Leadership on Crusade: Military Excellence, Physical Action and Gender in the Twelfth-Century Chronicles of the First Crusade and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

Abstract

It is hardly surprising that in the chronicles of the First Crusade (1096–1099) and in the Chronicon of William of Tyre, accounts propagating Christian warfare, impressiveness, authority and command stem from military actions blessed by God. In the depictions, the position of being a leader is constructed and maintained by a public display of martial ability, by deeds rather than by words. The sources certainly describe aristocratic warriors influencing their peers or larger mixed audiences by speech, but in these cases too, to be successful, the grasp on command normally requires that physical effort follows the communications. The narratives equate physical action with the motives, values and beliefs of the first crusaders. The initiative aimed at achieving leadership is often described approvingly, but the sources also criticize the leaders for manipulative behaviour and unwillingness to cooperate with each other. The judgement of the sources depends on authorial agenda and dynastic rivalries: the leaders of the First Crusade, here especially Bohemond of Taranto (c. 1054–1111), Tancred of Hauteville (c. 1078–1112) and the successors of Godfrey of Bouillon (c. 1060–1100), understood the relation between written history and the claim on power and actively contributed to the production of the heroic image of the first crusaders, that is, the highlighting of their own alleged excellence as leaders. For these three leaders, a cultural legacy, whether initiated during their lifetime or posthumously, was crucial to creating a lasting image of effective leadership. The case of Peter the Hermit, a preacher from Amiens with a supposedly low social background, is different. The fact that chroniclers and composers of chansons included a figure without military expertise and verifiable support from kin and allies among the leaders of the First Crusade, albeit in a controversial manner, bears evidence in itself of his recognition by medieval audiences. Leadership is a gendered talent in the twelfth-century chronicles. The close relation between command and military action on the one hand, and the categorical exclusion of women from the field of battle on the other, discouraged depictions of female leadership in the crusading context. As a result, women were excluded from the leadership of the First Crusade, and references to female authority did not appear in the sources until several decades later in an altered context, with Queen Melisende of Jerusalem (c. 1105–1161) being the clearest example. In her case, too, gender formed a barrier to action and leadership. William of Tyre’s description of her reign is ambivalent, while her sister Alice’s (c. 1110—after 1151) claim to the regency of Antioch is portrayed negatively. This article compares the models and qualities of the leaders of the First Crusade in medieval sources. The first section considers modern definitions of imposing (charismatic) authority and ties the discussion to the overarching theme of exploring medieval crusader leadership. The second part examines the examples of the leaders of Antioch and Jerusalem and their cultural legacy in the chronicles.

1. Leadership, Charisma and Twelfth-Century Crusading: An Introduction

While modern theories of social impressiveness and charisma are useful for understanding leadership in the Middle Ages, not to mention how the person in charge implemented their authority, medieval terms often carry different connotations to similar words used today (Kostick 2008).1 In this case, the twelfth-century chronicles of the crusades2 (Constable 2001) clearly include a concept of compelling and divinely inspired leadership resembling the modern ideas of charismatic authority, but they do not refer to the leaders of the expeditions as charismatic. In fact, the word “charisma” is rarely, if ever, used by the twelfth-century chroniclers or poets of the crusades.

Those of the crusaders who would have recognized the term “charisma” would probably have reflected on the biblical usage of the word in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s letters stating that each member of the Church has his or her own gift of grace given by God.3 In Paul’s references, the term is not connected to authority or leadership in particular but indicates the gift of redemption and grace (χαρίσματος), including prophecy, miracle-working, the gift of tongues, healing and so on. In Greek, the word χάρις could mean grace, charm and physical beauty of people, gods and objects, a gift or favour given out of the kindness of the donor or in gratitude to the receiver, or even a sense of delight or pleasure. In the Christian context, however, the pagan Greek and Roman notion of physical beauty (masculine and feminine alike) was interpreted in terms of the soul regaining its beauty by divine grace (Rossi Monti 2017).

In the biblical context, a human being could be bestowed with such divinely intended gifts but could not be the source of them. The access to these gifts was based on a usufruct by divine will, independent from the personal traits of an individual. In perhaps the most influential definition of the term charisma in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Max Weber combined these two notions, claiming that “Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.” (Weber 1947, pp. 328, 358f; 2017, p. 177).

More recently, Stephen Jaeger has agreed with Weber. For Jaeger, charisma means a personal characteristic or ability, either inborn or consciously acquired by training or experience, an “extraordinary personal presence” that allures the audience, compels them to follow, overrides critical judgement, inspires imitation and stimulates imagination (Jaeger 2012, pp. 9–11, 20).

Of the five leaders discussed in this article, Jaeger’s definition provides a suitable model for interpreting the depictions of Tancred’s and Peter’s leadership. In Tancred’s case, the textual construction of leadership clearly relies on real or alleged personal abilities, both innate and acquired, while Peter’s case fits better with the idea of a prophet miraculously endowed with the skill to move people to act in accordance with the divine will. The cases of Bohemond and Godfrey are more complex, and Melisende’s presence has been deliberately obscured in the chronicle of William of Tyre, the main source of her life, in order to make her career more compatible with the ideals of medieval queenship.

Another contemporary, John Antonakis, underlines the powerful capacity of charismatic leaders to provoke emotional reactions. According to Antonakis, charisma is a symbolic influence rooted in values and emotions. Charisma endows the holder with the ability to lead by framing and delivering visions that strengthen the audience’s confidence in their presumably common goals by drawing attention to shared metaphors and stories and expressing the feelings of the collective (Antonakis 2018). Antonakis’ theory of charismatic leadership is closely related to the idea of transformational leadership of Bass et al., which emphasizes the role of an idealized leader able to inspire his followers to transcend their own interests for the greater good (Bass et al. 1987). In the modern sense, therefore, charisma, dominance, authoritative persuasion and leadership seem to go hand in hand. A charismatic person would be one who is accepted and supported by others to clarify the actual, moral and emotional objectives of the group and lead its members towards these goals. The ability to release emotional reactions is most clearly present in the depictions of Bohemond’s speeches and Peter’s compassion for high-standing ecclesiastic patrons, but also in three other cases.

Because of the incongruence of the medieval and modern definitions of the term charisma, the word charisma is best omitted to avoid a mistaken assumption of its modern meaning. Modern theory, however, provides a fresh perspective to interpreting the twelfth-century crusader chronicles’ ideas of leadership, because the authors dedicate plenty of space to leaders whose behavioural traits and abilities to convince their followers and peers are often described in terms reminiscent of the modern notion of charismatic leadership.

The sources clearly include a concept of compelling leadership nuanced with notions of divine intervention and favour. For the theologians and first crusaders alike, victory was a gift of grace and a token of divine approval (Augustine 1955, XV.4, pp. 456–57; Bernard of Clairvaux 1957–1977a, I.2, p. 215; Gratian 1879, 23.4.49, p. 925; Raymond of Aguilers 1968, p. 128; Anon 1962, X.xxxviii, p. 92; de Chartres and Hagenmeyer 1913, I.xvii, p. 299). More precisely, chroniclers depicted God as bestowing military success on individuals who by their behaviour, their impact on others, and their prominence in the collective memory met the requirements of leadership that would have been defined as charismatic by Weber, Jaeger and Antonakis.

Leadership as a source of inspiration and initiative and object of awe is a central theme in the sources, reconciling the theological explanation of the crusade as a holy war devised and directed by God with the class-normative socio-cultural ideals of the military aristocracy who led the expeditions. These ideals included the notions of aristocratic honour, loyalty among kin and hierarchic social structure listed as typical for the heroism-seeking warrior societies Jaeger calls “charismatic cultures”. In the latter context, heroism was defined by performative actions (Jaeger 2012, pp. 146–47) and was also strongly present in the crusader chroniclers’ descriptions of Godfrey’s, Tancred’s and, to a lesser extent, also Bohemond’s public display of military skills with class-related weapons in a lethal combat against formidable enemies (Robert the Monk 2013, IV, pp. 44–45, VII, p. 75; Albert of Aachen 2007, II.28, p. 109, III.65, p. 244, IV.32, p. 296; Ralph of Caen 2011, LIII, p. 646).

Heroic leadership was constructed in the chronicles by the depiction of extraordinary achievement, combining military ability with the tendency to take physical action. In the narrative context, princes were best able to provoke imitative following by engaging themselves personally in battle. This following was nevertheless not implicit: leadership could be sharply criticized if the authors did not agree with the underlying motives. These general findings were in line with Heinzer’s, Leonhard’s and von den Hoff’s definition of a hero as a person related to extraordinary deeds or qualities provoking admiration, imitation and following but also criticism among other people (Heinzer et al. 2017, p. 9).

According to Heinzer et al., heroism is constituted through interaction with the audience. This conclusion applies also to the leaders of the First Crusade, whose heroic aura evolved as a literary construction over decades and centuries. For the memory of the crusades, it was the work of historians and narrators to develop, add and perhaps create notions of heroism, authority and leadership, and also to refute and deny the existence of these attributes, as perhaps in Melisende’s and clearly in Alice’s case. Bohemond of Taranto, Tancred and Godfrey of Bouillon have been chosen as examples here because they represent the most successful among the leaders of the First Crusade when it comes to maintaining and indeed boosting the historical image of their leadership. Peter the Hermit’s role in the First Crusade, albeit notably different from that of the princes, became an established part of the historiography and story-telling tradition of the crusades.

The main reason for their success is based on the cultural legacy the three (and perhaps four, if we count Peter as well) crusaders left behind: all three were applauded by the chroniclers and storytellers from an early date. For Godfrey, the rise to fame was a more time-consuming process than in the case of Bohemond and Tancred, but then his star rose higher than theirs. Later construction of Godfrey’s career as the champion of Latin Christendom, the founder of the royal house of Jerusalem and ultimately one of the Nine Worthies, was built on becoming more idealized than the conflicting images of Melisende, another ruler of the Latin East, and Bohemond, Tancred and Peter who were all praised and criticized for their actions.

The main sources used in this article include the anonymous Gesta Francorum and the chronicles of Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of Aguilers, Ralph of Caen, Albert of Aachen, Baudri of Dol, Robert the Monk and Guibert of Nogent for the First Crusade and William of Tyre for the life of Melisende. Of the authors, Fulcher of Chartres (1059–1127) and Raymond of Aguilers (d. c. after 1105) were chaplains who participated in the First Crusade with Baldwin of Boulogne (future King Baldwin I of Jerusalem) and Raymond of Toulouse. The anonymous author of Gesta Francorum was another eyewitness, who was perhaps a knight or cleric from Southern Italy.4 All three produced a chronicle of the crusade soon after the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099.5 Of Albert of Aachen not much else is known other than that he was a cleric and crusade enthusiast, writing his chronicle by 1119. His main informants were likely to have been German-speaking crusaders returning from the East (Grocock 1996).6 Ralph of Caen (b. before 1097, d. after 1130) was a Norman cleric who served Tancred and possibly also Bohemond. He travelled to Antioch sometime prior to Bohemond’s death in Apulia in 1111. After Tancred’s death a year later, Ralph concluded his Gesta Tancredi by 1118, probably in Jerusalem.7

Baudri of Dol (1046–1130) was a Benedictine abbot of St. Pierre-de-Bourgueil and absentee bishop of Dol. Like Guibert, abbot of Nogent (c. 1053–1125) and Robert, who was probably a monk connected to the abbey of Saint-Remi in Rheims (Robert the Monk 2013, pp. xvii–xxxiv; Robert the Monk 2005, pp. 1–4), he used Gesta Francorum as his primary source. The three Benedictine chroniclers added a theological framework to the Gesta, placing the First Crusade in the context of divine history and emphasizing the role of the pope as the initiator and leader of the expedition (Biddlecombe 2014).

William, confidant of King Amalric I of Jerusalem, Archbishop of Tyre and royal chancellor (c. 1130–1185), is another ecclesiastical author who includes a depiction of the First Crusade in his chronicle. William, however, was writing more than eighty years after the crusade in a very different context.

When he stopped writing a few years before the defeat of Hattin in 1187, which led to the loss of Jerusalem, the situation was already serious. King Baldwin IV died of leprosy in 1185, leaving the kingdom to his young nephew Baldwin V. After the death of the child king a year later, a bitter crisis over succession arose between the supporters of Baldwin’s two sisters, Sybil and Isabel. Even before his death, the infirmity of the king had rendered him incapable of leading the armies in a situation where Saladin’s power was simultaneously accumulating (William of Tyre 1986, 4.23, 19.12, p. 266; Handyside 2015, pp. 2–6, 33). Unlike the contemporaries of the First Crusade, William’s focus was not on the armed pilgrimage of the past but on the current political issues of the realm. Rather than a crusade chronicle, his Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum is a royal history written by an erudite theologian and experienced politician.

To summarize, the contemporary or near-contemporary sources of the First Crusade, with the exception of the anonymous, Raymond and Fulcher, were largely composed by authors who had not personally participated in the events they were depicting and who were writing after the results of the expedition were known. With a possible exception of the anonymous, the authors were clerics. In general, they wrote to disseminate the ideology of the Christian holy war and to propagate the glory of the military exploits of their patrons (Bull 2014; 2018, pp. 30–32, 57–58; Kempf 2014; Biddlecombe 2014; Naus 2014; Jaeger 2017, pp. 181–204, here 198; Lapina 2007). Keeping these two circumstances in mind, the historicity—or fictionality—of the information included in their texts was perhaps less significant for the authors than the effect the contents had on intended audiences.

Within such a narrative strategy, brave fighting was not the only necessary particle for cementing leadership that would be praised for centuries. Personal talents associated with the main characters are likely to have been exaggerated and in some cases invented. The awe-inspiring but complex qualities of Bohemond and Tancred were based on texts produced by their Norman collaborators, the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum and Ralph of Caen.8 Robert the Monk, Baudri of Dol and Guibert of Nogent, using the Gesta as their primary source, were mostly reiterating the Norman bias conveyed by the anonymous authors. Robert, whose chronicle became the most popular among the sources, was promoting a positive image of the Capetians.9 Albert of Aachen favoured the German crusaders and chose the Lothringian Godfrey of Bouillon as the protagonist of his chronicle (Edgington 2008, pp. xxxi–xxxii; John 2018, pp. 9–10, 72, 223). For his contemporary Fulcher of Chartres and, half a century later, William of Tyre, Godfrey in his founding role of the royal house of Jerusalem was an important character, although not as prominent among the leaders of the First Crusade as in Albert’s work and in the later tradition (John 2018, pp. 232–33).

In crusader chronicles, leadership was framed in masculine terms10. For the authors strong leadership relied on the physically enacted excellence in holy war and the remembrance of actual military actions. Women were automatically excluded from martial championship because of their gender.11 They did not have an active military combat role except in rare emergencies,12 and even if they could de facto act as effective military leaders during their lifetime, as in the case of Queen Melisende (and perhaps her sister Alice), chosen here as the example for being the first woman who received a remarkably long and detailed treatment in a crusader chronicle, being a woman unavoidably constituted an obstacle for becoming remembered as a crusader leader in the full sense of the word. The ideal of leadership through military action limited historical magnificence to adult aristocratic males.

The sources of the crusades contain a wide range of masculine terminology, indicating the existence of several types of masculinities in the texts (Hodgson et al. 2019, pp. 2–3). Although manly excellence was not excluded in the case of the clergy, the individual’s position in the social hierarchy determines the vocabulary typically associated with the warrior ideal type. Even more than the lack of military training, his relatively low social status made it difficult for Peter the Hermit to join the ranks of crusading heroes.

2. Constructing Crusader Leadership in the Twelfth-Century Chronicles

2.1. Bohemond of Taranto

Among the crusader princes, Bohemond of Taranto, the oldest son of Robert Guiscard, was well-known among the chroniclers for his ability to persuade others with his military vision and stirring speeches13. Feats of valour were manifested in daring charges at the forefront, heavy blows and expert strikes, all of which Bohemond is depicted as capable of. The anonymous author describes him attacking the enemy:

“So Bohemond, protected on all sides by the sign of the Cross, charged the Turkish forces, like a lion which has been starving for three or four days, which comes roaring out of its cave thirsting for the blood of cattle, and falls upon the flocks careless of its own safety, tearing the sheep as they flee hither and thither. His attack was so fierce that the points of his banner were flying over the head of the Turks.”14

According to the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond was a great warrior inspired by the Holy Ghost (Anon 1962, I.iii, p. 7). At first glance, the depictions seem to correspond to Weber’s dual requirements of divine endowment paired with exceptional performance by an individual (Weber 1947, pp. 328, 358f; 2017, p. 177). The idea of performative action as an indicator of heroism in the charismatic cultures defined by Jaeger (Jaeger 2012, pp. 146–47) is also strongly present in other descriptions of Bohemond. Robert the Monk mentions Bohemond throwing himself with his column into the Battle of Antioch and turning the course of the battle, which ended in a decisive victory for the crusaders. When the enemies saw him and his men roaring like lions, charging into their midst and slashing with their swords in all directions, they lost nerve and withdrew (Robert the Monk 2013, V, p. 42). Albert of Aachen tells the same story, although he adds his protagonist Godfrey of Bouillon first:

“Duke Godfrey and Bohemond did not curb their horses but let them have their heads and flew through the midst of the enemy, piercing some with lances, unsaddling others, and all the while urging on their allies, encouraging them with manly exhortations to slaughter the enemy. There was no small clash of spears there, no small ringing of swords and helmets heard in this conflict of war, no small destruction of Turks”15

Among the chroniclers, Robert the Monk and Baudri of Dol include Bohemond’s speeches inciting the army (Baudri of Dol 2014, I.xvi, p. 18, II.i, p. 31, II.xiv, p. 45, II.xix, pp. 53–54; Robert the Monk 2013, II.4, p. 15, II.16, p. 19, IV.10, p. 39). Since neither of these clerics participated in the crusade, these speeches must be considered works of fiction; Robert or Baudri would not have known Bohemond’s words or been able to evaluate the exact context of the performance. However, as both men would have been able to meet Bohemond in 1105–1106 and had the opportunity to follow his presentations (Baudri of Dol 2020, pp. 18–19), it is not impossible that their descriptions convey a reliable impression of Bohemond’s oral performance.

Biddlecombe, the most recent editor of Baudri’s Historia Ierosolimitana believes that while the lead given to Bohemond in Baudri’s work may be a genuine reflection of Bohemond’s influence, it is just as likely that Baudri saw Bohemond as a useful literary figure. Pre-battle speeches are common in crusader chronicles and chansons, even if usually brief, not exceeding five lines or at most a paragraph. The case of Baudri is nevertheless different: Bohemond’s speeches are long, eloquent and include theological reasoning (Baudri of Dol 2014, I, p. 18, II, pp. 30–32, 55). According to Biddlecombe, the orations were added to the text to explain Baudris thoughts on the purpose of the crusade and the events and the strategic thinking of its leaders.16 Gesta Francorum, Baudri’s source, refers to the speeches but does not include any content.

Baudri’s examples of Bohemond’s speeches splendidly follow the three-step charismatic tactic for winning over the audience, as described by John Antonakis. The speaker must first arouse the feelings of his or her listeners [1], and then connect those feelings to a common goal. The best way to do this is to focus their attention by using metaphors and stories [2]. Then, the performer should justify the objectives by expressing the feelings of the collective and giving them confidence that the shared goal is attainable [3]. It is important to deliver the message in an animated and passionate way using voice and gestures. Finally, the psychological gap between the leader and the followers is bridged by telling the story of moral decision [4], which is accepted and shared by the group (Antonakis 2018):

“Bohemond, seeing the countless host of enemies threatening and jeering at his men with frenzied speech and barbarous sword, stood undaunted, and spoke to his comrades with due deliberation: ‘Most steadfast soldiers of Christ, behold, it is time to fight. Cast aside all fear, which emasculates even men, and act in manly fashion for your own protection [1]. Endure the attackers’ blows without wearying, and since we have complete faith in assistance from Jesus [3], stretch forth warlike hands, and show the strength of your ancestry [2], for behold it is time. I do not want the glory of the Franks to be defiled on account of our negligence, or for the holy name of Christians to become worthless because of our failure to act [1]. Our situation is critical, the war is going against us, many enemies are very near. But nothing has happened to you except by your hope and your will. Everything has happened to you as a result of prayer. You left your homelands for this; you came here for this; you have always longed for battle. Behold that which you have long desired and prayed for! Look how they have surrounded us on all sides! [3] But, you indomitable race, you undefeated people, do not be afraid! For in very truth God is with us. If anyone is fearful now that he is in a tight spot, then let him either borrow a bold spirit for himself, or at least for shame let him hide his fear. Now the need is for arms and courage; it’s not the time for weakness or clumsiness. [4] But why am I wasting time with words? Already now one is speaking to oneself.’ Then he ordered the tents to be sorted out quickly and he sent orders to his allies, who had withdrawn from him rather a long way, to make great haste to come to them. ‘For inevitable danger of death is at hand for us,’ he said, ‘unless you come with speed. The rumour of battle is in no doubt, and we are seeing it with our own eyes, we are feeling it keenly striking our bodies. Come on now, Christians; charge and defend both yourselves and your common cause. It is a shared danger we are in; it is a shared crisis in which we are striving [4].”17

Bohemond’s claim to leadership is undeniably present in the accounts throughout the twelfth century. In the two surviving letters from Antioch to the Pope, signed by the leaders of the First Crusade in 1098, Bohemond is mentioned first (Hagenmeyer 1901, XII, pp. 153–55, XVI, pp. 161–65). In addition to the Gesta Francorum and the historical tradition stemming from the text, Bohemond is also mentioned more often than any other leader in the earliest surviving crusader chanson, La Chanson d’Antioche (John 2014), surviving in the version compiled or perhaps commissioned by Graindor of Douai from c. 1180. William of Tyre, completing his chronicle by 1185, gives equal space to Bohemond and Godfrey of Bouillon and almost as much to Tancred. He makes fewer but nevertheless frequent remarks about Raymond of Toulouse and Baldwin of Boulogne, Godfrey’s brother and successor as King of Jerusalem, and says far less about Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders and the papal legate Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy. Ambroise, an Anglo-Norman crusader writing c. 1194–99 in the aftermath of the Third Crusade, mentions that on the First Crusade God had given victory to Bohemond and Tancred, who were distinguished pilgrims, as well as to Godfrey of Bouillon and other princes of great renown (Ambroise 1897, 1, p. 172, 2, p. 174, vv. 10636–53). The Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, another chronicle of the Third Crusade written perhaps around the same time, states that in the year of Our Lord 1099 Bohemond, Raymond, Tancred, Duke Godfrey, Count Robert of Normandy and the Franks had captured Jerusalem and expelled the Saracens from the Holy City (Nicholson 2001, p. 39).

In Bohemond’s case, however, his influence was also recorded to have sprung from other sources than leading by physical example. Anna Komnene, generally negative towards the Normans, whom she accused, rightly, of attempting to conquer Byzantine territories (Theotokis 2020; Rubenstein 2016),18 wrote the following about Bohemond:

“Such was his constitution, mental and physical, that in him both courage and love were armed, both ready for combat. His arrogance was everywhere manifest; he was cunning, too, taking refuge quickly in any opportunism. His words were carefully phrased and the replies he gave were regularly ambiguous. Only one man, the emperor [Anna’s father Alexios I Komnenos] could defeat an adversary of such character, an adversary as great as Bohemond.”

(Komnene 1969)

Arrogant, cunning, opportunistic. Slander by a woman, whose imperial father fought a decade to gain upper hand over the Principality of Antioch from Bohemond? It is clear that Bohemond sought to augment his power by conquest during the First Crusade and afterwards, and that the limits of his authority remained contested. The conflict with the Byzantines was reignited in 1097, when Bohemond seized Antioch and the land around the city and refused to surrender it to the emperor; this lasted until 1108, when Bohemond was defeated and compelled to acknowledge Byzantine overlordship in Antioch at the Treaty of Devol.19

Given the paucity of documentation relating to the Council of Piacenza, Bohemond’s initial involvement in the crusade remains obscure.20 It is not clear whether the decision to join the crusade was carefully planned or simply an opportunity taken more spontaneously. Gesta Francorum claims that the call for the crusade did not reach Bohemond and his followers until as late as the summer of 1096. According to the anonymous author, Bohemond, moved by the Holy Spirit, ordered a precious cloth be cut in pieces and used for making cross badges. The majority of knights present eagerly took the cross on Bohemond’s side. Count Roger of Sicily, the anonymous author adds, was left almost without knights. However, if Bohemond or his representatives had been present in Piacenza, Bohemond would well have been aware of the forthcoming expedition while besieging Amalfi. Either the whole story is a fake or Bohemond had set the scene.

According to Bull, the anecdote was added to the text to “emphasize Bohemond’s quick thinking, charisma and control of the situation”, and not to indicate his ignorance of the papal plans. To support this interpretation, the anonymous author mentions earlier that when Peter the Hermit and his lot reached Constantinople in the early days of August 1096, they found crusaders from Southern Italy there. As Bull points out, a detailed and dramatic description of the starting point of Bohemond’s journey east is in sharp contrast with the beginning of the Gesta, which refers obliquely to the stirring of the hearts and papal preaching in the northern side of the Alps (Anon 1962, pp. 2, 7; Bull 2018, pp. 118–19).

Geoffrey Malaterra, who is generally not very enthusiastic about Bohemond and does not include him among the main characters of his chronicle, states that Bohemond’s leaving for the East during the siege of Amalfi harmed the interests of his half-brother and rival Roger Borsa. According to Malaterra, Bohemond was inspired by the opportunity to invade Byzantine land (Malaterra 1927–1928, pp. 73, 77, 81, 82, 87, 90, 91, 99).

Other open questions are the extent to which he acquired leadership during the expedition and his position when it began. In a recent article, Simon Parsons has challenged the traditional view of Bohemond as a hero or at the most flawed hero of the First Crusade. According to Parsons, the depiction of Bohemond is also complex in the Gesta Francorum and the chronicle of Robert the Monk. At Dorylaeum in July 1097, he postpones fighting until the other leaders arrive and even considers flight at one point (Robert the Monk 2005, p. 26; Parsons 2019). In the Lake Battle at Antioch in February 1098, he has his standard bearer Robert FitzGerard lead the charge in his place (Anon 1962, p. 36; Parsons 2019). During the conquest of Antioch in June 1098, he hesitates again (Anon 1962, p. 46; Robert the Monk 2005, p. 54).

After the conquest of the city, the control over Antioch drove Bohemond into a serious dispute with Raymond of Toulouse, who demanded that Bohemond abide by a treaty with the emperor.21 A subsequent attempt to conquer Latakia from the Byzantines in 1099 was halted by the intervention of Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders. According to Albert of Aachen, Bohemond was accused of violating his oath to the Emperor, lying to his allies and killing and blinding Latin Christians during the occupation of two citadels (Albert of Aachen 2007, vi, 55, pp. 476–78, VII.7, p. 496, VII.59–62, pp. 568–72, IX.16–17, pp. 656–58; Raymond of Aguilers 1968, p. 125; Asbridge 2000, p. 34; 2007, pp. 137–138). Bohemond was also a rival of Godfrey and his successor Baldwin I, whom Tancred and Patriarch Daibert tried to oust from the throne of Jerusalem after Godfrey’s untimely death (Albert of Aachen 2007, vii.46, p. 554; Asbridge 2000, pp. 16–18). Albert of Aachen reproaches Raymond Toulouse for an insatiable lust for gold and silver, Bohemond of Taranto for greed and Baldwin of Boulogne for jealousy of another lords’ gain (Albert of Aachen 2007, V.33, p. 380, VI.54–59, pp. 476–82).

Accusations of fraud and violence against Christians as well as deliberate delaying to join battle are obviously in conflict both with the ideal behaviour of a crusader knight and the aristocratic notions of honour and loyalty among allies associated with charismatic societies by Jaeger. However, Bohemond, together with Godfrey and Tancred, who were among the leaders of the First Crusade, left the most lasting memory in Western history-writing and literature.22 This memory is likely to have originated largely in his own arrangements rather than his innate characteristics: during his military career, Bohemond gained more enemies than allies.

The Norman rule over Antioch opened an irreconcilable rift between Bohemond and the Byzantines. In 1105, Bohemond travelled to France to gain support for his claim to Antioch against the Greeks (Asbridge 2000, p. 64). The official reason was a pilgrimage to venerate St Leonard of Noblat after release from Turkish captivity, but the stay in France in 1105–1106 was dedicated to promoting a new crusade and enlisting military assistance against Alexios Komnenos. The journey was very successful, culminating in the marriage of Bohemond and Princess Constance, the eldest daughter of King Philip I of France, in Chartres at Easter 1106 (Vitalis 1969–1980, I, pp. 47, 60, 98, 102 fn 4; Rubenstein 2016; Russo 2005). The marriage into the House of Capet was a great social leap upwards for Bohemond, who managed to convince his future father-in-law to abandon the traditional Capetian marriage policy and accept a Norman from Southern Italy as a son-in-law (Paul 2010).

Exactly to what extent Bohemond contributed to the construction of his public image as a heroic leader is not clear. Sweetenham has convincingly claimed that Bohemond and his successors sought to create a foundation narrative to support their claim on the Principality of Antioch and pointed out several elements within this narrative that glorify Bohemond’s personal charisma and leadership, “whether dramatically giving his cloak to be cut into crosses at Amalfi or leaping on the altar at his wedding to tell people about his exploits”. Such vivid stories would have had several functions, such as justifying the possession of Antioch by divine help and showing Bohemond as a leader chosen by the army and God much in the Weberian fashion to allure the audience to accept his claim of leadership (Anon 1962, p. 7; Vitalis 1969–1980, 6: XI.12, pp. 70–71; Sweetenham 2022).

Bohemond’s campaigning in France and its possible relationship with the production of the sources of the First Crusade has been an object of lively debate for a long time. The notion that the surviving version of the Gesta Francorum was the work of a simple knight23 has been challenged by Oehler, Morris and Flori, who suggested that the original text, possibly produced by a Norman crusader in Bohemond’s army, would have been revised for further use in France during Bohemond’s journey.24 Since the Gesta is likely to have been circulating in France in early 1106 (Riley-Smith 1986, p. 137; Niskanen 2012; France 2022; Naus 2014), Niskanen, Krey, Poncelet and Oehler have suggested that the extant version, whether a revision of an older text or not, was produced in conjunction with Bohemond’s vigorous promotion of the new crusade25, whereas Biddlecombe has claimed that the Gesta had been circulating in France already before Bohemond’s arrival (Baudri of Dol 2014, pp. lvii–viii). According to Nicholas Paul, textual evidence propagating Bohemond’s heroic career was only written in the aftermath of his marriage to support the Capetians (Paul 2010). Bull thinks that it is possible that the author of the Gesta Francorum was a cleric attached to Bohemond of Taranto very much like the other eyewitness chroniclers of the First Crusade, Fulcher of Chartres and Raymond of Aguilers and Ralph of Caen, who was commissioned to write by Tancred, Bohemond’s nephew (Bull 2018, pp. 55, 130).

Be that as it may, the anonymous author wrote both admiringly and critically of Bohemond, and the appearance of his chronicle in western Europe was related to the writing of several other chronicles, all of them frequently mentioning Bohemond’s actions (France 2022). The production of Baudri of Dol’s chronicle coincides with Bohemond’s stay in France, whereas Kempf and Bull, the most recent editors of Robert the Monk’s work, have contested the earlier dating of Robert’s work to 1106 or 1107, suggesting instead that the text was completed c. 1110, with the main purpose of conveying a favourable image of the French royal family (by that time including Bohemond), and especially removing the disgraceful desertion of Hugh of Vermandois, the younger brother of Philip I, during the second siege of Antioch.26 By that time Bohemond was a member of the Capetian family and Robert could have described him positively for that reason alone.

2.2. Tancred of Hauteville

To the East with Bohemond marched his nephew Tancred,27 who was probably still in his late teens when he took up the cross. Tancred achieved an undying reputation through eyewitness chronicles and later tradition, outshining even his cunning uncle in his courage, impulsiveness, determination and gallantry. To quote the modern translators of William of Tyre, “William’s critical faculties cease to function when he writes of Tancred” (William of Tyre 1943, p. 186, n. 24). In fiction, he was portrayed as the king’s right hand, a general adored by his men and maidens. Still, in Gerusalemme liberata from 1581, Torquato Tasso represents him as the archetype of chivalrous virtues, a perfect crusader knight, for whom the warrior maiden Clorinda and the princess Erminia fall (Petrizzo 2019b).

This was no minor achievement, considering that Tancred remained Bohemond’s second-in-command until his death and was the youngest and poorest of the leaders of the First Crusade. Albert of Aachen and Guibert of Nogent link his young age with financial dependency on others higher in the hierarchy—he volunteered to carry out dangerous tasks in return for compensation by the senior leaders.28 When Bohemond stayed in Antioch, Tancred transferred his allegiance to Raymond of Toulouse and continued towards Jerusalem. After Godfrey of Bouillon’s stature began to rise after the siege of Arqa, Tancred left the service of Raymond following a dispute and joined Godfrey’s forces.29

Raymond was not the only person Tancred argued with. Petrizzo depicts Tancred as a “disturbingly young, terribly angry, and very violent crusader”, whose impetuosity Ralph of Caen, his chronicler, tried to represent as praiseworthy bravery (Petrizzo 2019b): “It was only the glory of praise that moved the spirit of this young man. But in regularly pursuing glory [in military pursuits] he brought frequent suffering on himself, for he did not spare his own blood or that of [the army].”30

In Albert of Aachen’s and Ralph of Caen’s chronicles, Tancred’s personal appeal and leadership derive from his personal physical abilities and leadership by example. The military action resulting from his example is not typically preceded by a speech like in Bohemond’s case; Tancred acts and the army follows. Albert describes Tancred as a

“Very fierce knight who could never have enough of Turkish bloodshed, but was always eager for their slaughter […] put on his hauberk, took with him ten comrades who were very experienced with horse and lance, and […] attacked them boldly and pierced and destroyed […] Tancred returned in great triumph and happiness to his comrades in the city, taking back with him the Turks’ heads as evidence of victory.”31

Ralph of Caen relates to Tancred fighting the Greeks on the crossing of the River Vardar:

“Half-dead bodies filled he banks on both the right and left with a middle channel of blood. There was no room to maneuver. Rather, [Tancred’s men] could only follow along the path of the killer. Here was the killer himself although it seemed that he had poured out his own blood rather than that of his enemies. Covered in blood, his appearance denied that this was Tancred but his work spoke of him.32 He was a panther among the sheep […] Tancred soaked the green earth with their blood. Tancred filled ditches with heaps of the dying.”33

These portrayals of violent and straight forward leadership in combat recall Jaeger’s notion of extraordinary personal presence as an indicator of charismatic leadership. The depictions suggest that in the heat of battle all those present were able to distinguish Tancred because he fought more fiercely than anyone else. Dramatic tones are suitable to provoke emotional reactions in the audience.

The idea that personal prowess is manifested in physical excellence is particularly clear in Tancred’s case. The chroniclers of the First Crusade state that he was always ready to fight (Ralph of Caen 2011, III) and that he often acted spontaneously, even recklessly. Tancred is described galloping towards the front line at full speed, flinging himself and his horse into a river in full armour to save his men (Robert the Monk 2013, II.xiv, pp. 17–18) and plundering the Temple treasury to pay his men, causing a dispute between him and the Patriarch after the conquest of Jerusalem. Tancred defended himself publicly, declaring that he had acted to provide for the needy, thus ensuring the public good and fighting the enemies of God. He was ordered to return over 700 marks of silver, which was apparently only a part of the booty he had taken.34

Looting in the churches of the Holy City was clearly an unworthy act for a crusader hero. Ambiguous anecdotes, including half-hidden criticisms of leadership, also seem to be present in the descriptions of Tancred. As far as is known, Albert of Aachen had no personal connection with Tancred and did not use Ralph of Caen’s chronicle as his source. His choice to show Tancred in favourable light may thus have been deliberate. On the other hand, Tancred was the main source of Ralph’s work and is likely to have commissioned it. Since Ralph had not participated in the First Crusade, it is likely that he was expressing Tancred’s own version of the events. But why would Tancred have liked to be portrayed as a looter? Perhaps the moral of the story is that he wanted to be remembered as a good lord who was willing to do anything for his men rather than see them in distress.

As for the scenes containing graphic violence, Ralph’s style comes close to the chansons where great battlefields turn slippery with the gore. If the chronicle was intended for Tancred’s family, associates and other audiences consisting of aristocratic warriors and their retinues, such incidents would have been understood as both conventional and diverting. Being depicted as a leading knight in a terrible yet magnificent combat contributed to the making of the legend of Tancred.

This was probably what he wanted: to be remembered for heroic fighting and generosity to his men, rather than as a young, landless knight who was notoriously short of money and perpetually subordinate to the great magnates; Prince of Antioch, rather than a knight who changed his allegiance from lord to another. Ralph of Caen’s anecdote crystallizes the paramount importance of personal reputation for a crusader leader: “Tancred’s prowess ate and drank praise. Desirous of nothing other than fame, like a pauper who spurns wealth, like a faster who spurns food, like a laborer who spurns rest, he found a path […]”.35

2.3. Godfrey of Bouillon

Matchlessness in battle was, unsurprisingly, a necessary prerequisite for the claim on leadership also in Godfrey of Bouillon’s case. Albert refers to Godfrey piercing the enemy with a sword, lance and crossbow bolt, cutting off helmeted heads, striking through vitals and inflicting great slaughter among the Turks with a hand highly schooled in war, encouraging his men amidst the fighting and cutting a splendid figure in the army among the painted shields, shining iron mail coats and flying standards.36 Albert of Aachen is the only one among the early twelfth-century chroniclers to give Godfrey precedence among the leaders, but many other authors add examples of Godfrey’s military exploits and action on the First Crusade. In Gesta Francorum he is portrayed as a pagan-slayer,37 and Ralph of Caen mentions that he was among the first to kill (Ralph of Caen 2011, XIV, p. 615), and Baudri of Dol points out that his election as ruler was supported by his hostility to the gentiles and his experience in warfare.38

A very famous quotation by Robert the Monk attributes to Godfrey a popular topos of the chansons, splitting the enemy in two with one violent strike of the sword:

“What tongue could explain how much damage the Duke inflicted unaided on the bodies of the wicked pagans? They began to flee, throwing their arms to ground; they feared the Duke’s sword like death but could not avoid it. He sliced through their necks with his arms bare and sword unsheathed; they unwillingly offered him their naked bodies,39 hardly resisting. The site, the fury, his sword and his strong hand all fought them; all this fell upon the limbs of the wretches. One of them, bolder than the rest, unusually heavily built and of greater strength rather like another Goliath, saw the Duke savaging his men mercilessly; he urged his horse towards him with bloodstained spurs, and lifting his sword high he sliced through the whole shield of the Duke, which he held above his head.

The Duke, ablaze with furious anger, prepared to return the blow and thus aimed for his neck. He raised the sword and plunged it into the left side of his shoulder-blades with such force that it split the chest down the middle, slashed through the spine and 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 […] How praiseworthy is the right arm of the unconquered Duke, and how strong his courageous heart!”40

Guibert of Nogent, Ralph of Caen and Albert of Aachen include the story in their chronicles, as do the Chanson d’Antioche and Chanson de Jérusalem (Guibert of Nogent 1996, VII.xii, pp. 285–86; Ralph of Caen 2011, LIII, p. 646; Albert of Aachen 2007, III.65, p. 244; La Chanson d’Antioche 1976–1978, CLXI.3661–70, pp. 200–1; La Chanson de Jérusalem 1992, 206.7415–19, 7432–33, p. 200, 207.7449–50, p. 201). It is notable that texts representing different genres, historical contexts and aims convey uniform ideas of military excellence and exemplary leadership on the First Crusade.

The interpretation of personal abilities differed slightly from hero to hero. Whereas in Bohemond’s case references to rhetorical skills and perceptiveness complemented fighting skills accentuated in the descriptions of Tancred, chroniclers emphasized the sincerity of Godfrey’s faith. Ralph of Caen states that Godfrey was totally devoted to war and to God and adds that he was living more like a monk than a lay person (Ralph of Caen 2011, XIV, p. 30). Robert the Monk claims that Godfrey was a true prince who did not amass worldly treasure and was not interested in the spoils of war.41

It is perhaps obvious that Godfrey Bouillon, chosen by the others as the advocate of the Holy Sepulchre, was depicted with more religious epithets than the others. Albert of Aachen recalls a dream of a local knight in the context of Godfrey’s election as ruler of Jerusalem. The knight, miraculously transported to Mount Sinai, saw the duke ascending the mountain and meeting two bishops dressed in white. The bishops blessed Godfrey and prayed that he would be appointed the leader of the Christians, like another Moses (Albert of Aachen 2007, vi.35, p. 448).

Godfrey, a secular ruler of the Holy City, is associated with ideals of both secular and ecclesiastical masculinity. In addition to military prowess, he is depicted by Albert as a spiritual example to others, indeed a leader to whom God has miraculously bestowed command, a leader like the ancient prophets. In fact, Godfrey is better than Moses, who only caught a glimpse of the Holy Land without ever ruling it (Crouzet-Pavan 2013, p. 169).

As a leader chosen by God to rule in the earthly representation of the heavenly city, the depiction of Godfrey comes closest to the medieval idea of charisma as a gift of grace connected with prophecy and miracle-working. Heroism, defined by performative acts, is reinforced here by the special divine favour bestowed on Godfrey because of his great personal piety (Crouzet-Pavan 2013, pp. 167, 172, 211–12).

In Godfrey’s case, however, prominence among the princes of the First Crusade grew slowly over a longer period after the crusade. According to Simon John, with the exception of Albert of Aachen, Godfrey was simply remembered as one of the leaders together with Bohemond, Raymond of Toulouse, Tancred, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders at least until the mid-twelfth century and perhaps as late as the close of the twelfth century. Godfrey’s appointment as the ruler of Jerusalem after the city had been captured on 15 July 1099 did not immediately upgrade his reputation.42 In Brian Fitz Count’s letter to Bishop Henry of Winchester in 1143, Godfrey is listed last among of the leaders of the First Crusade, although Brian mentions that he was elected King of Jerusalem (Davis 1910). John’s findings are in line with the observations of Philip Handyside in his discussion of the anonymous Old French translation of William of Tyre’s Chronicon, L’Estoire de Eracles from c. 1219–1223. According to Handyside, the translator did not have any particular interest in Godfrey of Bouillon beyond his presence with the First Crusade (Handyside 2015, pp. 58, 88, 93, 119, 224).

The same conclusions apply to vernacular poetry. In the works of the so-called First Cycle of the Crusades, especially in the Chanson d’Antioche, Bohemond figures more frequently than other leaders. It is only by the early thirteenth century, when the Second Cycle appears, in the Chevalier au Cygne, Naissance du Chevalier au Cygne, Enfances Godefroi, that the spotlight falls on Godfrey as the most important among the leaders of the First Crusade (John 2014). In Godfrey’s case, it was not a dynastic or crusading history that was crucial to his late medieval reputation as the epitome of chivalry and Christian kingship, a distinction he shared with King Arthur and Charlemagne,43 but his connection to the folk tale of the Swan King, a mysterious knight that gradually replaced Godfrey’s grandfather, Godfrey the Bearded, in the chansons of the crusades.44

Crouzet-Pavan has introduced an interesting theory. Accordingly, the clergy aspired to organize the rule of Jerusalem into a theocracy under the pope and even suggested that the patriarch would make his choice of ruler before the election by the barons. Had the barons been willing, the future ruler of the Latin Kingdom would have been understood to derive his power from the pope, thus becoming a vassal of the holy see (Crouzet-Pavan 2013, pp. 174–75).

This plan did not materialize, but the fact remains that Godfrey did not assume the title of king, as his brother Baldwin did in 1100. The sources refer to his title as the advocatus of the Holy Sepulchre,45 duke or prince,46 which raises questions about the extent of his power among historians. The lack of the title of king did not automatically indicate diminished authority. Murray has pointed out that, seen as a regent chosen by God and defender of the Church, Godfrey’s position was actually quite strong (Murray 1990). At the same time, the opposition of Patriarch Daibert of Pisa undermined the actual power of the newly elected ruler (Murray 2007). The struggle for power remained unresolved at the time of Godfrey’s death on 18 July 1100.

In Godfrey’s case, the notion of charismatic leadership thus resulted from later authorial aims rather than his own interests or the ideas of his contemporaries. He was not known to have commissioned a chronicle, although he might have issued laws. To reiterate, among the contemporary chroniclers only Albert of Aachen places him as the protagonist of his account of the First Crusade. Albert completed his chronicle no earlier than 1119 and could have been writing as late as in the 1130s (Albert of Aachen 2007, p. xxv), that is, decades after the death of Godfrey. He did not participate in a crusade or travel to Jerusalem, and his text does not reveal any direct link to the houses of Boulogne or Bouillon-Ardennes.47 In the absence of further evidence, it may be concluded that Albert’s interest derived from Aachen being in Godfrey’s native Lorraine and Albert’s main informants being German speaking crusaders from the area. Albert refers to Godfrey’s career as the duke of Lower Lorraine (1087–1100) only briefly, with the focus of the chronicle remaining on the First Crusade and its aftermath. However, writing in the imperial lands in the ancient Carolingian capital of Aachen, it is not impossible that Albert may have had an interest in depicting a model of elected kingship to support the emperor’s claim against papacy.

Apart from fierce fighting and ardent piety, associated in the chronicles with all the leaders of the crusade, we may ask why exactly Godfrey was ultimately chosen as the ruler of Latin Jerusalem and secular leader of Christians if he was not seen to be prominent by his peers. The two most likely explanations are the close collaboration and unwavering support between Godfrey and his brothers Eustace and Baldwin. Even more importantly, Godfrey avoided major quarrels with other leaders at least until the summer of 1099,48 and he maintained good relations with Byzantium even when they were deteriorating in the case of other princes.49 Furthermore, after the conquest of Jerusalem, Godfrey had become more popular than his rival Raymond of Toulouse and had more loyal followers. Bohemond was not present, and Robert of Flanders and Robert of Normandy made clear that they were intending to return to Europe as soon as possible. In the given context, Godfrey, who was not yet universally seen as the epitome of chivalry and a strong leader, remained the most appropriate choice, on which the majority agreed (Raymond of Aguilers 1968, pp. 153, 157–62; Anon 1962, pp. 153, 157–58; John 2018, pp. 179–80).

2.4. Peter the Hermit

In the sources of the First Crusade, the typical hero is a nobleman of military virtues. In the case of clerics also, religious and moral supremacy was an insufficient prerequisite for leadership if not supplemented by military action. Crusader chronicles emphasize the submission of the military magnates to the lord pope, leader of the militia Christi, and habitually describe crusader bishops leading armies into battle and destroying enemies through the power of prayer and relics (Albert of Aachen 2007, IV. 52–53, pp. 330–32, VII. 56, pp. 564–66, VII. 66–68, pp. 578–80; Robert the Monk 2013, VII, p. 77).

According to the chronicles, the papal legate, Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, participated in the victorious battle of Antioch on 28 June 1098. Whereas Gesta Francorum states that Adhemar’s force stayed behind to guard the citadel, clerical authors praise his military actions, whether co-operating with Raymond of Toulouse50, overcoming the Turkish Atabeg Kerbogha by the power of the Holy Lance51 or pursuing the enemy, with his face awash with tears of joy (Robert the Monk 2013, VII, p. 77; Albert of Aachen 2007, IV.52, p. 330, IV.53, pp. 332–34).

Bold bishops are prominent characters in the sources, whereas the initiative taken by lower clergy is a curiosity. Among the leaders, Peter the Hermit remains an isolated and contested figure in the historiography of the First Crusade. Peter was a charismatic preacher, a hermit from Amiens with a strong following. He seems to have been a crusading fanatic who held no position in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and had no extensive education, no influential family networks, no wealth and no military training or physical strength. Peter left no written record of himself, but among the chroniclers, Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre, although writing over sixty years apart and in a very different context, name him as the initiator of the First Crusade and state that both the Patriarch of Jerusalem and Pope Urban II received him kindly.

Peter is an interesting example because the sources base his influence on the masses purely on his verbal communication skills without any visible support from any named religious institution or patron among the crusaders. According to Albert of Aachen, “he was a preacher of the utmost persuasiveness and oratory. In response to his constant urging and calling firstly bishops, abbots, clerics, monks, then the most noble laymen, princes of different domains, and all the common people, as many sinful as pious men, adulterers, murderers, thieves, perjurers, robbers—that is to say every sort of people of Christian faith, indeed even the female sex, led by repentance—all flocked joyfully to join this journey”.52 Albert’s description is consistent with the theory of Antonakis, explaining values and emotions as the source of charisma and charismatic leadership as an ability to set collective aims and express the feelings of the group (Antonakis 2018). The portrayal of Peter also seems to correspond to the idea of transformational leadership, which emphasizes the leader’s ability to inspire his followers to dedicate themselves to the greater good (Bass et al. 1987). The ideals of group-related honour and loyalty are less present in the case of Peter, but since Peter was a low-standing cleric, the models of aristocratic masculinity did not apply to him. He was unfit to lead an army because he lacked appropriate status, resources and training.

In Peter’s case, charisma is depicted to have resulted from traits of character rather than physical appearance. William of Tyre says of Peter that he “was small of stature and insignificant in person” but “in that small body, a greater valour reigned”. “He was of vivacious disposition and keen and pleasing eye, and he was not lacking in spontaneous eloquence”.53 Albert and William agree that Peter had been drawn to Jerusalem by the fervour of spirit a couple of years before the First Crusade. He had been shocked to see the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the possession of non-Christians and had requested and been admitted to an audience with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. During the meeting, Peter obtained a letter of reference from the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Pope, urging him to raise an army to reconquer the Holy Land: “Simeon, the patriarch, perceived from Peter’s words that he was a discreet man of varied experience in many matters and of convincing power both in word and deed. He began to explain to him intimately the many woes which were so cruelly afflicting the people of God who dwelt at Jerusalem. Peter’s brotherly sympathy was so deeply moved by this recital that he could not restrain his tears”.54 In William’s account, Peter, who is not mentioned to have been literate himself, imitates the feelings of the patriarch so skillfully that he becomes compelled to follow suggestion to write to the pope (Jaeger 2012, pp. 9–11, 20).

Peter’s emotional intelligence inspired imitation also in the pope.55 Albert writes that as soon as the pope had heard these things from Peter with a willing and attentive ear, he was stirred into action. He crossed the Alps, decreed that there should be a meeting of all the west of the Frankish kingdom and set out for Clermont in the Auvergne (Albert of Aachen 2007, I.5–6, pp. 6–8). William claims that the pope promised by the word of God to assist Peter in his mission. Peter himself, after meeting the pope, crossed the Alps and preached to the princes of the West, “insisting, rebuking, and censuring”, persuading them to go to the aid of their Eastern brethren without delay. Peter was not satisfied with the support among the princes alone, but he continued inspiring the common people and men of the lower classes by his exhortation to take up the cross. William concludes that “the Lord looked upon Peter’s faithful service and granted him such favour that rarely did he call the people together without results. His preaching made him very necessary to the pope, who had decided to follow him beyond the mountains”. Peter’s role was to prepare the hearts of his audience to obey, “so that the pope, who wished to persuade them to the same course of action, had less difficulty in attaining his purpose and was able to influence them more readily”.56 The divine favour bestowed by God to Peter is reminiscent of the choice of Godfrey as a leader of the Latin Christians. In this case, however, the irresistible power of Peter’s piety compelled people to bend to his will, whereas Godfrey’s rulership was not depicted with the same vigour.

Despite his poverty and lack of military virtues, Peter was not insignificant. According to the chronicles, he continued to convince the crusaders of his ability to lead. He was mentioned as the leader of the group of poor crusaders who perished at Civetot at the hands of Suleyman of Nicea (Anon 1962, I.ii, p. 4; Albert of Aachen 2007, II.24, p. 102) and as an envoy chosen by the military leaders to negotiate peace terms with the chief enemy, Atabeg Kerbogha, in Antioch. Unlike the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy, Peter survived the crusade and continued to lead his flock to Jerusalem. At the Battle of Ascalon, he was portrayed carrying the holiest of relics, the Lord’s Cross, which protected the Christian troops (Albert of Aachen 2007, VI.41, p. 456, VI.43–44, pp. 458–60).

Despite his apparent inability to write or commission a chronicle, Peter’s legacy as a leader of the First Crusade became established in medieval west. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, writing in the 1240s in Champagne, adds that Peter founded the Augustinian priory of Neufmoustier together with the noble Conon and Lambert of Montaigu, and that he was buried there in 1115 (Alberic of Trois-Fontaines 1874, p. 815). His charismatic activities continued posthumously, as the monastery developed a tradition that Peter had been granted the privilege to allow those who could not fulfil their vow to go to Jerusalem for good reasons to gain similar benefits by visiting Neufmoustier (Riley-Smith 1997, p. 154)57.

For Peter the Hermit, a non-privileged and probably half-literate or illiterate preacher, even if possibly the only truly charismatic leader among the First Crusaders in his impressive capacity to convince various audiences, the personal capacity to influence documentary evidence relating to his career and actions was seriously restricted. Criticism and wild rumours could be easily spread about him and go unanswered; he could be ridiculed in a manner noble crusaders were not exposed to. The chroniclers accuse Peter of desertion in Antioch,58 and in vernacular poetry he is depicted giving poor crusaders instructions to roast Muslims on a spit (La Chanson d’Antioche 1976–1978, CLXXIV.4046–48, p. 218). His case relates especially well with Heinzer’s, Leonhard’s and von den Hoff’s definition of a hero as a person whose qualities provokes imitation and following but also sharp criticism (Heinzer et al. 2017, p. 9).

2.5. Melisende of Jerusalem

The context of the leadership of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem is very different from the case of the first crusaders. Despite the apparent temporal and contextual gap between her and the leaders of the First Crusade, her actions are discussed here for the simple reason that she is the first surviving example of a woman who held significant power in the Latin East and whose career there has been documented in some detail. It might have been relevant to add a crusader king here for comparison. Nonetheless, in a frontier society continuously facing military challenges and obstacles, military excellence and heroic leadership remained among the key virtues associated with kingship. In addition to protecting and providing for his realm, the virtuous crusader king was above all a victorious military leader in the battle against the Saracen enemy much as the leaders of the First Crusade have been depicted in the chronicles and chansons. The physical infirmity of Baldwin IV, which ultimately made him incapable of leading an army, was one of the major reasons explaining the collapse of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

In the chronicles, not a single woman stands out among the leaders of the First Crusade, suggesting that women contributed little to the victory in the East. Also after the conquest of Jerusalem, references to women exercising military power remain sporadic and brief.59 The examples include auxiliary practices such as noble wives negotiating for the release of their husbands from captivity, organizing the defence of the family fiefs during the absence of a husband, or commoner women performing supportive tasks such as bringing food and water to fighting men, collecting or preparing munitions or herding livestock (Bennett 2001; Nicholson 2023, p. 2; Schein 2001, pp. 140–53). Perhaps the first major example of a woman with responsibility in a large crusader army is Eleanor of Aquitaine during the Second Crusade. In her case, her authority was diminished by the description of her as a foolish and possibly promiscuous woman risking the military campaign of her husband,60 Louis VII of France, although she showed much better political and military insight than Louis by supporting the idea of an attack against Aleppo instead of Damascus.

Among the leaders of the Latin East, Queen Melisende of Jerusalem remains the most remarkable female figure of authority. William of Tyre, writing a royal history for King Amalric, Melisende’s son, depicts her reign:

“Transcending the strength of women, the lady queen, Melisende, a prudent woman, discreet above the female sex, had ruled the kingdom with fitting moderation for more than thirty years, during the lifetime of her husband, and the reign of her son.”61

The depiction by William of Tyre summarizes the ambiguity concerning the rulership of the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the latter part of the reign of King Baldwin III. The status of Melisende as ruler of the Latin Kingdom was contested first by her husband and then by her son. Although Fulk was king, he did not entirely supplant Melisende, who retained power and influence despite their marriage. With Baldwin, she finally had to give up her claims, even if she continued as her son’s close adviser, leaving him stricken by grief after her death.

Melisende’s reign was perhaps the most successful in the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and her leadership was presented as praiseworthy by William. At the same time, the wording differed significantly from the classic panegyrics of crusader princes. Instead of showing her brave, relentless, destructively violent and ardent in her desire to fight for God and the Christian cause, William of Tyre uses the adjectives prudent, experienced and careful while explaining how the queen was able to use her royal powers for forceful action, thus overcoming her female weakness. While the prince was underage, she ruled the kingdom with a diligence equal to that of her (male) ancestry (William of Tyre 1986, XVI.3, p. 717). In the surviving images of the queen, she is depicted either in the company of her husband or her son (Lambert 2013; Folda 1993). None of her speeches have survived; in all the images, her mouth remains closed so as to fit the model of an exemplary and pious woman. Even when she laments over Fulk’s corpse, she covers her mouth with her hands (Folda 1993). The adjectives used were not chosen to provoke any great emotional reactions but to convince the audience of the coherence of Melisende’s actions with the notions of ideal queen as a wife or mother supporting the monarch.

The connection between physical action and exemplary leadership is not present in Melisende’s case. These portrayals hardly convey the image of a strong and inspiring leader, yet the records of her actions suggest otherwise. King Baldwin II could have chosen a male relative to be his heir instead of his eldest daughter. The fact that Melisende appears in Baldwin II’s records together with her father shows that he was training her to rule. As Alan Murray has pointed out, King Fulk had no claim to the throne of Jerusalem other than through his marriage to Melisende.62 The marriage thereby augmented Fulk’s authority, but seriously reduced her influence, because once married, the actions of husbands took precedence over those of wives (Hodgson 2007, p. 120). After the death of Baldwin II, Fulk sought to exclude Melisende from power and elevated his supporters and relatives from Anjou to important positions, causing discord at court between the newcomers and the older Frankish nobility of Outremer.

Unlike in the case of Bohemond and Peter renowned for their skills as great communicators, Melisende was not depicted building up charismatic leadership by giving public speeches. Instead, other people are described as speaking for her and taking initiative in her place. The struggle for power between Fulk and Melisende was exacerbated when Count Hugh of Jaffa, Melisende’s cousin, publicly defied Fulk and refused to accept his orders. Hugh was accused of treason and banished from the court.63 Hugh was alleged to have been romantically involved with the queen, but there is no evidence to prove the accusation. The count of Jaffa did indeed lead a revolt against King Fulk in 1132, but as both Mayer and Murray have shown, it was not caused by a liaison but a constitutional crisis. Fulk intended to set aside the succession plan made by Baldwin II in 1131, which obliged Fulk to rule with Melisende. Hugh was the closest male relative of Melisende present at court and protected both her and her son’s rights, fearing that Fulk might try to replace the baby Baldwin as heir with a son from his previous marriage (William of Tyre 1986, XIV, 15–18, pp. 651–56; Murray 2015a; Mayer 1972).

Regardless of the actual political background, William insinuates that the cause of the dispute is an extramarital affair, perhaps between Melisende and her cousin (William of Tyre 1986, XIV, 15–18, pp. 651–56). In fact, the accusation is similar to the one William made about Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was rumoured to have had an incestuous affair with her uncle during the Second Crusade.64 In both cases, a royal couple ends up in a political conflict with a lot at stake. While Melisende was fighting over the royal authority and rule of the kingdom with her husband, the reason for Louis’s discontent with Eleanor was that she supported Raymond of Poitier’s plan to attack Nur ad-Din in Aleppo instead of Damascus, which was Louis’s choice (Bennett 2001; Aurell 2005).

Interestingly, Antonakis’ theory of the importance of emotional arousal for the development of charismatic leadership helps to interpret William’s text. In this case, the queen is the source of the harmful emotions that cause Hugh to revolt against his king. His alleged emotional reaction to the Queen’s distress is reversed in order to discredit Melisende’s claim to power. The focus on the emotions may have been intended to disguise the fact that Fulk was an unpopular king at the beginning of his reign.

The medieval concept of marital fidelity extended uxorial submission to all fields of official and private activity. In the chronicles, the political actions of the two queens were seen as subordinate to the conjugal requirement to submit to the will of the husband, the supreme partner. In this context, Eleanor’s decision to disagree with the target of a major military operation and Melisende’s refusal to step aside were indeed acts of infidelity. Although these acts were not carnal, they subjected the queens to slander, as if they had compromised their marital vows by an act that could be interpreted as disloyalty to their husbands. The bonds of loyalty and social structure between kin and peers characteristic of Jaeger’s charismatic cultures are broken here when the crusading community is disrupted by the rivalry between the royal couple.

Heinzer’s, Leonhard’s and von den Hoff’s definition of a hero as a person related to extraordinary deeds provoking admiration and criticism among other people (Heinzer et al. 2017, p. 9) cannot be applied to the case of Melisende and her family because many actions that would have been considered positive if performed by a royal husband or son would have been understood as inappropriate if performed by a woman. For most of the time, royal ladies were not criticised for their military failures but for compromising their duties as daughters, wives and widows.

The crisis of 1132 was not the only political disagreement detrimental for the public image of Melisende. When Bohemond II, Prince of Antioch, died in 1130, his heir Constance (d. 1163) was still an infant. His widow Alice, Melisende’s younger sister, attempted to achieve regency but was compelled to withdraw her claim. William of Tyre mentions that, fearing an enemy invasion, the lords of Antioch appealed to Baldwin II, the father of Alice and Melisende, to take control of Antioch. When Baldwin II died a year later, Alice obtained possession of the principality with the support of Melisende, Pons of Tripoli and Joscelin II of Edessa. It seems that the new king, Fulk of Anjou, had to accept her regency for a time (William of Tyre 1986, XIV.4; Murray 2015b; Asbridge 2003).

According to William, Alice was an evil woman and unnatural mother who plotted to disinherit her daughter and marry again according to her own will. Her claim to rule during her daughter’s minority was questioned by founding it on her negative feelings towards her child, father and Fulk, whereas the motives of Melisende, Pons and Joscelin for supporting Alice were not discussed. According to Hodgson, there was probably no legal restraint on women acting as regents at the time of the argument. William of Tyre writes approvingly about Melisende’s regency during Baldwin III’s minority. However, in 1131, Antioch was in a far more vulnerable position than Jerusalem would be in 1143. Baby Constance was only two years old, while his cousin Baldwin would be thirteen when Fulk would die in 1143. There was a high risk that Antioch would be attacked during Alice’s regency.65

The defamation of Alice might conceal criticism of Melisende, who refused to step down when Baldwin III came of age (Murray 2015a). For William of Tyre, Melisende was a paragon of queenship (Park 2021) but not an ideal leader. William points out that her reign after the death of Fulk was temporary during the new king’s minority, and that her kinsman Manasses of Hierges, the constable of the realm, led the army in her place. The basic problem of her leadership was that being a woman, she could not and would not actively engage in warfare and thereby not meet the criteria of a traditional crusader hero.66 On the other hand, as the archbishop of Tyre and seasoned politician, William probably had ideas about how a realm should be ruled and by whom. After the death of Fulk, Bernard of Clairvaux, another highly distinguished churchman, wrote to Melisende, warning her that as a regent she would have to act as a man so that no one would judge her actions as those of a queen but of a king. In another letter Bernard reminded Melisende that her actions as a queen could not be disguised and that she could not be a good queen if she was not also a good widow (Bernard of Clairvaux 1957–1977b, 8.298, 8.206 (letters 354 and 289); Hodgson 2007, pp. 199–200). The advice seems contradictory: first Bernard orders Melisende to behave like she was a king, then he reminds her of the prerequisites of her feminine roles.

There is no textual evidence of personal military involvement in either Melisende’s or Alice’s case. However, Melisende was reported to have sent a military force to assist Edessa during the siege of Zengi in 1144. After the fall of the city, she sent a call for help to Pope Eugene III, who launched the Second Crusade (William of Tyre 1986, XVI.4, p. 720, XVII.1, p. 761). Upon the arrival of the crusaders, Baldwin III, Louis VII, King of France, and Conrad III, the Roman king, laid siege to Damascus, whereas Melisende and Manasses would have preferred to focus the attack on Aleppo as Raymond of Poitiers had suggested. The Second Crusade ended in disaster, and the weakened Damascus fell under the control of Nur ad-Din, a relentless enemy of the Franks, in 1154.

After the incident, the animosity between Melisende and Baldwin III grew gradually deeper. In 1152, the dispute over rulership was arbitrated by the leading vassals of the kingdom, who decided to divide the kingdom between Melisende and Baldwin so that the former held power in Nablus, Judea and Jerusalem, whereas Galilee, Acre and Tyre were to be ruled by Baldwin. Neither party was satisfied, and the conflict escalated into a civil war, during which the victorious Baldwin laid siege to the Tower of David in Jerusalem, where his mother and younger brother Amalric were residing. Melisende was compelled to retire to Nablus, but mother and son were soon able to settle their disagreement (William of Tyre 1986, XVII, pp. 13–14). Thereafter Melisende acted as an adviser to her son and was entrusted with the regency during his military campaigns.

These examples show that Melisende acted as the head of state during several periods of her life and that she also held military power, even if she employed it through a subordinate military official. At the same time, her leadership was disputed several times by her husband and son, who replaced her in the end.

For the first and later crusaders, military victory was the most precious gift from God. From Godfrey of Bouillon onwards, crusader kings were expected to be war heroes. Their leadership, whether charismatic or not, was judged by their military expertise. William of Tyre does not comment on Melisende’s role in this capacity, nor does he grant her the epithets of crusader leadership that he uses for male leaders throughout his chronicle. In William’s account, the legacy of Melisende’s rulership had to fit into a moderate and discreet narrative framework, organized by her gender rather than by active heroism and leading by example.

Melisende herself could have contributed more energetically to the textual making of her memory as a crusader queen. She was an important patron of art and architecture, but it was her son King Amalric who commissioned William to write the chronicle of the kingdom. As Melisende was already dead at the time, her image probably reflects the ideas of the king, and after him the ideas that the next king, Melisende’s grandson, wished to convey to future generations about her.

3. Conclusions

Compelling and inspiring leadership occurs frequently in the chronicles of the First Crusade. These texts hold in common the notion of the crusade as a manifestation of the will of God, the universal supremacy of the Roman Church and its members and the military excellence of the warrior elites of the West. The sources include a remarkable number of individuals able to inspire awe, reverence and willingness to submit to others.

The crusader chronicles base leadership on military prowess and assess the motives behind military achievement according to the results of fighting. In the literary convention, the most important component constituting leadership was physical action, even if the sources also included clear examples in which leadership was acquired by other qualities than an active show of military excellence.

Unsurprisingly, of the leaders discussed, the portrayals of Bohemond of Taranto, Tancred of Hauteville and Godfrey of Bouillon corresponded to the model of physical courage and active military presence as definers of convincing leadership. Of these three, accounts of Bohemond contained slightly more negative epithets than the accounts of Tancred. Both were accused of greed and plundering Christians, whereas Bohemond was also reproached for dishonesty and violence against Christians. In comparison with the others, Godfrey’s image changed remarkably over time. In his case, the concept of exemplary leadership was split into the conventional war hero and the prophet-styled leader of the Latin Christians.

The traditional view of charisma as a gift of God to an extraordinary human being was best suited to the case of Godfrey’s and also Peter the Hermit. This proves Peter’s character’s strong influence on the historiography and chansons of the crusades, despite the fact that he was a poor cleric of presumably low social standing, not only unfit to lead military expeditions but also unable to control the textual tradition concerning himself unlike the other four leaders, who did not lack the resources to commission literary works.

The achievements of Queen Melisende were largely forgotten because, as a woman, her image could not be reconciled with the ideal concept of leading by action, which the chroniclers considered a necessary element of leadership. In her case, the gender barrier may not have been so much about physical participation in military tasks as about the fact that the virtuous queen remained a useful figure in the background, subordinate to the king and supporting his leadership through her actions. This is not to say that women did not lead in person or that they lacked followers, but rather that sources tend to be reticent, overlook or criticize female initiative in the crusading context. On the other hand, unlike Bohemond and Tancred, Melisende does not seem to have been actively involved in developing the textual tradition concerning her reign, although she was a patron of major architectural projects and works of art.

Some modern models of charismatic leadership could be applied to the actions of the five leaders discussed in this article. Jaeger’s theory of extraordinary presence as the definer of charismatic leadership provided a suitable model for interpreting the depictions of Tancred’s and Peter’s leadership. In Tancred’s case, the textual construction of leadership relied on real or alleged personal abilities, both innate and acquired, while Peter’s fits better with the idea of charisma as a gift of prophecy endowed by the divine will. Godfrey’s charisma, which was only accumulating over time, also convened to the idea of power as bestowed by God for an exceptionally virtuous human being.

Heinzer’s, Leonhard’s and von den Hoff’s definition of a hero as a person associated with exceptional acts or qualities that arouse admiration and following, but also criticism in others, fitted particularly well with the complex and contradictory picture of Bohemond’s leadership (Heinzer et al. 2017, p. 9).

Antonakis’s notions of the capacity of charismatic leaders to provoke emotional reactions could be applied to all five leaders. In Melisende’s case, the model nevertheless functioned as a negation of the influence rooted in emotions. The emotions provoked by the queen turned into negative effects that caused the splitting of the crusader court in two rival factions.

The narratives equated physical action with the motives and beliefs of the first crusaders. Among the leaders, Godfrey, Tancred and Peter the Hermit benefited for the reason that they were participating in the crusader victory of the conquest of Jerusalem. In the case of Godfrey of Bouillon, notions of laudable leadership nonetheless accumulated over time. According to the early tradition, Godfrey is likely to have been chosen to be the ruler of Latin Jerusalem because he was willing to stay in the East and because he did not provoke major negative reactions among his peers until after his election.67 His cultural legacy relied not only on his advocacy of the Holy Sepulchre, nor on the fact that the royal house of Frankish Jerusalem was eager to invest time and money in the establishment of a grand historical narrative to maintain its claim for power, but also on his posthumous association with the legend of the Swan King.

In the cases of Bohemond and Tancred, the creation of the extant tradition underlining the charismatic characteristics of both men were boosted by authorial quill. Of the leaders of the First Crusade, Bohemond is the only one who organized a successful fundraising and public relations tour in the West. Tancred clearly benefited from his uncle’s agile networking policy, but his achievement in fame and glory was also deliberately self-promoted by commissioning a chronicle of his military career.

Chroniclers contributed to the invention of the historical—and mythical—image of the First Crusade, not excluding spectacular leadership from their interpretations. We acquire the image of leadership in the crusades through the work of historians and narrators. It is possible that this image was based on authentic information, but personal charisma might just as well have been invented by the authors or disappeared into the mists of time.