First Crusade

[spinwizard]

Anyone know what nations were involved in the first crusade, who they were fighting against and who their and their enemys leaders were?

Thanks

[The Weird One]

Is this in any way shape or form school-related?

and try wikipedia

[spinwizard]

Is this in any way shape or form school-related?

and try wikipedia

Nope, it is for a tourny I am struggleing to find it on wilki

[Syzygy]

From some website or other...

The conflict between spiritual and material aims, apparent from the first, became increasingly serious. The organized host of the crusade was preceded in the spring of 1096 by several undisciplined hordes of French and German peasants. Walter Sans Avoir (Walter the Penniless) led a French group, which passed peacefully through Germany and Hungary but sacked the district of Belgrade. The Bulgarians retaliated, but Walter reached Constantinople by midsummer. He was joined there by the followers of Peter the Hermit, whose progress had been similar. A German group started off by robbing and massacring the Jews in the Rhenish cities and later so provoked the king of Hungary that he attacked and dispersed them.

The bands that had reached Constantinople were speedily transported by Alexius I to Asia Minor, where they were defeated by the Turks. The survivors either joined later bands or returned to Europe. Alexius began to take fright at the proportions the movement was assuming. When, late in 1096, the first of the princes, Hugh of Vermandois, a brother of Philip I of France, reached Constantinople, the emperor persuaded him to take an oath of fealty. Godfrey of Bouillon and his brothers Eustace and Baldwin (later Baldwin I of Jerusalem), Raymond IV of Toulouse, Bohemond I, Tancred, Robert of Normandy, and Robert II of Flanders arrived early in 1097. At Antioch all except Tancred and Raymond (who promised only to refrain from hostilities against the Byzantines) took the oath to Alexius, which bound them to accept Alexius as overlord of their conquests. Bohemond's subsequent breach of the oath was to cause endless wrangling.

The armies crossed to Asia Minor, took Nicaea (1097), defeated the Turks at Dorylaeum, and, after a seven-month siege, took Antioch (1098) and slaughtered nearly all of its inhabitants, including its Christians. The campaign was completed in July, 1099, by the taking of Jerusalem, where they massacred the city's Muslims and Jews. The election of Godfrey of Bouillon as defender of the Holy Sepulcher marked the beginning of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (see Jerusalem, Latin Kingdom of). A Latin patriarch was elected. Other fiefs, theoretically dependent on Jerusalem, were created as the crusade's leaders moved to expand their domains. These were the counties of Edessa (Baldwin) and Tripoli (Raymond) and the principality of Antioch (Bohemond).

The First Crusade thus ended in victory. It was the only crusade that achieved more than ephemeral results. Until the ultimate fall (1291) of the Latin Kingdom, the brunt of the fighting in the Holy Land fell on the Latin princes and their followers and on the great military orders, the Knights Hospitalers and the Knights Templars, that arose out of the Crusades.

Edit for bolded goodness.

[spinwizard]

Thanks

[Syzygy]

Sure, I have the feeling there are others involved to a lesser degree that weren't mentioned though.

[spinwizard]

Sure, I have the feeling there are others involved to a lesser degree that weren't mentioned though.

yep

[Syzygy]

I'll scratch around a bit more.

[Syzygy]

Bingo.

FIRST CRUSADE (1097-1099)
Leaders:

* Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine
* Baldwin of Bouillon, of Lorraine, [Godfrey's brother]
* Raymund, Count of Toulouse, leader of Provencals
* Bishop Adhemar, Provencals
* Bohemund of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
* Tancred of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
* Hugh of Vermandois [brother of King Philippe I of France]
* Robert 'Courthose' of Normandy [brother of King William II of England]
* Stephen, Count of Blois
* Robert, Count of Flanders

Opponents:

* Seljuk Sultan Kijid Arslan
* Vizier of Antioch, Yagi-sian
* Emir of Mosul, Kerbogha

Strength - 150,000
The immediate outcome of Pope Urban II's appeal was the generation of a religious fervor which swept warrior and civil classes alike. The result was something different from what either pope or Byzantine emperor had in mind. The first to turn desire into action were the common people, whose lack of either property to look after or military understanding to counsel preparation enabled them to take up the cross on the spot. Already within two months of the speech, which was transmitted throughout Europe by wandering preachers, five large bodies of common folk had coalesced under various self-appointed leaders and were moving from the Rhine across Bavaria, down the Danube to Constantinople. Three of these mobs were destroyed in Hungary due to their own wild excesses. Two reached Constantinople and crossed into Asia Minor, only to be completely destroyed by the Seljuks. This so-called advanced, undiscplined rabble is sometimes called 'the Peoples Crusade'.
The real military forces took longer to assemble and organize. Beginning in March 1096, as individual knights and members of medieval hosts, they marched and sailed from throughout France and the Low Countries toward Constantinople, arriving there between December 1096 and May 1097.
The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, had a problem with the arrival of such a host of foreign troops. He had two alternatives. He could have agreed to their being independent and allies. In this case they might have been offered the chance to conquer lands beyond his empire for themselves. But instead he demanded that they swear to be his vassals and consider that all the lands they crossed be former territories regained for the Empire. This unrealistic policy had adverse results for both the Empire and the Crusaders.
The situation in Asia Minor and Syria in 1097 was favorable to the crusaders. The Moslem rulers were even more disunited and engaged in warfare among themselves than the Christians were.
The Seljuk sultans had only recently completed the military occupation of the area. There were Seljuk garrisons in larger towns like Nicaea and Antioch, and there were some scattered Seljuk armies in the countryside. However the population was mostly hostile to their conquerors. Over wide areas there were no armed forces in being. Therefore, when the crusaders captured a town such as Nicaea and defeated the Seljuk field army at Dorylaeum, their way was clear through Asia Minor. They could count on the neutrality or assistance of the population (an important matter for logistics). They could also count on assistance from the remaining Christian country, Armenia, located in south east Asia Minor. Also, the various Seljuk commanders were more or less autonomous, without strong centralized control, and ambitious and independent-minded.
The last great Seljuk emperor, Malik Shah, died in 1092 leaving a disunited domain. The new sultan, Barkiarok, ruled in Baghdad from 1094 to 1104. But in Asia Minor Kilij Arslan ruled independently as Sultan of Iconium, while the whole of Syria was also independent. Syria was also divided by dissensions within and assailed by the Fatimite caliph of Egypt. In 1095 two brothers, Ridwan and Dekaa, ruled in Allepo and Damascus, but they were at war with each other and the ruler of Antioch, Yagisian, was also involved. Ridwan and Yagisian were only stopped in an attack on Damascus by news of the approach of the crusaders.
Meanwhile, the Fatimites were taking advantage of the divisions. The Fatimite Caliph of Cairo was head of the Shiite sect, while the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad was head of the Sunnites. The Fatimites took advantage of the disruptions and the advance of the crusaders to conquer Jerusalem in August 1098. The disunion of the Syrian emirs and the division between Abbasids and Fatimites, helped make possible the conquest of the Holy City and the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. When a power arose in Mosul about 1130, which was able to unify Syria; and the unified Syria was in turn united to Egypt under Saladin, then the Christian kingdom was doomed.
Siege of Antioch
By May 1097 the crusaders crossed the Bosporus and entered the area of Kilij Arslan. Their first operation was the siege of Nicaea, defended by a Seljuk garrison. With Byzantine aid they captured it in June. Alexius took possession of the town and rewarded the crusading princes. After taking Nicaea, the crusaders had to deal with the Turkish field army. In a long and obstinate encounter it was defeated at Dorylaeum on June 1st. After that, the Crusaders marched unmolested in a southeasterly direction to Heraclea. Here Tancred, followed by Baldwin, turned into Cilicia and began to take possession of the Cilician towns, especially Tarsus. The main army turned to the north east toward Caesarea in order to get into contact with the Armenian princes. Then the crusaders marched southward again to Antioch. At Marash, half way between Caesarea and Antioch, Baldwin, who had meanwhile taken Tarsus from Tancred, rejoined the forces. He soon left again and struck eastward towards Edessa to found a principality there. All this independent action presaged future trouble among the crusader leaders. At the end of October the crusaders came to Antioch, held by Yagi-sian, and began the siege of the city. This lasted from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098. The great leader of the siege was naturally Bohemund. He repelled attempts at relief made by Dekak on December 31, 1097 and Ridwan on February 9, 1098. He put the besiegers in touch with the Genoese ships at St. Simeon, the port of Antioch. This brought much needed supplies. The city was finally taken by treachery from the garrison. Meanwhile, a relief army under Kerbogha of Mosul was only three-days away. The crusaders were no sooner in the city than they were besieged by Kerbogha for 25 days. The crusaders believed they found the Holy Lance and with this omen they went forth from the city to defeat Kerbogha in battle on June 28.
After this success, largely brought by Count Raymund of Toulouse, the crusader army moved south along the coast.
Bohemund remained in Antioch and Raymund besieged Arca from February to May of 1099 and attempted to capture Tripoli. With Raymund and Bohemund feuding, Godfrey of Bouillon took the leadership and pressed on to Jerusalem. The army arrived there in June; and, after a relatively brief siege, took the Holy City on 15 July, bringing the formal crusade to an end.

Too lazy to bold it all.

[spinwizard]

Bingo.

FIRST CRUSADE (1097-1099)
Leaders:

* Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine
* Baldwin of Bouillon, of Lorraine, [Godfrey's brother]
* Raymund, Count of Toulouse, leader of Provencals
* Bishop Adhemar, Provencals
* Bohemund of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
* Tancred of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
* Hugh of Vermandois [brother of King Philippe I of France]
* Robert 'Courthose' of Normandy [brother of King William II of England]
* Stephen, Count of Blois
* Robert, Count of Flanders

Opponents:

* Seljuk Sultan Kijid Arslan
* Vizier of Antioch, Yagi-sian
* Emir of Mosul, Kerbogha

Strength - 150,000
The immediate outcome of Pope Urban II's appeal was the generation of a religious fervor which swept warrior and civil classes alike. The result was something different from what either pope or Byzantine emperor had in mind. The first to turn desire into action were the common people, whose lack of either property to look after or military understanding to counsel preparation enabled them to take up the cross on the spot. Already within two months of the speech, which was transmitted throughout Europe by wandering preachers, five large bodies of common folk had coalesced under various self-appointed leaders and were moving from the Rhine across Bavaria, down the Danube to Constantinople. Three of these mobs were destroyed in Hungary due to their own wild excesses. Two reached Constantinople and crossed into Asia Minor, only to be completely destroyed by the Seljuks. This so-called advanced, undiscplined rabble is sometimes called 'the Peoples Crusade'.
The real military forces took longer to assemble and organize. Beginning in March 1096, as individual knights and members of medieval hosts, they marched and sailed from throughout France and the Low Countries toward Constantinople, arriving there between December 1096 and May 1097.
The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, had a problem with the arrival of such a host of foreign troops. He had two alternatives. He could have agreed to their being independent and allies. In this case they might have been offered the chance to conquer lands beyond his empire for themselves. But instead he demanded that they swear to be his vassals and consider that all the lands they crossed be former territories regained for the Empire. This unrealistic policy had adverse results for both the Empire and the Crusaders.
The situation in Asia Minor and Syria in 1097 was favorable to the crusaders. The Moslem rulers were even more disunited and engaged in warfare among themselves than the Christians were.
The Seljuk sultans had only recently completed the military occupation of the area. There were Seljuk garrisons in larger towns like Nicaea and Antioch, and there were some scattered Seljuk armies in the countryside. However the population was mostly hostile to their conquerors. Over wide areas there were no armed forces in being. Therefore, when the crusaders captured a town such as Nicaea and defeated the Seljuk field army at Dorylaeum, their way was clear through Asia Minor. They could count on the neutrality or assistance of the population (an important matter for logistics). They could also count on assistance from the remaining Christian country, Armenia, located in south east Asia Minor. Also, the various Seljuk commanders were more or less autonomous, without strong centralized control, and ambitious and independent-minded.
The last great Seljuk emperor, Malik Shah, died in 1092 leaving a disunited domain. The new sultan, Barkiarok, ruled in Baghdad from 1094 to 1104. But in Asia Minor Kilij Arslan ruled independently as Sultan of Iconium, while the whole of Syria was also independent. Syria was also divided by dissensions within and assailed by the Fatimite caliph of Egypt. In 1095 two brothers, Ridwan and Dekaa, ruled in Allepo and Damascus, but they were at war with each other and the ruler of Antioch, Yagisian, was also involved. Ridwan and Yagisian were only stopped in an attack on Damascus by news of the approach of the crusaders.
Meanwhile, the Fatimites were taking advantage of the divisions. The Fatimite Caliph of Cairo was head of the Shiite sect, while the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad was head of the Sunnites. The Fatimites took advantage of the disruptions and the advance of the crusaders to conquer Jerusalem in August 1098. The disunion of the Syrian emirs and the division between Abbasids and Fatimites, helped make possible the conquest of the Holy City and the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. When a power arose in Mosul about 1130, which was able to unify Syria; and the unified Syria was in turn united to Egypt under Saladin, then the Christian kingdom was doomed.
Siege of Antioch
By May 1097 the crusaders crossed the Bosporus and entered the area of Kilij Arslan. Their first operation was the siege of Nicaea, defended by a Seljuk garrison. With Byzantine aid they captured it in June. Alexius took possession of the town and rewarded the crusading princes. After taking Nicaea, the crusaders had to deal with the Turkish field army. In a long and obstinate encounter it was defeated at Dorylaeum on June 1st. After that, the Crusaders marched unmolested in a southeasterly direction to Heraclea. Here Tancred, followed by Baldwin, turned into Cilicia and began to take possession of the Cilician towns, especially Tarsus. The main army turned to the north east toward Caesarea in order to get into contact with the Armenian princes. Then the crusaders marched southward again to Antioch. At Marash, half way between Caesarea and Antioch, Baldwin, who had meanwhile taken Tarsus from Tancred, rejoined the forces. He soon left again and struck eastward towards Edessa to found a principality there. All this independent action presaged future trouble among the crusader leaders. At the end of October the crusaders came to Antioch, held by Yagi-sian, and began the siege of the city. This lasted from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098. The great leader of the siege was naturally Bohemund. He repelled attempts at relief made by Dekak on December 31, 1097 and Ridwan on February 9, 1098. He put the besiegers in touch with the Genoese ships at St. Simeon, the port of Antioch. This brought much needed supplies. The city was finally taken by treachery from the garrison. Meanwhile, a relief army under Kerbogha of Mosul was only three-days away. The crusaders were no sooner in the city than they were besieged by Kerbogha for 25 days. The crusaders believed they found the Holy Lance and with this omen they went forth from the city to defeat Kerbogha in battle on June 28.
After this success, largely brought by Count Raymund of Toulouse, the crusader army moved south along the coast.
Bohemund remained in Antioch and Raymund besieged Arca from February to May of 1099 and attempted to capture Tripoli. With Raymund and Bohemund feuding, Godfrey of Bouillon took the leadership and pressed on to Jerusalem. The army arrived there in June; and, after a relatively brief siege, took the Holy City on 15 July, bringing the formal crusade to an end.

You are a gennius M8! *High Five*

[spinwizard]

Shall I do countrys or regions (france or flander, normandy...ect.)

[Syzygy]

Hmm... Maybe regions.

[spinwizard]

Hmm... Maybe regions.

yes probebly...

Regions-
Lorraine- Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine
Toulouse- Raymund, Count of Toulouse, leader of Provencals
Provencals- Bishop Adhemar, Provencals
Sicily- Bohemund of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
Vermandios- Hugh of Vermandois [brother of King Philippe I of France]
Normandy- Robert 'Courthose' of Normandy [brother of King William II of England]
Blois- Stephen, Count of Blois
Flanders- Robert, Count of Flanders
French Pesants
German Pesents
Brizantines

TURKS

Where is Provencals ?

[Syzygy]

It's Southern France. I'm sure.

[Guiscard]

Hmm... Maybe regions.

yes probebly...

Regions-
Lorraine- Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine
Toulouse- Raymund, Count of Toulouse, leader of Provencals
Provencals- Bishop Adhemar, Provencals
Sicily- Bohemund of Otranto, Normans of Sicily
Vermandios- Hugh of Vermandois [brother of King Philippe I of France]
Normandy- Robert 'Courthose' of Normandy [brother of King William II of England]
Blois- Stephen, Count of Blois
Flanders- Robert, Count of Flanders
French Pesants
German Pesents
Brizantines

TURKS

Where is Provencals ?

Crusading history is my job

We have an earlier failed attempt led by Peter the Hermit made up of mostly lower class troops from north eastern France (e.g. Lorraine and and Champagne as well as the Rhineland). They also picked up pilgrims in Cologne and southern Germany.

Then we have the Crusade proper.

First to depart was Godfrey de Bouilon who led Lorrainers, troops from northern France and some Germans. He was rich, powerful and accompanied by a considerable entourage, as well as his brother Baldwin of Boulogne and Baldwin of Bourq. That was one party.

Count Hugh of Vermandois set out slightly later but reached constantinople sooner because he was leading a smaller contingent. Mainly Franks.

Bohemund of Taranto (not Tarantino, a mistake with which I have unfailing managed to embarrass myself in countless seminars and conferences) led the Normans from southern Italy. He was accompanied by Tancred. The Nomans were perhaps the most tightly controlled and militarily skilled force, as they were used to campaigning abroad after years of assaults on Byzantine territory. Remember that these troops were from southern Italy, not Normandy in France. There were French Normans traveling in other contingents, however. Incidentally, Bohemund was the son of my namesake and avatar, Robert Guiscard.

Next we have Raymond of Toulouse, who led the largest and most rowdy contingent. This was made up mostly of Burgundians and Pronvencals (Provence is in southern France, the area surrounding Marseille and Nice). He was the richest and probably the politically most powerful leader of the crusade, and it was with this contingent that Bishop Adhmer of Le-Puy, the representative of the Pope, travelled. Adhmer wasn't a leader in his own right, he would never have commanded troops, but he was probably the most important religious figure.

We also have Count Robert II of Flanders, Duke Robert of Normandy and Count Stephen of Blois, who had smaller retinues but met up with the crusade as a whole in Constantinople.



Now we have the opponants, as it were.

This is a complicated subject, but I'll give you the easier version:

We have the Turks in Asia Minor (Turkey). They had migrated from central Asia and represent more a network of nomadic tribes than a proper kingdom.

Secondly we have the Sunni Caliphate ruled from Baghdad, which was sort of the northern Muslim kingdom (i.e. between where Turkey ends and Jerusalem). They were in decline, but still a force to be reckoned with.

Thirdly we have the Fatimid caliphate ruled from Egypt, who controlled the southern half of the Muslim world. The Fatamids and the Baghdad Caliphate meet at Jerusalem in a sort of no-mans land.

Essentially, the Muslims were far from united. There were less important rulers and little kingdoms but those were the main three.



Finally we have Byzantium, ruled from Constantinople. One of the attempts at reasoning behind the crusade was that they were there to help recover lost Byzantine land. The Byzantines were Orthodox Christian, and had controlled Asia Minor and a lot of the Muslim land in the Levant. In this period they are confined to a bit of land around Constantinople (now Istanbul) and very little else. They were on the 'side' of the Crusaders, nominally, but they represent their own political will, own aims and goals and would certainly consider military action against the Christians if they failed to relinquish what they saw as their territory.

I'd propose you break it down like that.

[Syzygy]

Go Guiscard! Nice.

[Guiscard]

Oh, and as for rulers:

Fatimids: al-Musta'li bi-llah

Abbasids (at Baghdad): Al-Mustazhir

Byzantines: Alexios I Komnenos

the Turks didn't really have a leader as such, they were too disparate, but Rukn ad-Din Barkiyaruq (actually Abu al-Muzaffar Rukn ud-Din Barkyaruq bin Malikšah) was the Seljuk sultan at the time, which is probably the nearest thing. If you want a nicer title you can just as easily use Seljuk Turks instead of your plain old Turks.

[spinwizard]

WOW...thats amazing...

thanks

[Guiscard]

No problem.

[muy_thaiguy]

And to think this came from my idea for a Spin's tourney.

[spinwizard]

And to think this came from my idea for a Spin's tourney.

I have learnt alot

[Knight of Orient]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

[Guiscard]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

I'd be very careful using the terms 'France' 'England' or 'Germany' (especially Germany, due to the fractured nature of the HRE)... The first crusade cannot really be seen as a 'state-sponsored' exercise. There were no monarchs or 'national' commitments, just nobles and their entourages who took the cross of their own accord.

And the idea that the Germans, English and 'the rest' followed after the capture of Jerusalem is a little awry too... All were part of the main thrust of the crusade.

[muy_thaiguy]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

I'd be very careful using the terms 'France' 'England' or 'Germany' (especially Germany, due to the fractured nature of the HRE)... The first crusade cannot really be seen as a 'state-sponsored' exercise. There were no monarchs or 'national' commitments, just nobles and their entourages who took the cross of their own accord.

And the idea that the Germans, English and 'the rest' followed after the capture of Jerusalem is a little awry too... All were part of the main thrust of the crusade.

Yeah, it's more like Normans, though English I think would work for this case, some of the Armenians once the Europeans left the Byzantine Empire, Germans I would say, because in a book I read that talked about the first crusade, it distinctly said Germans.

[Guiscard]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

I'd be very careful using the terms 'France' 'England' or 'Germany' (especially Germany, due to the fractured nature of the HRE)... The first crusade cannot really be seen as a 'state-sponsored' exercise. There were no monarchs or 'national' commitments, just nobles and their entourages who took the cross of their own accord.

And the idea that the Germans, English and 'the rest' followed after the capture of Jerusalem is a little awry too... All were part of the main thrust of the crusade.

Yeah, it's more like Normans, though English I think would work for this case, some of the Armenians once the Europeans left the Byzantine Empire, Germans I would say, because in a book I read that talked about the first crusade, it distinctly said Germans.

You miss my point. Germans and French are perfectly fine. Germany and France, as terms for the kingdoms as a whole, are not. None of the European monarchs took the cross, nor did they commit their countries as a whole. It was simply a collection of Nobles and their entourages.

Germany didn't go on crusade in the same manner Germany went to war in 1939. German nobles and their entourages joined the crusade of their own accord, and were in no way representative of 'Germany' as a whole.