Walter Sans-Avoir was killed: seven arrows were found embedded in his body. Albert of Aix records that the Turks suffered many casualties, but this seems unlikely. The Christian army panicked from the first moment of the battle, and a panicking army inflicts few casualties.
Some Christian soldiers were able to hide in the forests and mountains. About three thousand of them reached a nearby fortress on the seashore. This ancient fortress, long since abandoned, without roof or gateway,served them well, for they were able to build a gate by throwing up rubble and stones and stout leather shields to prevent the enemy from coming in. They had slingshots, bows, and lances, and they fought desperately. The Turks had their own way of dealing with a situation like this. Since the fortress had no roof, they fired heavy arrows into the air and these arrows had the effect of knives hurtling down on the defenders. Many Christians were killed but the greater number of them survived.
They survived because the siege of the fortress became quickly known in Constantinople, because the old fortress was on the seacoast, and because Peter the Hermit urged immediate assistance. The emperor ordered part of his fleet to go to their rescue. At midnight, while the fleet was on its way, the Turks quietly lifted the siege and stole away.
The army of Peter the Hermit was a flame that had been blown out. Of the vast numbers who set out there remained only the three thousand who were taken off the coast of Asia Minor by the emperorâs ships. The Crusade of the Poor was a total disaster.
If Peter the Hermit had shown himself to be incompetent militarily, he was nevertheless a legend in his own time. He went on to become a leader of the peasant militia that accompanied the army of the princes to Jerusalem, and was among the first to enter the city, although he returned to France soon afterward.
A few days after the disaster at Civetot, there arrived in Constantinople the first contingent of the army of the princes. Although the princes inevitably quarreled among themselves, they led armies that were disciplined, with clear lines of command, well trained and capable of dealing with the Turks on their own terms. To the princes went the victory denied to Peter the Hermitâs rabble army.
A Pride of
Princes
WHEN the medieval chroniclers set out the names of the great lords who led their armies on the Crusade, they usually began with Hugh, Count of Vermandois, who was the brother of the king of the Franks. William of Tyre calls him Hugh the Great, but he was a totally ineffective warrior, great only in his boasting, his presumption, and his love of finery. This caricature of a prince was placed first on the list only because he was the brother of a king who ruled over a large and important fragment of northern and central France.
He was not, however, the only brother of a king to set forth on the First Crusade. Robert, Duke of Normandy, was the son of William the Conqueror and the brother of King William Rufus, who ruled England ineffectively until the day when he was struck down by an unknown assailant in the New Forest. Robert was the first-born, but so exasperated his father by his rebelliousness and hot temper that he was denied the throne. He was called âCurthose,â which means âShort Boots,â an affectionate nickname for a man who was gregarious and mischievous and liked his creature comforts. He became grotesquely fat in his later years, but at the time of the Crusades he kept himself in good physical condition and on a few occasions he is known to have distinguished himself in battle, although he was far from being a natural leader.
Among the men who found their true vocation in the Crusades, and possessed a determination to carry through to the end, was Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse. He was also the most deeply committed. The Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, who grew very fond of him, regarded him as a man of great probity
Some Christian soldiers were able to hide in the forests and mountains. About three thousand of them reached a nearby fortress on the seashore. This ancient fortress, long since abandoned, without roof or gateway,served them well, for they were able to build a gate by throwing up rubble and stones and stout leather shields to prevent the enemy from coming in. They had slingshots, bows, and lances, and they fought desperately. The Turks had their own way of dealing with a situation like this. Since the fortress had no roof, they fired heavy arrows into the air and these arrows had the effect of knives hurtling down on the defenders. Many Christians were killed but the greater number of them survived.
They survived because the siege of the fortress became quickly known in Constantinople, because the old fortress was on the seacoast, and because Peter the Hermit urged immediate assistance. The emperor ordered part of his fleet to go to their rescue. At midnight, while the fleet was on its way, the Turks quietly lifted the siege and stole away.
The army of Peter the Hermit was a flame that had been blown out. Of the vast numbers who set out there remained only the three thousand who were taken off the coast of Asia Minor by the emperorâs ships. The Crusade of the Poor was a total disaster.
If Peter the Hermit had shown himself to be incompetent militarily, he was nevertheless a legend in his own time. He went on to become a leader of the peasant militia that accompanied the army of the princes to Jerusalem, and was among the first to enter the city, although he returned to France soon afterward.
A few days after the disaster at Civetot, there arrived in Constantinople the first contingent of the army of the princes. Although the princes inevitably quarreled among themselves, they led armies that were disciplined, with clear lines of command, well trained and capable of dealing with the Turks on their own terms. To the princes went the victory denied to Peter the Hermitâs rabble army.
A Pride of
Princes
WHEN the medieval chroniclers set out the names of the great lords who led their armies on the Crusade, they usually began with Hugh, Count of Vermandois, who was the brother of the king of the Franks. William of Tyre calls him Hugh the Great, but he was a totally ineffective warrior, great only in his boasting, his presumption, and his love of finery. This caricature of a prince was placed first on the list only because he was the brother of a king who ruled over a large and important fragment of northern and central France.
He was not, however, the only brother of a king to set forth on the First Crusade. Robert, Duke of Normandy, was the son of William the Conqueror and the brother of King William Rufus, who ruled England ineffectively until the day when he was struck down by an unknown assailant in the New Forest. Robert was the first-born, but so exasperated his father by his rebelliousness and hot temper that he was denied the throne. He was called âCurthose,â which means âShort Boots,â an affectionate nickname for a man who was gregarious and mischievous and liked his creature comforts. He became grotesquely fat in his later years, but at the time of the Crusades he kept himself in good physical condition and on a few occasions he is known to have distinguished himself in battle, although he was far from being a natural leader.
Among the men who found their true vocation in the Crusades, and possessed a determination to carry through to the end, was Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse. He was also the most deeply committed. The Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, who grew very fond of him, regarded him as a man of great probity
Similar Books
