (122) Fulcher (knight) : AA pp. 357, 442, 446 ; Fulcher (historian) : Fulcher of

Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), pp. 163-164, 206-208. Neither of these two should be confused with a third Fulcher who was killed in Asia Minor (AA p. 288).

(123) Murray, 'The Origins', pp. 286-269. One factor in this development may have been the lethargy of Robert compared with the energy of Baldwin. M. M. Knappen, 'Robert II of Flanders in the First Crusade', in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro by His Former Students, ed. Louis J. Paetow (New York, 1928), 79-100, concluded that the count only ever showed initiative on one occasion (in Italy) and allowed himself to be overshadowed by the other leaders.

(124) AApp. 354-355, 360-361,442-443.


Erant enim summa necessitate gravati, et longa expeditione rebus exhausti necessariis. Affluebant et accrescebant singulis diebus in numero et virtute, dum fere tola civitas a Gallis obsessa, et eorum hospitalitate occupata est. Baldewinus singulis, de die in diem, in bisantiis auri, in talentis et vasis argenteis donaplurima conferebat (125).

Thus while the main army remained bogged down at Antioch Baldwin was clearly in a position to provide patronage and opportunities for advancement for those who joined him, who were now becoming feudal dependents receiving salaries or benefits in kind from him.

From around this time, the winter of 1097-98, we can discern a parallel growth of ties of dependency within Godfrey's exercitus. During the march across Anatolia numerous horses and draught animals died of thirst. The loss of horses was especially telling for the knights in the army as it reduced their military effectiveness, and consequently, their status (126). These losses were compounded by the privation suffered during the nine-month siege of Antioch. Henry of Esch had left Godfrey's army in Thrace in order to share in the presumed munificence of Alexius Comnenus, but was now reduced to accepting the duke's charity. Hartmann of Dillingen had been obliged to sell off his horse and armour in order to buy food and could scarcely live by begging. He was reduced to riding an ass and fighting with a captured Turkish sword and shield. Godfrey took pity on Hartmann, allotting him a daily ration of bread and a piece of meat or fish. These circumstances contrast sharply with Albert of Aachen's description of him as dives et nobilissimus et unus de praepotentibus in terra Alemanniae (127). The cases of Henry and Hartmann are particularly telling, since they had evidently been able to finance the construction of a siege machine from their own resources at Nicaea (128).

It is thus evident that from the time of the siege of Antioch ever-increasing numbers of knights were penniless and had nothing to bargain with except their own service. Despite the scarcity of food and the inflationary prices commanded by what meagre supplies became available Duke Godfrey apparently possessed the means to provide for such men who offered him their service. As we have seen, Baldwin had the resources of the county of Edessa at his disposal ; what resources were available to Godfrey ?

We must first go back to the duke's financial preparations for the crusade in the winter of 1095-96, which seem to have been rather unsystematic, evolving gradually as particular needs were perceived. One of his first actions was to dissolve the priory of St. Peter at Bouillon, a house belonging to the abbey of Saint-Hubert, and to confiscate its possessions. He was only persuaded

(125) A A pp. 441-442. (126) A A pp. 339-341. (127) AAp.427. (128) AAp. 322.

326 Λ. V. MURRAY

to make restitution at the urging of his mother Ida who travelled from Boulogne to intercede with her son (129). However it seemed that the sums Godfrey wished to raise would call for wider action. He sold the allods of Baisy and Genappe to the abbey of St. Gertrude at Nivelles (13°), while various smaller estates clustered around the town of Maastricht were either sold or given to the church as pious donations (131). Further south, his rights in the county of Verdun, as well as the allods of Stenay and Mouzay, were sold to the bishop of Verdun for an unspecified sum (l32). However even after these transactions Godfrey was obliged to proceed to the mortgage of his allodial territory of Bouillon, along with an adjacent fief, lying to the south, which was held from the church of Reims (I33). The sources agree that the sum realised amounted to at least 1300 silver marks (l34). The cash was raised by Bishop Otbert of Liège who ransacked the churches and abbeys of the diocese for jewels, plate, and precious metals (135). It is questionable whether the total amount realised by the lesser sales was greater than that brought by the mortgage of the strategically important fortress of Bouillon and its surrounding territory (l36). What is clear, however, is that Godfrey had a considerable sum at his disposal on the eve of his departure, and probably

(129) Cantatorium, 203-206. (130) MGH DD Heinrich IV, no. 459. (131) S. P. Ernst, Histoire du Limbourg (Liège, 1837-52), VI, 113-115 ; Miraeus,

1,77. (132) LLp.498. (133) Bormans and Schoolmeesters, I, n° 35 ; Cantatorium, 244-245 ; C. Zoller-

Devroey, 'Féodalité et économie dans les Ardennes médiévales : le fief de Bouillon en Sedanais', in Centenaire du Séminaire d'histoire médiévale de l'Université libre de Bruxelles, éd. Georges Despv (Bruxelles, 1977), 21-57.

(134) Renier of St. Laurence (Triumphale Bulonicum, MGH SS, XX, 584) and Giles of Orval (p. 91) both give the sum of 1300 marks of silver and three marks of gold which would equate with the sum of 1300 marks of silver and one pound of gold given by Laurence of Liège (LL p. 498). The chronicle of Saint-Hubert (Cantatorium, p. 206) gives 1500 pounds of silver, while Alberic of Troisfontaines (p. 804) gives 1500 marks of silver. The Triumphus S. Lamberti Leodiensis de castro Bulliono (MGH SS, XX, 499) and the Gesta abbatum Trudonensium continuatoris tertii auctorum (MGH SS, X, 387) both give the smaller figure of 1300 silver marks.

(135) Giles of Orval, 91; Cantatorium, pp. 207-208, 249-250; Gesta abbatum Lobbiensium, MGH SS, XXI, 318.

(136) Jean-Louis Küpper, Otbert de Liège : les manipulations monétaires d'un évêque d'Empire à l'aube du xne siècle', Le Moyen Âge, 86 (1980), 353-385. On the castle of Bouillon and its importance, see Léon Saur, 'Entre Bar, Namur et Liège : Bouillon, place stratégique', Publications de la Section Historique de l'Institut Grand- Ducal de Luxembourg, 95 (1981), 258-281, and André Matthys, 'Les fortifications du xie siècle entre Lesse et Semois', in Burgen der Salierzeit, Teil 1 : In den nördlichen Landschaften des Reiches, ed. Horst Wolfgang Böhme, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Monographien 25 (Sigmaringen, 1991), 225-280.


took a large part of it with him in the form of coin. Two of his deniers, similar in form to coinage of Liège struck during the episcopate of Otbert, have turned up in hoards in Russia. They bear an inscription which should be read as GODEFRIDUS IEROSOLIMITANUS in the sense of peregrinus, and must have therefore have been coined between November 1095 and August 1096, probably in one of the Liège mints (137).

These initial resources were greatly augmented in the course of the expedition. During his progress up the Rhine Godfrey exploited the anti- Semitic frenzy engendered by popular preachers to extort protection money from the Jewish communities of the middle Rhine. The Hebrew chronicles relate that Godfrey, 'may his bones be ground to dust', received 500 zekukim of silver from the Jews of Cologne and another 500 from Mainz, despite the fact that as duke of Lower Lotharingia he had been ordered by Henry IV to prevent persecution. The value of the zakuk is placed variously at either eight or twelve ounces of silver ; the total profits of this short campaign of extortion must have therefore been something between 8000 and 12,000 ounces of silver, that is between 1000 and 1500 marks (138).

By the time of his arrival at Constantinople at the latest Godfrey's financial resources had begun to tighten the bonds of dependence in his army. Like other leaders he received gifts and money from the emperor, and continued to receive an imperial subsidy as long as he was encamped on Byzantine territory. The duke distributed this money among his army according to the needs of each individual ; most of it seems to have been immediately spent on food supplies by the recipients (I39). Godfrey thus played a key role as the channel through which funds passed ; it is likely that a similar system

(137) N. Bauer, 'Der Fund von Spanko bei St. Petersburg', Zeitschrift für Numismatik, 36 (1926), 75-94, identifies the first coin as a denier of Godfrey II ('the Bearded1). However it bears a strong resemblance, especially in the inscription, to the second, described by Victor Tourneur, 'Un denier de Godefroid de Bouillon frappé en 1096', Revue belge de numismatique, 83 (1931), 27-30. Recently John Porteous, 'Crusader Coinage with Greek or Latin Inscriptions', in A History of the Crusades, ed. Setton et al. (Philadelphia, Madison, 1955-89), VI, 354-420, has made the surprising claim that 'The dukes of Lower Lorraine as such did not issue coins, nor did Godfrey strike any for his territory of Bouillon. In France, however, their father Eustace II struck a scanty coinage as count of Boulogne, and possibly their brother Eustace III did also' (p. 356). However it is clear that the Ardenne- Verdun dynasty had issued coins since the early part of the eleventh century. See Günter Albrecht, Das Münzwesen im niederlothringischen und friesischen Raum von 10. bis zum beginnenden 12. Jahrhundert, Numismatische Studien, 6 (Hamburg, 1959), especially 66-67 and 79-84.

(138) 'Chronicle of Solomon bar Simson', pp. 24-25 ; Eidelberg, p. 147 ; E. Täubler, 'Spuren von Urkunden in den hebräischen Kreuzzugsberichten', Mitteilungen des Gesamtarchivs der deutschen Juden, 5 (1914), 143-146.

(139) AA pp. 310-311 ; WT pp. 175-176; Anna Comnena, Alexiade, ed. B. Leib (Paris, 1937-45), II, 220-226.

328 Λ. V. MURRAY

operated in the distribution of booty and forage, as the fighting divisions of the crusading army corresponded to the original individual contingents. Another vital source of supply was Baldwin ; once his position in Edessa was secure he was able to aid the crusaders at Antioch, sending plurima talenti auri et argenti to the other leaders for distribution. However he clearly favoured his own brothers, with a sum put at 50,000 bezants, in addition to large quantities of corn, barley, wine and oil (I40). This massive support from their younger brother must have given Godfrey and Eustace a certain edge over the other leaders. Again Godfrey seems to distributed most of his resources to the needy, including many knights. However in August 1098 while disease was rife in Antioch he was able to withdraw with his army to Baldwin's territories of Turbessel and Ravendel for forage and recuperation (I41).

Thus by the time of the siege of Antioch, a time when many in his own exercitus and indeed in other contingents were in serious financial difficulties, Godfrey had access to new sources of income and supplies in addition to whatever reserves had remained from earlier. The growth of ties of dependence may also have been expedited by the disappearance of intermediate levels in the command structure of the army. It is surely no coincidence that Gerard of Avesnes and Giselbert of Couvin, both later found in the service of Godfrey and Baldwin in Jerusalem, were originally vassals of Baldwin of Hainaut who disappeared in Asia Minor while he was on an embassy to Alexius Comne- nus (l42). The two Fulchers of Chartres, the future lord of Saruj and the historian, were originally in the Champagne contingent which was left leaderless by the desertion of Stephen of Blois (143). In these instances the removal of their immediate lord or recognised leader appears to have brought about a closer bond to Godfrey and Baldwin.

If the arrival at Constantinople marked the beginning of a second stage in the development of Godfrey's exercitus, the third stage was signalled by the entry into Palestine in the spring of 1099. The subsequent establishment of a Frankish state with Godfrey as its ruler allowed him to provide patronage in the form of fiefs and financial support. Although the actual territory under his control was small, he could also dispose of substantial amounts of tribute paid by the Muslim cities of the coast. Thus the revenues of the port of Arsuf were assigned to the knight Robert of Anzi ; it is probably also significant that he was a Norman from southern Italy who had originally come on crusade with Bohemund (144). The original Lotharingian element in Godfrey's army had been depleted by death in battle, capture and disease ; among the known

(140) AA pp. 395-396. (141) AA pp. 427-428, 440-441. (142) Murray, The Origins', 285. (143) AA pp. 347, 442, 446 ; Fulcher of Chartres, 206-207. (144) A A pp. 514-515 ; Murray, 'The Origins', 289.


casualties from this group were Gozelo of Montaigu, Henry of Esch, Folbert of Bouillon, Baldwin of Hainaut, Louis of Toul and Adalbero of Metz (145). Others were with Baldwin, now count of Edessa. Lastly, after the liberation of the Holy City, large numbers of crusaders regarded their vows of pilgrimage as having been fulfilled and returned to Europe in the course of the following year. They included several important Lotharingians : Peter of Dampierre, Rainald of Toul, Dudo of Cons, Cuno and Lambert of Montaigu and Louis of Mousson (146). Apart from the short-lived Warner of Grez, none of the original core group of Godfrey's allies and kinsmen actually remained with him in Palestine. At the same time other knights whose own lords were returning to Europe now entered Godfrey's service, and were joined by others from Edessa when Baldwin succeeded his brother in July 1 100, so that after 1100 the Lotharingian and German elements in the Jerusalem nobility were outnumbered by Flemings, Artesians, Picards, Normans, and Francians (147).

This examination of Godfrey's exercitus gives a clear picture of how this situation arose. When it set off in August 1096 the army was almost entirely Lotharingian in composition, a character which was greatly influenced by the alliances and animosities which had arisen in the two duchies during the years of the Investiture Contest and its accompanying feuds. Yet in the course of the three years it took to reach its ultimate goal, the army was constantly changing in composition and structure. By the end of Godfrey's short reign as ruler of Palestine most of the Lotharingians had been killed or returned to Europe, to be replaced by men from the other original contingents. It would therefore seem that, ultimately, the character of the early Jerusalem nobility was determined far less by feudal and kinship ties dating from before 1096 than by events and conditions prevailing during the course of the First Crusade itself.

(145) Gozelo : AA p. 359 ; Henry : AA p. 435 ; Folbert : AA p. 436 ; Baldwin : AA pp. 434-435 ; Louis : A A p. 375 ; Adalbero : A A pp. 370-371.

(146) Peter : Barthélémy, pp. 401-406 ; Rainald : Choux, Recherches, Reg. nos. 81, 84, 86, 89 ; Dudo : Kurth, I, n° 63 ; Cuno and Lambert : Murray, 'The Origins', 297 η. 25 ; Louis : M. Grosdidier de Matons, Catalogue des actes des comtes de Bar 1022-1239 (Paris, 1922), n° 35.

(147) Murray, 'The Origins', 293-294.

alan v. murray - the army of godfrey of bouillon, 1096-1099.pdf

Documents

murraythe army of godfrey

godfrey of bouillon

crusade alan

united frankish army

philologie et dhistoire

murray alan

peoples crusade

revue belge