Heroic Deeds and Exclusive Identities Heroism and Characterization in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

Heroic Deeds and Exclusive Identities: Heroism and Characterization in the Chronicles of the First Crusade A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in History. 2022 ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Historiography and Methodology ....................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1: The Four Tenets of Heroism ........................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: Class and Nobility ........................................................................................... 39 Chapter 3: Christianity and Heroism ................................................................................ 48 Chapter 4: Heroic Gens ..................................................................................................... 63 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 78 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 83 iii Acknowledgements I’d like to thank all my colleagues who took that class with me. Everyone’s enthusiasm and good humor was matched only by their willingness to learn and seek justice. I’d like to specifically thank my colleague Michele Matuszewki for the pep talks, the late-night library sessions and the advice. I’d also like to thank Katy Sassara for being a wonderful historical colleague during our senior seminar and a better friend. I’d like to thank Christa Ullery and Noah Willis for being wonderful housemates and supporters. Special thanks to my grandads and the love of history they both share. This is for you Pa and Grandpa Lynn. Hope it makes you both proud. Finally, I’d like to thank my parents, Kurt, and Heather Triplett. I would not be the person I am without you. You are both my heroes and my best friends. iv Abstract The heroes of the First Crusade are some of the most influential, well studied figures in the Western Historical cannon, but a historical hero is not a real person. The depiction of heroes like Bohemond, Tancred and Godfrey cannot fully encapsulate their whole being. A heroes are carefully crafted and reduced into a character by the historian that is telling their story. This thesis will examine how heroes were characterized by Frankish historians and poets at the end of the 11th Century. The majority of scholarship on heroism focuses on a single hero and their portrayal, but this thesis will instead study the trends of heroism in Holy Wars in a specific time and place: Franks in late 11th, early 12th Century. Heroism and Characterization of historical figures offers a unique look into the values of a culture since heroes were shaped by historians so they would accurately represent the moral ideals of their society. Through Heroes, this paper will cover the Latin Frank’s views on gender, social class, religion, race, violence, and devotion. It ultimately concludes that Frankish historians were primarily interested in creating heroes with a fittingly heroic personal identity whose deeds were sufficiently moral based on the morality of Holy War. v Introduction The First Crusade was an extraordinary human achievement. The Crusaders had to walk over 2000 miles to get from Gaul to Jerusalem. These pilgrims faced debilitating hunger, freezing temperatures, dozens of battles and several Sieges along the way to the Holy Land. For a normal person this journey would be an impossible challenge. But the leaders of this expedition were not normal men. They were heroes. Felix Heinzer, Jörn Leonhard and Ralph von den Hoff defined a heroic figure as someone who can “perform an extraordinary achievement” and have “a capability beyond a human scale.”1 The Chronicles of the First Crusade are filled to the brim with stories of just such achievements. We are told that Godfrey of Bouillon cut a Turk twice his size in half with a single blow. We are told that Bohemond used his cunning to convince a Muslim Emir to let the Franks into the city. We are told that Tancred single handily killed 700 men in a single battle. Not to mention these men all were noble, merciful, just, wise, and fully devoted to Christ. Each account was filled to the brim with extraordinary achievements done by men of noble character. That is the formula to make a hero. Hero making seems like a simple recipe on the surface, until you examine the ingredients. What exactly makes an achievement extraordinary? Why was ending 700 human lives considered worthy of praise? The heroes of the First Crusade achieved much and nearly every achievement was steeped in violence. These heroes waded through rivers of the blood of slain Muslims. They presided over armies full of morally 1 Felix Heinzer, Jörn Leonhard and Ralph von den Hoff, ‘Einleitung: Relationen zwischen Sakralisierungen und Heroisierungen’ in Sakralität und Heldentum, eds. Felix Heinzer, Jörn Leonhard and Ralph von den Hoff. trans Kristin Skottki (Würzburg) 2017, .9. reprehensible soldiers that pillaged, raped and even cannibalized. These supposedly great heroes sat for months at a time outside of impenetrable castles and were forced to eat their own horses to survive. These achievements were certainly large, but why was murder made to be noble? Why was horrific suffering made to be glamorous? Why were these men specifically made into heroes by the Frankish Historians of the 11th and 12th Centuries? I use the word “made” very intentionally. The heroes of history did not simply spring into existence, they had to be crafted by historians. A person who does great deeds only becomes a hero once someone tells their story. A hero is always a part of a story. A hero is never anonymous. It is these storytellers that create heroes. They craft their personalities and frame their deeds as either moral or abhorrent. They are the ones who decided what is and isn’t worthy of praise. Bohemond, Tancred and Godfrey had no power over how their stories were told and how they were characterized. The concept of heroism has always fascinated me. Storytellers create heroes for a reason. Heroes are not people. A hero in a Chronicle is first and foremost a character. The deeds and traits of heroic figures were twisted and reframed by historians so the hero can cleanly fit the role of a cultural paragon. As Heinzer, Leonhard and von den Hoff put it “their achievement must be narrated, it can only become a heroic deed or a special quality of hero in the mediation.”2 These authors were not without bias. The Chronicles of the First Crusade and the Chanson de Geste of the 11th and 12th centuries were written to appeal to a very specific audience: the Franks. In this way, heroes function as exemplars and paragons of virtue for 2 Ibid. 2 an audience to admire and project themselves onto. Heinzer, Leonhard and von den Hoff also cite this aspect of heroism, saying that “heroes are therefore created by [and for] their audience, they fascinate them; heroes are imitated, admitted, or revered by a following.”3 In order to create an enduring hero, a historian had to craft a hero that matched the values of their audience. A good hero can provide a deep insight into its intended audience and a multitude of heroes, all from the same time and region can reveal underlying trends and truths about a culture's views of morality. The goal of this thesis is to examine the Heroes of the First Crusade in historical chronicles, specifically their characterization. This is valuable research because historical heroes offer a fascinating window into the culture they emerged from. Heroes were written to represent their audience, therefore, there is so much we can infer about the attitudes of that audience and the writer based on how they were made into heroes and how those heroes are depicted. This paper will only be engaging with sources about holy wars that were written by Frankish chroniclers and poets towards the end of the 11th century. More specifically, I will be engaging with Chanson de Geste, with an in depth focus on La Chanson de Roland. I will also be dealing with Historical Chronicles about the First Crusade, like The Gesta Francorum and Robert the Monk’s Historia Ihierosolminata. Even though I will be dealing with two different genres of writing, both types of work characterize their heroes in very similar ways. Heroes are emblematic of the culture they emerge from. By focusing specifically on Frankish heroes created in the 11th century, we can get a more consistent perspective. 3 Ibid. 3 Throughout this paper I will be referencing to heroes and non-heroes. In order to analyze what made a hero, first I had to decide who were heroes and who were not. Fortunately, the authors of Historical Chronicles and Chanson de Geste were not particularly subtle in how they characterized heroes. I used two simple techniques that I will refer to throughout the paper as a foundation before I added more nuanced analysis. The first was page count. In order to be considered a hero, a character must be present and central to the story. A character that only shows up once or twice is not a hero, even if they take a heroic action or have heroic characteristics. One can tell that the author of the Gesta Francorum was attempting to make Bohemond into a hero and not Stephen of Blois based on frequently they are mentioned. Bohemond is present in all ten books of the Chronicler. The index of the Gesta Francorum simple gives him a passim to denote how frequently he was mentioned. Stephen of Blois appears in two pages. Page 15 tells us Stephen was present. Stephen then disappears for 48 pages, and when he reappears on page 63, it is only so the Chronicle can tell us how he fled from the Siege of Antioch in disgrace. As a general rule, the more pages a character appeared in, the more inclined I was to consider them a hero. The second technique is based on a common rhetorical device in the Chronicles of the First Crusade. Narrators of Chronicles will frequently preface the names of important characters with evocative adjective that describe their moral character. The names Bohemond and Godfrey are often preceded with adjectives such as wise, noble, and honorable. This technique steered the readers into making a very quick and easy value judgements about the characters. Bohemond and Stephen of Blois in the Gesta Francorum are once again a fantastic example of this principle. The Chronicles call 4 Bohemond the “valiant Bohemond” and the “most excellent Bohemond.”4 Stephen, on the other had, is labeled “the Coward Stephen.”5 It’s not particularly subtle. The meat of this paper is not concerned with identifying heroes. With the help of page count and the identifying adjectives, identifying heroes is fairly simple. What this thesis is concerned with is exploring why certain characters were chosen to be made into heroes, how those heroes were characterized and what that characterization revealed about Frankish Culture. The examination of the concepts of heroic identity and heroic deeds is crucial to answering these questions. The first question, “why were specific characters heroes?” is answered by examining the complexities of heroic identity. To the Franks, certain people were more inherently heroic than others. Men were more heroic than women, nobles were more heroic than peasants and so on. Chroniclers and poets only considered those who fit into the definition of heroic identity for the role of hero in a text. These heroic identities were supplemented by heroic deeds. Examining heroic deeds involves studying both the actions taken by the heroes themselves and how they were framed. The words and deeds of heroes are useful because they illuminate the values of Frankish culture. Nearly every hero in the Chronicles commits acts of violence so therefore we can infer that violence was seen by the Franks in a positive way. Which deeds were included in these texts, and which were silenced spoke volumes about the Franks at the turn of the century. I posit that the process of making a hero followed these steps. A Chronicler first had to identify which characters possessed a heroic identity. Identity encapsulated 4 5 Anonymous. Gesta Francorum. trans. Roland Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. 25 Gesta Francorum. 63. 5 gender, class, religion, and race. If a character possessed a heroic identity, then their deeds would be considered. If a hero committed heroic deeds, relative to the values of Frankish culture, then they would be constructed into a hero, however, if they violated any of these values, then they were discarded. In my first chapter, the “Four Tenets of Heroism in the Song of Roland '' I will explore both identities and deeds in the famous Chanson de Geste, using a framework I developed based on the scholarly work of Horswell and Skottki. This framework is called the four tenets of heroism. These four tenets are steeped in Frankish culture and all four tenets are very prominently displayed in every primary source written in the period. These four tenets are moral ambiguity, skill in violence, masculinity and fealty and I will explore each in depth throughout this paper. The next three chapters all deal with an aspect of heroic identity and how each of these identities contributed to the four heroic tenets being seen in such a positive light. Chapter two will concern nobility, both in the sense of class and character. It will compare the descriptions of peasants and nobles to reveal how the Chroniclers and Poets universally depicted nobles as far more heroic. Then I will discuss what nobility actually meant in the late 11th century to the Franks and how it helped justify the violence of holy war. Chapter three will explore religion and how Christianity was an essential part of the heroic identity. Non-Christians were excluded from heroism outright and Christianity was often shown to be the difference between and defeat in battle. This chapter will discuss the Peace of God movement, the conflicts between secular values and religious 6 ones and how a Holy War reconciled this difference. It will also Christianity of the Franks Chapter four will deal with race. Race, like religion and class, was a key part of heroic identity. Chapter four is divided into two parts. The first is the nature of race and how it was perceived in medieval Christian society. The second part will discuss the French and the Normans and how they were portrayed in differing Chronicles. More precisely it will deal with how Chroniclers of different races dealt with heroes who were both of their own race and not of their own race. I ultimately conclude that race was the final aspect of identity considered by Chroniclers who were deciding which characters should become heroes. The difference between a French noble and a Norman noble was far more subtle than that between a man an a woman or a Christian and a Muslim. A Norman Chronicler did not necessarily exclude a French noble from heroism or vice versa, but the Chroniclers almost universally gave preferential treatment to members of their own race. Heroes like Roland, Oliver, Charlemagne, Turpin, Bohemond, Godfrey and Tancred endure because they were crafted into something the audience of Franks at the turn of the 11th century could understand. They each had heroic identities, meaning they had no aspects of their identity that prevented a Frankish audience from perceiving them as heroic. The Chroniclers and poets therefore decided to highlight their deeds, specifically their extraordinary deeds of holy violence and holy sacrifice. These heroes function as a microcosm of the values of the Franks and are therefore worth studying. 7 Historiography and Methodology One of the foundations of this thesis is the scholarly work of Mike Horswell and Kristin Skottki in their introduction of the journal The Making of Crusading Heroes and Villains: Engaging the Crusades, Volume Four. Their perspective on heroism is based on the scholarship of German historians Felix Heinzer, Jörn Leonhard and Ralph von den Hoff who worked to define the roles of heroic figures in Historical writing. This paper is based on the foundation they laid and also functions as an expansion of many of their arguments concerning the nature of medieval heroism. This thesis primarily concerned with analyzing the purpose of why Chroniclers included and omitted details of the First Crusade. Therefore, the historical accuracy of specific details in the Chronicles are not relevant to my purposes. Many chronicles contain episodes full of hyperbole and take dramatic licenses. Ralph of Caen tells us that Tancred killed seven hundred men in a single battle and Robert the Monk tells us a man was able to commit a heroic sacrifice after being shot with 1000 arrows. When I discuss these unrealistic episodes in this thesis, I will treat them as true because that is how the Chroniclers intended for them to be read. I will also not be placing any value on the historical accuracy of whole Chronicles. Older scholarship of the First Crusade had a tendency to rank the Chronicles in tiers of usefulness based on their historical accuracy. Guibert de Nogent and Robert the Monk, who were not eyewitnesses to the events of the First Crusade make definitive claims that differ wildly from their source material, the Gesta Francorum. Guibert has been seen as particularly controversial due to his overly verbose and inaccessible Latin 8 and his additions of many stories that were almost certainly fabricated, such as his account of Urbans speech or his rendition of the founding of Islam.6 This paper treats Guibert and other such chronicles as equally valuable as the Gesta Francorum, because these works do not only function as histories. These Chronicles are stories and propaganda written for a specific audience. Each chronicle’s portrayal of crusading heroes can provide valuable insight into what sorts of deeds and identities were valued by the writer and the writer's intended audience. Guibert de Nogent’s history may have been considered suspect by many scholars, but his veneration of Count Stephen of Blois and his degradation of Count Robert of Normandy is demonstrative of a favoritism of Franks over Normans in his text. When Ralph of Caen tells his audience that Tancred killed 700 men in one battle, he is proving his martial superiority. These sorts of insights are more valuable to my purpose than the accuracy of the historical events. This is why La Chanson de Roland and Chanson de Geste poems are frequently compared to Chronicles in this paper. There is very little difference between the poems and the Chronicles in the sense that both forms of writing serve to celebrate holy war and Frankish might. La Chanson de Roland is a piece laden with epic values and demonstrates all the same elements of 11th century holy war heroism that the historical Chronicles do. This historiography of La Chanson de Roland is long and complex due to its immense popularity. When exactly the poem was written is a subject of much debate, but it is generally agreed upon that it was written in the later half of the 11th century, with some 6 Jay Rubenstein. Speculum 75, no. 4 (2000): 933–35. 9 scholars arguing that Pope Urban II referenced it indirectly at the Council of Clermont by suggesting that Christians follow in Charlemagne’s footsteps.7 Others say that it was written after the First Crusade and that it is the poem that contains indirect references to the First Crusade. Despite this discrepancy, the scholarly consensus is that the First Crusade and La Chanson de Roland are linked by time period and themes. Several Chronicles even borrow their content and style of prose from Chanson de Geste poems. In 2020, Thomas Asbridge wrote an article titled An Experiment in Extremity: The Portrayal of Violence in Robert the Monk's Narrative of the First Crusade, which explores who Robert the Monk’s Historia Iherosolimitana’s depictions of violence were heavily influenced by La Chanson de Roland, even down to an eerily similar depiction of a bisection.8 The rhetoric is so similar that one must have inspired the other. La Chanson de Roland is an entirely different form of writing than the Historical Chronicles, but both forms of writing show the same themes and have the same types of heroes. Though the poem is not a history, it is equally representative of the culture that created it. This paper will prove that heroes of the poem, Roland, Oliver, Turpin and Charlemagne all bear such striking similarities to the heroes of the Chronicles like Bohemond and Godfrey. Examining the similarities between these heroes will reveal the cultural values of the Franks. Horswell and Skottki assert that “ascribing heroic (or villainous) qualities to a certain person has to be done by a society or group- it is always a social act, embodied in 7 Anonymous. The Song of Roland. trans. W. S. Merwin. New York, NY: Random House, 2001. xiii. Thomas F. Madden. “Rivers of Blood: An Analysis of One Aspect of the Crusader Conquest of Jerusalem in 1099” in Revista Chilena de Estudios Medievale. 26-37. 8 10 particular communities.”9 By studying these heroes, I am exploring of an event, the First Crusade to Jerusalem, a time, the end of the 11th century, and a culture, the Franks. The heroes present in the Chronicles and the Chanson de Geste’s were not born heroic, they were created by the authors to fit the culture they belonged to. These works are therefore a lens into the culture of the Latin Franks at the time of the First Crusade. On the other hand, understanding how the issues of the time and the evolution of the culture since the Carolingian era will deepen our understanding of the texts. The First Crusade was a turning point for the culture of Europe and fundamentally altered the trajectory of what we consider Western Civilization. Jay Rubenstein sums up the colossal impact of the pilgrimage best when he says that “It would be no exaggeration to say that the economy, spirituality, technology, and morality- the foundations of Western Culture- would be remade because of the First Crusade.”10 This paper will explore this remaking of the Latin West and use it to contextualize the heroes that emerged from their writing. Specifically, it will discuss how nobility, Christianity and race are all deciding factors in who Frankish writers chose to characterize as heroic. In chapter two, I will discuss nobility and chivalry and engage with the scholarship of Constance Brittan Bouchard and her book Strong of Body, Brave and Noble: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. In chapter three, I will delve into Christianity, the Pax Dei and the Gregorian reform and examine the scholarly consensus that the Churches desire for peace was a key element to the birth of the Crusading movement. In chapter four, I will use Geraldine Heng’s The Invention of Race in the 9 Horswell and Skottki, 3. Jay Rubenstein. Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011. xii. 10 11 European Middle Ages and Matthew Gabriel’s An Empire of Memory to define how the Latin Franks viewed race and how Charlemagne and the First Crusade changed that perception. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that this thesis is in many ways, an exploration of great man history that was written by Male Latin Franks. This has been the dominant mode of historical study and this paper does not break this mold. My hope with this thesis is not to continue to silence the perspectives of non-western cultures, but rather to hold up a magnifying glass to what we have chosen to venerate and celebrate as the roots of western civilization. Latin Chronicles and Chanson de Geste of the late 11th and early 12th century are all guilty of dehumanizing Muslims. They are portrayed as simple enemies and their diversity is not respected. This is evident in how the Chronicles choose to name them. They are frequently referred to as Saracens or simply Turks. Both of these terms took a diverse group of people and combined them into a single faceless, inhuman enemy. The term Saracen especially was used in an offensive way, I will stick to using the term “Muslim” to represent the enemies of the Crusading Franks, though I recognize that this too is an oversimplification. If western culture chooses to look back on the crusading heroes and the Franks of the late 11th century as a foundation for our modern identity, I believe that both the heroes and the culture should be fully understood, contextualized, and criticized. 12 Chapter 1: The Four Tenets of Heroism La Chanson de Roland Volume 4 of the Journal Engaging the Crusades subtitled The Making of Crusading Heroes and Villains explores how the legacies of Crusading Heroes and Villains were crafted. In the journal's introduction, editors Mike Horswell and Kirsten Skotti delve into the historiography of medieval heroism. Their most profound argument was their description of three aspects of heroism that shifted and changed with the norms and values of the society’s heroes emerged from.11 These three aspects are: 1) Moral and political ambiguity. 2) The ability to inflict violent power. 3) Masculinity. These three heroic tenets form a solid baseline for medieval heroism that I will return back to throughout this thesis, but not before adding my own fourth heroic aspect: Fealty. Medieval heroes were faithful to their earthly lords and loyal to God and Christianity. Henceforth, I will refer to these four ideas as the four tenets of heroism. To establish these tenets of holy war heroism, I will turn to La Chanson de Roland. La Chanson De Roland offers us insight into how Crusaders viewed heroism just as accurately as any Chronicle. Though The Song of Roland depicts a battle that took place in 778, it is generally agreed that the epic poem was written in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, meaning it was concurrent with the beginnings of the Crusading movement. The themes of the poem and the characterization of the heroes within it are extraordinarily reminiscent of the themes and heroes within the Historical Chronicles. La 11 Horswell and Skottki. 2. 13 Chanson d Roland is an invaluable touchstone for examining 11th Century Frankish heroism. The poem contains a multitude of heroes who all exhibit all four of these heroic tenants. These tenets' themes echo from the Song of Roland and permeate the Chronicles of the First Crusade. Roland himself is a shining example of masculinity, martial prowess, fealty and martyrdom. However, other heroes and their deeds widen the scope of heroism in the poem, making Le Chanson De Roland a fairly complex picture of Holy War heroism. Roland dies in stanza 176, around two thirds of the way through the poem. After his death, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, acts as a primary protagonist. He is shown to be exceptionally holy, receiving multiple dream visions directly from God, including multiple visits from Saint Gabriel.12 Charlemagne and Roland function as the two primary protagonists in the poem. They get the most page time and are the main actors in the text. They are supplemented by two other heroes, the wise knight Oliver, and the Archbishop Turpin. Each of these four heroes represents different aspects of heroism, but all four share similarities between them: the four tenets. They are all incredibly skilled warriors and enact graphic violence. All four are men. Each of the four share an undying loyalty to their feudal lords, to their families and to God. They are all willing to suffer and die for their way of life. These are the second, third and fourth tenets. The first medieval heroic tenant, political and moral ambiguity, will be explored in much greater depth in later chapters. This chapter will use the four heroes of La 12 The Song of Roland, 119. 14 Chanson de Roland to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the other three tenants: violence, masculinity, and fealty. Firstly, La Chanson de Roland proves how deeply violence and heroism were interconnected in the early 12th century. Roland, Oliver, Charlemagne and even Archbishop Turpin are all depicted inflicting incredible violence. The Chanson de Geste as a genre frequently employs extremely visceral depictions of violence that a modern reader might find incredibly vicious and unnecessarily detailed and off-putting. In another Chanson de Geste, Chanson de Raoul de Cambrai, the titular Raoul commits a series of atrocities that culminates in him burning down a nunnery that had his squire's mother trapped inside.13 Raoul was punished by the narrative for killing these nuns. The squire that Raoul wronged eventually slays Raoul before getting killed himself. Although Raoul is punished, the act of violence does not disqualify him from heroism. After his death, his heart is shown to be quite large, the size of an ox,14 a medieval metaphor for courage and honor. The Chanson de Geste’s specific mention of Raoul’s large heart shows that he is a figure to be respected, despite the fact he burned nuns, an almost comical level of violence. While the poem does not portray the act as righteous by any means, the burning of the church does not make Raoul irredeemable by any means. Raoul is still the hero of the Chanson de Geste and is depicted as a moral man after his death. 13 Nakashian, Craig M. “‘Li arcevesque est mult bon chevalier’: The Chivalric Ideals of Archbishop Turpin” in Prowess, Piety and Public order in Medieval Society: Studies in honor of Richard W. Kaeuper. Ed. Craig M. Nakashian and Daniel P. Franke. Brill, 2017. 14 Jessie Crosland. Raoul De Cambrai: An Old French Feudal Epic. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1966. 60. 15 Raoul’s violence was forgiven, but it was not necessarily heroic. In order for violence to be treated as heroic, it had to be a very specific kind of violence. The most heroic for of violence was violence on the field of battle against living men who were not Christian. Violence against fellow Christians, dead bodies and unarmed combatants were all considered sinful and unheroic to varying degrees. As I delve further into violence and it’s heroic nature, we will see the Franks committing all forms of violence, both heroic and sinful and discuss how that violence came to be permitted, forgiven and even venerated. La Chanson de Roland and the Chronicles of the First Crusade do not just excuse the violence of its protagonists. The heroes of these works are shown inflicting heroic violence, always on the field of battle, and this violence is not just forgiven, it is a necessity. The heroes of Roland are specifically heroic because of their violence. Incredibly graphic depictions of violence and death delivered by the hands of heroes are incredibly commonplace in both the Chanson de Geste and Crusading Chronicles. Roland faces a “pagan champion” and cleaves the man and his horse in half with a single stroke. The poem describes the blow in great detail, showing Roland sword as it “splits through the skull and the face between the eyes” and “halves the whole boy all the way down to the groin.”15 Then the sword “sinks into the horse, severs its spine, grinding through no joint but solid bone.” Two stanzas later, Oliver, who is characterized as wise and cautious out of combat, knocks the eyes out of a pagan’s head with his shield and sends his brains tumbling.16 Even Archbishop Turpin fights with a degree of brutality. When he faces a pagan in combat, he “drives his great lance into the body, skewers it, 15 16 The Song of Roland. 42. Ibid, 43. 16 heaves it up dead, and pitches the corpse onto the path.”17 Charlemagne is characterized as a great king due to his relentless ability to make war. The Muslim king Marsuilin marvels that Charlemagne is still conquering at the age of 200.18 These acts of violence are quite extreme. Roland’s attack on a pagan champion particularly sticks out as gruesome. The poem takes the time to depict the sword cutting through every individual body part. The poem does not shy away from violence. It highlights it by describing it in such a way that it could not be missed. It is also significant that every one of the four major heroes is shown participating in this violence. Despite their different roles in society all of them are shown to be experienced killers. They all share violence. There is no moment in La Chanson de Roland where this violence is questioned. Roland, Oliver, and Turpin all immediately ascend to heaven after their deaths and Charlemagne’s ultimate victory is yet another conquest. They are all universally lauded for there gruesome murders, and all achieve a sort of happy ending. Roland, Oliver, and Turpin all receive eternal salvation19 and Charlemagne avenges them to win the day. The poems decision to highlight violence as exemplary establishes violence as a key element of Frankish society and as a tenet of heroism. I will discuss how this violence become worthy of praise in chapter two when I discuss nobility. Moving on to another tenet established by Horswell and Skottki: Heroic Masculinity. Masculinity seems like it occupies a different space than skill in violence or fealty. As I discussed in my introduction, there are two forms of heroism, heroic deeds 17 Ibid, 40. Ibid, 19. 19 Ibid, 73. 18 17 and heroic identity. Violence and loyalty are both proven through deeds and Masculinity seems like it is strictly based in identity. However, masculinity occupies both roles. Horswell and Skottki point out that heroic masculinity was deed based to an extent. They argue that masculinity was not a given, not every man earned heroic masculinity. Masculinity was earned and based on achievement.20 These achievements often were proving one's loyalty to go through violence or loyalty. Masculinity is deeply entrenched in the other two tenets. However, masculinity separates itself from violence and loyalty because it is not only based in deeds, but also in identity. It is what I like to call an exclusionary identity. Heroic Masculinity does not inherently include anyone, but it does inherently exclude women. Not every man is heroically masculine, but every man does have the potential to earn it. Women, on the other hand, were excluded from this. La Chanson de Roland shows that women could not reach the heroic heights of men by completely restricting their page time and by giving them no narrative import. Roland, Oliver, Charlemagne, and Turpin are all biologically male. Every knight, baron or even Muslim that the poem deems as an important actor is also male. Only two women speak over the course of the poem. The first is the Spanish Queen Bramimonde, who is most notable for blaming her own gods for the defeat of her husband and later converting to Christianity. Susan P. Millinger interprets Bramimonde as a “vehicle by which the Muslim decision about fighting the French can be criticize by an insider.”21 The queen is the only one to renounce the Muslim gods for Christianity. The second 20 Horswell and Skottki, 4. Susan P. Millinger. “Epic values: the Song of Roland.” In The Middle Ages in Texts and Texture: Reflections on Medieval Sources, Edited by Glenn, Jason., 141-152. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011. 144. 21 18 woman is Alde, Oliver’s sister who was betrothed to Roland, who dies of grief the moment she hears that Roland has died.22 The two are important to the poem but occupy very little time in the text. Alde is only alive for a single stanza. Alde is taking a heroic action by dying for Roland. She is dying for Roland in the same way that Roland dies for Charlemagne. This is a show of fealty, but she lacks the ability to gain masculinity through heroic actions. Alde is inherently excluded due to her womanhood. This is why she is given so little time in the poem. Alde is a perfect example of how La Chanson de Roland proves that women are excluded from heroism despite their ability to complete heroic deeds. Now, to delve into my fourth tenant of medieval heroism: fealty. Each of the four main heroes of The Song of Roland share an undying sense of loyalty towards each other and to their cause. Roland, Oliver, and Archbishop Turpin are eternally loyal to Charlemagne. When Roland is first told by Oliver that the Saracens are approaching, Roland welcomes it by saying that “For the sake of our king we are bound to remain here. For the sake of his lord a man is bound to endure the extremes of heat and cold and to lose, if he must, hide and hair.”23 In knightly society, the relationship between a lord and a vassal was worth suffering and dying for. Roland’s words come to fruition. All the Franks of the rear guard remain in battle against insurmountable odds for Charlemagne and they are all killed. Roland, Oliver, and Turpin are loyal to the point of death. This suffering, known to the Franks as Martyrdom was a key facet of fealty. To be truly loyal, a hero had to be willing to die for their cause. 22 23 The Song of Roland, 111. Ibid, 33. 19 Roland’s stepfather Ganelon, the Frankish villain of the Chanson de Geste, has an opportunity to make a heroic display of loyalty in the face of death. At the beginning of the poem Charlemagne is looking for a man to send to the Saracen King Marsilun of Saragossa to negotiate. Just like leading the rear guard, this is a potentially deadly task. It is understood that it is likely that King Marsilun will kill whatever messenger Charlemagne sends. Roland does the heroic thing and volunteers to meet with King Marsilun. Roland says: “add quote” but Charlamagne turns him down. Eventually Roland suggests that Ganelon should be the one to parley with King Marsilun and Charlamagne agrees. This is an opportunity for Ganelon to prove his heroism by becoming a martyr. Instead, Ganelon is enraged. He is only motivated by self preservation. Ganelon vows to take revenge on Roland for putting him in a dangerous situation. Instead of simply delivering Charlamagne’s message to King Marsilun, Ganelon instead betrays the King of the Franks. Ganelon reveals Charlemagne’s secrets to the Muslim King in exchange for his own life. The most damning secret that Ganelon tells Marsilun is that Roland is the key to Charlemagne's power. Ganelon and Marsilun then create the scheme to isolate Roland in the rear guard and then attack him. This trick is what ultimately leads to Roland's death.24 Ganelon is gifted swords, helmets, camels, and gold by the Saracens in exchange for his treachery. Roland and Ganelon show how fealty is rewarded with a heroic characterization and treachery is treated as villainous. Both men are ordered by their liege into deadly situations and therefore are both presented with the opportunity to prove their fealty. Roland gladly accepts the order. He does his duty and ultimately suffers and dies for his 24 Ibid, 21. 20 king and his cause. Ultimately, Roland is rewarded in the afterlife, as the poem depicts an angel bearing his soul to paradise upon his death. Ganelon, on the other hand, does not listen to Charlemagne's orders. When he is confronted with danger and suffering, he chooses to betray Charlemagne and Roland. For this betrayal, Ganelon is rewarded in the material world with lavish gifts from the Muslims. However, he is eventually executed for his crimes. The Franks tie each of his limbs to a horse, and Ganelon is pulled apart causing him to die “like a wretched felon.”25 Heroes, like Roland, were willing to die for their causes and their beliefs. Villains, like Ganelon, were willing to betray their own families to survive. Heroic figures suffered for their beliefs and were rewarded with eternal salvation. Suffering for sin is steeped in Christian faith and therefore it was also steeped in Frankish culture. It is very common for Frankish heroes to wish for hardship and death. Conversely, those who abandoned their causes to avoid suffering and death disqualified themselves from heroism. Fealty is more than a vassal’s willingness to suffer and die for their lord. A hero also had to be loyal to God and his causes. Fortunately, however, these two concepts were usually seen as one and the same. By the 11th century when the poem was written, Charlemagne already had a holy reputation. As Matthew Gabrielle puts it, Charlemagne is often “not so much a person as an avatar, functioning primarily as Christ’s earthly representative.”26 Charlemagne was more than a man, he was a godly cause in himself. The poem adds credence to this interpretation. Charlemagne is visited by multiple angels 25 Ibid 118. Matthew Gabrielle. An Empire of Memory the Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and Jerusalem before the First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 50. 26 21 throughout the poem, proving his connection to divinity and it is the support of the angel Saint Gabriel that leads to his ultimate victory. Contrast this with the Muslim army. When the Muslim army starts to lose, Queen Bramimonde runs to a statue of Apollo and says “Oh wicked god, why have you visited such shame upon us. Why have you allowed our king to be overthrown?”27 The Muslims do not have the support of a God, unlike Charlemagne who explicitly does. Charlemagne’s cause and God’s cause are one and the same. This is why Roland’s dedication to the cause of Charlemagne is heroic. By supporting Charlemagne, he is not just a loyal vassal, he is loyal to the same cause that God himself supports. When Roland dies for Charlemagne, he is also dying for God himself. This adds extra stakes to the decisions made by Roland and Ganelon. When a potential hero betrays their liege lord in holy war, they are also betraying God. If someone is willing to die for a holy campaign, they are heroic in both the secular sense by upholding feudalism and they are loyal in the religious sense. The actions taken by Roland, Oliver, Turpin, and Charlemagne demonstrate that the poet has a consistent attitude toward the tenets of heroism. All four men engage in visceral violence, which shows that the poem believes that being skilled in battle is a key element for heroic characterization. All four men are just that: men. The anonymous poet chose to exclude women from the heroes of the poem. Finally, the poem depicts all four heroes showing fealty to such an extent that they are all willing to die for their cause. There is internal consistency of attitude towards these tenets within La Chanson de Roland, but one source does not prove that these tenets were key elements of the 27 The Song of Roland, 79. 22 Frankish culture at the time of the First Crusade. It is the consistent portrayal of these heroic tenets across 11th century Frankish sources that proves the cultural importance of these pillars of heroic characterization. Echoes of the Song of Roland in the Chronicles of The First Crusade We will now take the tenets of heroism of the La Chanson de Roland and see if we can find similar themes in the Historical Chronicles of th First Crusade. I will begin once more with violence and its heroic nature. The positive portrayal of violence in La Chanson de Roland appears throughout the Chronicles. The most similar Chronicle to La Chanson de Roland, especially in terms of its portrayal of violence, is Robert the Monk’s Historia Hierosolymitana. Duke Godfrey is Robert’s chosen protagonist. Robert depicts him as so virtuous that he made the position of King more honorable when he ascended to it. Robert has a unique passage in his Chronicle that is titled “In praise of Duke Godfrey.”28 This passage calls Godfrey an “outstanding ornament of Chivalry and ends with Godfrey graphically chopping a pagan “Goliath''29 in half: “ He raised his sword and plunged it into the left side of [the Goliath’s] shoulderblades with such force that it split the chest down the middle, slashed through the spine and the vital organs, and, slippery with blood, came out unbroken above the right leg. As a result, the whole of the head and the right side slipped down into the water whilst the part remaining on the horse was carried back into the city.”30 28 Robert the Monk. Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana. trans. Carol Sweetenham. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. 132. 29 The word “Goliath” is loaded with meaning. It is most likely a biblical allusion to the story of David and Goliath. David was able to slay Goliath, a much larger opponent because he has the support of God. The heroic Christian underdog is a common trope because it demonstrated the power of God more than making up the difference between human abilities. 30 Robert the Monk, 133. 23 This passage is extraordinary reminiscent of the scene where Roland carves a Muslim in two. Both passages depict a sword cutting an opponent in half and highlight every part of the body that the sword cuts through. It is more than a coincidence that Godfrey and Roland enact violence in a nearly identical way. Thomas Asbridge argues that Robert the Monk was directly inspired by the depictions of violence in Chanson de Geste in order to establish martial superiority and indomitability.31 La Chanson de Roland and Robert the Monk were not the only two sources that celebrated violence. Ralph of Caen’s account, the Gesta Tancredi tells us that Tancred killed 700 men in a single battle. Ralph also employs the same style of close-up detailed violence when Tancred skewers three Muslims with a single strike from his spear. Ralph spends the time describing how the spear broke through armor as if it were hemp and how the third Muslim turned to flee but the spear still pierced him through his back.32 The rhetorical device of spending a lot of time showing the gritty details of a single blow violence was not exclusive to a single text. The Franks were not afraid of violence in their stories. Violence was not something to be glossed over, it was something to be highlighted. Frankish writers live in a society that was steeped in violence and this comes through in their texts. Nearly every hero in the Chronicles of the First Crusade is shown to be skilled at killing in hand-to-hand combat.33 31 Asbridge, Thomas S. An Experiment in Extremity: the Portrayal of Violence in Robert the Monk’s Narrative of the First Crusade. in “History 105, no. 368.” 2020. 721. 32 Ralph of Caen. The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of the Normans on the First Crusade. trans. Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 2016, 78. 33 There are a few exceptions to this. The first is Bohemond, who is frequently characterized as a brilliant battle tactician but is rarely showed fighting in single combat. He is often subtly mocked for this by Chronicles that do not favor him- an idea that I will explore in Chapter Four. The second exception are the priests who accompany the First Crusade, such as the Bishop of Le Puy. However, I would argue that the priests inability to participate in violence is what prevents them from being considered fully fledged heroes. Priests rarely get full episodes dedicated to them in the Chronicles. The only Priest in Chanson de Geste 24 This takes us to heroic masculinity and the exclusion of women from the historical narratives. Every hero who gets consistent page time and actively participates in the histories and poems are biological men. Women got very little attention in both the Chronicles and in the Chanson de Geste. It is rare to find an episode where a woman plays a prominent role as an individual, or even speaks. One of the few examples of a woman speaking in Crusading Chronicles occurs when Kerboga’s mother, a Muslim Queen, warns her son that battling with the Christian forces will lead to disaster due to Christianity’s superiority.34 The original story is in the Gesta Francorum and is repeated in the Chronicles that use the Gesta Francorum as a baseline, such as Robert the Monk and Guibert de Nogent. The characterization of Kerboga’s mother is extremely similar to that of Queen Bramimonde in Roland. Both women are used by their respective narratives to show the superiority of Christianity. In Guibert de Nogent’s account, he goes as far as to have Kerboga’s mother say that “the authority of the Christian religion is superior.”35 Kerboga’s mother is just as much of a vehicle for Christian authors to criticize Muslims as Bramimonde. The women are not characters, they are puppets who state the opinions of the Christian Frankish authors who write them. The authors are using the voice of Muslim women to convey the idea that even non-Christian can see how powerful the Christian god is. and the Chronicles that gets enough page time to consider a hero is Archbishop Turpin, the only priest who partook in violence. 34 Anonymous. Gesta Francorum. trans. Roland Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. 55. 35 Guibert de Nogent. The Deeds of the Gods through the Franks: Gesta Dei Per Francos. trans. Robert Levine. The Boydell Press, 1997. 96. 25 After this purpose is fulfilled, Kerboga’s mother does not appear again in any of the Chronicles. Queen Bramimonde does appear again, only to be converted to Christianity. When La Chanson de Roland describes her conversation, the author of the poem portrays Bramimonde as the object to be converted. She does not convert herself; she is converted by Charlamagne. She is given the Christian name Julianne, which the conquering men “have chosen for her.”36 The women that appear in Chronicles, like Kerboga’s mother, Alde and Bramimonde, do not take actions. They either serve as propaganda or are reacting to the deeds of men. But the most damning evidence for the exclusion of women from the role of hero are not the women who do appear in these texts but rather the women that do not. We know that women did go on Crusade. Fulcher of Chartes and Guibert de Nogent both mention that many numerous women went on the First Crusade.37 Yet neither of these Chronicles choses to name individual women or explore their deed through the lens of heroism. These women were silenced- excluded from heroism due to their lack of masculinity. On to the final heroic tenet- fealty. La Chanson de Roland demonstrated that fealty encapsulated loyalty to one's liege, one's family, one's cause and to God. It also introduces the rhetorical strategy of having a heroic character monologue about how they are willing to die for their cause. A willingness to die was shorthand for ultimate heroic loyalty. 36 The Song of Roland, 119. Maria Carriere, "Women in the First Crusade and the Kingdom of Jerusalem" (2019). WWU Honors Program Senior Projects.. 9 37 26 Once again, the exact brand of fealty that is shown in the La Chanson de Roland are present in the Chronicles. The Gesta Francorum contains many episodes where fate and martyrdom are rewarded with positive characterizations. One such episode occurs during the siege of Antioch, Guy. Christian knight who is far from the siege, gets the erroneous message that his liege Bohemond and the rest of the Crusaders have all been slain. He responds by weeping and asking “who will give me the chance to die for you, my sweetest friend and lord?... Oh that I might have been so lucky as to suffer martyrdom with you.”38 Guibert de Nogent has a story that shows more of the same. Guibert tells us that King Phillips’s brother Hugh is starving nearly to the point of death during the siege of Antioch but is still willing to fight. When someone suggests that Hugh should remain behind, Hugh says “No! I certainly shall go; I only hope that I find a blessed there with those who are to die today.”39 These speeches are reminiscent of Roland’s attitude towards death and pain. Both Guy and Hugh explicitly wish for death. The fact that this trope of wishing for death appears across so many Frankish sources tells us that dying for a cause was highly valued in the Crusading Culture and was used as shorthand for heroism. If a character wishes for death in service of God or their holy cause, then they are almost certainly a hero. While Gesta Francorum rewards those who remained loyal to the Crusading movement with heroic characterization, it punishes those who abandoned the pilgrimage in equal measure. The man who told Guy that Antioch had fallen was Stephen of Blois. Stephen was a defector from the Siege of Antioch. In the Gesta Francorum, Stephen is 38 39 Anonymous. Gesta Francorum. trans. Roland Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. 64. Guibert de Nogent, 109. 27 not depicted kindly. The narrator tells us that Stephen faked an illness to get out of fighting , abandoning the siege, presumably to avoid the difficult conditions. The narrator refers to him as “that coward Stephen.”40 In contrast, the narrator refers to Guy as an “honorable knight.41” Once again, we see the rhetorical technique of simply adding an adjective before a name to quickly establish reputation. The Gesta Francorum swiftly punished Stephen’s decision to choose his own life over the Crusades, by switching to negative adjectives after Stephen flees. We know that Stephen’s defection permanently destroyed his heroic reputation. We know that Stephen was seen as a skilled warrior and fully dedicated to the Crusade before his defection. His enthusiasm for the endeavor is present in his letter to his wife Adele, where he praises his men for being “prepared to die for Christ” and tells her that he has not lost a single soldier in battle.42 We also know that prior to the Crusaders arrival at Antioch, he was elected to be the leader of the Crusade, proving that he was held in high esteem prior to his defection.43 All of these positive details about Stephen’s crusading career were very intentionally left out of almost every Chronicle of the First Crusade. They choose instead to focus on his defection. Even Robert the Monk, who believes Stephen’s claim that he has an illness and treated him far more kindly than the Gesta Francorum, only mentions Stephen when he is listing the leader of the First Crusade. The only chapter in Robert’s account where Stephen is shown taking action is the chapter where he flees, which is 40 Gesta Francorum, 63. Ibid. 42 Letter of Stephen of Blois 43 James A. Brundage “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois.” Traditio 16 (1960): 380–95. 387. 41 28 appropriately titled “How Count Stephen fled.”44 All of Stephen's heroic deeds were immediately forgotten when he abandoned the hardships of the Siege. Even the sources who were kinder to Stephen erased all of the heroic deeds that Stephen discussed in his letter. Stephen’s credibility was entirely ruined when he returned home from the Crusade. He was excommunicated by Pope Urban II and his wife was furious with him for his cowardice.45 Stephen would eventually go on another Crusading expedition in 1100 in an attempt to regain his heroic standing. However, he was captured and killed in 1102. Stephen’s death served to rehabilitate his reputation. Stephen’s unwillingness to suffer with the Crusaders excluded him from heroism and he was only permitted a partial redemption after he was killed. Stephen is not the only one who fled the siege at Antioch. William the Carpenter and Peter the Hermit also attempted to flee. They were caught by Tancred and brought to Bohemond, who calls William a “wretched disgrace” and “most loathsome of men whom the earth should bear.”46 The narrator describes William as laying on the ground like a piece of rubbish. William the Carpenter universally reviled because has not been a good martyr. Heroic figures are meant to suffer in the face of insurmountable odds, as Roland did. The Siege of Antioch was an incredibly difficult affair. The hunger, cold and sickness created the perfect environment for martyrdom. Those who survived the Siege, such as Bohemond, could claim that they suffered for God. Unlike Roland, William attempted to 44 Robert the Monk, 158. Ibid, 391. 46 Gesta Francorum, 33. 45 29 abandon his duty, to lessen his own personal suffering. After being pardoned, William flees again, this time successfully. Guibert de Nogent describes this second defection as “sinful cowardice.”47 The narrator of the Gesta Francorum immediately laments that God is punishing the Christians for their sins in the line immediately following the story of William’s defection. The text is strongly implying that William’s defection is one of the causes of the Crusaders' suffering. Ganelon’s betrayal in La Chanson de Roland also led to great suffering for the Christian army. William and Ganelon’s defections were portrayed as sinful because in the mind of the Franks, they were not only betraying their army, but they were also abandoning God himself. The consistent message is clear. Loyalty to a cause, especially if it leads to suffering and death, is an inherently heroic quality. The figures that abandoned the causes that were supported by God, as both the First Crusade and Charlemagne’s conquests supposedly were, were treated as pathetic cowards at best and villains at worst. La Chanson de Roland is a key text for understanding heroism on Crusade. The heroes of the Chanson de Geste and the heroes of the Chronicles share enough similarities to give us a good insight into the cultural perception of heroism at the time of the First Crusade. The tenets of heroism, Violence, Masculinity, and Fealty were all key elements that recur throughout both the La Chanson de Roland and the historical Chronicles. They are ubiquitous and therefore foundational. If a figure did not possess one of these traits, they were immediately rejected from the position of hero. 47 Guibert de Nogent, 79. 30 What did Not Make a Hero We have established that heroes like Bohemond and Godfrey of the Chronicles share the common traits of inflicting violence, possessing masculine identity and intense loyalty to their cause with the heroes of La Chanson de Roland. However, despite the pervasiveness of these heroic tenets across Frankish historians and poets, Frankish heroes were by no means monolithic. These heroes are all individuals and thus have unique characterizations. The differences between heroes across stories and sources are as important as their similarities. In the similarities, we see what Frankish authors constantly saw as heroic. If a heroic trait remains consistent across stories, we can surmise that this trait was valued by the culture. We know for a fact that the Franks did see violence as a positive characteristic.48 Every major hero we have examined so far from Frankish writings was skilled in some form of violence. Whether they were skilled in battlefield tactics like Bohemond or hand to hand combat like Godfrey, violent skill was a ubiquitous trait. Its ubiquitousness across sources indicates that violence was an important part of Frankish culture. The inverse, therefore, is also true. Traits that are not universal across sources were not valued as highly by Frankish hero makers. For example, heroes across Frankish chronicles all had different personalities and dispositions. All the sources agree that Bohemond was cunning, Godfrey was reckless, and Tancred was naive and had a temper. Yet all these men were permitted to be characterized as heroes despite their differences. The personality and attitude of a Frankish hero permitted flexibility which meant it was 48 The reasons that the Frankish romanticized of violence will be explored when I examine Frankish Nobility and Christian licit violence in later chapters. 31 not as foundational as fealty or skill in violence which were both essential. By examining the differences in the characterizations of Frankish heroes, we learn what we can discard from the discussion of defining heroic identity. There is perhaps no better case study to explore the differences between two heroic characters than the argument between Oliver and Roland about whether or not to blow the Oliphant Horn. When Roland and his army are selected to act as Charlemagne's rear guard, Roland is gifted an ivory horn that he is told to blow if he finds himself in trouble. The horn will summon Charlamagne to assist him. When Roland is attacked by the insurmountable Muslim army, Oliver begs Roland to blow the horn in four straight stanzas.49 Oliver argues that the Franks are hopelessly outnumbered, and he doesn’t see anything shameful in blowing the horn to call for reinforcements. Roland vehemently disagrees. He calls blowing the horn an “act of fools”50and argues that his reputation will be tarnished beyond repair if he blows the horn. The fact that the Franks are outnumbered excites him. It is an opportunity for him to show his near supernatural martial prowess and he concludes his argument by saying that he would “rather die than be brought to shame.”51 Roland refuses to blow the horn before the battle. However, after he is hopelessly outmatched and his army is all but entirely destroyed, Roland changes his mind. He decides to blow the horn. It is too late by that point, and Roland, Oliver and Turpin have all been slain before reinforcements arrive. The rest of the poem follows Charlemagne avenging the deaths of his subjects. 49 The Song of Roland, 34-35. Ibid. 51 Ibid, 36. 50 32 Roland’s decision not to blow the horn is the turning point of the epic. Roland’s choice to blow the horn and then subsequently die is the climax of the entire piece. The poem suggests that if Roland simply blew the horn when Oliver first proposed the idea, Charlamagne would have arrived in time to save him and his army. A modern reader who sees the story through this lens might conclude that Oliver is far more of a hero than Roland. Oliver is prudent and the tragedy is that a proud Roland would not listen to him. The poem itself does not take this stance. Roland is never admonished by the narrator for his choices and the poem very intentionally frames both knights as equals. In the middle of the argument between the two companions, the narrator states that: “Roland is Bold, and Oliver is wise. Both of them are renowned for their bravery. When they are armed and mounted, no fear of death makes them shirk from battle. They are men of worth, these counts and they speak proud words.”52 The narrator is acknowledging that they are different, but they are similar in the ways that count. Both of them are brave warriors and willing to be martyrs. It is as if the narrator is telling us to overlook their difference of opinion because both men deserve praise. The narrator’s choice to compliment both men equally stand in stark contrast to the severity of the argument between the two knights. Roland calls Oliver’s suggestion vile and argues that by blowing the horn they would bring dishonor to all of France. Yet Oliver is not framed as a coward. He is explicitly stated to be brave. Roland’s decision ultimately leads to his death, yet the narrator does not call him foolish or weak. When the narrator calls Roland bold and Oliver wise, he is choosing to frame both of their 52 Ibid. 33 characters in a positive light. Even though this moment has massive consequences, and two main characters fundamentally disagree, they are both treated as equally noble. There are two major points to glean from this episode about the nature of Frankish Heroism. The first is that personality and disposition had little effect on whether a person received a heroic characterization. Roland and Oliver are characterized as exact opposites in personality, yet the narrator gives neither personality type preference by treating one or the other as a superior hero. The exact same wise/bold dichotomy appears in Gesta Francorum. Bohemond is described as “Vir itaque sapiens'' meaning “a wise man.” In the same paragraph, Godfrey is described as “audax and fortis'' which means “bold and brave.”53 Bohemond is crafty, often lauded for his ability to plan for battle, and given credit for his scheme to take Antioch. Godfrey, on the other hand, is depicted as noble and skilled in combat. This is extremely reminiscent of the wise Oliver and the reckless Roland. Both Godfrey and Bohemond are given very positive portrayals in the Gesta Francorum, further proving that neither a cautious disposition nor a bold one excluded anyone from heroism. Wisdom and boldness are ultimately not tenants of heroism. Unlike fealty, martial skill and these personality traits were strictly supplemental. Personality traits like wisdom or boldness are often lauded when a hero who already possesses the four tenants or heroism possess them, but neither trait is intrinsically heroic in and of themselves. Bohemond is a fantastic example of wisdom not automatically making one a hero. He is universally depicted as wise and cunning but not universally depicted as fully heroic. Sources that praise Bohemond, like the Gesta Francorum, play up his wisdom, 53 Gesta Francorum, 19. 34 placing emphasis on his ability to make inspiring speeches and celebrating how he convinced the Muslim Emir Pirrus to open the gates to Antioch. Other sources that are not so kind to Bohemond twist his wisdom and caution into negative traits. According to Robert the Monk, Bohemond did not charge into battle- he often led from behind, which did not speak well to his ability to inflict violence. His caution is interpreted as cowardice. Ralph of Caen, who frequently diminishes Bohemond as cruel to his nephew Tancred, emphasizes his cunning and deceitful nature.54 Just as wisdom can easily be portrayed as cowardice and boldness can just as easily be foolishness. Tancred is a great example of this. Albert of Aachen portrays Tancred as hot-headed and immature. Ralph of Caen portrays Tancred’s hot-headed recklessness as a righteous fury against injustice.55 Tancred’s anger is malleable and portrayed differently in each source. The trait itself did not make Tancred a hero, it was used by historians to either supplement or diminish his constructed heroic historical identity. The only thing that separates a heroic personality from a pathetic one are the bias’s of the Chroniclers. If the Chronicler wants to make a hero, they will give whatever personality traits hey happen to possess a favorable spin. This is quite different from the previous heroic tenets I discussed like violent skill,56 masculinity and fealty which are universally praised in every source. Therefore, personality is an afterthought when compared to the other tenets of heroism. No personality types were automatically 54 Ralph of Caen, 94. Francesca Petrizzo. ‘Most Excellent and Brave of Heart’: Tancred’s Making and Unmaking in the Sources. In The Making of Crusading Heroes and Villains, 2021, 7–22. 13. 56 When I say that violence was universally praised, this is only partially true. It would be more accurate to say licit violence against non-Christians was praised. This concept will be fully fleshed out in Chapter 3 when I discuss who the Franks allowed Heroes to kill and why. 55 35 excluded from heroism and no personality types increase heroic potential. Personality was flexible, and therefore less important than violence, masculinity, and fealty. The second key takeaway from Oliver and Roland’s argument is that arguments between heroes were a fact of life. Furthermore it proves that the act of argument in and of itself did not diminish the heroism of either of the arguing parties. Even though so much of the story is centered around the choice to blow the horn, the moral of La Chanson de Roland is not that Oliver was right to be cautious and Roland wrong, but this is not how the argument is framed. The argument does not force either Oliver or Roland out of the role of hero. Many of the Crusading heroes also found themselves at odds throughout the pilgrimage. The most commonly referenced disagreement was between Tancred and Baldwin over who should own the newly conquered city of Tarsus. This was a severe disagreement. Baldwin steals the city out from Tancred’s banner and Tancred’s tactical retreat was all that prevented a battle between the two Crusaders Yet, in most of the Chronicles, the Chronicler does not take a side. The Gesta Francorum only briefly touches on this episode and compliments both Tancred and Baldwin with positive prefix adjectives. In the short time the narrator spends discussing the disagreement, he calls Baldwin noble and Tancred both valiant and brave.57It is reminiscent of how the narrator of the Gesta Francorum complimented both Oliver and Roland immediately after their argument. Robert the Monk’s account of the incident is even more brief. His entire account of the argument was confined to a single short chapter. The chapter in its entirety reads: 57 Gesta Francorum, 24. 36 “A dispute then arose between Count Baldwin and Tancred as to which of them should rule the city or whether they should do so jointly. Tancred refused because he wanted it all for himself, but he eventually ceded it to Baldwin, whose army was stronger.”58 Robert seems to be taking Baldwin’s side and is insinuating that Tancred is the lesser commander and greedy, but his stance is not firm. He does not directly insult Tancred’s character with any negative adjectives and does not dwell on the issue. It is the brevity of Robert’s account of the incident that is the most telling. It shows that Robert did not find this incident very important when it came to characterizing his heroes. An argument between two Crusading heroes did not have much consequence according to Robert since this incident is never mentioned again. However, like personality traits, arguments that are Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi, which is filled with arguments between Tancred and other nobles that offended him. Tancred is universally portrayed as correct, and his opponents are turned into scapegoats in the process. Bohemond is the main example of this. Bohemond’s character often is attacked after he does something that Tancred takes issue with, like swearing fealty to the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. However, Bohemond still gets heroic moments in this Chronicle despite this, such as when he figures out that the holy lance is false through deductive reasoning.59 Even in the only Chronicle were arguments have a clear moral “winner” and an immoral “loser,” the loser in Bohemond still gets heroic moments later in the text. Ultimately arguments did not exclude anyone from being a hero. One hero disagreeing with another did necessarily diminish either hero. This perhaps is not 58 59 Robert the Monk, 116. Ralph of Caen, 124. 37 significant in a vacuum. However, it becomes notable when you realize how many things automatically exclude an individual from heroism. We have already explored how being a woman meant that you were excluded from the role of heroism. Soon, I will explore how class, religion and race were all also exclusionary. All of these elements of identity prevented many people from joining the ranks of Holy War heroes. Yet Tancred, who constantly got into arguments with other heroes and had a reckless and angry personality is one of the most heroic figures of the period. He was permitted to be a hero in spite of his angry personality and his arguing because he was a Norman, Christian Noble and a Man. This is because the Franks of the 11th Century were far more concerned with praising a heroic identity than trying to find heroes who had a moral modus operandi. 38 Chapter 2: Class and Nobility Peasants and character Heroic standards emerge from specific cultural moments and these four tenants of heroism were no exception. They emerged from the Franks certainly, but more specifically they came from the culture of the Frankish nobility. Every hero discussed in the Chronicles of the First Crusade was a member of the noble class. The three primary heroes of the First Crusade, Bohemond, Godfrey, and Raymond were all counts and were steeped in the tropes of nobility in all of their appearances. In order to understand how violence became such a heroic character trait, we must first examine Frankish nobility. This chapter will be divided into two parts. The first will look at peasants on the First Crusade and examine how nobility, like masculinity, was used as an exclusionary identity. The second part will explore what nobility meant to the Franks of the 11th Century and how that affected their perceptions of violence. A common misconception about the nobility of the 11th Century is the myth that the nobles were a very strictly defined caste of people who ruled over peasants. While certainly nobles occupied a role in society, the Latin word “nobilis,” which we translate as noble, had multiple meanings. It had connotations of power and wealth, but it also meant moral and of good character.60 This double meaning carries with it the implication that nobles were not only more powerful, but they were also inherently good, oftentimes heroic, people. 60 Constance Brittain Bouchard. Strong of Body, Brave and Noble: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016. 14. 39 Of course, these nobles were not the only ones who went on Crusade. The vast majority of the Crusaders were members of the lower class. Peasant soldiers do appear in chronicles of crusades and occasionally perform heroic deeds. However, none are ever elevated to the role of consistent hero in the same way that Godfrey and Bohemond were. Common soldiers are mostly referenced as a plural body. It was a common occurrence in the Chanson de Geste for an entire army to say a single line all at the same time. The army of multitudes is personified as a single voice. La Chanson de Roland frequently has the Franks speaking as one, whether they are collectively shouting Charlemagne’s battle cry or speaking in unison to mourn the loss of a brave knight.61 This technique transforms the Frankish foot soldiers from multiple individuals into what is functionally a single character. The Soldiers, unlike Roland and the other Counts in the poem, are stripped of individual autonomy or identity outside of their subservience to Charlemagne and Roland. They are important as a collective, but they are not seen as important enough to receive their own identities or characterization. In very rare instances, a single peasant soldier will get a moment in the spotlight, perhaps getting a single stanza or laisse, but they are never the focus of the narrative or occupy a role of significant length. For instance, in Robert the Monk’s account, he tells the story of a lone soldier who remained alone on the walls of Antioch after Bohemond is forced to retreat. He isn’t given a name by the text; he is just referred to as “the soldier” or “the man.” He defends the walls of Antioch by himself by throwing stones and mortar off of the wall. Eventually, after he had been shot by 1000 arrows, he realized that he was 61 The Song of Roland, 22. 40 not going to survive so he leapt off the wall with shields and armor in order to harm as many enemies as possible with his death.62 This soldier has followed all the tenants of heroism to the letter. He shows a superhuman ability to do battle and proves his masculinity when he survives getting struck by 1000 arrows. In his final moments he ultimately sacrifices himself to protect Bohemond and the Crusade as a whole. He is a martyr, dying both for God and his feudal lord. This nameless soldier achieves Roland’s narrative arc in a single chapter. The difference between this soldier and Roland is that Roland is the nephew of Charlemagne therefore has royal blood. This nameless soldier gets half of a single chapter and does not even get the dignity of a name, let alone a mention of his lineage. Peasants that possess heroic characteristics were treated in the same way that potentially heroic women were. They are present and get rare moments of attention, they are never given narrative focus and simply do not have enough page time to ascend to the rank of hero. Robert’s nameless soldier shows us that simply committing an unequivocally heroic act is not enough to become a fully realized hero. The lack of attention paid to those who were not of noble blood makes the traditions of the nobles that much more important to uncovering how the tenants of heroism began to form. Nobility, however, is not a simple concept to define. The idea that nobles and peasants were two evenly divided social castes is a modern projection. In truth, the word that noble came from Nobilis, meant that a person was from a distinguished family and possessed noble traits, not that they were part of a strict group.63 62 63 Robert the Monk, 149. Bouchard, Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, 2. 41 Therefore to be a member of the nobility meant one was both of the noble class and noble of character. Guibert de Nogent’s chronicle Gesta Dei Per Francos demonstrates the difference between nobles and peasants in his portrayal of The People's Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit.64 Peter’s army was the first to set off on Crusade and is thought to be composed primarily of peasants .Guibert portrays the Peasants Crusade as a disorganized, amoral mess. He called the army of Peter the Hermit an “undisciplined crowd of common people who were like prisoners and slaves” and describes them murdering and raping innocent Hungarians.65 Guibert characterizes Peter the Hermit, who was a peasant himself, as a weak leader who was unable to control his army. When Peter gives up power, Guibert writes that he “finally gave the reins of leadership over to a wellborn man, a powerful warrior whose name was Walter.”66 Walter is able to take control of the army very briefly before he is killed by Turks. Guibert is directly comparing Peter and Walter. Peter was unable to control his rabble of men. By showing Walter quickly able to take control of the army once he replaced Peter as leader, Guibert is implying that Walter would have made for a far better leader, had he lived. To demonstrate the differences between Peter and Walter, Guibert emphasizes that Walter was “wellborn,” meaning he came from noble blood. Noble blood was a shorthand for leadership ability and morality. In the eyes of Guibert, it’s obvious that a noble would be a better leader than a peasant. 64 Rubenstein, Jay. Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011. 78. 65 Guibert de Nogent, 48. 66 Ibid, 51. 42 Guibert is characterizing all the lowborn participants of the People’s Crusade as the antithesis of nobilis. They possessed neither the class aspects nor the moral aspects of nobility. Guibert describes them as common, meaning they are unexceptional, people with no power, wealth, or respected parentage. He also describes them as undisciplined and unable to restrain themselves from vile acts of rape and murder. Another group of Franks who were villainized based on class were the Tafurs. The Tafurs were poor foot soldiers from Flanders who were unable to afford traditional weaponry. In La Chanson d’Antioche, a Chanson de Geste that was about the first Crusade, the Tafurs are blamed for nearly every Christian misdeed. These Tafurs were blamed for the slaughter of the Jewish people in the early parts of the Crusade and were later blamed for the Cannibalism and Rape at th Siege of Antioch.67 The army of Peter the Hermit’s Peasants Crusade in the Chronicles serve the same role as the Tafurs in La Chanson d’Antioche. Both groups of non-nobles are used as scapegoats for the sinful behavior of the Crusaders. The Chroniclers frowned upon rape, cannibalism, pillaging and killing innocents,68 but the Crusaders participated in all of these activities. In order to justify how Frank could do something so vile, it had to be explained by a lack of noble blood. The Tafurs and the Peasants Crusade had no traits and therefore were blamed for all the Crusaders misdeeds. Their identity as peasants meant that they were unable to achieve heroism, meaning it was convenient to blame them for every misdeed. 67 Sarah B. Buchanan “A Nascent National Identity in ‘La Chanson d’Antioche.’” The French Review 76, no. 5 (2003): 918–32. 194. 68 The Frankish definition of innocent was different then our own. Those who were not Christian could not be innocent. 43 Like women, peasantry was an exclusionary identity. If a peasant did heroic deeds of licit violence or became martyrs, they never were given individual heroic identities. The nameless peasant in Robert the Monk exemplifies this. He engaged with all the tenets of heroism; he was only missing a heroic identity. Nobilis Just as I have posited the four tenets of heroism, Constance Brittan Bouchard proposes that there were three consistent tenants of nobility: wealth, power, and blood.69 Wealth and power were functionally what created the noble class, but in heroic literature, blood is perhaps the most important element. Noble lineage was an easy way to assert nobility. It was in the 11th Century that people began to claim that they were related to Charlemagne in order to assert their noble nature.70 The presence of royal blood in your lineage led to an inherent moral superiority. Charlemagne’s right to rule was seen as divinely ordained and if a Frankish noble could trace their roots back to him, then they too possessed the divine right to rule. The importance of blood ties is a key element of La Chanson de Roland. Charlemagne was not only Roland’s lord; he was also his uncle. Oliver is not only Roland’s dearest friend, but he is also his future brother-in-law. Ganelon’s betrayal of Roland is particularly cruel because he is Roland’s stepfather. The import of these family ties is also what tied the armies of the First Crusade together. Kingdoms did not go to war in the first crusade. The armies came from dependencies to high lords and lineage.71 The 69 Bouchard, Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, 10. Ibid 71 Norman Housley. Contesting the Crusades. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. 27. 70 44 kingdom of France did not exist, rather Count Godfrey and those loyal to him and his family took up the cross on their own accord. A hero’s lineage was very important for their character. The very first line of Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi reads “Tancred, the most glorious descendant of a renowned clan had extraordinary parents, the marquis and Emma.”72 The primary goal of Ralph’s Chronicle was to laud the heroic exploits of Tancred. The first tactic he employs to convince his audience that Tancred was worthy of praise was to explain that he came from extraordinary parents and respected ancestors. His parents are mentioned before his piety, his martial prowess or any of his own deeds. To a medieval audience, noble blood automatically created an impression of valor and morality. The noble blood transcended the more worldly aspects of nobility and leadership like wealth and power. A lord was in the position of a divine lineage and often represented a divine cause. Charlemagne’s divine connection manifests in La Chanson de Roland through visions and divine intervention. The noble heroes of the First Crusade are also characterized in this way. Kerboga’s mother even explicitly warns her son that Bohemond and Godfrey are divinely protected.73 This is very reminiscent of Charlemagne who was also very literally protected by God. The 11th century was also a time of great change in what it meant to be noble, which further complicates the issue. The word nobilis itself was a new development of the 11th century, replacing the previous word: illuster. The primary change was the 72 73 Ralph of Caen, 21. Gesta Francorum, 53. 45 increasing value of castles and knights. It is from this turning point that we can glean how martial prowess became a trait that was desired in heroes. Before the 11th century, knights and nobles were separate entities. Knights were warriors on horseback who were generally seen as servants, not much different from peasants.74 Whereas nobles, such as counts and dukes, were administrators that were appointed by Kings. Neither of these groups had heroic connotations. Counts and Dukes were not hereditary positions and knights were treated like the rest of the peasant soldiers. 75 However, the costs of maintaining horses and armor were incredibly high and became inaccessible to peasants. Only nobles could afford such luxuries.76 Furthermore, as Kingdom’s grew, Dukes and Counts became leaders in their own right. The positions became hereditary, and they ascended to nobility and began passing off the logistical labors to stewards.77 By the end of the 11th century, the knights and nobles had begun to converge into one heroic group of martially adept rulers of men. Although the process of merging the two roles would not be completed until around the 13th and 14th century, the process had certainly begun by the time of the First Crusade. It is from this convergence of knight and noble that marital power began to become a noble trait.78 Suddenly, killing an enemy in battle became more than simply a heroic deed. It became a signifier of nobility and heroic identity. When one was a skilled knight, it demonstrated that one was both rich and of noble character. When Godfrey manages to 74 Bouchard, Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, 14. Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid, 9. 78 Ibid, 109. 75 46 cleave an impossibly large knight in two, it is not just heroic in itself. It is representative of a cascade of identities. Godfrey is a man with noble blood and is therefore wealthy and powerful. This wealth and power allowed him to become a knight. It was through this series of identities that violence became so implicitly heroic. The steps eventually got glossed over, which created a cultural understanding that violence was noble, and nobility involved violence. This Godfrey is the central heroic figure of Robert’s narrative, whereas the nameless soldier gets only a single chapter. Yes, the nameless soldier has achieved success in violence, but he did not have the blood relations, wealth, or power to achieve the nobility of character that figures such as Godfrey and Roland get implicitly. 47 Chapter 3: Christianity and Heroism Archbishop Turpin and Contradictory Identity. The beginnings of chivalry and the convergence of knighthood and the nobility explain the emergence of heroic violence in Frankish culture. However, there was another equally powerful cultural force that was opposing this violence- the Catholic Church. Like Nobility, the Church had a profound impact on Frankish Culture at the time of the First Crusade. Therefore, it also had tremendous power over the characterization of Frankish heroes, who were all devout Christians. The Catholic Church's attitudes towards violence and their motivations for causing the Crusade are the final pieces for solving the puzzle that is venerated, heroic violence. Furthermore, the Church and religion began to morph, transforming into an exclusionary identity in its own right. The Church had a very complex relationship with violence. Pope Urban was the one who called the Crusade, an inherently violent endeavor, yet the Church was also in the midst of several peace related movements that were aiming to stop the violent tendencies of the nobility. The Peace of God, which originated near the end of the tenth century and continued into the thirteenth,79 was a clerical movement that sought to limit violence in the name of God. Specifically, it placed a ban on violence against those unarmed and on church lands. The Peace of God set the foundation for the Truce of God, which sought to ban all violence on specific days of the week. The Church’s condemnations of violence were emerging at the same time that the noble class was turning to knighthood and making violence a core part of their identity. This tension, 79 Geoffrey Koziol. The Peace of God. Arc Humanities Press, 2018. 2. 48 along with the Church’s previous condemnations of power and wealth made it very difficult for a noble to reconcile their Christian faith with their secular knighthood. So, we are forced into mysterious conflicting roles of Archbishop Turpin, who is both portrayed as a secular knight who inflicts violence and as a peaceful cleric. Turpin’s status as both violent knight and priest seems contradictory, especially when considering the Peace of God and Truce of God movements. His roles as worldly knight and priest seem as if they would be irreconcilable, so much so that by the time of the Third Crusade, King Richard Lionheart was expressly forbidding priests to take up arms at all.80 By the thirteenth century, Turpin’s role of a priest and a fighter would have been unthinkable. Yet Archbishop Turpin is venerated by La Chanson de Roland for both his skills as a preacher and his martial prowess. In Turpin’s final moments, he kills over 400 pagans while mortally wounded, having beheaded many and cut some entirely in half.81 Turpin’s final act is one of extreme violence, exactly what the church had supposedly been trying so hard to avoid. Even so, when Roland eulogizes Turpin, he says that “no man ever served [God] with a better will. Never since the days of the saints was there such a man of God for maintaining the laws.”82 Turpin is not simply portrayed as heroic, La Chanson de Roland frames him as the greatest servant of God since the days of the saints. As Craig M. Nakashian puts it “We should note especially that Roland was saying that Turpin’s prowess itself made him a worthier servant of God and implicitly a better cleric.”83 Nakashian’s article “‘Li 80 Ambroise, The History of the Holy War: Ambroise's Estoire De La Guerre Sainte, ed. Malcolm Barber, trans. Marianne Ailes. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003. 81 The Song of Roland, 68. 82 Ibid, 69. 83 Craig M. Nakashian. “‘Li arcevesque est mult bon chevalier’: The Chivalric Ideals of Archbishop Turpin” in Prowess, Piety and Public order in Medieval Society: Studies in honor of Richard W. Kaeuper. Ed. Craig M. Nakashian and Daniel P. Franke. Brill, 2017. 174. 49 arcevesque est mult bon chevalier’: The Chivalric Ideals of Archbishop Turpin,” argues that Turpin blends the roles of knight and priest with moral certainty. He claims that a cleric who was skilled in violence would read well to a knightly audience and be well received even though there would be “prescriptive condemnation of such behavior emanating from the church.” 84 Certainly, this could be true. Turpin’s characterization would read well to an audience of nobles who used martial power as a measuring stick for heroism. Chanson de Geste were written for secular audience who would not take as much issue with Turpin’s violence as Priests would. But I believe that there is an element missing in this Nakashian’s analysis. Turpin himself may have just been constructed for secular knightly audiences but even secular, worldly men understood that violence in the era of The Peace of God was a sin. Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi opens with Tancred struggling to balance his military life and following the teachings of God. Ralph writes: “The Lord has commanded that after one cheek had been struck the other was to be offered as well. But a secular military life didn't even permit the sparing of a relative's blood. The Lord admonished that it is necessary to give over one’s clock, as well, to the one asking for a tunic. By contrast, the necessity of military life images that once these two garments have been seized the rest are to be taken as well. These two principles opposed one another and undermined the bravery of a man full of wisdom”85 Tancred’s dilemma here was that of every Frankish nobleman in the Peace of God era. Despite his secular nature, he understood that a secular life was a life of violence and directly contradicted the teachings of the Church. 84 85 Ibid, 165. Ralph of Caen, 22. 50 Catholicism was not just relevant to priests. Those who weren’t members of the clergy were still Christian and still expected to abide by the laws of God. How could the tension between the Church and the Nobility be reconciled and allow noble heroes to be both violently heroic and free of sin? One of the most common historical arguments was that the First Crusade was Pope Urban’s solution to these contradictions. Pope Urban was trying to construct a world where the noble violence of the secular world and the Church could coexist. The Church’s problem was not violence in general, it was violence against fellow Christians. The argument is that Pope Urban called the First Crusade to redirect violent Christian nobles away from each other and directed them to commit violence against a less sinful target: Muslims. The Franks did not see any other Christians as people. Robert the Monk describes Muslims as lowly dogs, who pitifully barked and gnashed their teeth at the Crusaders, which Thomas Asbridge believes is one of the best examples of Christians dehumanizing Muslims.86 Bouchard cites the fact that many Chanson de Geste claim that Giants and monsters frequently joined the Muslims in battle as further evidence of their inhuman nature in the eyes of the Franks.87 Since Muslims were not considered human beings violence against Muslims or against other “pagans” was deemed as licit violence. That meant violence with Muslim victims could be committed without sin. A Holy War was a perfect compromise. It allowed nobles to demonstrate the martial prowess that made them heroic in a space without spiritual consequences. It is such an elegant solution that many historians, such as George Duby, assert that the First Crusade was not only acceptable under the Peace of God, it was an integral part of the 86 87 Asbridge, An Experiment in Extremity, 28. Bouchard, 85. 51 Peace of God. Duby claims that “The Crusade unquestionably carried the demands of the Peace of God to its ultimate goal.”88 Duby’s stance is rather extreme, but I find myself inclined to agree with him at least as far as heroes in narratives are concerned. The heroes of the First Crusade had to appeal to both secular audiences and to religious audiences. The contradictory views on violence were easily justified in the setting of holy war. Ralph of Caen’s Chronicle, which most directly addresses the struggle of worldly life versus religious life as very directly claims the Crusades as a solution. “But when Pope Urban’s decision granted a remission of all sins to all of the Christians setting forth to fight against the pagans, then finally it was as if the vitality of the previously sleeping man was revived, [Tancred’s] powers were roused, his eyes were opened, and his boldness set in motion.”89 To Ralph, the solution is elegant. Tancred is finally able to do what makes him the most noble: kill. With Pope Urban’s decree, not only can Tancred kill without committing more sins, but his previous sins will also be absolved. This is why the violence we see in La Chanson de Roland that was committed by Turpin did not contradict the Peace of God. Neither did the violence of the First Crusade. This is why violent deeds were universally praised in texts about the Holy War. Holy War was the only space where nobles could partake in the heroic violence inherent in their position, without offending the church or their own religious sensibilities. The Pax Dei potentially meant that a heroic identity would conflict with heroic deeds, yet Holy War offered an opportunity for both deed and identity to converge into heroism. 88 89 Housley. Contesting the Crusades. 28. Ralph of Caen, 22. 52 Religion as Heroic Identity As we have already discussed, possessing martial skill and inflicting violence was not enough to become a hero. Due to the Peace of God, violence had to be inflicted correctly, against the correct people. Some violence was seen as horrific and cruel. The violence inflicted by Muslims was rarely heroic in the eyes of the Frankish authors. Violence was perpetrated by Muslims against Christians was villainous. If the roles were reversed, and Muslims were the victims of violence then the violence was unequivocally heroic and permitted by the church. This hypocrisy is a result of exclusionary identity. Religious identity is even important to the Franks as nobility and gender. The Franks' entire identity was built on the foundations of Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire, which conquered land in the name of Catholicism. The First Crusade was a holy war, called by the Pope himself. The Frankish Chroniclers did not even treat their opponents as people. For example, in many of the retellings of Pope Urban’s speech at Clermont reference him renouncing Muslim violence and using the horror of their misdeeds to spur Christians into action. Robert the Monk’s account, which is particularly bloody, cites Urban lamenting about how Muslims would circumcise Christians, let Christian blood run across alters and let Christian organs spill on the ground.90 Even the more tame accounts, like that of Fulcher of Chartes, depicts Urban saying that Muslims were “occupying more and more lands of the Christians” and “have killed and captured [Christians], overthrown Churches and laid waste to God's kingdom.”91 90 Fulcher of Chartes et al. “The First Crusade "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials. ed. Edward Peters. 27. 91 Ibid, 53. 53 This violence was being unequivocally denounced. Pope Urban II was attempting to horrify and outrage listeners in order to get his listeners to take up the Cross and begin Crusading. The violence perpetrated by the Muslims is being framed as a horrible act that must be stopped at all costs. Yet at the end of the Robert the Monk’s account, after the Crusaders have taken Jerusalem, he uses this image: “So much human blood was spilt there that the bodies of the slain were revolving on the floor in a current of blood.”92 The Gesta Francorum supplies a similar image in the aftermath of the siege of Jerusalem, claiming that by the end of the battle, Solomon’s Temple was “streaming with their blood.”93 The image of blood flowing through the streets of Jerusalem became one of the most popular images of the First Crusade. These images are strikingly similar to the images used by Pope Urban at Clermont. Robert’s account contains images of both Christian blood and Muslim blood spilt in Jerusalem and pouring over holy objects. The only difference between these acts of violence is who committed them and how they are framed. The violence committed by Muslims, was framed by Urban as grotesque, nothing more. The violence committed by Christians was far more complex. It was horrifying, certainly, but also exciting and spiritually fulfilling. Thomas Asbridge argues that Robert the Monk used blood and carnage to highlight Christian marital ferocity, indomitability, and their God-given superiority.94 Not only that, but this violence represented ultimate victory for the Crusaders. They had succeeded and it was meant to be celebrated. 92 Robert the Monk, 200. Gesta Francorum, 91. 94 Asbridge, An Experiment in Extremity: 747. 93 54 Immediately after Robert depicts the rivers of blood in Jerusalem, he describes how joyful the Crusaders were and how rich off plunder they all became.95 This is not the only example of hypocrisy. Crusaders committed many violent acts against Muslim bodies that equal, if not surpass, the horrors that Pop Urban described the Muslims committing. The Chronicles detail many stories of violence, some of the most horrific deal with the violation of dead Muslim bodies. There are stories of Crusaders launching severed heads of dead Muslims into the town of Nicaea.96 Stories of Crusaders desecrated newly dug graves of Muslim opponents outside the walls of Antioch. Most horrifically, there were stories of Christians cannibalizing the corpses of dead Muslims. Even though these acts were inflicted against Muslims, it was commonly understood that this type of extreme violence, especially Cannibalism, was still looked down upon by the Church as sinful. Jay Rubenstein argues that these acts were weapons of psychological warfare, meant to terrify and demoralize. Rubenstein points out that these acts, especially Cannibalism, may seem abhorrent to us today, but they actually have biblical and medieval precedent.97 In 4 Kings 6:24–33, a woman laments about how she was tricked by another woman into eating her own child.98 While the Cannibalism in the bible was not framed as a positive it is still important to recognize that acts of extreme demoralizing violence had their roots in Christian doctrine. The woman in the in Kings was portrayed as pitiable, rather than evil or cruel. Although cannibalism and violence against dead 95 Robert the Monk, 201. Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 97 Jay Rubenstein. “Cannibals and Crusaders.” In French Historical Studies 31, no. 4 (2008). 545. 98 Ibid. 96 55 bodies were not heroic in the same way that single combat was, when it was inflicted against Muslims, it was never seen as entirely villainous. In Guibert de Nogent’s account, he posits that Cannibalism was faked in order to distress the Muslims of Antioch. Even if this was the case, Christians would still have been defiling Muslim bodies for the purpose for terrifying Muslims, which is not much of an improvement.99 But at least Guibert felt shame that the Franks may have committed such acts and tried to cover it up. In some sources, Cannibalism was easily accepted and even made into jokes. Jay Rubenstein uses the example of the Chanson d’Antioche “When Duke Godfrey, the central figure of the Crusade song cycle, learns of this cannibalism, he responds not with anger or shame, but with a joke, offering the King of the Tafurs wine with which to wash down his Saracen meat.”100 This attitude towards cannibalism was shockingly relaxed. Even though Godfrey did not commit the act himself, he did not condemn it either. Compare this attitude with Pope Urban II's attitude towards violence in his speech at Claremont. Urban rails about the mistreatment of Christian bodies, specifically citing how the foreskin of Christians was chopped off resulting in defilement. He cries: “On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you?”101 Urban calling this violence wrong in no uncertain terms. Yet when Christians inflict similar levels of sinful violence, Chroniclers would either cover it up or treat it as if it were not a big deal. 99 Ibid. Ibid. 101 Fulcher of Chartes, 27. 100 56 Both Pope Urban II and the author of the La Chanson d'Antioche sense were trying to convince a secular audience that the First Crusade was a moral, heroic enterprise. Pope Urban treated excessive violence as horrific and wrong. Guibert de Nogent and La Chanson d’Antioche treat sinful violence against Muslims flippantly. They do not condemn sinful violence when they are the ones inflicting it. These examples of hypocrisy bring us back to our first tenet of Heroism, moral ambiguity. Perhaps weighing the relative immortality of mutilating genitals and eating people would be too much of a digression, so for the sake of argument, deeds themselves are similarly grotesque. Both actions were certainly viewed as sinful by the Franks. Yet, moral ambiguity saves the Crusaders from losing their heroic attributes. Even though the deeds are the same, the identity of those committing them is different. Just as Charlemagne was seen as a villain by the Saxons, the Muslims were seen as villains by the Christian for their sinful violence. The Franks, on the other hand, have a religion that does not exclude them from heroism, so it is much rarer for them to be portrayed as unambiguously in the wrong as the Muslims were. Due to the moral ambiguity inherent in medieval heroes and biased nature of the Chroniclers, it becomes clear that identity took priority in hero making over deeds, whether heroic or villainous. Heroic Muslims Religious identity was an even more important heroic identity than gender or class. Peasants and women were at least considered to be people. Yet even though Muslims were seen as universally villainous, there are some examples of Muslims 57 committing acts of akin to heroism. Bouchard argues that these heroic Muslims were not created out of respect for their opponents. They were narrative devices to increase tension, because “the difficulty, as writers realized themselves, was that killing inhuman beasts was not nearly as interesting as a fight between knights with comparable training.”102 Perhaps this was the only reason that some Muslims were given heroic traits, but the fact that there were several examples of Muslims in Frankish texts with heroic attributes is undeniable. When these heroic adjacent Muslims did appear, they were treated like women or peasants. A Muslim could be shown possessing noble traits, even heroic traits, but to the Latin West, the were always exempt from being unequivocally heroic. La Chanson de Roland gives us two Muslim knights that are lauded for there courage and knightly qualities. The first is an Emir from Balaquez. We are told that he is noble and handsome of face and renowned for his courage. The narrator of the poem tells us “If only he were Christian, he would be an excellent knight.”103 The narrator is telling us that the Emir of Balaquez has all the traits of a hero, yet he is not one. The one thing that is holding him back from his ability to be an excellent knight is his religion. This pattern repeats when we are introduced to Emir Baligant, who faces off against Charlemagne after Roland’s death. Baligant is also heaped with praise and has an entire stanza of description dedicated to him. He is courageous and incredibly handsome. The poem tells us he has fair skin and hair that is “as white as a summer flower.” We are 102 103 Bouchard, 85. The Song of Roland, 30. 58 told he is wise, learned, and proud in battle. Baligant’s description has a similar lament: “God what a Baron, if only he were a Christian.”104 Just like the Emir of Balaquez, Baligant has all the traits of heroism, to an even further extent. He is even shown to have white skin and white hair, with white representing innocence and virtue. The narrator goes out of his way to wish that these two men were Christian. Both have the making of heroes and have every element needed to be a proper hero other than being Christian. In Baligant, we get a perfect case study of Christianity’s relationship to heroism. Baligant is portrayed as unequivocally heroic. He is nearly a match for Charlamagne himself. The two act as parallel characters. Like Charlamagne, Baligant has a named sword and a battle cry. The poem tells us that he is devastated by the death of his son, just like Charlamagne is when Roland is killed. When the two men meet in single combat, Baligant actually begins to beat Charlamagne. Baligant has shown every element of heroism. He is loyal to his son, as shown by his sadness at his death. The narrator repeatedly tells us that he is wise, a description usually reserved for Oliver. He is also extremely skilled in combat. In fact, in the final single combat between Baligant and Charlemagne, Baligant is shown to be a superior fighter. Baligant lands a devastating blow and the poem tells us that Charlemagne would have been killed without the intervention of God. Right before Charlamagne falls, Saint Gabriel appears and reinvigorates Charlemagne and gives him the strength to defeat Charlemagne.105 104 105 Ibid, 94. Ibid, 107. 59 This single combat is a microcosm of Christianity’s relationship to heroism. Baligant is equal to Charlemagne in nearly every heroic virtue. Yet he is still bested. Charlemagne’s Christianity is what allows him to overcome Baligant. This is why the narrator laments that Baligant is not a Christian. It is a final key element of heroism that must be present in order for a person to become a true hero. Christians and Muslims would commit the same acts and yet, only Christians can achieve true heroism. This is the meaning of the first tenant of Latin Medieval HeroismMoral and political ambiguity. “The deeds of a hero might be judged by some as condemnable and by others as righteous.”106 When Muslim soldiers murdered the Christians of Jerusalem and covered the city in blood, it was condemnable to the Latin Christian Chroniclers. When Christian soldiers murdered the Muslims of Jerusalem and covered the city in blood, it was worthy of praise. This religious based moral ambiguity did not just extend to violence. It also manifested in how the Chronicles dealt with loyalty. As I previously examined, the chronicles demeaned those who fled the Siege of Antioch, such as Stephen of Blois, Peter the Hermit and William the Carpenter. Without religious moral ambiguity it would seem that anyone who betrays their masters would be looked down upon as weak. Yet there is a man who betrays his own people who is portrayed as moral and heroic. Pirrus the Muslim traitor. Pirrus was an air of Antioch, who Bohemond convinced to let the Franks into the city of Antioch. In exchange, Bohemond promised Pirrus riches, honor, and baptism to Christianity.107 But Pirrus’ only reward would be blood. Both of Pirrus’ brothers were killed by Fulcher of Chartes, the first man up the ladder. The entire city of 106 107 Horswell and Skottki, 3 Gesta Francorum, 44. 60 Antioch is then put to the sword by the Crusaders, leaving all the Muslims in the city dead. Pirrus committed an act of treason far worse than that of William the Carpenter or Stephen of Blois. William and Stephen were only trying to save themselves from the harsh conditions of the siege. Pirrus actively betrayed his entire city, resulting in the deaths of everyone he had formerly been working with, including his own brothers. By opening the gates to Antioch, Pirrus betrays his religion, his city and his family. These are the same crimes that Ganelon committed in La Chanson de Roland and Ganelon was portrayed as irredeemably villainous. Yet, Robert the Monk treats Pirrus as a hero. Robert writes: “Take note, all you faithful, of how Pirrus kept faith; bear it in mind so that if ever you promise on an oath for your faith, you keep your promise with no excuses. No thought of the deaths of his brothers., no power of grief and no prompting of sorrow could suffice to shake his promise…Now here faith came out of a man outside the faith and true brotherly love out of a stranger.”108 Robert thinks so highly of Pirrus’ betrayal that he is using it to teach a moral lesson about faith and sacrifice. Robert is depicting Pirrus as a martyr rather than a traitor, a man who sacrificed his brothers to do the right thing. It is also noteworthy that Pirrus only gets page time and positive attributes attributed to him after he converts from Islam to Christianity. Once Pirrus changes religions, he removes the limiting factor of his identity that prevented him from being a 108 Robert the Monk, 147. 61 hero: his religion. After he converts, he is no longer excluded, due to his position as a noble and a man in Antioch. Once again, who gets heroic portrayals has little to do with heroic deeds. Ganelon, Pirrus and William the Carpenter are all traitors to their own people. Pirrus’ betrayal, on the other hand, helps Christians and only harms Muslims. Thus, Pirrus’ deeds are more than exonerated, they are venerated as shown by Robert’s call for Pirrus to be emulated by other Christians. Baligant and Pirrus were the Muslims who came the closest to achieving heroism. Baligant’s fatal flaw, in the eyes of La Chanson de Roland, was missing his opportunity to convert to Christianity. When he turns down Charlemagne’s offer of conversion, he is quickly killed by divine intervention. Pirrus, in contrast, does convert and is thus not killed. However, it would be incorrect to call Pirrus a hero of the text. He is a man who does heroic deeds and suffers as a martyr but he never appears again after his main episode in every Chronicle. Pirrus simply does not have the page time or the narrative focus to be considered a hero. Even though Pirrus shed his Muslim religious identity, there was one identity he could not shed that excluded him from heroism- his race. Pirrus might be Christian, but he was not a Frank. 62 Chapter 4: Heroic Gens Race in the 11th Century Gender, nobility and religious affiliation proceeded heroic deeds and traits for Frankish hero making historians. Though martial prowess was considered heroic, a nonChristian who was skilled in violence would rarely go on to occupy heroic roles in Latin Christian literature. The same can be said for non-nobles or women. Heroes were always Christian, male nobles. These three traits made up a functioning heroic identity. However, there is one element missing. This takes us to the final exclusionary identity: Race. Race is perhaps the most complicated form of heroic identity. All the Frankish Chroniclers and poets created heroes from exclusively male Christian nobles, but the issue of Race divided the Christian chroniclers amongst themselves on who were the worthiest heroes. A hero tended to be depicted as more heroic if the chronicler or poet came from the same homeland as the hero. In this chapter, I hope to demonstrate how ethnicity was a key element of medieval heroism. Race had a much different meaning for the Franks than it does to a modern person. Even the difference between religion and race in the 11th century was murky. As the Middle Ages continued on, Latin Christians began to coalesce into a unified group that they considered to be a type of race. The Crusades themselves played a key part in helping the two concepts of religion and race start to merge for the Franks. The Crusades featured Latin Christians from many different nations working together towards a common goal and led to those Christians coming into contact with non-Christians. This created a strong sense of a unified “us.” In the preface to his Chronicle of the First 63 Crusade, Baudry of Bourguel writes “I am a Christian and have descended from Christian ancestors.”109 Later he uses the Latin phrase genus nostrum, meaning “our race” to describe Christians.110 Baudry is using the language of race to describe his religion. This concept of religious race is somewhat foreign to a modern reader, but it was something that was prominent in the 11th Century. One of the main arguments of Geraldine Heng’s book The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, is that race was not limited to skin tone and ancestry as it is today. Heng writes: “race has no singular or stable referent: that race is a structural relationship for the articulation and management of human differences, rather than a substantive content.”111 Religion, therefore, could function as a dividing force that separated races. The Latin word gens, which is often translated to mean race or nation, is the closest concept we have to a modern race, but it had different connotations in the 11th and 12th centuries. A key difference between the medieval and modern understanding of race is the difference in how conquerors treated the race of those they colonized. Modern colonizers differentiate between themselves and their conquered people. Medieval colonizers sought to replicate their culture and absorb conquered people into their gens.112 When Charlamagne conquered the Saxons, the Saxons began to think of themselves as Franks as well. It is this word- Frank- that the Crusaders used to collectively describe themselves. 109 Robert Bartlett. The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. 252 110 Ibid. 111 Geraldine Heng. The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 19. 112 Bartlett, The Making of Europe, 306. 64 The meanings blend. Becoming a Christian was an essential part of becoming a Frank. Charlemagne used conversion to Christianity as a form of conquering and subjugating. In La Chanson de Roland, when Charlemagne finally faces off against Emir Baligant, before they fight, Charlemagne asks if Baligant will convert to Christianity and accept Jesus as his savior. The final stanza of the Chanson de Geste tells us that Queen Bramimonde has been converted to Christianity. Charlemagne is exerting his power and expanding his Empire through conversion to Christianity. Charlemagne’s legacy is a key element in creating a unified Christian gen. Under Charlemagne, the term “Frank” meant more than a person born in Gaul. Anyone who fulfilled the requirements of Frankishness became a Frank. One was not just born Frank. Franks were skilled in violence and followers of Christ.113 Even after Charlemagne’s death, the region of the Latin west had not forgotten their shared Frankish heritage. Works of the 11th Century almost ubiquitously refer to the Crusaders as Franks. Because of this growing unity, race and religion functioned similarly as exclusionary identities. The Franks were those who fought in the memory of Charlemagne’s Carolinian Empire and used Christian to further their collective racial identity.114 Non-Christians were not made into heroes nor Frank. Just as non-Christians were excluded from heroism, so too were non-Franks. And like Christianity and nobility, Frankishness came to stand in for virtue. Frank’s were not just from a specific geographic area, the racial term Frank also connotated an implicit skill in battle and Christian 113 114 Gabrielle, Empire of Memory, 130. Ibid, 22. 65 featly.115 In this way, the gens of Frank functioned in a similar way as the noble class. It had duel meanings. It represented your cause, but also your implicit heroic morality. However, Frankishness was a wide umbrella by the time of the first Crusade. It was a race formed out of a collective memory of Charlemagne. It is the type of race that Heng imagines, a collective created to create both an internal in group and defines itself against an external enemy.116 The First Crusade helped to solidify the Frankish gens as a racial identity, but it needed to be solidified because it was made out of many groups from different geographic locations and feudal lineages. Disunity in Unity There were subdivisions of ethnicity amongst th Franks. The Crusade was made up of multiple, distinct armies that often were at odds. Gauls, Normans, Spaniards, Saxons, Aquitanians and Bavarians all considered themselves distinct but also Frankish.117 Though there was unity amongst them, these groups did not forget that their were divisions amongst them. The distinct divide between French who were led by figures like Godfrey and Stephen of Blois and the Normans, particularly the Italian Normans who were led by Bohemond and Tancred is especially relevant. Robert the Monk and Guibert de Nogent were French and the author of the Gesta Francorum and Ralph of Caen were both Normans. The Chroniclers each show strong bias’s towards the heroes that match their ethnicities and frequently highlight the negative characteristics of 115 Ibid 138. Heng, Invention of Race, 19-20. 117 Gabrielle, Empire of Memory, 23. 116 66 the heroes that do not. The divide between the two ethnic groups is not present in the text, but it is very evident in the subtext of hero making. The relationship between Normans and French can best be summarized by Dudo of Saint-Quentin, in his early 11th century history of the Normans. concluded that the Normans were separate from the original Franks but descended from them and were therefore still a part of the legacy of Charlemagne.118 Norman’s saw themselves as the inheritors of Charlemagne's legacy and a definitive part of Latin Christendom. While both the Normans and the French fell under the umbrella of Franks when they were on Crusade and were unified by Christendom, there was still a distinction between the two groups that led to tension. This disunity is rarely mentioned explicitly, however, heroic characterization reveals the subtle tension between the two groups. It is especially evident when you compare the Gesta Francorum’s portrayal of Norman heroes and Robert the Monk’s portrayal of the same events. The Gesta Francorum was written by an anonymous Italian Norman, who historians generally agree was a member of Bohemond’s army and therefore an eyewitness source. The Gesta Francorum places Bohemond center stage. The very structure of the book favors Bohemond and forces him into the role of protagonist. The siege of Antioch, which contains nearly all of Bohemond’s heroic acts, spans Boom V to Book X. In my copy of the Gesta Francorum that takes up 44 pages in total.119 The siege of Jerusalem, the culmination of the Crusade and their final victory, only receives one 118 119 Ibid, 136. Gesta Francorum, 28-72 67 book, Book X. The Siege of Jerusalem is given five pages of text. Its aftermath is given another five.120 The reason that the Siege of Jerusalem barely gets any page time? Bohemond’s heroism is on full display at the Siege of Antioch, especially the defining moment of the first siege where he convinces Pirrus to let the Crusaders in. Bohemond remains in Antioch and does not attend the Siege of Jerusalem. The Gesta Francorum is primarily the story of Bohemond and the Italian Norman army. Bohemond is nearly universally praised in the text. When he tells the other Crusade Ring leaders his plan for taking Antioch, they respond in unison by saying: “You are brave and skillful in war, a great man of high repute, resolute and fortunate, and you know how to plan a battle and how to dispose your forces. Do whatever seems good to you both for your own sake and for ours.”121 This is clearly high praise. Bohemond is being characterized as a hero, as we are told he is courageous and very skilled in war. The narrator has these praises come from Bohemond’s peers, his fellow leaders of the Crusade. By having these praises come from other leaders, the narrator is creating an illusion of objectivity. He is creating the image that everyone thinks that Bohemond is the wisest and skilled leader by putting those words in mouths other than his own. Additionally, once again, we see the rhetorical technique of speaking in unison. When the other leaders speak in unison, they lose their individuality and turn into a subservient collective. In the same way that the Frankish in the La Chanson de Roland speak in unison and are subservient to Roland, the narrator is depicting the other Crusading leaders willingly putting themselves in a role subservient to Bohemond. 120 121 Gesta Francorum, 88-98. Gesta Francorum, 36. 68 Bohemond’s characterization in the Gesta Francorum shows all of the tenets of heroism. He is skilled in battle, as shown by the other leaders placing the siege of Antioch in his hands and he shows his loyalty to the cause of the Christ when he tells off William the Carpenter for his desertion. Furthermore, he has a heroic identity. He is Frank, from the Latin West. He is a Catholic man. He comes from a noble house that was held in incredibly high esteem. Bohemond is the perfect candidate to be a hero, an exemplar of the values of the Latin Franks. In the Gesta Francorum, he is that hero. In other Chronicles, he is not. Robert the Monk’s account of the First Crusade was based on the Gesta Francorum. Robert was not an eyewitness, and the two accounts follow very similar templates. The similarity of the narratives and structure of the two chronicles makes the subtle differences far less subtle. Robert was from the Ile de France, not a Norman, and that bias is extremely evident in the changes Robert made to the Gesta Francorum. Robert’s characterization of Bohemond is far more complex than the Gesta Francorum. One very brief chapter is very emblematic of Robert’s treatment of Bohemond. Book VIII, Chapter XV which Robert heads “How Bohemond split off from our men” reads: “Bohemond split off from them and the main army of God. He has inherited the highest principles from his French father ; but they were tainted by elements of his Apulian mother.”122 This extraordinarily short chapter is packed with implication. Firstly, in the eyes of Robert, Bohemond has both noble characteristics and tainted ones. Unlike the Gesta 122 Robert the Monk, 191. 69 Francorum, which frames Bohemond unequivocally positively, Robert is willing to explore his foibles. Robert is fond of mentioning that Bohemond is willing to retreat from battle. His account tells the stories of how Bohemond retreats from the Battle of Antioch due to a wound, leaving a heroic nameless soldier to die a martyr covering his retreat. This story is not mentioned in the Gesta Francorum at all.123In another episode where Pirrus drops the ladder, Bohemond is not the first one to climb it, Fulcher of Chartes is. Pirrus is disappointed that Bohemond does not climb the ladder first.124 This story is also mentioned in the Gesta Francorum, but Pirrus’ quote is very different in the two accounts. In the Gesta Francorum, when Bohemond does not arrive Pirrus asks “Where is the hero Bohemond? Where is that unconquered soldier?”125 The Gesta Francorum is masking one of Bohemond’s more cowardly moments by using Pirrus to extoll Bohemond’s virtues. Robert, on the other hand, quotes Pirrus saying “What is that lazy man up too? Why is he hanging back and delaying?”126 The adjectives have shifted, Bohemond is not a hero to Pirrus, he is lazy and cowardly. Pirrus is not just asking about where Bohemond is here, he is also asking why Bohemond is missing. Robert is asking the reader this question through Pirrus- why did Bohemond not scale the wall? The only answer is that Bohemond is not as brave as someone who leads from the front. Robert does include most of Bohemond’s heroic moments, but Chapter VX shows us that Robert attributes Bohemond’s positive characteristics to his Frankish father. Bohemond’s father, Robert Guiscard, was a Norman, so this passage does not disparage 123 Ibid, 18. Ibid, 145. 125 Gesta Francorum, 46. 126 Robert the Monk, 145. 124 70 Normans. It includes them as Frankish. However, Robert is using genes to make Bohemond another. Bohemond is heroic, but he is tainted by the fact that his mother was Italian. This is a powerful impression to leave, especially since this chapter is the final time that Bohemond is mentioned in the text. Bohemond’s characterization, though slightly more negative, is not largely different. Bohemond’s foundations for heroism, his deeds and identity, were too heroic Bohemond to be treated as less than a hero. Robert still portrays Bohemond as incredibly wise, gives him credit for converting Pirrus and depicts Bohemond delivering many inspiring speeches. Despite a slightly less heroic characterization, Bohemond is still a hero in Robert’s chronicle. But unlike the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond is not the main hero. Robert’s narrative structure is not centered around Bohemond. Robert moves the climax of the Crusade away from Antioch. Robert makes the choice to spend far more time on the Siege of Jerusalem and the battle of Ascalon and spends time discussing its theological implications.127 These musings were noticeably absent from the Gesta Francorum. Perhaps Robert was simply more interested in the theological implications surrounding the city of Jerusalem, but the by-product of this change in structure is diminishing Bohemond. By adding more detail about the siege of Jerusalem and emphasizing it as the climax of the Crusade, Robert is indirectly shifting focus away from Bohemond who was not present for it. That focus is shifted onto a member of Robert’s gens, Godfrey of Bouillon. It is Godfrey, not Bohemond, that occupies the role of primary hero in Robert’s text. Robert’s 127 Ibid, 19. 71 account has many stories about Godfrey’s valor that are not present in the Gesta Francorum. One such added tale is Book VI, Chapter XX, which is titled “In Praise of Duke Godfrey.” This is the chapter where Robert tells the story of Godfrey bisecting a Turkish Goliath in the same style that Roland bisects a high-ranking Muslim.128 If La Chanson de Roland was written before the First Crusade and Robert was inspired by it then this passage is far too similar to Roland’s bisection to ignore. Robert is comparing Godfrey to Roland, a figure synonymous with Frankish heroism. Another addition comes in Book XI, where he adds a chapter titled “Godfrey is elected King by All.”129 Robert writes that Godfrey was so noble and honorable, that becoming King did not make him more so, but that he in fact made the position of king more noble just by being elevated to it. These additions make Robert’s Bohemond seem even more cowardly by comparison. Godfrey’s bisection of the Turkish Goliath demonstrates that Godfrey is willing to lead his troops into battle. Bohemond’s martial ability lies in his wit and his ability to command soldiers, not in his fighting. Godfrey is willing to get his hands dirty and willingly partakes in sanctified violence. Bohemond, on the other hand, needs a brave soldier like Fulcher to lead his army into battle for him. Godfrey’s heroism makes Bohemond look worse and Bohemond’s cowardice likewise makes Godfrey look superior. Robert also tends to play down the flaws of the people of Gaul. A notable omission from Robert’s account has to do with Stephen of Blois, a knight from the Ile de France. The Gesta Francorum explicitly calls out Stephen for faking an illness in order to escape the 128 129 Ibid, 133. Ibid, 202. 72 Siege of Antioch. Robert, on the other hand, tells us that Stephen actually was sick. He is also quick to mention that Stephen is “shrewd in council and well considered for his integrity.”130 This is a far different Stephen from the cowardly, lying Stephen we see in the Norman account. Robert’s additions and omissions have a clear agenda. He is attempting to portray the people of his own genes in a positive light in the same way that the Gesta Francorum did for the Normans. Bohemond and Godfrey are both heroes in every Chronicle. Both are faithful to the cause of the Crusade, win battles and are noblemen. They both have every ingredient necessary for medieval heroism. Yet their heroism is slightly altered based on who is telling their story. Ralph of Caen’s Norman chronicle, The Gesta Tancredi, breaks the mold and contains the most explicitly negative portrayal of Bohemond. The Gesta Tancredi tells the story of the First Crusade through Tancred’s perspective and Bohemond is frequently shown acting duplicitously. Bohemond’s worst act in the eyes of Ralph, was not telling Tancred about the storming of Antioch. Tancred is left behind when Pirrus lets the Franks into Antioch and therefore receives neither the glory nor the spoils. Tancred, feeling betrayed, says this: “O Bohemond, Bohemond, you shared your plans with others but kept them secret from me. O kinsman of my blood, you would act thus to your kinsman? You made sure I would be absent when you know I would not have failed to take a leading role in such an action were I present. You know that if I had been there, I would have been the first to rush the wall, the first to clasp the rope, the first to go over the top and the first to kill.”131 130 131 Ibid, 158. Ralph of Caen, 94. 73 This passage is one of the harshest towards Bohemond in any of the Chronicles. It is a brutal takedown of Bohemond’s heroic character. Firstly, it shows Bohemond betraying his own nephew, his kin. Like Robert, Ralph is calling Bohemond’s ability to inflict violence into question. Tancred is referencing Bohemond’s inability to climb the walls of Antioch first, one of his most cowardly episodes and twists the knife even further by implying that Bohemond is jealous of other heroes who are braver than he is, like Tancred. Ralph’s negative portrayal of Bohemond breaks the established pattern of Chroniclers elevating members of their own genes. Ralph was a Norman author who was far crueller to Norman’s than he was to Franks. This is a different tactic than that of Robert the Monk, who hid the moral blemishes of his own genes, the Franks. Natasha Hodgeson explains this by arguing that Ralph simply had far higher expectations for Normans than he did for Franks. She writes: “Ralph almost treated the French deserters like Stephen, William, and Guy the Red with a degree of leniency, for though they were skilled on the battlefield, they were not so inured to the suffering required by the crusade as the Normans. Those Normans who did flee, however, contravened one of their most basic qualities – military tenacity – and thus brought shame upon their genes.”132 Hodgeson is arguing that Ralph is trying to diminish the Normans who did not meet the expectations of the gens and therefore lost there Normanness. Ralph’s expectations for his own gens were simply far greater than many Normans could meet. Ralph’s portrayal of Normans returns to a common theme of Medieval Heroism, which is that identity had to be earned. Ralph’s unique portrayal is the purest form of 132 Natasha Hodgson. “Reinventing Normans as Crusaders?: Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi.” In AngloNorman Studies 30: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2007, edited by C. P. Lewis, 30:117–32. Boydell & Brewer, 2008. 131. 74 exclusionary identity. The identity of Norman was not inclusive. To Ralph, not every Norman was heroic. In order for a Norman to be considered heroic, they had to earn it through heroic deeds. Ralph’s willingness to slander Bohemond and other Normans does not mean he is excluding Norman’s from heroism. It is the opposite. In Ralph of Caen’s Chronicle, the only true hero is Norman. Ralph has an extremely positive bias for his chosen protagonist, Tancred. Ralph’s admiration of Tancred is so extreme it borders on comedy. Chapter 128 of his account, he simply titles “Tancred” and he tells his readers that Tancred was a “lion rather than a man” and that he “rushed on to do great deeds such that Ajax could not dream, nor that Hector or his conqueror Achilles would dare.”133These comparisons to demigods highlight that Ralph of Caen is doing everything in his power to craft Tancred the perfect hero. Ralph is making the claim that Tancred is more heroic than the greatest heroes in his historical cannon. Ralph is perhaps the most obvious in his biased hero making. Ralph’s hero making of Tancred becomes even more obviously biased when you look at how other sources characterize Tancred. He is only briefly mentioned, in the Gesta Francorum and Robert the Monk. He is mentioned on only 25 pages134 of the Gesta Francorum and rarely gets to take actions of his own.. If Tancred was as great of a warrior as Achilles, like Ralph of Caen claimed, surely Tancred would have been more central to other narratives, but this was not the case. In every other Chronicle, Tancred is relegated to a supporting role. Furthermore, Tancred is almost universally portrayed as incredibly quick to anger and eager to seek personal gain. Albert of Aachen characterizes him as immature and 133 134 Ralph of Caen, 144. Gesta Francorum, 113. 75 short tempered and La Chanson d’Antioche depicts him nearly bursting a blood vessel when Baldwin betrayed him . The narrator of the Chanson de Geste tells us that Tancred would have attacked Baldwin if his army didn’t talk him down.135 As we have previously established, attacking a fellow Christian and Frank was sinful and therefore villainous in the world of the Peace of God and the Gregorian Reform. Tancred’s willingness to attack a fellow Christian over a dispute is an unequivocally unheroic trait. Ralph has the difficult job of attempting to transform this immature hothead who was potentially willing to do battle with his own brother into a hero. Each of these three Chronicles has three different primary protagonists and each Chronicler shares their genes with their chosen protagonist. Robert and Godfrey are both Franks. The author of the Gesta Francorum was most likely an Italian Norman, and so was Bohemond. Ralph of Caen was certainly a Norman and so was Tancred. Based on this sample, I posit that ethnicity was the final factor a Chronicler considered when they were deciding which historical figures that they wanted to give heroic identities to. The divide between the French and the Normans was not large. Normans did see themselves as an offshoot of Charlemagne’s legacy and the two groups both were united in as Franks on Crusade. Heng may have argued that they were of the same religious race and were therefore unified. These unifying factors are why French heroes and Norman heroes are generally treated as heroic in every Frankish source. Even though Robert the Monk was French, he still often complimented Italian Normans like Bohemond and 135 Anonymous. The Chanson d'Antioche : An Old French Account of the First Crusade, edited by Carol Sweetenham and Susan B. Edgington. Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. 132. 76 Tancred. He does not extend the same courtesy to those outside the Crusade movement, such as the Greeks. Yet there was enough of a divide between the French and the Normans that subtle echoes of bias are littered across the Chronicles of the First Crusade. It was certainly one of the more understated elements of heroic identity when compared to the villainous portrayals of peasants and Muslims. Yet in every Chronicle the hero with the most page time, the most positive attributes and the fewest foibles always matched the ethnicity of the author. The Normans made Normans into heroes and the French did the same for the French. Heroic Characterization across multiple sources gives us a window into a subtle bias between Crusaders that is not necessarily visible in only one Chronicle. It is only by comparing the subtle differences between similar sources that the tension between the Normans and the French takes on a new meaning. The subtext of how these heroes were treated by different authors grants us new insight into an element of medieval race and shows us that maybe the Franks were not as unified in purpose as the writers of Chronicles wanted their audience to believe. The divide between the Norman and French Chroniclers is yet another example of the import of identity in First Crusade hero making. Perhaps the most important lesson is the simplest one. A hero maker wants to shape a hero that represents themselves. The writers of the chronicles were typical noble, Christian, men, just like the heroes they crafted. It should not come as a great surprise that the figures they chose to shape into the primary heroes of their text also matched their gens and ethnicities. 77 Conclusion . La Chanson de Roland was survived in many manuscripts, a testament to its popularity amongst the Franks in its time. Roland captured the imagination of all those who read him because he resonated with his audience. But why was Roland chosen? What about the most excellent Bohemond? The valiant Godfrey? Or wise Oliver? All of these heroes endure in our public consciousness today, but why were any of these historical figures chosen over all the other potential historical figures to be elevated by Frankish Historians? I have argued that the first and most important element that a chronicler or poet had to consider when deciding whether or not a figure could be made into a hero was whether or not said figure possessed heroic identities. All of the heroes of the First Crusade and in La Chanson de Roland share a common identity: male, noble, Christian and Frankish. I have labelled the identities of gender, class, religion and race as exclusionary. The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum chose Bohemond to be his primary hero. Bohemond was the perfect candidate because there was no aspect of his identity that excluded him from heroism. Bohemond was a man and was therefore not excluded from heroism as women were. Bohemond was a Noble and was therefore not excluded from heroism as peasants were. Bohemond was a Christian and was therefore not excluded from heroism as Muslims were. Bohemond was a Frank and not excluded from heroism as Greeks were. The reason I call these identities “exclusionary” and not “inclusive” is because a heroic identity did not necessarily guarantee heroism. Take Stephen of Blois. Stephen 78 was certainly in possession of a heroic identity. He was a man, a count, a Christian and French. We also know from his letters that he was even selected to be the leader of the Crusade at one point. Yet despite possessing the perfect base identities for heroism, Stephen is rarely mentioned, and when he is, he is described as a coward. Identities may have been the first step towards heroism, but it did not make a hero. If a figure was in possession of these traits, they then had to accomplish great deeds within the bounds of Frankish morality. This means that Frankish Heroes had to be willing to die for their cause and be skilled in violence. Stephen of Blois goes against these rules when he abandons the Siege of Antioch. He proves that he is unwilling to die for his cause. Thus, he is discarded by nearly every Chronicler despite his potential for heroism based on his identity. Deeds of licit violence and deeds of loyalty and self sacrifice were the most noble actions a hero could take because violence and fealty were integral to Frankish culture. Ralph of Caen tells us that his hero Tancred killed 700 Muslims in a single battle. This is an extraordinary deed to a modern reader. It would be a superhuman feat to slay this many men just from a logistical sense. To a Frank in the 11th Century, however, it meant more. This sort of violence against Muslims was shorthand for righteousness. Violence was steeped in every aspect of Frankish Culture. The roles of Nobles and Knights were beginning to converge. Nobles were viewed as inherently moral, heroic and violent duties of mounted war started to become associated with them. As martial prowess was becoming a noble virtue, violence was becoming inherently virtuous. The Catholic Church did not accept all kinds of violence, but it did support holy war violence. 79 The First Crusade, a journey with explicitly violent intent, was called by the Pope himself. Not only did the Church accept violence against Muslims, but they were also bribing the Christians of Europe with plenary indulgences to partake in this licit killing. In the setting of a Holy War, violence against Muslims was supported by both major forces of morality in the world of the Franks, the nobles and the church. In a culture where killing Muslims is considered universally good, inherently noble and offers you a free trip to heaven, it is little wonder that the heroes that exemplified that culture all greatly excelled in killing Muslims. The veneration of fealty and martyrdom in Frankish literature was likewise born from nobility and religion. The Frankish veneration of noble blood and familial relations led to a veneration for fealty and one's liege. The Frankish willingness to die is thoroughly steeped in the rhetoric of Christianity and the Church. Jesus suffered and died to absolve humanity of its sins. Of course, the Heroes of the First Crusade constantly proclaimed their willingness to die! That is three of the four tenets of Heroism laid out by Horswell and Skottki accounted for. But the first tenet, moral and political ambiguity, adds the final piece of nuance to hero making. I cannot stress enough how a hero to one was not a hero to all. The Frankish Chroniclers of the First Crusade were often divided on who the most heroic hero truly was, usually based on race and bloodline. Bohemond was not as skilled in hand-to-hand combat as Godfrey or Tancred. Sources rarely depict him in battle. If the Chronicler is positive towards Bohemond, like the Gesta Francorum, it will promote his other characteristics. His charisma, cunning, and 80 tactical brilliance. His skill for strategy means he is an effective leader on the battlefield. When this is spun in a certain way, it is almost a substitute for being skilled in hand-tohand violence. His lack of violence is masked. However, sources that are not placing Bohemond in a central position emphasize his lack of man-to-man violent skill as a weakness. They emphasize his cowardice, and often point to when he refused to climb the ladder at Antioch as an example of his failings. Heroism was and is mutable. Its nature is thoroughly steeped in the bias of the historian who crafts them. What makes heroism valuable to study is when it is studied collectively across sources from the same culture at the same time. Bohemond might not have always been the hero in every Chronicle. But in Frankish accounts, he was always a hero, even if he was occasionally characterized as flawed. Despite their occasional differences, the Frankish authors of the late 11th and early 12th Century were overall quite consistent in how they characterized their heroes. They all valued their hero's heritages, their identities, their martial skills and their devotion. But this of course, is a very specific scope. Bohemond most likely was not considered a hero by the Muslims of Antioch. Roland is perhaps the most unequivocally heroic figure in the Frankish literary canon. A Muslim named Blancandrin calls Roland an “utterly evil.”136A man that was seen by Franks as universally heroic is fully villainous to a non-Frank. Roland’s actions did not change to switch this perception, it is the identity of the one who was telling the story. Yet, I posit that studying heroism is actually more valuable due to its malleability. Since Heroism is steeped in bias, bias’s reveal so much about the historians and culture 136 The Song of Roland, 14. 81 that possess them. Though this paper was a study of Heroism, it was really more a study of a moment, a person and a time. The Franks of the late 11th century who walked over 2000 miles and killed countless men, to be absolved of their sins and reclaim the Holy Land. Their heroes were them because that is what they were made to be. 82 Bibliography Primary Sources: Albert of Aachen. Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem. trans. Susan B. Edgington. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007 Ambroise. The History of the Holy War: Ambroise's Estoire De La Guerre Sainte. Edited by Malcolm Barber. Translated by Marianne Ailes. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003. Anonymous. Gesta Francroum. trans. Roland Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Anonymous. The Chanson d'Antioche : An Old French Account of the First Crusade, edited by Carol Sweetenham and Susan B. Edgington. Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. Anonymous. The Song of Roland. trans. W. S. Merwin. New York, NY: Random House, 2001. Guibert de Nogent. The Deeds of the Gods through the Franks: Gesta Dei Per Francos. trans. Robert Levine. The Boydell Press, 1997. Fulcher of Chartes et al. “The First Crusade "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials. ed. Edward Peters. Ralph of Caen. The Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of the Normans on the First Crusade. trans. Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Robert the Monk. Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana. trans. Carol Sweetenham. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. 83 Secondary Sources: Ailes, Marianne J. “Heroes of War: Ambroise’s Heroes of the Third Crusade.” In Writing War: Medieval Literary Responses to Warfare, edited by Corinne Saunders, Françoise Le Saux, and Neil Thomas, 29–48. Boydell & Brewer, 2004. Asbridge, Thomas S. An Experiment in Extremity: the Portrayal of Violence in Robert the Monk’s Narrative of the First Crusade. in “History 105, no. 368.” 2020: 719750. Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Bartlett, Robert. The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. Brundage “An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois.” in Traditio 16 (1960): 380–95. Buchanan, Susan B. “A Nascent National Identity in ‘La Chanson d’Antioche.’” In The French Review 76, no. 5 (2003): 918–932. Bouchard, Constance Brittain. Strong of Body, Brave and Noble: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016. Carriere, Maria, "Women in the First Crusade and the Kingdom of Jerusalem" (2019). WWU Honors Program Senior Projects. 120. Crosland, Jessie. Raoul De Cambrai: An Old French Feudal Epic. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1966. Haidu, Peter. The Subject of Violence: The "Song of Roland" and the Birth of the State. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 2010. Heng, Geraldine. The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Hodgson, Natasha. “Reinventing Normans as Crusaders?: Ralph of Caen’s Gesta Tancredi.” In Anglo-Norman Studies 30: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2007, edited by C. P. Lewis, 30:117–32. Boydell & Brewer, 2008. Horswell, Mike, and Kristin Skottki. “Introduction.” The Making of Crusading Heroes and Villains, 2021, 1–6. Housley, Norman. Contesting the Crusades. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. 84 Gabriele, Matthew. An Empire of Memory, the Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and Jerusalem before the First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Kablitz, Andreas. “Religion and Violence in the ‘Song of Roland.’” MLN 126, no. 4 (2011): S115–58. Koziol, Geoffrey. The Peace of God. Arc Humanities Press, 2018. Madden, Thomas F. “Rivers of Blood: An Analysis of One Aspect of the Crusader Conquest of Jerusalem in 1099” in Revista Chilena de Estudios Medievale. 26-37. Millinger, Susan P. “Epic values: the Song of Roland.” In The Middle Ages in Texts and Texture: Reflections on Medieval Sources, Edited by Glenn, Jason., 141 152. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011. Nakashian, Craig M. “‘Li archevesque est mult bon chevalier’: The Chivalric Ideals of Archbishop Turpin” in Prowess, Piety and Public order in Medieval Society: Studies in honor of Richard W. Kaeuper. Ed. Craig M. Nakashian and Daniel P. Franke. Brill, 2017. Parsons, Simon Thomas. The valiant man and the villain in the tradition of the Gesta Francorum: overeating, taunts, and Bohemond’s heroic status. In Crusading and Masculinities, Edited by Hodgson, Natasha, Lewis, Katherine J. And Mesley, Matthew. Crusades - Subsidia; 13, 36-52. London: Routledge, 2019. Petrizzo, Francesca. ‘Most Excellent and Brave of Heart’: Tancred’s Making and Unmaking in the Sources. In The Making of Crusading Heroes and Villains, 2021, 7–22. Rubenstein, Jay. Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011. Rubenstein, Jay. “Cannibals and Crusaders.” In French Historical Studies 31, no. 4 (2008): 525–52. Rubenstein, Jay. “Guibert of Nogent, Albert of Aachen and Fulcher of Chartes: Three Crusade Chronicles Intersect.” In Writing the Early Crusades: Text, Transmission and Memory, edited by Marcus Bull and Damien Kempf, NED New edition., 24– 37. Boydell & Brewer, 2014. Rubenstein, Jay. Speculum 75, no. 4 (2000): 933–935. Smith, Katherine Allen. The Bible and Crusade Narrative in the Twelfth Century Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2020. 85