New Insights On The First Crusade Siege Of Antioch

(MENAFN- Jordan Times) AMMAN - One of the first major campaigns of the First Crusade was the siege of Antioch in spring of 1098. The actual siege began in October 1097 and local Muslims leaders, led by Yaghi Siyan sent messages to Mosul, ruled by Kerbogha, who answered the calls and gathered his units.

Kerbogha did not waste time and left Mosul on March 31, 1098 and besieged Edessa on the way to Antioch, from May 4th until May 25th. Meanwhile, Muslim armies from Mosul, Jerusalem and Syria formed a coalition, whose main objective was to rebuff Crusaders.

The Crusaders stormed Antioch at night between June 3rd and 4th, but they failed to take a citadel. The Muslim vanguard reach Antioch the next day, on June 5th
and on 6th Muslim coalition besieged the Crusaders who managed to defeat them on June 28th.

"The second siege of Antioch and its final battle have been widely studied, but Kerbogha's early campaign received little attention from mediaeval writers – and, consequently, has largely escaped the notice of historians. However, the early campaign offers major insights that help to explain Kerbogha's defeat at Antioch, said French historian Thomas Brossett, adding that in three months, Kerbogha had travelled 675 kilometres, led two sieges and fought a major battle.

James Wilson analised 18 different Arabic accounts for the study of the siege of Antioch by the Muslims, none of their authors being eyewitnesses to the events of the First Crusade. Twelve of these Arabic narratives offer little to work with, such as that of Ibn Qalanisi (dird in 1160), who dismisses Kerbogha's participation in the campaign in favour of mentioning Syrian troops and the coalition's defeat, while being silent on other events of the campaign.

"However, six accounts provided some useful evidence: Abu Fidaʾ [died 1331], Ibn ʿAdim [died 1262], Ibn Athir [died 1233], Ibn Al Dhahabi [died 1348], Nuwayri [died 1331] and Sibṭ Ibn Jawzi [died 1256]," Brossett explained, adding that massive desertions from the coalition was one of the major problems.

Arabic, Armenian, Latin and Syriac sources gave different accounts of the events at Antioch and reasons for the outcome of the campaign.

Latin and Old French narratives have therefore to be split into two categories:“historias and chronicles” on one hand, and“chansons de geste” on the other hand, Brossett explained, adding that Latin narratives provide us with the core details of the second siege of Antioch.

The First Crusade can be distinguished between eyewitness accounts and later works based on these eyewitness sources. Also, historians also looked at the textual traditions of these historias and revealed important connections between certain texts.

"Four main eyewitness accounts exist: The anonymous Gesta Francorum, and the narratives of Fulcher of Chartres, Peter Tudebode and Raymond of Aguilers. In addition, Robert the Monk was an eyewitness to the Council of Clermont, but not to the expedition," said Brossett, adding that The Gesta Francorum, written by an anonymous knight, was used as the main source for a second generation of sources written by Baldric of Bourgueil, Guibert of Nogent, Peter Tudebode, and Robert the Monk, which, in Elizabeth Lapina's words, can be categorised as the“Gesta family”.

Textual traditions shaped groups of narratives, but each account had a degree of originality in the choice of words, as well as the addition of unique anecdotes obtained from oral tradition, the historian continued, elaborating that the originality of each of these texts must not be dismissed.

Indeed, most authors of the“Gesta family” provide a different reading of some key events in Kerbogha's campaign.

In contrast to the“Gesta family”, both Raymond of Aguilers's and Ralph of Caen's accounts offer limited information about Kerbogha's campaign, while, the narratives of Albert of Aachen (12th century), Fulcher of Chartres (12th
century), and William of Tyre (died 1184) provide crucial information on Kerbogha's campaign before Antioch.

"While Fulcher was an eyewitness to the siege of Edessa, Albert of Aachen did not participate in the events of the First Crusade, and William of Tyre had not been born at the time of the expedition and wrote decades later," Brossett explained.

However, Albert of Aachen's historia is the longest and most detailed account of the First Crusade as Albert represents the imperial tradition that was long neglected after the works of the 19th century to the advantage of the French tradition represented by the sources of the“Gesta family”.

Moreover, Albert's historia was based on returning crusaders' accounts, and evidence is often confirmed by other Latin and Oriental sources. Albert is therefore a major source on the campaign, despite not being an eyewitness.

"The second category of narratives of the First Crusade are the Old French chansons de geste, usually considered by historians as fictional accounts,"Brosset saidf, adding that the Old French Chanson d'Antioche had a historical base that was adapted to provide an epic narration of the events of the First Crusade.

That work is a combination of fiction and a primitive historical account.

The“Chanson d'Antioche” also provides strong evidence about the siege of Edessa and the siege of Antioch that echoes other sources, such as Albert of Aachen, Robert the Monk, and both Armenian and Syriac narratives, Brossett said "so evidence offered by the 'Chanson d'Antioche' should not be discarded".

"The last category of accounts was produced in Armenian, Greek, and Syriac. Well-informed, Matthew of Edessa (12th century) and the anonymous author of Edessa (13th century) present the best evidence for Kerbogha's siege of Edessa," underscored Brossett.

MENAFN07092024000028011005ID1108648332