Download PDF | Bernard S. Bachrach, RAOUL, David S. Bachrach - The Gesta Tancredi Of Ralph Of Caen_ A History Of The Normans On The First Crusade, Ashgate 2005.
196 Pages
This is the first translation into English of Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi. This text provides an exceptionally important narrative of the First Crusade and its immediate aftermath, covering the period 1096-1105, but is often neglected, due in no small part to the difficulties of its Latin. A native of the Norman city of Caen where he was a student of Arnulf, the future patriarch of Jerusalem, in 1107 Ralph joined Bohemond of Taranto’s army as a military chaplain. After arriving in the East, Ralph took service with Bohemond’s nephew Tancred, who ruled the principality of Antioch from 1108 to 1112.
Although dedicated to Arnulf, the Gesta Tancredi focuses on the careers of Bohemond and, especially, of Tancred. It is one of the most important sources — indeed the most important Latin source — for the Norman campaigns in Cilicia (1097-1108), and for the early Norman rule of Antioch. The work as a whole has a striking Norman point of view and contains details found in no other source, providing a corrective to the strong northern focus of most of the other narrative sources for the First Crusade.
About the translators: Bernard S. Bachrach is Professor of History at the University of Minnesota,
USA and David S. Bachrach is Assistant Professor of History at the University of New Hampshire, USA.
Introduction
Our Knowledge of Ralph
Among the half-dozen or so Latin accounts of the First Crusade written by participants and those with substantial access to participants, the Gesta Tancredi by Ralph of Caen is the least studied and least well known.! However, by contrast with the authors of several of these other texts, Ralph's biography is not particularly obscure. His family probably came from Caen or the region (pagus) administered from this flourishing Norman city. This is suggested by the fact that Ralph spent his youth studying in the city, likely at the cathedral school, where Arnulf of Chocques, who later was to become patriarch of Jerusalem, served as young Ralph's teacher. The two men were to maintain a close life-long relationship.?
Ralph's course of study under the direction of Arnulf ended no later than early 1096 and probably some time before that date because the latter departed for the crusade in the entourage of Duke Robert of Normandy.? Arnulf, who judging from his career was a prominent figure in the Norman church prior to the First Crusade (see below), either was appointed the duke's personal chaplain, a very prestigious position, at the start of the crusade or was given that role at a somewhat later date, that is, well before Robert's departure from the Holy Land in 1099 in order to return to Normandy.* Arnulf was elevated to episcopal rank during the course of the crusade and played a noteworthy role in the ecclesiastical leadership of this pilgrimage in arms following the death of Adhemar of Le Puy (1 August 1098), the papal legate who led the crusade, at least from a spiritual perspective. Arnulf remained in the Holy Land and ultimately became patriarch of Jerusalem (1099, 1112-15, 1116-18)?
Whether Ralph had completed both his academic studies and his training for the priesthood in Caen prior to Arnulf's departure with Duke Robert is not clear and perhaps unlikely. However, it is certain that Ralph was ordained a priest by 1106, at the latest, because it was in that year that he was recruited by Bohemond (c.1056-1111), during the latter's tour of Francia, to serve as a chaplain in the entourage of the erstwhile ruler of Antioch. In the reform milieu of late eleventh and early twelfthcentury Normandy, it is almost certain that no later than 1106 Ralph had reached the age of 25, which was required by canon law for priestly ordination."
It is not clear whether it was Ralph's prior association with Arnulf which brought him to the attention of a man of Bohemond's lofty status or the priests social connections generated as a result of family background. Although virtually nothing is known directly either of Ralph's paternal or maternal lineage, it is clear that they were of sufficient importance to have him placed as a student with Arnulf of Chocques, who, as noted above, was a very prominent Norman cleric closely associated with the Norman ducal family. Indeed, early in his career, that is, the later 1060s and early 1070s, Arnulf was chosen to serve as a tutor to William the Conqueror's daughter Cecilia (1056-1126). For Ralph, as a youth, to have touched even tangentially on the circle which included an Anglo-Norman princess and a future duke may well permit the inference that his family was of considerable importance.
After joining Bohemond's entourage as a chaplain, Ralph accompanied his principal on his return to the eastern Mediterranean in 1107. There, he seems to have served the Norman prince on campaign during the latter’s efforts, unsuccessful in the end, to recapitulate the earlier campaign under Robert Guiscard (1080-85) in the Balkans.’ Following an initial victory at Avlona, in modern Albania, during the autumn of 1107, Bohemond was forced by Emperor Alexios Comnenos to break off his siege of Durazzo and then to end his campaign. In September 1108, in return for permission from Alexios to withdraw his forces from Albania, Bohemond concluded a treaty with the Byzantine emperor in which he agreed to take an oath that made explicit the subordination of Antioch to the empire and to return to Apulia." Whether Ralph rose to a position as Bohemond’s personal chaplain during this period cannot be established. It is clear, however, that Ralph wants his readers to believe that he had a close conversational relationship with Bohemond and that the latter provided him with a considerable quantity of information concerning the First Crusade. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized, in this context, that Ralph's casting of the situation in this manner may have been a rhetorical artifice that was intended to provide credibility for the corpus of information regarding operations during the crusade, much of it unique to the Gesta, that he implies or, in some cases, says he obtained from the prince.
Some time prior to Bohemond's death (1111), and indeed likely soon after the prince's defeat at Durazzo, Ralph left his patron and journeyed to Antioch where he joined the staff of Tancred who had succeeded Bohemond as the prince of Antioch. Ralph intentionally leaves vague the conditions under which he moved from the entourage of Bohemond to that of Tancred. Throughout his text, Ralph maintains obvious loyalty to both men and never gives the impression that his movement to service at Antioch was the result of a falling out with Bohemond or that the latter opposed or even resented the move. It is clear from his narrative, however, that from the time he left Bohemond's service for that of Tancred until the death of the latter on 12 December 1112, Ralph remained a loyal supporter and close confidant of the prince of Antioch. At least, this is the picture that Ralph conveys to his readers which serves to undergird the credibility of his account.
Throughout his association with both Bohemond and Tancred, Ralph makes it clear that he sought and obtained detailed information from both men and from their followers regarding a wide spectrum of events during the crusade.!! It seems very likely that both men knew of Ralph's aim to write a history and cooperated with him in providing information personally and making additional information accessible. It also seems probable that Ralph informed his principals, or at least Tancred, that he would not write while they were still living because he did not wish to have his account challenged as being biased by their patronage.'* Thus, only after Tancred’s death did Ralph begin to write the Gesta Tancredi, probably while living in Jerusalem, where his former teacher Arnulf, was patriarch having been elected to this position in the same year that Tancred died.'? It is possible that Arnulf made Ralph a canon of the cathedral church so that the latter would have the leisure time and resources; for example, supplies of parchment, ink and quills, work space, and perhaps even a scribe to take his dictation. '* Patriarch Arnulf took a strong interest in both Ralph and the Gesta as he would appear to have promised Ralph that he would edit the completed work. Indeed, this suggests an ongoing and very positive relationship between the two men. Given Ralph’s dedication of the work to Arnulf, it seems likely that it was completed before the latter’s death in April 1118.
Ralph’s education, likely at the cathedral school of Caen, provided a strong focus in continuing work on the trivium and quadrivium while concentrating heavily on the study of both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament, both, of course, in Latin translation.? However, Ralph spent a considerable period studying classical literature. Among the poets, he was very well versed in Vergil, which was not unusual, but he also had a good acquaintance with Ovid, who did not become very popular until later in the twelfth century. In addition, he had read Horace, who never was much of a favorite during the High Middle Ages. While these works are found frequently quoted or alluded to in the Gesta, it was Ralph's study of classical historians, particularly Livy, Caesar, Lucan, and Sallust, which indicates the depth of his classical learning and preparation for writing the Gesta. It remains to be seen, as a great deal more research would be necessary, if Ralph had studied the Latin translations of Josephus’ History and Jewish Antiquities.'’ These works were widely dispersed throughout the libraries of Normandy during this period and had considerable importance for the writing of history as illustrated by Ralph's contemporary Baudri of Bourgueil.'?
Ralph as a Historian
Both in his preface to the Gesta Tancredi and throughout the body of the work, Ralph demonstrates that he is self-aware as a historian who is shaping a particular view of the past for posterity. The purpose of history, as Ralph envisioned it, was consistent with the views of both Livy and Caesar, two of the classical writers upon whom he modeled some of his writing, as well as being consistent with the aims of much Christian historiography. In this context, Ralph's aim was to encourage good deeds and to discourage bad deeds by providing appropriate examples of both from the past. In terms of his own writing and as advice to posterity, Ralph expresses the view that ‘[w]e should, therefore, press forward with the greatest effort to read what has been written’ (Preface).'?
In this context, Ralph emphasizes that the writing of history is a *noble discipline’ and recounting the deeds of princes must be done accurately (honeste). The historian must ‘write down what ought to be read’ and not simply what people like to hear or read. It seems clear that to Ralph, history was a subject from which people were to learn and that it was not simply a form of entertainment. Thus, Ralph emphasizes that he is dismayed and, in fact, recoils in disgust that his contemporaries are not reading what ought to be read and, more importantly, were not writing what ought to be written. He attacks those who set out ‘fabulous inventions’ and ignore the real victories achieved by Christ’s armies. Ralph’s task, as he sees it, is to rectify this situation because no one more suitable has taken up the burden. This is particularly true of the deeds carried out by Tancred.
In defending his suitability to write the Gesta Tancredi, Ralph does not depart from the ubiquitous modesty-humility topos and avers that other men more talented than he undoubtedly could be found to do this work. Nevertheless, Ralph defends his efforts not only because no one better has undertaken the burden of carrying out this task with regard to Bohemond and especially Tancred, but tempus fugit and much that is known will be lost due to deficient memories and the death of witnesses. Even more important in justifying his decision to write is Ralph’s special relationship with Bohemond and Tancred. It is in this context that Ralph discusses what would appear to have been his most important criterion for gathering and transmitting accurate information, the sine qua non, in his view for the writing of history. He avers, that despite his limited talents, he had a very close personal connection to Bohemond and an even closer relationship with Tancred. These connections enabled him to obtain information from eyewitnesses concerning events and, indeed, information from participants at a high level who had access to more information than the mere soldier in the battle line.
Ralph, as noted above, was very much aware that having a close, personal relationship with his eyewitness sources was a two-edged sword. On the one hand, these men could provide the best and most accurate information. On the other hand, however, this information potentially was subject to bias, what modern scholars characterize as the memoir effect, in so far as there is a tendency for actors to ‘remember’ the past in a way that puts the person recalling the situation in a positive light. While source bias was a potential problem for Ralph, he also understood that he could be accused of authorial bias insofar as he enjoyed a very close, indeed a patron-client, relationship with his principals. As a consequence, as indicated earlier, Ralph made clear that he would not write his Gesta while either of his principals was living. In this manner, he worked to avoid the potential charge that he was currying favor with his patrons for future advancement.
In looking more closely at Ralph’s historical method, it is clear that a reliance and, indeed, a preference for eyewitness information was central to his approach. Not only did he gather information from Bohemond and Tancred he also questioned the members of their entourages and their soldiers. However, simply because someone provided information did not mean that Ralph accepted it without question. À careful reading of Ralph's work makes clear that he often gave more than one version of an event or an aspect of an event and in doing so encouraged his reader through his rhetoric to favor one reading of events over another. One particularly compelling example of this practice is Ralph's discussion of a legal dispute between Tancred and Arnulf of Chocques concerning the disposition of booty acquired from the temple complex during the assault on Jerusalem (chs 1356). In both cases he had direct personal access to both men with whom he had good personal relationships. However, since the situation was part of a court proceeding and Ralph presents the arguments of both Arnulf and Tancred as direct discourse, it is possible that there was a written record that survived and was made available to Ralph.
As will be seen below in more detail, a second element of Ralph’s historical-rhetorical style was to use poetry and prose for different purposes with regard to indicating to his audience the firmness or accuracy of his information. In using poetry to describe, for example, the action of the nonNorman commanders at the battle of Dorylaeum (chs 27-32) Ralph appears to have been signaling his readers or listeners that this information was not as soundly based in fact as he would have liked. By contrast, when discussing the death of Tancred's brother, William, in the battle (chs 25-6), about which Ralph could obtain exact, detailed information from both Tancred and his officers, the author of the Gesta moves from poetry to prose. The only sustained description in verse of Tancred's participation in the crusade (chs 128-9, 131) concerns his capture and despoliation of the Dome of the Rock complex, which the crusaders thought was Solomon’s temple. Ralph’s treatment in verse of Tancred’s Rolandesque effectiveness as a killing machine turns to prose, however, (ch. 130) when dealing with the mundane facts regarding the amount of booty taken in the Dome of the Rock, thereby leading his audience to accept that this information is factual.
In a more subtle manner, Ralph’s arguments evidence what modern scholars characterize as source criticism. Here, we can see how the author’s education in logic, a key subject of the trivium, plays a role in the examination of efficient causes. In his discussion of the Holy Lance, one of the most dramatic episodes depicted in the Gesta, Ralph demonstrates both his skills in logic and his ability as a rhetorician to develop a persuasive argument. Ralph indicates that Bohemond believed that the discovery of the Holy Lance in the church of Saint Peter at Antioch by Bartholomew, a member of Raymond of Toulouse’s entourage, was ‘an empty and false discovery’. He goes on to condemn the man who had made the discovery as having acted in a duplicitous manner in making this untrue claim (ch. 102).
In order to sustain the view that Bartholomew had not found the Holy Lance, Ralph, as author, following the technique often advocated by Cicero, used Bohemond to attack the credibility of the protagonist. First, Bartholomew is assailed as a person imbued with /evitas rather than gravitas, that is, ‘he was not a serious man’ (ch. 102). Indeed, he was prone to excessive drinking, carousing, and had a reputation for spouting nonsense. After undermining Bartholomew’s reputation and thereby calling into question his credibility, Ralph has Bohemond ask a series of rhetorical questions meant to undermine the likelihood that the Holy Lance could possibly have found its way to Antioch. First, the rationale for moving the Lance from the Holy Land to Syria is rendered suspect. Why, Ralph has Bohemond ask, would one of Christ’s followers have carried the Lance so far away rather than hiding it in Jerusalem? He follows up by asking, if a Jew or a pagan Roman had taken the Lance from the Holy Land, why would he have hidden it in a church? Finally, Ralph recalls the tradition that the Holy Lance belonged to one of the soldiers serving Pontius Pilate and asks where one could find evidence that the Roman procurator had ever visited Antioch? In short, Ralph implies that research would not provide evidence that the Roman officer had traveled to Antioch.
Ralph’s emphasis on eyewitness accounts is particularly important because it sets his work in a long tradition of history writing in the West going back to Herodotus and Thucydides. Indeed, the very root of the word history in Greek, istoria, meant research among contemporaries who had participated in the events the historian wished to describe. For the would be historian of the Middle Ages, these values were solidified in the work of Isidore of Seville (d. 635)?! The view that information provided by eyewitnesses was exceptionally important was adopted by Christian historians from their pagan predecessors and continues today in a variety of fields, but particularly in law. Indeed, the exceptional importance of eyewitness accounts for Ralph’s reconstruction of the past helps explain why he felt compelled to write this history despite what would seem to have been a keen understanding of his own limitations as a writer.” The longer he waited, the fewer witnesses would be available to supply him with information.
Despite these clear indications that Ralph intended his work to be understood as history, the fact cannot be avoided that significant portions of the Gesta demonstrate qualities that are more reminiscent of contemporary entertainment literature, the chansons de geste, which did not carry with them the same generic demands for describing real events in the past.” In particular, as noted earlier, Ralph's Gesta is a prosimetric narrative meaning that he wrote in both prose and in verse, a genre often used in contemporary heroic literary composition.”
About one-fourth (36 of 157) of the chapters of the Gesta are written in verse, and these fall into five distinct sections of 6, 22, 1, 4, and 3 chapters respectively. The subjects of these verse sections are the battle of Dorylaeum, the suffering of the Christian forces within Antioch and their subsequent victory over Kerbhoga, Tancred's song of praise for Jerusalem, the assault on Jerusalem by the crusaders, and finally the fighting in the streets of Jerusalem, respectively.
How then are we to understand Ralph's stated goal of relating true events in the past with his deployment of a generic form, verse, that often was associated with ahistorical epic compositions such as the Song of Roland "6 It is first necessary to recall that Ralph's focus is on Tancred and that the Gesta is intended to be a historical account of Tancred's career. In this context, it is striking that only five of the 36 verse chapters have Tancred as their subject or even mention him. Of these five chapters, one (ch. 85) simply notes Tancred's place in the order of attack against Kerbhoga's troops beneath the walls of Antioch, and provides no information regarding his role in the subsequent battle. In the second verse chapter to mention Tancred (ch. 111), Ralph explicitly directs the audience to expect a poetic interpretation of the protagonist's first glimpse of Jerusalem. Here the romantic element does not directly concern Tancred, but is intended to glorify the Holy City, the goal of the crusade itself. Ralph records,
when he arrived at Jerusalem, he circled the walls, but only after he had freed Bethlehem from the enemy. Getting his first view of Jerusalem from a distance, Tancred greeted her, placed his knees on the ground, fixed his eyes on the city, his heart on heaven, and this is the image of his salvation placed into poetic meter. (ch. 111)
As noted above, the only sustained description in verse of Tancred's participation in the crusade (chs 128-9, 131) concerns his capture and despoliation of the Dome of the Rock complex. Moreover, even here, as mentioned earlier, in the midst of a lengthy verse description of Tancred, Ralph turned to prose (ch. 130), that is, a style intended to portray actual events that took place in the past, to describe the specific quantity of silver taken from the complex and Tancred’s use of it to support additional troops. In particular, Ralph notes that Tancred took 7000 marks’ weight of silver from the walls. This silver had been beaten into sheets that were about a finger’s width in thickness and had been used to cover up the images carved into the walls of the structure. These details, including the amount of booty taken and the artwork uncovered in the process of moving the silver would have been well known to an audience living in Jerusalem and therefore subject to critical comment if Ralph got these details wrong.
In contrast to the very rare appearances of Tancred in versified chapters, he is the subject of or mentioned in just over half of the prose chapters (63 of 121). Moreover, in every instance that Ralph describes Tancred’s career as a military commander or territorial prince, he does so in prose. It therefore seems likely that Ralph wished to incorporate certain possibly fictional epic elements into his Gesta, particularly heroic battle scenes concerning which he had no reliable or very little eyewitness information. Nevertheless, he did not wish to have his audience perceive either the narrative as a whole or the account of Tancred, in particular, as some sort of fiction of the type traditionally found in epic poetry.
Ralph’s Subject Matter
In his preface, Ralph of Caen addresses the question of his subject matter in a straightforward manner, insisting that the deeds (Gesta) of princes were a worthy topic in general, and that the recent expedition resulting in the capture of Jerusalem (15 July 1099), carried out by the noble Tancred and, to a lesser extent, Bohemond was of particular merit. In the body of the text, overwhelmingly in the prose sections, Ralph carries through on both of these goals. Ralph’s primary interest is Tancred’s career and he only focuses on other princes when Tancred holds a subordinate position in military operations under their command. Moreover, even in these circumstances, Ralph stresses his primary obligation to record Tancred’s deeds. After, for example, noting the courage of Duke Godfrey of Lotharingia, Count Robert of Flanders, Bohemond, and Count Stephen of Blois during the siege of Antioch, Ralph abruptly changes course emphasizing: ‘Normandy and Flanders celebrated their Roberts. The Remainder of the West celebrated their leaders. One son of a marquis (Tancred) is enough for me, although I am not adequate or sufficiently thorough in my treatment of him’ (ch. 53). In considering the second point, it should be emphasized that the body of the narrative, as it survives, is focused overwhelmingly on the military campaigns of the First Crusade. It is the subject of 134 of the 157 chapters of the text. By contrast, the period after the capture of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099 through c.1105 is covered by only 23 chapters.’ It should be noted here, however, that Ralph either did not complete the work or the final chapters have not survived.
The primary focus of the Gesta on Tancred's career during and after the crusade campaign can be divided into five parts. The primary focus of the first section is on Tancred's service as Bohemond’s second in command. This covers the period up to the battle of Dorylaeum on 1 July 1097 (chs 1-32). Ralph begins with an account of Tancred's personal virtues of military valor and profound piety that lead him to give up his life in Norman-dominated southern Italy to take part in Pope Urban Is call for an armed pilgrimage (ch. 1). Ralph then considers in detail Tancred's reaction to a variety of military and moral challenges that, in one instance, bring him into direct conflict with his relative and commander Bohemond. Here (chs 9-13, 17-18), Tancred rejects the decision made by Bohemond and the other crusade commanders to do homage to Emperor Alexios in return for military support and personal wealth, arguing that they are selling themselves into the emperor's service.
The second element in the arc of Ralph's narrative is Tancred's experience as an independent commander operating in eastern Anatolia and Armenia after leaving the main body of crusaders behind (chs 33-47). According to Ralph, Tancred left the main crusader force because he wished to pursue a more direct route to Antioch than the course followed by the larger army, which relied much more heavily on fixed supply lines (ch. 33). During the course of his independent campaign, Tancred successfully captures several cities from their Turkish garrisons, including Tarsus and Mamistra, and also establishes an alliance with Ursinus, the Armenian ruler of the city of Adana, all of which later would be incorporated into the principality of Antioch. During this initial campaign, however, Tancred's efforts repeatedly were undermined by Baldwin, the younger brother of Duke Godfrey and the future king of Jerusalem, who sought to establish his own principality and eventually succeeded in doing so at Edessa. Ralph, however, focuses here on Tancred and virtually ignores the far larger and more successful campaign conducted at this time by Baldwin.”®
After the relative freedom of action he enjoyed as an independent commander following the battle of Dorylaeum, the siege of Antioch again brings Tancred under the control of the military council composed of the leading princes, including Bohemond and the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy (chs 48—96). Ralph takes advantage of the siege to portray Tancred's extraordinary military exploits. However, he does not seek to exaggerate Tancred’s importance by depicting him as a member of the crusader leadership. Rather, Ralph portrays his protagonist during this stage of the crusade as a subordinate figure. Bohemond is depicted as more important in this section of the narrative. In addition, Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of Normandy, and even Stephen of Blois are credited with significant military achievements, as well as playing the key leadership roles.
The fourth section of Ralph’s narrative takes the crusaders, including Tancred, from the victory over Kerbhoga, the atabeg of Mosul and the leader of the Muslim relief force, beneath the walls of Antioch on 28 June 1098 to the fall of Jerusalem and the subsequent Christian victory at the battle of Ascalon on 12 August 1099 (chs 96-138). Bohemond’s decision to consolidate his position at Antioch rather than proceed south to Jerusalem paved the way for Tancred to establish himself as an independent commander. First, Bohemond’s action undermined the cohesion of the princes’ military council, which had governed the expedition up to this point by alienating Raymond of Toulouse. As a result, Tancred, who up to this point had been subservient to the wishes of the major princes, now had an opportunity to assert himself more freely. This independence was enhanced by the fact that Bohemond was no longer in the field and thus could not exercise directly his earlier claims to Tancred’s obedience. Ralph’s account of the subsequent campaign, which focuses on the sieges of Marra, Archas and Jerusalem, portrays Tancred as an independent commander, who is the equal of Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Raymond of Toulouse. In fact, Ralph describes in some detail Tancred’s successful humiliation of Raymond on behalf of Bohemond which led to the complete consolidation of Antioch under the latter’s control (ch. 98).
The final surviving section of Ralph’s account considers the military and political affairs of the crusader states in the half-dozen years following the crusader victory at Ascalon on 12 August 1099 (chs 139-57). Even more so than in the campaign leading to the capture of Jerusalem, it is here, according to Ralph, that Tancred comes into his own, first as a military commander in the service of Godfrey, the ruler of Jerusalem, and subsequently as the ruler of Antioch and Edessa in place of Bohemond and Baldwin le Bourg. In these roles, Tancred fights a series of campaigns against both Muslim and Byzantine adversaries in which he attempts to undo the damage caused by the capture of Bohemond and Baldwin by the Muslims. Ralph’s chronicle breaks off following Bohemond’s final departure from the Levant in 1105 and Tancred’s subsequent campaigns against the cities of Apamea and Latakia. Either the later chapters, encompassing the final six years of Tancred’s career, have been lost or Ralph died before he was able to complete the Gesta. It is clear, however, that Ralph was still alive and writing in 1130 since he alludes to the death of Bohemond the Younger who died in that year (ch. 71).
Ralph as an Independent Source
As noted above, Ralph emphasized that he obtained much, if not most, of his information from Tancred, Bohemond, and their men. It is therefore quite reasonable to presume that his account, more so than any of the other Western crusade narratives, provides details about Tancred’s campaigns, and his relationships with the other crusade leaders, including his complex association with Bohemond. However, in addition to this focus on Tancred, Ralph also treats a variety of other topics in a manner that is significantly different from the other contemporary Latin histories, written either by those who came to the Levant or by those who remained at home. In this context, Ralph is one of the few authors to pay significant attention to the problems of logistics, in general, and, in particular, to the crucial logistical support that the Byzantines provided to the crusaders.
Ralph first makes note of this help with a subtle reference regarding the capture of Nicaea (ch. 16). Here, when the city was forced to surrender ‘it was Gaul which assured it, Greece which helped, and God who brought it about’. Ralph again makes reference to the support provided by the Byzantines in the context of the siege of Antioch (ch. 54). Not only did Byzantine territories such as Cyprus send food but ‘Emperor Alexios’ herald was there as well urging people to bring grain by land and by sea.’ In one final example, Ralph recounts that Duke Robert of Normandy, who took command of the Byzantine garrison at Latakia, was able to use his position to send supplies to the crusader camp at Antioch because the city was being used by the Byzantines as a transshipment point for grain from Cyprus (ch. 58).
Nevertheless, despite his recognition of Byzantine aid to the crusaders, it would not be accurate to describe Ralph either as pro-Byzantine or proAlexios. As noted above, much of the first section of Ralph’s narrative is dedicated to showing Tancred’s firm resolve in rejecting Alexios’ blandishments to accept Byzantine leadership and affirm this through oaths of faithfulness while the other crusade leaders, including Bohemond succumbed. When Tancred finally is forced to swear to be faithful to Alexios (ch. 17), Ralph makes clear that his protagonist did so under duress, which, in juridical terms, nullified the oath and absolved Tancred of any obligations he had sworn to undertake. Moreover, Ralph sets the stage for Tancred’s later campaigns against the Byzantines by recording the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the Latins and Alexios in which the latter swore to lead an army to Jerusalem. According to Ralph’s quote of Tancred, if Alexios did not do so: ‘soon a material breach will occur either because you resent their successes or because you do not aid them in their misfortunes. Let it never happen that I am bound by an oath to anyone who breaks his own word to others’ (ch. 58).
In addition to his rather forthcoming discussion of Byzantine support, Ralph also provides a more nuanced view of many of the crusade leaders than is found in the other contemporary accounts. Perhaps most striking in this regard is Ralph’s treatment of Stephen of Blois. The Gesta does provide an account of Stephen’s desertion from the crusade force during the siege at Antioch and his subsequent role in convincing Alexios to abandon the Byzantine relief effort (ch. 72). Nevertheless, Ralph goes out of his way to emphasize several of Stephen’s valuable contributions during the siege of Antioch, particularly during a battle against a Muslim relief force (chs 53 and 55). Moreover, even when Stephen does leave the crusader force, before the capture of Antioch, Ralph indicates that the count of Blois was ill and went to Cilicia to regain his health, rather than in order to desert (ch. 58). It may perhaps be suggested that Ralph’s restraint in dealing with Stephen was influenced by his Norman connection, namely that the count of Blois was married to Adele, the daughter of William the Conqueror.
Ralph as a Norman Historian
Ralph was, himself, a Norman by birth and his protagonist Tancred was a Norman of the pre-eminent line of Robert Guiscard, which gained its prestige in southern Italy and Sicily. The Gesta is not, however, dominated by an interest in ‘Normanness’ as a positive construct and, indeed, is as much concerned with Gaul (France) as it is with Normandy.” This is not to say that Ralph is without praise for Normandy and Normans. Tancred is described explicitly as an ‘offshoot of Normandy’ (but also of Calabria) when praised for his bravery in battle against Byzantine troops on the Vardar River (ch. 7). Ralph also emphasizes the proud military history of Normandy when discussing the first division of the crusader army as it marched from Nicaea to the fateful battle of Dorylaeum fought on 1 July 1097 (ch. 20). Here, Ralph suggests that Robert of Normandy, Bohemond and Tancred had marched out ahead of the main forces ‘as if with one common thought they sought to propagate the unique glory of their fatherland’. It is noteworthy, in this context, that Ralph fails to mention the presence of Robert of Flanders and the Byzantine general Tatikios in this operation, thereby indicating the author’s desire to emphasize further the ‘Norman’ quality or composition of he vanguard. On a negative note, Ralph bemoaned the desertion from the siege of Antioch by William, Albert and Ivo of Maisnil because they were from Normandy, which, before this disgrace, had victory everywhere and was the glory of the world (ch. 79). This may be considered the rhetoric of the panegyric effect by which a figure or figures are depicted negatively so that another could be elevated.*°
In addition, however, to his praise for Norman success before the crusade, and of the Normans who served in the crusade, Ralph repeatedly glorifies the role played by ‘Gaul’ and the ‘Gauls’ in the campaign. Peter the Hermit, the enigmatic spiritual leader of the People’s Crusade, is made to say in a speech to Kerbhoga, the atabeg of Mosul, that the crusaders would never surrender Antioch because: "The nobility of Gaul, the pilgrims of Christ, seek the holy sepulcher, and fear nothing because they hold this city [Antioch] (ch. 81). In describing the preparations of the crusader army for battle against Kerbhoga beneath the walls of Antioch, Ralph makes no mention of Normandy but stresses: “Then, the bold hearts of Gaul girded themselves for war’ (ch. 82). In this vein, during the battle in the streets of Jerusalem, it was the ‘Gallic sword’ that struck down the Muslim defenders (ch. 132). No mention is made of Norman sword or spear or axe. Similarly, in characterizing the crusader army fighting in the streets of Jerusalem, Ralph records that: "The strength of the Gauls was both huge and small. They were a small swarm, but a robust swarm' (ch. 133). Again, Ralph does not offer an equivalent characterization of the army using the Normans as synecdoche for the entire force. In one final example, which makes clear Ralph's decision to blur the distinction between Gaul and crusader, Tancred and Arnulf of Chocques, both of whom were ‘Norman’ are compared with Hector and Aeneas in Vergil’s classic formulation of heroic character! In this context, Ralph asserts: ‘If the land of Gaul had sent out two other men such as these, the Gauls would hold Memphis (Egypt) and Babylon as kings' (ch. 137).
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق