return to Unit 1

The First Crusade

For Discussion

These questions are intended to help you with the readings. They are not intended to make it so you don't have to come up with your own questions and comments. Rather, they are here because there are certain aspects of each reading that I wish to emphasize.

Nota bene: many of the sources in the Medieval Sourcebook were scanned from physical books. The OCR software generally got the words right, but you will find numerous mistakes, such as "bad" where "had" is obviously meant. Most of the time, though, the correct word is easy to figure out. Try not to be distracted by this, but don't hesitate to ask if there's something that seems important but ambiguous.

Council of Clermont

There are five versions of Urban's speech gathered here. The most obvious question is: how do they differ?

A second, closely related question is: why do they differ? More specifically, are the differences significant or are they trivial? What can we learn from them?

Who wrote each account? Not the name, but what sort of person was each (cleric, knight, layman, eyewitness, etc.)? Look beyond just the notes provided in the texts. See what you can find out about these five chroniclers. Does this help you to understand the texts themselves?

Take a look at the structure of Urban's speech in each version. Outline it. Is the structure of the speech the same in each case? You might find it easier to begin with the shortest version and work your way up to the longest.

The five chroniclers are what others say Urban said, but at the end of these documents is a letter from Urban himself. Does the letter confirm the chroniclers, or does it deviate in significant ways?

Peter the Hermit

You can skip the version (#2) by William of Tyre.

Take a look at the activities of Walter Sans-Avoir, Folkmar and Gottschalk. What parallels do you see? How would you distinguish them from people like Tancred or Baldwin?

The doings of Count Emico are among the most notorious of all the Crusaders, though few know his name. When you hear reports of Jews being murdered during the Crusades, most of the time it will be his actions that will be cited. What is the attitude of the chroniclers toward him? How did the townspeople themselves respond to him?

The account of the end of the Popular Crusade differs quite a bit between the various chroniclers; in particular, with Anna Comnena. Find some places where there appear to be differences of fact. Can you explain those differences?

The Crusaders at Constantinople

The differences in tone and perspective, between Anna Comnena and the other accounts, are even more dramatic here. Read them all, then be able to characterize in a paragraph or two relations between the crusaders and the Byzantines, as well as what was understood by each party upon their departure from Constantinople.

The Siege and Capture of Antioch

Construct a narrative of the events. This is an exercise in narrative: you have differing accounts, out of which you must construct a single account. They do not contradict each other much, but they do offer varying details. It's a complex story. Your job as narrator is both to choose which details to include (and exclude) as well as to use your own words in telling the tale. Don't use any quotations, and be prepared to discuss and defend your version.

The Siege and Capture of Jerusalem

You will find fairly good descriptions of the siege here. Pay particular attention to the ebb and flow of events: what makes the leaders decide when and how to attack, the organization of provisions, the role of religion in military decisions. Note also the difference in tone and detail between different versions of the same events.

You will also read of the infamous sack of the city and the slaughter of the inhabitants. Here again, pay attention to the two different versions presented. Note not only where they differ but also where they agree.

Madden, Cowdrey, "Pope Urban II's Preaching of the First Crusade"

Carl Erdmann's work is still important and anyone studying the Crusades should know about it. Cowdrey does a good job of summarizing Erdmann's thesis, so linger over these pages and make sure you understand it.

Cowdrey's essay follows a standard format for historical journal articles and you would do well to be able to recognize it. I'll outline that format here for you:

  1. He first lays out his thesis, in the first two paragraphs
  2. major thinking on the topic, beginning with Erdmann
  3. major revisions to Erdmann
  4. the primary sources Cowdrey uses to support his own interpretation (these are the five numbered sections). He puts forward his interpretation of each in turn.
  5. a concluding paragraph

This is standard format. State the thesis. Cover what other historians have said on the topic. Talk about what new evidence or interpretation you have to offer. Conclude.

I outline this not because I expect you to write this way, for you won't be doing any original research (that is, research no one else has done). I outline it so you can recognize the structure of scholarly articles, which may make them easier to read and to understand.

Madden, Bull, "The Roots of Lay Enthusiasm…"

He gives lots of background, well worth reading. He gets to the main question only on p.180. And he doesn't begin arguing his own position until p.185.

I see a potential weakness in Bull's argument on p.181, regarding the distribution of support for the Crusade. What do you see? And why do you think Bull takes the next several pages to talk in detail about how the crusade message was spread across Europe?

On p.184 Bull says that no one could be obliged to go on Crusade. Weren't knights supposed to serve whenever their overlords called them? How do you resolve this seeming conflict?

Madden, France, "Patronage and Appeal"

In the opening, France says that the wide response to Urban's call for a crusade is the "central mystery" of the First Crusade. I disagree. I don't find the enthusiastic response mysterious at all but quite natural. Think about it a bit and decide if you agree with me or with Prof. France.