I have read this book after I had previously read the
book
from Peter Frankopan about the First Crusade. Whereas that book started with the regime of Alexios I. Komnenos, this book now starts a little bit earlier, actually in late antiquity, with the controversies about the different heresies. First Arianism and then Monotheism caused splits the late Roman society that in the end proved insurmountable. Even though different emperors tried to force an orthodoxy on all subjects to maintain the unity of the church, this showed to be just impossible. In Egypt, the population remained large Monophysites, whereas in Syria, Monophysites and Nestorians flourished. Only in Palestine would orthodox form a majority, called the emperor’s men or Melkites. In the
last great war of antiquity
that ended 628, these areas were ravaging up to Asia Minor by the Persians. Had the heretics before befitted from the benevolence of the Persians, now they were pushed again to accept orthodoxy. Moreover, Heraclius also had to increase taxes to replenish the imperial treasury that had also greatly suffered during the war. The stance of the population in these areas was thus accordingly negative. Once they were conquered by the Muslim Arabs, they would see it as a kind of liberation, and consequently would not resist it much. The orthodox still saw the emperors in Byzantium as God’s viceroy on Earth, as their true sovereign. The heretic churches had no such lay protector.
The Omayyad dynasty moved its headquarter to Damascus in Syria, hence benefitting Syria and Palestine, and the culture there was largely Hellenistic-Christian, with Christians being employed in high numbers in the civil service. The Christians thus benefitted from this situation, there were hardly any persecutions and trade flourished. Moreover, in Byzantium, there was a heretic emperor, an iconoclast. However, the Abbasid caliphs brought the capital in 750 to Baghdad and therewith, the dominant culture became Persian. The Abbasids were also stricter Moslems than the Omayyads and only the Nestorians were benefitting. The growth of the Carolingian empire made Charlemagne as the new protector of the orthodox possible, but this was short-lived, as after his death, his empire rapidly collapsed. Moreover, the emperors in Byzantium gained strength again, therefore, the Byzantines would become once more the protectors of orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the Franks would not forget that they had established a legal protectorate over the holy places and would remember it later on. The increase in Byzantine power would in the tenth century lead to them to gain again the upper hand in Syria. The Abbasid caliphate rapidly began to decline and the Fatimids gained power in Egypt. In this power vacuum, the Byzantines under Nicephorus and then John Tzimisces could regain Antioch, make Aleppo a vassal state and capture the northern part of Syria. In this, Nicephorus had tried to persuade the patriarch to declare soldiers dying on the eastern front as martyrs, but the patriarch rejected this as not even the exigencies of war excused the act of murder. John stopped short of Jerusalem, as it would have been too far. Basil II., John’s successor, marched 999 twice down as far as Tripoli, but realized the uselessness of further conquests. A truce was made with the Fatimid caliphs and the peace was not broken for more than half a century. Both looked with uneasiness on to the revival of the Baghdad caliphate under the Turks. There was a short period of persecution in southern Syria and Palestine, nevertheless, afterwards friendly terms with Byzantium were reestablished, with the Byzantines being permitted to restore the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. In the middle of the eleventh century, the Christians in Palestine were thus thriving, with trade prospering.
Then Steven Runciman gets closer to the times of the Crusades. Analyzing the pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Steven Runciman can say that they happened since the 3rd century, up to the 11th century. Only in the last two decades of the 11th century did inconveniences hinder pilgrims to traveling eastward. In the middle of the 10th century, peace and prosperity has been guaranteed by the power pf Byzantium, until 1056 when the niece of the last able warrior emperor, Basil II. died. The prowess of the Byzantine Empire had unfortunately led to the seemingly everlasting enrichment of the nobility who had to invest their money and the one investment possible in antiquity and Middle Ages was land. They bought more and more land, to the detriment of the free peasants that had thus far held their land directly from the state in exchange for military service. After Basil II. had died, the nobility that controlled the army now was a loggerhead with the court clique which controlled the central administration. The court thus nominated one candidate, the army marched on Constantinople and made their general, Isaac Komnenus, emperor. After two years, however, he retired and made an aristocrat, Constantine Ducas, emperor, whose solution to the empty treasury and the unruly army was to reduce the armed forces. But there was danger brewing in west and east. In southern Italy, the Norman had started to take over. By 1060, all the Byzantines still held was Bari, which at least controlled further Norman expansion. In the east, the decline of the Abbasid dynasty had not only benefited Byzantium. Trade circumvented the Abbasid empire north and south, thereby also circumventing the Byzantine one. Moreover, the Abbasid empire had also had held the defenses to Central Asia. Now Moslem Turks infiltrated into the empire. Turkish regiments were maintained by the caliph of Baghdad and many other Moslem rulers. Seljuk princes, much like the Normans of southern Italy started to take over Persia. In 1055, they took over Bagdad. In 1064, Alp Arslan became caliph. His strategy was to conquer Armenia to protect himself from Byzantine attacks in order to go on the offensive against the Fatimids. Every year they made thus an incursion into Armenia until the emperor Romanus saw that he had to confront them. Byzantine troops had been reduced, its cavalry disbanded so he had to rely on mercenaries; the Varangian guard, Normans and Franks and Turks from southern Russia. In the spring 1071, they set out to reconquer Armenia. As they left, news was received that Bari had fallen. Close to Manzikert, the troops split, Romanus to capture the fortress of Manzikert, the Franks and Turks to Akhlat when news was received that Alp Arslan was on its way. Romanus swung by to reunite with the other troops. He was ambushed on the road to Akhlat by Alp Arslan, his mercenaries never came to the rescue. The Franks had left, the Turks had gone over. Romanus was duly routed and taken prisoner.
Alp Arslan had achieved his goal and demanded from the Byzantines only to leave Armenia and to ransom Romanus. Steven Runciman says that the conquest of Asia Minor was left to Suleiman, who duly proceeded to do so. Peter Frankopan on the other hand said that Suleiman actually controlled Asia Minor for the Byzantine emperors. Even though Steven Runciman also says that different emperors made an alliance with Suleiman, he insists that Suleiman was under the suzerainty of Malik Shah. But wouldn’t it make more sense that Suleiman held areas in Asia Major for the emperors who preferred a Muslim subordinate to a Byzantine governor who would just rebel and march on Constantinople? It also fits with the notion that the Byzantines gave Suleiman Nicaea as capital. Why else would they have handed over Nicaea? After some usurpations, during the time Alexios I. Komnenos and his brother had been loyal generals, the incumbent office holder turned against the Komneni, and the two brothers were forced to rebel, whereby Alexios became emperor. But turned to Europe, fighting against the Normans, the Serbs and the Petchenegs and leaving Asia Minor alone, again suggesting that it was ruled in his name. Why else would he have wait to call for reinforcements from the west? Only the death of Suleiman trying to take Aleppo foretold troubles for Alexios, as Suleiman’s successors would not yield anymore to Byzantium. Nicaea was first held for six years by the Turkish rebel Abu’l Kasim, then in 1092 Malik Shah was able to replace him with the son of Suleiman, Kilij Arslan. More dangerous than Suleiman had ever been was Chaka/Tzachas, who had established his base in Smyrna, had taken over much of the Aegean coast and some islands, among others Lesbos, and who, as Steven Runciman also says, aimed to succeed to the empire. He was killed in 1093 by Kilij Arslan, but a “Chaka” is attested to have held Smyrna in 1097, possibly a son.
Then, Steven Runciman introduces the contradiction between Christianity and war. On the one hand, he presents the Byzantines as actual pacifists who always fought wars against their nature and rather paid an enemy off than to decimate them if it was possible. In contrast hereto, in the west, killing was normal. The nobles and the church tried to define periods and weekdays where no fighting would take place. As everybody knew that nobody kept these rules, the pope tried to divert the aggression to more honorable undertaking. Thus, the fight against the heathen was promoted. During the whole 10th century, French knights were encouraged to fight in Spain against the Muslims. He points out how at the end of the 10th century, already Gregory VII. wanted to organize a crusade in the east. However, before these plans could come to fruition, the emperor was disposed, and Gregory VII. excommunicated the successor and also Alexios I. Komnenos when he came to power in 1081. The relationship between pope and emperor had turned as cold as never before. However, Alexios would turn out a statesman of wisdom and in the west similarly one would arise. Urban II. who could not enter Rome when he was elected understood to build relationships will all except the Holy Roman Emperor. He received notice from Alexios that the Byzantines were busy to hold the Danube frontiers and Adriatic against the Normans, however, to go on the offensive in Asia Minor he required recruits and hoped to with these with papal influence. Urban thus journeyed to France, discussing the expedition until he reached Clairmont, where on 27 November 1095 he peaching the Crusade on a field to the people. Many people were going to join, considerably more than Urban had anticipated. They were to set out on 15 August 1096, but the simple people that Peter the Hermit had spurred on to go would not wait and moved already. Steven Runciman says Urban was confident that Alexios would welcome the hordes coming to Byzantium, which is strange as he, as also Steven Runciman admits, was preparing provisions for them. As before, I agree more with Peter Frankopan’s view that there was exchange between pope and emperor, much more than is implied here. After all, also Steven Runciman says that Alexois knew about the 15. August as starting date and was according surprised by Peter the Hermit’s ramshackle army arriving earlier.
Steven Runciman says, Peter the Hermit’s troops arrived unobstructed in Constantinople, were quickly moved over the Bosporus to wait there for the main army but they got impatient and took the fortress Xerigordon from the Turks. They were besieged and eventually surrendered; the People’s Crusade therewith already came to an end. More lower aristocrats from Germany also set out to crusade, however they turned first against Jews in cities along the Rhine and Mossel and massacring there whole Jewish populations. As a consequence, they were not allowed to cross into Hungary and when they tried to force their way, they were annihilated by the Hungarians. In the summer, the higher knights started to arrive as well. Alexios, knowing how to deal with them, made each of them swear allegiance to him. They all complied, Bohemond was only too eager as he saw the chance of gaining his own territory in the east. Raymond of Toulouse however did not want and said that he only saw God as his superior. Steven Runciman thinks, as highest of the aristocrats he saw himself as the natural political leader of the expedition and saw therefore the preferential treatment of Bohemond as thread. Only after Alexois had confirmed that he would never make Bohemond the leader did Raymond relent. He nevertheless only swore a modified oath, that he would honor the emperor and see that no harm would come to him by his men. Raymond had also come to Constantinople not via Italy and the sea but over Dalmatia, where his troops constantly had had to fend of the Serbs. Peter Frankopan’s view again is preferable that this was arranged beforehand; Raymond task had been to ensure that the Serbs would keep quite while the Byzantines and the Crusading army was busy moving through Asia Minor.
The first of the objective of the Crusaders was Nicaea which was duly besieged. Alexios kept sending emissaries to city to ask for surrender, but while they still hoped to be relieved, they would not. Only once such an army led by the Seldjuk sultan had been beaten back did the garrison surrender. The Crusaders marched on and split before Dorylaeum in order to facilitate foraging. The Seldjuk sultan however had made peace with the Danishmend and together, they waited not far from Dorylaeum. Once one part of the army had encamped, the Turks attacked. At once messengers were sent out to the second part. The Crusaders that were there already tried to withstand as best as they could. Once the second army arrived and especially once a part of it the arrived from behind, the Turks fled. At Heraclea, they had to decide which way to go. By way directly through Cilicia, they would have to pass through the Cilician Gates and then through the Syrian Gates, which were in Turkish hands and easy to defend. The main body of the Crusaders thus circumvented the Taurus mountains on the north, only Baldwin and then Tancred set off for Cilicia. Different to Peter Frankopan, Steven Runciman says that first Tancred set out and then Baldwin. Tancred took Tarsus but had to hand it over to Baldwin once the strength of his force became clear. According to Steven Runciman both ignored their oath sworn in Constantinople and were out for an own territory, Baldwin being more dangerous than Tancred. Peter Frankopan on the other hand thinks that Baldwin acted actually in official mission from Alexios first to bring Cilicia again under imperial control and then to do the same with Edessa. Tancred misunderstanding this intention led him to follow Baldwin, thinking that cities were up for grabs. The Armenian support that Baldwin received would also speak therefore, as does the fact that Baldwin left Cilicia soon afterwards again (Steven Runciman says Baldwin hadn’t liked the climate, Cilicia had been too steamy). Moreover, taking Cilicia from the Turks also made it impossible for them to launch an attack from the rear whereas from Edessa, Baldwin could supply the Crusaders and blocked at the same time the easiest road for the Turks to send reinforcements to Antioch. All these points, which Steven Runciman lists as well, suggest rather that there lied an official commission behind Baldwin’s actions.
In autumn 1097, the Crusaders arrived in front of the walls of Antioch. They did not directly try to storm the city, says Steven Runciman, as Bohemond had not wanted the city to fall to one concerted attack. He wanted to it fall to him alone in order to gain the city for himself. In May 1098, Kerbogha of Mosul was approaching with a large army. The knights were thus agreeing to Bohemond’s idea to give Antioch to the one whose soldiers would first enter Antioch. Bohemond’s troops then climbed up the walls with the help of a traitor. They had thus captured Antioch, but they soon realized that food was scarce inside the city. Less than a week later, Kerbogha arrived; the besiegers became the besieged. A message sent to Alexios’ court probably said that Antioch was taken but the Crusaders by now most likely had been annihilated themselves by Kerbogha’s army. Alexios thus retreated, anything else would not have made sense. This however was seen by the Crusaders again as treason. In Antioch, after a vision had to the discovery of the Holy Lance, a desperate sortie was made that succeeded in repulsing Kerbogha’s army who had been quarreling among themselves. But with Antioch now secure, discussions about what do to with Antioch got toxic. Bohemond wanted to keep Antioch but Raymond was reminding him of his oath. In the end, only after much stalemate and after troops had threaded to break down the wall by their own hand did the Crusaders move on, with Bohemond.
The marched along the coast down to Caesarea and Arsuf, where they turned inland, arriving at Jerusalem 7 June 1099. The Fatimid governor had evicted before all Christians and blocked or poisoned all fountains. Some detachment went as far as the Jordan to get water. Water shortage thus soon took many lives. Moreover, the Crusaders knew that would soon come reinforcements from Egypt. Quick action was required. On 12 June, a first assault was tried but failed. Not enough siege material had been available. Then, on 17 June, six vessels landed in the harbor of Jaffa. They brought food and much needed material to build siege engines. Wood still had to be organized. But then two siege towers were built. On 8 July, a procession wound around the city. The two siege towers were finished over the next two days. By the evening of the 14th one tower had been brought against the wall, by the next morning the other one as well. The resistance was fierce but about midday, a bridge had been formed to the wall. The Crusaders now streamed into the city and started to massacre the population, killing all men, women and children they met. The massacre of Jerusalem profoundly impressed all the world, later, when Christians and Moslem tried to find some basis to work together, the memory of the massacre always stood in their way.
Steven Runciman’s history continues through the election of a king for Jerusalem. Raymond of Toulouse seemed to be the natural candidate. But, says Steven Runciman, he was unpopular with his colleagues, having been too arrogant and having shown too much sympathy for the Byzantine emperor. He was offered the crown, but refused, realizing that he would not have the support of the others and hoping that it would be impossible for anybody else to become king. Godfrey of Bouillon was then offered the job. He accepted, but said, he would not be king, but defender of the Holy Sepulchre. Soon thereafter, news was received that an Egyptian army had crossed into Palestine. Godfrey asked the other to join him to go and surprise them. They all moved and gathered at Ramleh. They attacked the encamped Egyptian army and achieved a complete victory. Jerusalem was now secure for the foreseeable future. However, the new papal legate pressured Godfrey that he should be lord over Jerusalem. Godfrey procrastinated and said, he would keep it until his death. But when Godfrey died on 18 July 1100, a messenger was sent to Baldwin in Edessa. Even though the legate and Tancred called in Bohemond’s help, the messenger was apprehended by the Byzantines and Bohemond went campaigning in Melitene, where he was ambushed and captured by the Turks. The way was thus free for Baldwin who sent Tancred to Antioch to rule instead of his uncle. On Christmas Day 1100, he was crowned as king of Jerusalem.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
$19.31
Get it as soon as Saturday, May 11
Only 20 left in stock (more on the way).
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may ship from close to you
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
Rob C
Impressive work about the First Crusade
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 14, 2015
