need urgent advice on research (+)

[unmerged(8632)]

A help with getting down the exact names would be appreciated

>>>

I do not have the possibility to check up the name, but actually weren't there several prominent lords in the Holy Lands that just sat down doing nothing while their christian 'brothers' where attacked by muslims?

>>>

 

[Drakken]

Of course.

Bohemond I retreated to his prize of Antioche while the rest of the first Crusade continued to Jerusalem. He wasn't part of the Jerusalem siege and the battle of Ascalon.

Same Crusade, Etienne de Blois, married to Adele, daughter of William the Conqueror, was one of the main guide until the siege of Antioche. Seeing that the siege was doomed, he simply deserted. Accroding to the Anonymous Chronical, he met Emperor Alexis and his troops while he returned to Constantinople and told them that everyone in Antioche has been massacred or died of hunger. Alexis returned to Constantinople, believing Etienne in his affirmations.

 

[Havard]

I suspect the situation described in the quote is vastly oversimplificated compared to the actual situation. There are (at least) two reasons for this:

1. The extremely loose feudal relationship between the KoJ and his vassal, and

2. The complicated systems of alliances and treaties on one side and rivalry and enemity on the other side between all lords in the area. In many situations you had Christians and Muslims on both sides in a conflict.

Any Christian lord in the KoJ had the right to make his own deals - including peace treaties. This means that e.g. the Count of Tripoli could have a peace treaty with a muslim lord, while the same muslim lord could be allied to the Count of Edessa against the Prince of Antioch.

Is the quote referring to a specific situation or ment on a general basis?

 

[Norgesvenn]

Edessa and Antioch were rivals.

Meanwhile Tancred, regent of both Antioch and neighboring Edessa, refused to relinquish the county upon the return in 1108 of Baldwin of Bourcq and Joscelin of Courtenay. Both sides allied themselves with neighboring Muslim powers against each other: Antioch with Aleppo and Edessa with Mosul

This is just one example. Give me some time, and I'll dig up more. And PM Havard.

 

[Norgesvenn]

Damn!
Too late!

 

[Drakken]

IIRC, dealings and alliances between Christians lords in the Holy Lands and Muslims Emirs more numerous in the Second Crusade, when the Muslims weren't united and battling against each other and Franks were well implanted.

Also, at the battle of the Horns of Hattin, the rumor says that Saladin had good relations to one of the Franj's leader (I'll verify his name later). While the prisoners were being captured for execution and Renald of Chatillon was been decapitated, Saladin let this particular leader escape from the battlefield.

 

[Drakken]

Finally, one might wonder why the Real Crusade left for Constantinople on August 15th 1096, while the people's Crusade arrived in Constantinople on August 1st. Unless they were blind and deaf, these Lords, especially the French ones, could not ignore that thousands of commoners had left their occupations for the Crusade on their own. A very high majority of these "Crusaders" will die in way or be massacrered by the Turks at Civitot and Nicea. Peter the Hermit and William the Carpenter are the only persons that certainly participated in the people's Crusade and were part of the Real Crusade afterwards, but without any due use. According to the anonymous Chronicler, both even attempted to desert but were caught up.

 

[Drakken]

Havard, I think sergei wants to know if there were leaders in the Crusades whose actions, even if they didn't want to, sabotaged or were detremental to the other Christian leaders present at the Crusade when they were fighting actively the Muslims. General basis IMHO.

Drakken

 

[Drakken]

Sergei,

as soon as I am home and get a hold on the Anonymous Chronicle of the First Crusade and my other books, I will try to find and edit under my post complete names with titles. If any question, do not hesitate.

And on Bohemond I, I am sure that if the something had went awry in Jerusalem or Ascalon, he would have come in reinforcement to help out. Bohemond had shown numerous times in the Crusade that he was a man of honor.

 

[Drakken]

Oh, and in the First Crusade, Hughes of France, count of Vermondois and brother of the King of France, was sent after the seizing of Antioche to call Alexis to relay the Crusaders in Antioche. He never came back, which convinced Crusaders that Antioche should be attributed to Bohemond I. Not treachery, but only another leader that didn't continue until Jerusalem for xyz reasons.

Drakken

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Drakken

Also, at the battle of the Horns of Hattin, the rumor says that Saladin had good relations to one of the Franj's leader (I'll verify his name later). While the prisoners were being captured for execution and Renald of Chatillon was been decapitated, Saladin let this particular leader escape from the battlefield.

I guess you are thinking about Raymond III of Tripoli. He was on (reasonably) good terms with Saladin, and they had mutual respected for the other. It is not a matter of "letting him go" though. Raymond had advised agains the entire campaign and the forced march through the desert that initially sealed their faith, but was distrusted[1] by Guy de Lusignan and the Templar Master Rideford. He still came along to display support to the Christians. When he saw the battle turn wrong he broke out with his men and escaped.

And the prisoners weren't exactly captured "for execution". IIRC the only ones executed after the battle was Reinald de Châtillon and the Templars/Hospitallers... e.g. King Guy was allowed to return after being ransomed.

[1] The distrust was because of internal court politics...

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Drakken
Havard, I think sergei wants to know if there were leaders in the Crusades whose actions, even if they didn't want to, sabotaged or were detremental to the other Christian leaders present at the Crusade when they were fighting actively the Muslims. General basis IMHO.

Well... My first thought would be the over-zealot Reinald de Châtillon and Gerard de Rideford. If not for these two the battle of Hattin had never taken place...

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Havard
I guess you are thinking about Raymond III of Tripoli. He was on (reasonably) good terms with Saladin, and they had mutual respected for the other. It is not a matter of "letting him go" though. Raymond had advised agains the entire campaign and the forced march through the desert that initially sealed their faith, but was distrusted[1] by Guy de Lusignan and the Templar Master Rideford. He still came along to display support to the Christians. When he saw the battle turn wrong he broke out with his men and escaped.

And the prisoners weren't exactly captured "for execution". IIRC the only ones executed after the battle was Reinald de Châtillon and the Templars/Hospitallers... e.g. King Guy was allowed to return after being ransomed.

[1] The distrust was because of internal court politics...

Yes, it was him. And I forgot to precise that the executed prisoners were members of military orders. Of course, Guy de Lusigan was spared for ransom.

However, the persistent rumor goes that Saladin had seen that Raymond of Tripoli was broking out, and he closed his eyes on it and let him go away.

Drakken

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Havard
Well... My first thought would be the over-zealot Reinald de Châtillon and Gerard de Rideford. If not for these two the battle of Hattin had never taken place...

Agreed. But Etienne de Blois' desertion and conversation with Alexis in the First Crusade could have had very disastrous results also. If Bohemond had not established relations with Firrouz inside Antioche, which precipitated the takeover of Antioche, the Franj would have been caught in there rear by the Army of Courbaram and would have been beaten to a pulp.

Drakken

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Drakken
Agreed. But Etienne de Blois' desertion and conversation with Alexis in the First Crusade could have had very disastrous results also. If Bohemond had not established relations with Firrouz inside Antioche, which precipitated the takeover of Antioche, the Franj would have been caught in there rear by the Army of Courbaram and would have been beaten to a pulp.

Well... would the Count of Blois' men have counted at all if Antioch hadn't been taken by treason? I think not...

Actually, his wife was so angry on him for deserting the first Crusade that he later was "forced" to take up the vows and go back to the Holy Land. He was killed in Ramla in 1102.

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Havard
Well... would the Count of Blois' men have counted at all if Antioch hadn't been taken by treason? I think not...

That is not the point. If Etienne had not deserted, he wouldn't have encountered Alexis and logically, there would have been reinforcements and Alexis in person from Constantinople to help the seige. His desertion drew away vital reinforcement while Crusaders's number was dwindling because of hunger, thrust and violent death.

 

[Drakken]

So, Sergei... do you have other questions? We noblemen mods will be ready to fight each other to give you the best information!

Drakken

 

[unmerged(485)]

Several times during the crusading period the Hospitalers or Templars would refuse to participate in campaigns. The only one I recall off hand is when Amalric (don't remember which number) tried to invade Egypt. He had a truce with Egypt and the Templars refused to participate in the campaing because it would break the truce (or was it the Hospitalers?). Anyway there wre lots of this kind of thing going on in the Holy Land.

 

[unmerged(9428)]

First crusade:
Also you might argue that Baldwin of Boulogne's decision to leave the main force en route to Antioch as he chose his own way and ended up conquering Edessa. So he wasn't present at Antioch, Jerusalem or the first battle at Ascalon. But in hindsight he did set up flank protection (without having this intention) for the main crusader army advancing to Jerusalem and also for the newly conquered city of Antioch.
And Raymond of Toulouse was tricked twice by his brothers in arms, first Bohemund took Antioch from him and later Godfrey snatched Jerusalem from poor old Ray.

Second crusade:
The crusaders that lived in the holy land more or less "sabotaged" (with apathy more than actions) the european crusader army when they tried to take Damascus, an ally of Jerusalem. The newcomer christians often argued with the local christians as how to use the newcomer's forces. For example: when the Count of Flanders arrived with his army after the second crusade, the King of Jerusalem wanted to use it against Egypt but the count soundly refused. Obviously the kings of Jerusalem wanted to gain maximum profit out of these temporary armies. Especially Baldwin I excelled at this.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Havard
Well... would the Count of Blois' men have counted at all if Antioch hadn't been taken by treason? I think not...

Actually, his wife was so angry on him for deserting the first Crusade that he later was "forced" to take up the vows and go back to the Holy Land. He was killed in Ramla in 1102.

Norwich rightly says that "Not for nothing was she the daughter of the Conqueror"