Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:42:21.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

James A. Brundage
James A. Brundage*
Affiliation:
The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the First Crusade is, in large part, the history of mass movements of men. The deeds of any individual in the Crusade, even those of the major leaders, cannot be traced in their entirety. The part played by any individual in the Crusade can only be sketched in outline and even then, puzzling gaps in the record can be expected to show up as a matter of course. Since this is true of the tangible, external actions of the Crusading leaders, it is no great surprise to find the same thing true of their thoughts, attitudes, and plans. It is true enough, again, in this context that something can be done to characterize the attitudes of the masses of the Crusaders, as these attitudes are reflected by chroniclers, poets, and popular writers of various kinds. But to try to recover the personal thoughts and attitudes of one or another of the major leaders of the Crusade is a far more difficult problem. On a few topics, where attitudes may easily and unequivocally be reflected by external acts, it is possible to make a fairly sure estimate of the thoughts and beliefs of one or another of the Crusading princes. When one speculates on such subjects, the only conclusion which can be reached is that these questions are unanswerable or that answers to them can be deduced only with great hesitation and circumspection from data which do not bear directly upon the central question at all.

Type
Miscellany
Information
Traditio , Volume 16 , 1960 , pp. 380 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. the observations in a similar vein of John Andressohn, C., The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon (Bloomington, Ind. 1947) 7.Google Scholar

2 As, e.g., Paul Rousset has attempted to do in his stimulating monograph, Les Origines et les caractères de la première croisade (Neuchâtel 1945).Google Scholar

3 The best edition of these letters is Heinrich Hagenmeyer's Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes: die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100 (Innsbruck 1901) 138–140, 149-152 [this edition is hereafter cited as HE]. The letters have long been known. The earlier of them was first published by Bernier in his Histoire de Blois (Paris 1682) from a Chartres MS (now vanished). The same letter was later published from Vat. Reg. 1283 (481) in Mabillon's Museum Italicum I 2 (Paris 1724) 237-239. The text of this letter published in the Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaux (5 vols. Paris 1844-1895) 3.885-887 [this collection is hereafter cited as RHC Occ.]) is a conflation of Mabillon's and Bernier's text. The second letter was published in Luc d'Achéry's Spicilegium (first edition, 13 vols. [Paris 1655-1677] 4.257-258; second edition, 3 vols. [Paris 1723] 3.430) and in RHC Occ. 3.888-890 (this text is based upon that of d'Achéry which was taken from a now lost MS belonging to Adrianus Valesius). See HE 55, 76-77.Google Scholar

4 He is usually mentioned among the leaders of the Crusade, his desertion is normally commented upon, and he is then dismissed, sometimes with casual mention of his career in the Crusade of 1101. Thus, e.g., see Sir Runciman, Stephen, History of the Crusades (Cambridge 1951-1954) I 164-168, 238-241, II 20-24, 30-31, 76-78; René Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem (Paris 1934-1936) I 22-29, 100-102, 226-232; Adolf Waas, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge I (Fribourg 1956) 141; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la première croisade (Paris 1925) 148-149, 153-158, 201, 208.Google Scholar

5 HE 48-49; Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris 1733-1927) 9.265-266.Google Scholar

6 Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia ecclesiastica 5.11 (ed. Auguste Le Prevost, 5 vols. [Paris 1838-1855] II 393). The marriage produced four sons, William, Theobald, Henry and Stephen, the latter of whom became King of England.Google Scholar

7 Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos 1.15 (RHC Occ. 4.148).Google Scholar

8 For his relations with the Church, see Histoire littéraire 9.266-267; Ivo of Chartres, Epistolae 49, 86, PL 162.60-61, 107; Mabillon, J., Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Lucca 1739-45) 5.278; Mart, E.ène and Durand, U., Amplissima Collectio (Paris 1724-33) 1.621-623.Google Scholar

9 Guibert 1.15 (RHC Occ. 4.148); Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi 15 (RHC Occ. 3.616); Baldric of Dol, Historia de peregrinatione Jerosolimitana 2.2 (RHC Occ. 4.34); Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana 6.15 (RHC Occ. 3.815).Google Scholar

10 Thus, when he crossed the Sea of Marmora, which he had been warned was rough and turbulent, he remarked that the information was false and that the crossing was no worse than a journey on the Seine or Marne at home; HE 139. He briefly remarks on the size of two rivers, the Euphrates and the Orontes, in his second letter; HE 150-152. He observes, with a distinct overtone of annoyance, that the winter in Syria is very much like winter in the West and that complaints about suffering from the heat of the sun are absurd; HE 150. Other similar instances are cited by Hagenmeyer, HE 53.Google Scholar

11 Affection for Adèle is obvious in Stephen's letters: he addresses her as dulcissimae amicae, dilectioni tuae, mi dilecta, dulcissimae atque amabillissimae coniugi, carissima, etc.; HE 138, 149. The second letter is addressed to his carrissimis filiis and to cunctis fidelibus suis, tam maioribus quam minoribus, as well as to Adèle; HE 149. Stephen's naiveté is most strikingly shown in his first letter, where he relates, obviously with glowing pride, the reception accorded him by Alexius Comnenus in Constantinople; HE 138, and see below.Google Scholar

12 Ordericus Vitalis 9.1 (ed. Le Prevost III 480) simply states the fact: ‘Tunc Stephanus Blesensium comes, filius Teobaldi, comitis Carnotensis, qui gener erat Guillelmi, Anglorum regis, crucem Domini sumpsit, et peregre perrexit.’Google Scholar

13 Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 1.6.8 (ed. Hagenmeyer, Heinrich [Heidelberg 1913]) 159-160. Stephen's forces may be estimated at some 2,000 or 2,400 men, 250 or 300 of whom were mounted cavalry, the rest infantry. See the estimates of Runciman, History of the Crusades I 337, 339.Google Scholar

14 Fulcher 1.6.10-14 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 162-163).Google Scholar

15 Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon 2 (MGH SS 8.475).Google Scholar

16 For a discussion of their route, see Chalandon, , Histoire de la première croisade 150-151, and David, C. W., Robert Curthose , Duke of Normandy (Cambridge Mass. 1920) 90–96.Google Scholar

17 Fulcher 1.7.1 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 163-164).Google Scholar

18 Fulcher 1.7.1-3 (ibid. 164-166).Google Scholar

19 Fulcher 1.7.4 (ibid. 166-168); Ordericus Vitalis 9.4 (ed. Prevost III, Le 486); Charta Clementiae Comitissae Flandriae in HE 142-143.Google Scholar

20 Fulcher 1.7.5 (ed. cit. 168).Google Scholar

21 Fulcher 1.8.1-4 (ibid. 168-171).Google Scholar

22 Fulcher 1.8.5 (ibid. 171-172).Google Scholar

23 Fulcher 1.8.6-8 (ibid. 172-175).Google Scholar

24 Fulcher 1.8.9-9.1 (ibid. 175-177).Google Scholar

25 Fulcher 1.9.2-3 (ibid. 177-179); Anna Comnena, Alexiad 10.11.8 (ed. and tr. Leib, Bernard, S.J. [Paris 1937-1945] II 234).Google Scholar

26 HE 138-139.Google Scholar

27 See HE 227 n. 26, for a discussion of the date.Google Scholar

28 HE 139.Google Scholar

29 Fulcher 1.9.4-5 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 179-180).Google Scholar

30 Fulcher 1.10.1 (ibid. 181); Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum 2.8 (ed. and tr. Louis Bréhier [Paris 1924] 38); Robert the Monk 3.2 (RHC Occ. 3.726); Baldric of Dol 1.24 (RHC Occ. 4.27-28); Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana 2.21 (RHC Occ. 4.314).Google Scholar

31 HE 140.Google Scholar

32 HE 140.Google Scholar

33 HE 140.Google Scholar

34 Fulcher 1.11.1 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 189-190); Gesta Francorum 3.9 (ed. Bréhier 42-44); Ordericus Vitalis 9.8 (ed. Prevost III, Le 507-508); Baldric of Dol 2.1 (RHC Occ. 4.33); Albert of Aachen 9.38 (RHC Occ. 4.328-329).Google Scholar

35 Ordericus Vitalis 9.8 (ed. Prevost III, Le 507-508).Google Scholar

36 Fulcher of Chartres 1.11.1-10, 12.1-6 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 189-199; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem 4 (RHC Occ. 3.240-241); Gesta Francorum 3.9 (ed. Br, éhier 44-50). See also C. Smail, R., Crusading Warfare 1097-1193 (Cambridge 1956) 168–170.Google Scholar

37 Ordericus Vitalis 9.8 (ed. Prevost III, Le 510); Fulcher 1.11.10 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 197).Google Scholar

38 Fulcher 1.13.1-5 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 199-203); Gesta Francorum 1.10 (ed. Bréhier 52-56).Google Scholar

39 Fulcher 1.14 1-2, 15.1 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 203-206, 215-217; Gesta Francorum 4.10-11, 5.12 (ed. Br, éhier 56-66).Google Scholar

40 Albert of Aachen 2.38 (RHC Occ. 4.366); Ralph of Caen 49 (RHC Occ. 3.642).Google Scholar

41 HE 149: ‘nam cuncti principes nostri communi consilio totius exercitus me dominum suum atque omnium actuum suorum prouisorem atque gubernatorem, etiam me nolente, usque ad tempus [29 March 1098] constituerunt.’ Albert of Aachen 2.23 (RHC Occ. 4.316) calls Stephen the caput et primus consilio in omni exercitu. Guibert of Nogent 1.15 (RHC Occ. 4. 148) says that ‘eum [Stephanum] tota illa sancta militia, quum in procinctu contra Turcos existeret, dictatorem sibi ac magistrum efficerit.’ See also Guibert 5.25 (RHC Occ. 4.199). The Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Bréhier 140) alludes to the matter in passing, as does Raymond of Aguilers 11 (RHC Occ. 4.258). Nowhere is there any explicit mention of the time at which Stephen was appointed to this position, but Albert of Aachen inserts his statement cited above in his description of the armies at Nicaea, and Stephen himself seems to imply in his second letter to Adèle that his elevation to command took place before the army reached Antioch: at any rate he speaks of his position before talking about the siege of Antioch. The powers which he exercised are nowhere clearly defined. See also the cooperative History of the Crusades (ed. Kenneth Setton, M. [Philadelphia 1955-]) I 277, and Runciman, History of the Crusades I 232 n. 1.Google Scholar

42 HE 150.Google Scholar

43 HE 150; Hagenmeyer enumerates the seven battles in HE 280-281 n. 28. Ralph of Caen 53, 55 (RHC Occ. 3.646-647), also attests that Stephen acquitted himself with honor in various skirmishes at Antioch.Google Scholar

44 HE 149.Google Scholar

45 Fulcher 1.15.11-12; 15; 16.1-2 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 221-226); Gesta Francorum 6.14 (ed. Br, éhier 76).Google Scholar

46 Fulcher 1.15.16; 16.3 (ed. Hagenmeyer 224, 226); Raymond of Aguilers 6 (RHC Occ. 3.245).Google Scholar

47 Gesta Francorum 6.16-17 (ed. Br, éhier 80-82).Google Scholar

48 Fulcher 1.15.15; 16.6 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 223-224, 228); Gesta Francorum 6.15-16 (ed. Bréhier 76-80).Google Scholar

49 HE 152.Google Scholar

50 Fulcher 1.16.7 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 228).Google Scholar

51 Runciman, Although, History of the Crusades I 232-233, believes that he was (see also Runciman in Setton, ed. History of the Crusades I 317), there is no evidence to prove it.Google Scholar

52 Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Brehier 140); Albert of Aachen 4.13 (RHC Occ. 4.398) says that 4,000 men followed him to Alexandretta. See also Guibert of Nogent 5.25 (RHC Occ. 4.199); Ordericus Vitalis 4.9 (ed. Prevost III, Le 537); Baldric of Dol 2.19 (RHC Occ. 4.55); Ralph of Caen 58 (RHC Occ. 3.649); Raymond of Aguilers 11 (RHC Occ. 3.258); Robert the Monk 6.15 (RHC Occ. 3.815).Google Scholar

53 Fulcher 1.16.7 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 228).Google Scholar

54 Albert of Aachen 4.13 (RHC Occ. 4.398); Guibert of Nogent, Ordericus Vitalis, Balderic of Dol, and the Gesta Francorum also cite illness as a reason.Google Scholar

55 Raymond of Aguilers 11 (RHC Occ. 3.258); Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Bréhier 140).Google Scholar

56 Ralph of Caen 58 (RHC Occ. 3.649).Google Scholar

57 Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Bréhier 140).Google Scholar

58 Runciman, , History of the Crusades I 341, while admitting that no actual evidence exists upon the subject, estimated Kerbogha's army at about 30,000 men. On his calculations, Stephen's forces, before he left Europe, may have been 2,000 or 2,400 men. See n. 13 above.Google Scholar

59 Raymond of Aguilers 11 (RHC Occ. 3.258); Ralph of Caen 72 (RHC Occ. 3.658-659); Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Bréhier 140); Robert the Monk 6.15 (RHC Occ. 3.815-816); Albert of Aachen 4.37, 39 (RHC Occ. 4.414-415, 417); Ordericus Vitalis 9.10 (ed. Provost III, L 551-553); Baldric of Dol 3.12 (RHC Occ. 4.71).Google Scholar

60 Albert of Aachen 4.37, 39-41 (RHC Occ. 4.414-415, 417-418); Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Brehier, 140-146); Baldric of Dol 3.12-13 (RHC Occ. 4.71-73); Robert the Monk 6.15 (RHC Occ. 3.815-816); Ordericus Vitalis 9.10 (ed. Provost III, Le 551-553); Alexiad 11.6.1-6 (ed. III, Leib 27-30); Ralph of Caen 72 (RHC Occ. 3.658-659). The Gesta Francorum and the accounts derived from it insert at this point an account of the alleged lamentations of Bohemund's brother, Guido, over the report of the fall of Antioch. Bréhier belives — and I agree — that this account is an interpolation in the primitive text of the Gesta. See Bréhier's, introduction to his edition of the Gesta, vii. The long speeches ascribed to Guido are not in the style of the anonymous author of this narrative and this section of the Gesta probably dates from the period of ill-feeling between Alexius and Bohemund. It may, in fact, represent a propaganda device inserted here with the intention of arousing Western readers of the Gesta against the perfidous Greeks. The lament-of-Guido episode in Gesta Francorum 9.27 (ed. Bréhier 142-144) may also be found, with some elaborations and variations, in Guibert of Nogent 5.27-28 (RHC Occ. 4.201), Robert the Monk 6.16 (RHC Occ. 3.816-817), Baldric of Dol 3.12-13 (RHC Occ. 4.71-73), Ordericus Vitalis 9.10 (ed. Le Prevost III 553) and Ralph of Caen 72 (RHC Occ. 3.658-659).Google Scholar

61 Baldric of Dol 3.20 (RHC Occ. 4.80): ‘Imperator, ira aestuans, prosperitati Francorum invidens, sequi Stephanum comitem praecepit; et, si capi posset, ad se reduci mandavit. Sed Blesensis comes jam mane festinus transierat, et per Italiam repatriaverat.’Google Scholar

62 Ordericus Vitalis 10.11 (ed. Provost IV, Le 67-68).Google Scholar

63 See HE 142, 148-149.Google Scholar

64 Ordericus Vitalis 10.19 (ed. Le Provost IV 118-119).Google Scholar

65 Ordericus Vitalis 10.11, 19 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 67-68, 118-119); Albert of Aachen 8.6 (RHC Occ. 4.563); Fulcher 2.16.1 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 429); Bartolf of Nangis, Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnantium 56 (RHC Occ. 3.532).Google Scholar

66 Guibert of Nogent 7.24 (RHC Occ. 4.243); Albert of Aachen 8.7 (RHC Occ. 4.563); Alexiad 11.8.2 (ed. III, Leib 36).Google Scholar

67 Bohemund was captured in July 1100 by Gümüshtigin, the Dānishmendid emir of Sebastia, who held him captive at Niksar in Pontus. See Fulcher of Chartres 1.35.1-4 (ed. Hagenmeyer 343-347); Albert of Aachen 7.27 (RHC Occ. 4.524); Setton, History of the Crusades I 354; Runciman, History of the Crusades I 321-322.Google Scholar

68 Albert of Aachen 8.7-8 (RHC Occ. 4.563-564).Google Scholar

69 Albert of Aachen 8.8-13 (RHC Occ. 4.564-567); Guibert of Nogent 7.24 (RHC Occ. 4.243-344); Alexiad 11.8.2-3 (ed. III, Leib 26-37); Setton, History of the Crusades I 355-356; Runciman, History of the Crusades II 21-23.Google Scholar

70 Albert of Aachen 8.13-24 (RHC Occ. 4.561-574); Alexiad 11.8.3-5 (ed. III, Leib 37-39); Fulcher of Chartres 2.16.2-6 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 430-433); Setton, History of the Crusades I 356-358; Runciman History of the Crusades II 23-25.Google Scholar

71 Raymond of St.-Gilles was separated from the others en route and landed at Tarsus, where he was arrested and turned over to Tancred. Raymond was released after a short time, however, at the insistance of the other Crusaders. Albert of Aachen 7,42 (RHC Occ. 4.582-583).Google Scholar

72 Albert of Aachen 8.41 (RHC Occ. 4.582).Google Scholar

73 Albert oí Aachen 8.42-45, 9.1 (RHC Occ. IV 582-584, 591); Fulcher 2.17.1-5 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 433-435).Google Scholar

74 Fulcher 2.17.3-4 (ed. Hagenmeyer 437-438); Albert of Aachen 9.2 (RHC Occ. 4. 591-592); Ordericus Vitalis 10.20 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 131-132).Google Scholar

75 Fulcher 2.18.5-9 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 438-440); Ordericus Vitalis 10.21 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 132-133); Albert of Aachen 9.3-4 (RHC Occ. 4.592-593); Bartolf of Nangis 58 (RHC Occ. 3.533-535).Google Scholar

76 Albert of Aachen 9.5-6 (RHC Occ. 4.593-594); Fulcher 2.19.1-5 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 441-444); Ordericus Vitalis 10.21 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 132-135).Google Scholar

77 Albert of Aachen 9.6 (RHC Occ. 4.594) says that only one knight, a servant of the Byzantine Emperor, was spared; Ibn Al-Athir, Kamel Altevarykh (RHC, Historiens orientaux 1.215) says that 400 prisoners were executed and that 300 others were sent as captives to Egypt; Fulcher 2.19.2 (ed. Hagenmeyer, 443) says that some were slain and some were taken captive, but does not refer to the truce agreement; Ordericus Vitalis 10.21 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 135-137) says that the Christians captured at Ramleh were sent to Ascalon and that the more exalted of them (sublimiores) were lost, and that nothing certain was known of their fate.Google Scholar

78 For a discussion of this, see de Riant, Comte, ‘La Legende du martyre en Orient de Thiemon, archevêque de Salzbourg (28 septembre 1102),’ Revue des questions historiques 39 (1886) 218–237, especially 229-231. In summary the stories are these: Fulcher 2.19.4 (ed. Hagenmeyer, ) says that Stephen was killed in the battle of May 18; Ordericus Vitalis 10.21 (ed. Prevost IV, Le 137), and Guibert of Nogent 7.24 (RHC Occ. 4.245) are uncertain about the date and circumstances of Stephen's death; Albert of Aachen 9.6 (RHC Occ. 4.594) is certain that Stephen was beheaded at Ramleh; and the Gesta dominorum Ambasensium (cited by Riant in ‘La Legende du martyre,’ 230-231) states that Stephen and others were shot to death with arrows at Ascalon. The most probable account would place his death at Ascalon on May 19, 1102, the day after the surrender of the defenders of Ramleh. The date of his death is confirmed by the necrology printed in the Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Chartres (ed. de Lepinois, E. and Merlet, Lucien [Chartres 1862-1865]) III 115.Google Scholar

79 Mabillon, Annales O.S.B. 5.86, 410.Google Scholar