Posts from A little about Knights and Tournaments.

With the release of *Heroes 5 - Tribes Of The East*, the *Crusader* appeared in the game. Who is he?
I think many of you simply think of them as warriors with a cross on their shield.
I will try to tell you everything about them. And everything connected to them.
********************************************************
I have been interested in this for a long time. I found this on my discs.
I will try to cover the topic as fully as possible.
*********************

The Templar Cross.



Forms of the crosses used by the Order of the Temple

On April 27, 1147, Pope Eugenius III attended the General Chapter of the Order of the Temple in their new home in Paris. In the presence of King Louis VII Capet of France, the Archbishop of Reims, one hundred and thirty knights of the Order of the Temple, and the Master of France, Everard des Gouttes, the Pope granted the Templars the right to wear an image of a scarlet cross on the left side of the cloak, over the heart, "so that this victorious sign may serve them as a shield, and that they may never turn back before any infidel".

Initially, the cross had a simple shape, no different from the cross sewn onto the garments of crusaders when they set out on a campaign. Over time, the cross could change shape to a wedge-like form. Originally, the cross was worn on the shoulder. However, in the final period of the order's existence, according to the regulations of the time, knights, sergeants, and canons wore the cross on the chest and on the back.
So, what exactly was the Templar cross? There has been—and undoubtedly will continue to be—much debate about this. The inability to reach an agreement on this issue indicates that we are talking not about one cross, but about several.

**************************
The Templar Banner

Cardinal Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of Acre and frequent companion of the Templars in their military expeditions, describes the religious and combat spirit of the brothers of the Order as follows:

Two knights of the Order of the Temple.
"Chronica majora" Matthew Paris



Standard-bearer of the Order of the Temple.
"Chronica majora" Matthew Paris



Templars in battle.
Fresco in the Order's church in San Bevignate, Perugia.



"When the call to arms sounds, they never count the enemy, for why should they? Lions in battle, lambs in the monastery; brave warriors on the battlefield, humble monks in prayer; fierce and merciless to the enemies of Jesus Christ, they are kind and merciful to Christians. In battle, they carry before them a banner divided into black and white halves, as a sign that they are just and merciful to Christians, and formidable and terrible to enemies. The brothers themselves call this banner Beau-seant or Bien-seant".

Ernoul (squire to Balian of Ibelin and chronicler) writes that from the very foundation of the Order, the brothers had a banner called Bauzant.
There is also a version that the banner was called baucant (piebald).
The banner was divided horizontally into two parts—the upper black and the lower white. Sometimes with a red cross located on the white field. The meaning of the banner's colors is still unclear. Did it signify the victory of the forces of good over evil? Or perhaps it denoted the two classes within the Order—knights in white mantles and sergeants in black cloaks? There is also a version that the black part of the banner represented the worldly, sinful life that the Templars left behind upon joining the Order, and the white part symbolized the purity of their current life, dedicated to fighting for the faith.
The depictions of the banner by various chroniclers differ as to which part was white and which was black. Matthew Paris, chronicler of St Albans Abbey, depicts the banner with the upper part black and the lower part white. Moreover, their proportions varied in his work. In Historia Anglorum, he depicts the Order's banner divided into two parts: the upper third black, and the lower two thirds white.
At the same time, in another of his works, Chronica majora, he provides images of the banner both with equal fields and unequal ones (as in Historia Anglorum).
The church of San Bevignate in Perugia (Umbria) was built between 1256 and 1262 under the leadership of the papal treasurer, Brother Bonvicino of the Order. San Bevignate was one of the Order's centers in Perugia (and from the 1280s, the only one). Inside, on the west wall, remains of a large fresco are preserved, depicting a battle between crusaders and Muslims. One can distinguish the banners and shields of the brothers of the Order, divided into equal halves—the upper white (with a pattée cross applied) and the lower black.
It is possible that the banner depicted in the frescoes of the San Bevignate church was the Master's standard, while Matthew Paris drew the banner carried by the Marshal (article ?164 of the Order's Rule) and other hierarchs on the battlefield. According to the same Rule, the right to carry the banner, both in wartime and peacetime, was held by: the seneschal (article ?99), the commander of Jerusalem (article ?121), the commanders of the regions of Antioch and Tripoli (article ?125), the commander of knights under the turcopole (article ?170), the commander of knights under the marshal (article ?165), etc.
Obviously, the Order's banner was not unique (like, for example, the Oriflamme of the French kings). In any case, the order's standard played a very important role on the battlefield (besides its "classic" role, naturally): it showed the center of the order's center, as well as the place toward which the brothers were to strive for regrouping and a new attack. Its function was so important that a duplicate banner existed, carried rolled up, in case the first one fell. And before an attack, the Marshal appointed 10 knights whose sole task was to guard the banner. In the event that a brother abandoned the banner and fled the battlefield, this was considered a very serious offense for which the brother could be expelled from the Order (article ?232 of the Order's Rule). If a brother lowered the banner in battle, the chapter could strip him of his cloak.
***********************

Allow me to inquire... Did you begin your narrative out of chronological order? Or do you believe that the concept of a "crusader" emerged thanks to the Order of Templars?

I would like to add something. It all started. As far as I know, the order was created by 4 people who called themselves the "Warriors of Christ." The idea of creating the order comes from the Bible: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Well, then the Church and the Pope began to support the Order, people who wanted to join the order were found, gradually, it grew stronger, and it launched the first crusade at the command of the Pope.
It should be noted that the crusade brought both financial and religious benefits.

Added 2 minutes ago

May I ask... Did you start your story from the beginning? Or do you think that the concept of "crusader" appeared thanks to the Order of the Templars?

Of course, I agree with you that there is room for doubt here, because in addition to the Templars, the Hospitallers also participated.

I certainly agree with you that there is room for doubt here, as the Templars were joined by the Hospitallers.

And also the Livonian Order, the Teutonic Order, and the Order of the Sword-Bearers?

gradually growing stronger, it embarked on the First Crusade at the command of the Pope.

As far as I know, it was created after the First Crusade...

As far as I know, it was created after the First Crusade...

You are absolutely right. The fact is that the reason for the First Crusade was that the Knights were starting to suffer from idleness and boredom; they were no longer interested in tournaments, and they either raided each other or robbed their own peasants for no reason. The Pope could not tolerate such lawlessness, and that's when he came up with the idea of sending all this bloodthirsty horde somewhere far away. And he came up with the idea of creating a crusade in the name of the Holy Sepulcher. The main lure for the Knights was that the Pope said that any knight who participated in the crusade or died in it would be cleansed of all sins and immediately go to heaven, and all the sins of eight generations of that knight's ancestors would also be forgiven. In those days, the Church had a custom (or how else should I put it?) that everyone knew that all the pagan tribes that had heard of Christ but had not accepted Christianity would go to hell. And the noble knights could not allow their great-great-grandparents to suffer in hell, so they gathered their weapons and went on a crusade, and of course, they could also loot a lot and get rich there. Thus, even the poor went from Europe to the crusade in the hope of getting rich.
Thus, the Pope got rid of the restless Knights for some time, and for many years, he got rid of the poor people wandering around Europe, as most of them died in the crusade.
And later, the knights began to unite into orders, so that it would be more convenient to rob the eastern countries.

Medieval City

By the end of the 12th century, European cities reached a period of intensive development. There were many of them (Florence, Genoa, Venice, Marseille, Carcassonne, Toulouse, Orleans, Frankfurt, Magdeburg, etc.). The city commune was a new entity for Europe. Originating from annual fairs in convenient locations (near bridges or fords, near castle walls), cities had grown considerably by the 12th century, and many were surrounded by walls. The city was inhabited by artisans, merchants, innkeepers, taverns, and brothels. As a social unit, the city had a number of characteristics. The city was governed by a city council (mayoralty, magistracy, municipality), headed by a mayor. In some cities, power was in the hands of the church - then the city was governed by a bishop (against such power, the townspeople sooner or later revolted - because, unlike the mayor, the bishop was not elected by them). The city had its own court with judges, lawyers, etc. It was quite natural that there was a city guard, which maintained order. The city did not have an army - in the event of war, all townspeople capable of wielding weapons joined the militia, which was usually led by the mayor himself. The population was divided into nobles and commoners. The former were representatives of the city's elite, who in turn were divided into two categories: townspeople who had become quite wealthy (large moneylenders and merchants, innkeepers) and nobles who had settled in the city for some reason. It was the nobles who made up the city council, and the mayor was chosen from among them. Commoners were the poor. Sometimes they disliked the nobles, but the city could not exist without them: it was the nobles who could easily find funds for the repair of city walls or roads. And most importantly, the nobles knew how to negotiate with large lords or even the king himself. The city commune was both united and divided at the same time. Of course, if any feudal lord encroached on the city's liberties, the townspeople, as one, rose up to defend their interests. But in peaceful times, in the absence of an external threat, the townspeople, living "side by side," immediately began to conflict. Fights between "artisans and bakers" or, for example, "shoemakers and residents of the pottery quarter" were not uncommon. Such "district against district" battles were not easy for the city guard to break up. However, the unity of the commune was clearly manifested in the event of a conflict with outsiders: a townsperson who had a fight at a fair with a visiting merchant could easily count on leniency from the court. The court, as a punishment, could impose a fine on the guilty party, but one of the most serious punishments was expulsion from the city. Undesirable persons could be banned from entering the city. Since by the 12th century there were no "free" lands left, cities, as they arose, occupied land owned by some feudal lord. Thus, the city became as if a tenant and had to pay a considerable amount of money to the landowner. Naturally, the cities tried to buy the land on which they were located. If the lord did not want to sell the land (which, in fact, no longer belonged to him), then the matter came to war, so to speak, for independence. Here, the city was greatly helped by strong walls (if they existed): it was one thing to fight a knight in an open field, and quite another to throw stones at him while sitting in a tower. Nevertheless, the knightly army, much better trained and armed, often took cities by storm. Feudal lords forcibly forced the commune to pay land tax. The situation of the cities would have been very bad, but then the kings intervened. Louis VI the Fat, Louis VII, Philip II Augustus, Louis VIII, who ruled France in the 12th and 13th centuries, understood that cities could be good allies in the fight against overconfident feudal lords. After all, such large lords as, for example, the Count of Champagne, had long pursued their own, independent policy, although formally they were vassals of the French crown. In addition, a city, freed from paying land tax to a feudal lord, could pay taxes to the royal treasury. Thanks to royal support, many cities by the end of the 12th century managed to get rid of land dependence. City communes introduced their own laws within the cities, their economic activity was not controlled from the outside, and they paid taxes only to the king. (It should be noted that the royal land tax was noticeably lower than the previous, feudal one). However, many cities followed a different path: they concluded agreements with feudal lords on the model of a vassal oath, which the city - a vassal - made to the lord - suzerain. However, a vassal treaty could only be concluded by parties recognizing each other as equals (because a peasant cannot be a vassal of a baron) and entering into an alliance by mutual agreement. Thus, the lords who entered into such an agreement recognized the cities as equal to themselves, which was what the communes primarily sought to achieve. ****************************** knights_9_13 century Archive with frescoes and pictures. 1 of them. I'm uploading via mobile, so I chose the best ones. Download archive with pictures, frescoes, details from excavations (24) = http://relaxbest.narod.ru/progi/9-13.zip ****************************** Book title: "Knight of Christ" ::::::::::::::::::: Book title: "Knight of Christ" Series: (Templars–1) Genre: Historical novel Author: Octavian Stampas Synopsis: A novel about the brave and glorious knight Lunelinka von Segenheim; about the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire - Henry IV, about Empress Adelheid, whose bright image illuminated the dark and bloody era; about sorcerers and witches; about many great battles and courageous duels; about the First Crusade and the capture of the Holy City of Jerusalem; about Duke Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother, King Baldwin I; about the brave warriors Hugo of Vermandois and Bohemond of Taranto, as well as about the founding of the Order of Christ and the Temple and about who the first Templars were. Size: 424.76 Kb Octavian Stampas - Knight of Christ.book Download = http://relaxbest.narod.ru/progi/kniga.zip Enjoy reading. The next section is dedicated to the Crusades.

A Little About Knights and Tournaments.

Part 1.

Knights… Fearless warriors, loyal vassals, protectors of the weak, noble servants of fair ladies, gallant cavaliers… Unstable in battle, false to their word, greedy plunderers, cruel oppressors, wild rapists, boastful ignoramuses… All this are knights.
And it was around these contradictory creatures that the history of the European Middle Ages essentially revolved. Because in those times, they were the only real FORCE. A force needed by everyone – kings against neighbors and rebellious vassals, peasants, and the church; the church – against infidels, kings, peasants, and townspeople; lesser lords – against neighbors, the king, and peasants; peasants – against the knights of neighboring lords. Townspeople, truth be told, had no need for knights, but they always utilized their military experience. After all, a knight is, first and foremost, a professional warrior. But not just any warrior. In every language, "knight" – reitter, chevalier, and so on – denotes a rider. And again, not just any rider, but specifically a heavily armed rider – in a helmet and cuirass, with a shield, spear, and sword. All this equipment was very expensive: back at the end of the first millennium, when calculations were made not in money but in cattle, a set of armor – then not yet so abundant or complex – together with a horse cost 45 cows, or 15 mares. And that is the size of the herd or own stable of an entire village.
But it was not enough to simply take up arms – one had to know how to use them excellently. This could only be achieved through incessant and very tedious training from a very young age (boys from knightly families were accustomed to wearing armor from childhood – full sets for 6-8-year-old children are known). Consequently, a heavily armed rider had to be a wealthy person with ample leisure time. Great landowners could maintain only a very small number of such warriors at court. And where were the others to come from? For a sturdy man, even if he possesses the required 45 cows, does not do so just to trade them for a pile of iron and a beautiful but useless-for-farming horse. A solution was found: petty landowners were obligated by the king to work for a great lord for a certain amount of time, supplying him with the necessary quantity of produce and craft goods, while the latter had to be ready to serve the king as a heavily armed rider for a certain number of days per year.
Upon such relations, a complex feudal system was built in Europe. And gradually, by the 11th-12th centuries, heavily armed riders turned into a caste of knights. Access to this privileged class became increasingly difficult, based now on lineage, which was confirmed by charters and coats of arms. Naturally: who wants to crowd their space and allow outsiders to a fat piece of the pie! And the piece was fat, and grew larger over time.
In exchange for an oath of loyalty to a lord, a knight received land with peasants working it, the right to judge them, the right to collect and appropriate taxes, the right to hunt, the right of the first night, and so on and so forth. He could visit the courts of lords, amuse himself all day long, drink away or gamble in cities the money collected from the peasants. As for duties... During military actions, he served his lord with his own provisions for about a month a year, and usually even less. For "overtime" service, he received high pay. Military loot – trophies, ransoms for prisoners, the prisoners themselves – went to him. In "off-duty time," he could also work "on the side" – hire himself out temporarily to another lord or a city magistrate. Over time, knights began more and more to shirk their duties. Sometimes, under the terms of a fief agreement, a knight had to serve for as long as his food supplies lasted. And so such a brave man would arrive with a ham, make every effort to eat it in three days, and leave for his castle.
But how did knights fight? In different ways. Generally speaking, comparing them to anyone is very difficult, as they were militarily left to their own devices in Europe. Of course, infantry also participated in battles – each knight brought servants armed with spears and axes, and great landowners hired large detachments of archers and crossbowmen. But until the 14th century, the outcome of a battle was always determined by a few lordly knights; the numerous servants – the infantry – were for the lords a necessary but mere support. Knights did not take them into account at all. And what could a crowd of untrained peasants do against an armored professional fighter on a powerful horse? Knights despised their own infantry. Eager to fight a "worthy" opponent – that is, another knight – they trampled with their horses the foot soldiers who got in their way. Knights treated unarmored riders with swords and light spears with equal indifference. In one battle, when a group of knights was attacked by a detachment of light cavalry, they did not even move from their spot; they simply skewered the enemy's horses with their long spears, and only then rode toward the worthy enemy – the knights.
This is where the "real" fight took place – two iron-clad riders, covered by shields, thrusting forward long spears, clash on impact, and from a terrible ramming blow, amplified by the weight of armor and the horse's mass multiplied by speed, the enemy flies from the saddle with a cracked shield and ripped chainmail or is simply stunned. If the armor held and the spears broke, a sword fight began. This was by no means elegant fencing: strikes were rare but terrible. The remains of warriors who died in medieval battles speak to their power – split skulls, severed shinbones. It was for such a fight that knights lived. They threw themselves into such a battle headlong, forgetting caution and basic formation, violating the orders of commanders (though what "orders" – knights were merely suggested to hold the line; they were asked).
At the slightest sign of victory, a knight would rush to loot the enemy camp, forgetting everything else – and for this too, knights lived. It is no wonder that some kings before battle, forbidding fighters from breaking the combat order during the advance and course of the fight due to looting, built gallows for unrestrained vassals as "visual agitation." The fight could be quite long. After all, it usually broke down into an endless number of duels between worthy opponents, infinitely chasing one another.
But what about knightly honor? It turns out a knight may "attack the opponent from the front and back, right and left, in short, wherever he can inflict damage" – so stated the Templar rule. But if the opponent managed to force even a few knights to retreat, their comrades, noticing this, usually fell into a panic flight that no general could stop (nor, for that matter, manage the battle after the attack began). How many kings lost victory simply because they prematurely lost their heads from fear!
Military discipline was not just a weak point for knights – they had none, and it could not be. For a knight is an individual fighter, a privileged warrior with a painfully acute sense of self-worth. He is a professional by birth, and in his trade – war – equal to any of his class, up to the king. In battle, he depends only on himself, and can stand out or be first only by showing his bravery, the quality of his armor, and the agility of his horse.
And he showed this with all his might. For who could point something out to him or command him? The knight knows everything himself, and any order is a blow to his honor. This self-awareness of the knight was well known and felt by generals and statesmen – both secular and ecclesiastical. Seeing that indestructible riders suffered defeats due to their hotheadedness and own will, flying into attack in scattered groups, and knowing that heavy cavalry is invincible when it strikes with its full mass, the state and church administration took measures to bring some kind of order to these upstarts. The fact was also that knights were few. For example, in all of England in the 70s of the 13th century, there were 2750 knights. Usually a few dozen knights participated in battles, and only in large engagements did they number in the hundreds, rarely exceeding a thousand. Clearly, this meager number of full-fledged fighters could not be wasted or scattered on trifles. And so from the end of the 11th century, during the Crusades, spiritual knightly orders began to emerge with strict rules regulating their combat actions.
But the strongest order was, of course, in the bands and detachments of mercenary knights that proliferated in the 12th-14th centuries, offering their services to anyone and looting everyone in their path during peacetime. (It was precisely to fight these bands that the first real regular armies were created in medieval Europe by French kings in the 14th century – small, consisting of different branches of service, where warriors served for pay permanently.) It must be said that all the strictness of military rules and regulations vanished in those sections dealing with the combat actions of knights. That is, strictness existed, but requirements were most general: do not leave or break the formation, try, within reasonable limits, to defend upon failure rather than flee immediately, and do not loot the enemy camp until victory.
So, how did the knightly cavalry fight? To preserve the formation until the decisive moment of the clash, it approached the opponent at a walk; it was "calm and unperturbed, approaching without haste, as if someone were riding with a bride seated in front of them on the saddle," wrote one medieval author. And only after getting very close to the enemy did the knights push their horses into a faster gait. The slow approach also served to save the horse's strength for the decisive charge and clash. Perhaps the most convenient formation, devised long ago for heavy cavalry, was the "wedge," the "boar's head," or "pig," as Russian druzhinniki called it – they, by the way, loved this formation no less than their Western colleagues.
The "boar's head" looked like a column slightly narrowed at the front. It has long been known that leading cavalry in columns is very advantageous, as this best preserves the power of its massive ramming blow. This is not so much a combat formation as a marching one – when the "wedge" cuts into the enemy ranks, the warriors riding in the rear rows immediately "flow" to the sides, so that each rider does not trample those in front but fully demonstrates his combat qualities, as well as the qualities of his horse and weapon. The "wedge" had another advantage: the formation's front was narrow.
The thing is, knights loved to fight very much, but did not want to die at all – neither for a lord nor for the holy church. They were supposed to and wanted only to win. Their armor served this purpose, essentially. The "wedge" served it too. For when a detachment of knights slowly, "step by step," approaches the enemy, it becomes a magnificent target for the opponent's archers. It is well if the opponent has no quality archers. But what if they do? What if they also have excellent long-range, powerful bows? At Liegnitz and at Crécy and Poitiers, Mongols and English literally shot down perfectly armored knights with bows. And in a "wedge" formation, only a few riders in the most reliable protective gear were exposed to enemy shooters.
Yes, knights died very reluctantly. They preferred to flee or surrender as prisoners in case of failure. Very few perished in European wars – single digits, and only in the largest battles deciding the fates of countries – a few hundred.
And it was not just about armor. By the 13th century, knights felt themselves to be some kind of universal order, a caste for whom no territorial borders or citizenship mattered. After all, borders changed all the time; regions and entire states passed from one king to another, while knights sat in the same castles, spoke the French language, and all as one were considered servants of the holy Catholic church. And killing a brother, whoever he was or where he came from, became indecent. To overcome him – knock him off his horse, take him prisoner and, most importantly, get a ransom – that was victory. What use is a corpse? Wars turned into mass tournaments. But they did not fully turn.
The "crude men" – peasants and townspeople fighting in the infantry – did not allow it. Knights gave them no mercy. But then again, they were not own indebted – they took no prisoners. And when combat-effective infantry developed rapidly in the 14th century, fighting in dense formations, unafraid of cavalry attacks and charging into battle themselves with long halberds – knights fled at the mere sight of Swiss "battalions" and Hussite wagons, recounting with horror and indignation unusual bloody slaughters – for among the Swiss, for example, taking prisoners was forbidden under penalty of death. And when knights also began to use deep dense formations more often, so that a detachment turned into an iron porcupine, they were swept away again – now forever – by infantry armed with firearms.
And now let us look at what and how the knights fought.
In our literature, especially fiction, the opinion is widespread that European knightly armament was terribly heavy and inconvenient. Novelists mock knights in every way: poor riders in their narratives cannot even mount a horse – they cannot walk or get up from the ground on their own. But one cannot blame the writers – they were misled by substantial works of military and non-military historians. In reality, knights were not enemies to themselves, and generally, military affairs do not tolerate inconvenience in equipment. And knightly weapons in this sense differed in no way from any other. It is simply that on them, perhaps more than on any other weapon, all the changes occurring with means of attack and defense – dictated by the development of military science, production, and social relations – are visible.
In the 11th century, the equipment of a heavily armed rider took the form in which it existed with minor changes until the 14th century and served as the basis for further armament development. Unfortunately, very few authentic Western European armors from the 11th-12th centuries have reached us, and we must speak of them through images on art monuments.
Judging by these and surviving samples, the overwhelming majority of knights protected their bodies with chainmail. Until recently, many scholars believed, and some still do, that chainmail began to be widely used and made in the West only from the end of the 11th century as a result of the Crusades, borrowing secrets of its manufacture from the East. Before this time, knights wore "inconvenient (why inconvenient?) leather armor with sewn-on iron plates or rings." A few chainmail armors were imported from the East or from Rus'. In reality, however, chainmail was known and manufactured in Western Europe since antiquity and throughout the first millennium of our era. Another thing is that despite all its conveniences, it is not only cut by a sword and axe or pierced by a spear – it is penetrated by an arrow. Therefore, warriors at the end of the first millennium AD often preferred more reliable lamellar and scale armor. After all, they had to fight endless waves of newcomers from the East – nomads armed with powerful Hun-type bows with heavy armor-piercing arrows. But by the 11th century, the last heirs of the Huns – the Magyars – settled down, ending devastating cavalry raids, and large almond-shaped shields were devised for riders, covering them from the nose to the middle of the shin.
Made of wood, covered in layers of leather and crowned with an iron boss – umbo – such a shield reliably sheltered one from arrows; and if a sword or spear cut it, they got stuck in it or even broke, provided the blow was taken on the boss. Here, chainmail, which perfectly protected against accidental blows, came to the forefront. At first, it had sleeves to the elbows, and legs remained open. And in a sword fight or under a hail of arrows, it was easy to lose an arm or leg. The shield did not help – being so large and heavy, it was difficult to position against strikes falling from all sides.
Then at the end of the 11th century, knights began wearing chainmail stockings on their legs, and the mail acquired long sleeves with mittens and a hood, the so-called "hauberk." The complete covering of the knight's body was finished by a helmet. In the 11th century, it almost always had a wide nasal guard and a dome shape, thanks to which sword blows slid off it. In specialized literature, they are called "Norman," but they are the common heritage of all Eurasia, as they developed as a simplified version of the most common helmet in Eurasia during the first millennium, riveted from four or more segments into a dome and equipped with a pointed finial. Early "Norman" helmets were also riveted; later, they were forged from a single piece.

A Little About Knights and Tournaments

Part 2.

In the 12th century, the top of these helmets began to bend forward or "swell," acquiring an egg-like shape. These changes led to an increase in the helmet's volume, which provided a greater protective effect since the walls of the helmet no longer rested directly against the head. It was then that helmets acquired nasal guards—iron half-masks. This was not accidental, because the shield changed from almond-shaped to triangular and no longer protected the face. And the face had to be protected: a "hauberk" did not save one from a sword strike. Skulls wearing chainmail hoods were excavated on Gotland, split by terrible transverse blows.
And this described complex of armor is called heavy, making the knight clumsy—unlike the warriors of Rus and the East. Yet it weighed on average no more than the protective set of weapons in Eastern Europe and Asia. While western chainmail had sleeves and a hood and was supplemented by stockings, in Rus and the East it was often supplemented or replaced by heavier lamellar or scale armor, which was rarely used in the West. Their shields were similarly almond-shaped, and their helmets, close in form to "Norman" ones, were equipped with iron masks in the 12th-13th centuries.
In the 13th century, a process of significant change in knightly armor began. First of all, it affected the helmet. The top of the egg-shaped helmet became flat, the nape lowered, and the iron nasal guard increased downward and sideways—the helmet took on the appearance of an iron bucket with slits for the eyes and holes for breathing. Due to its shape, it was called "great helm" (pot-shaped); blows do not slide off such a helmet, but any direct strike no longer reaches the target, as this "bucket" was worn over a special cap with a thick soft roll-rim, which in turn was worn over a chainmail hood. Thus, such a helmet did not come anywhere close to touching the surface of the head, and its faceplate from eyes to chin was often equipped with an additional layer of metal.
From the mid-13th century, or slightly earlier, armor of the "brigandine" type began to spread in Europe—a cuirass where iron plates are fastened from the inside to a soft fabric or leather base. Whether the appearance and spread of the "brigandine" in the West was the result of local traditions or borrowings from Rus or the East is a question that remains unresolved. But the times demanded it—and this armor appeared. With the appearance of such reinforced armor, the need for a huge shield vanished—the wooden triangle, now without an umbo, began to cover the body of the mounted fighter from neck to hips. Accordingly, its weight decreased, making it possible to fence with the shield and place it in the path of enemy strikes. To reduce fatigue in the arm holding it, the shield was hung around the neck on a special strap: if it was not needed or the warrior fought with both hands, the shield was thrown behind the back.
From the 13th century, not only the knight himself but also his warhorse received reinforced protection. Woven or felt caparisons, covering the entire body of the horse, appeared as early as the 12th century and protected it from rain and heat. Now, however, the caparison became chainmail. And the horse's head was protected by an iron mask that left only the eyes and mouth open.
The very idea of armoring a horse came to Europe from the East—from Muslim countries or from the Tataro-Mongols—through the mediation of Rus. But the forms into which Western European horse armor was cast were local.
It should be said that the equipment of the horse and the methods of controlling it changed and improved just as other means of combat did. The charging strike of a lance and the associated danger of being knocked out of the saddle required an extremely secure seat, which led in the 12th century to the creation of a chair-saddle with a very high, rigid rear bow that encircled the rider's waist, against which he leaned back, bracing the soles of his extended legs in stirrups. A high front bow protected the knight's belly. Strictness in controlling the horse necessitated the existence of a special curb bit and sharp conical spurs. From the late 12th to early 13th centuries, the curb bit became more complex and stricter, which reduced the need for great severity with spurs but increased the requirement for finer control of the horse. Then "softer" spurs with a star-shaped wheel began to spread throughout Europe.
As we can see, all changes in armor from the 11th-13th centuries occurred according to the internal laws of defensive armament itself—one part was reinforced at the expense of another, although a general increase in the weight of protective gear is observed in the 13th century.
The reinforcement of armor in the 13th century happened because it was during this time that the shape of the sword began to change. In the 11th-12th centuries, it maintained the traditions of the end of the first millennium—it was not very long, quite wide, and generally had a rounded end, meaning it was adapted exclusively for a hacking blow. But in the 13th century, swords became longer and pointed at the end, becoming heavier. With them, one could now not only hack through chainmail but also pierce it. Four other types of weapons forced the reinforcement of chainmail with lamellar armor: the mace, the crossbow, the falchion, and the halberd. The mace—a metal spiked polyhedron—as well as the six-flanged mace, were greatly loved in the 11th-13th centuries by cleric-warriors. Since the church forbade its servants from shedding blood, but the princes of the church had to fight for their interests just as laypeople did, the mace proved most convenient: a blow against soft chainmail caused such bruising that the victim, with internal bleeding or broken bones, often departed for a better world.
At the same time, the crossbow—a stationary bow, a machine of enormous power that pierced chainmail fabric like cloth—was rapidly developing and spreading. The falchion—a huge heavy cleaver that appeared in the early 14th century and was liked by knights—easily hacked through chainmail, while the halberd known from the same time—a combination of spear, axe, and hook mounted on a shaft—in the hands of Swiss peasant infantry split and pierced not only chainmail but also helmets. All these noted trends in offensive weaponry continued to develop rapidly in subsequent centuries, which led to the corresponding development of armor made of large iron plates.
During this period, the raising visor, invented a century earlier, became widespread. Great experimental work was carried out on the development of protection for the warrior's torso.
Armored vests were invented, whose leather was lined with large rectangular plates. And finally, on the main path of development of the Western European knightly cuirass appeared armor consisting of a solid breastplate with a skirt of horizontal steel strips (in the 14th century, the breastplate was almost always stubbornly covered with fabric or a short caftan was worn over it, so that it was not visible), vambraces and greaves consisting of parts that repeated the anatomical division of human limbs, as well as iron gauntlets. It remained only to connect all parts of this armor together. The second half of the 14th century was spent on this. At that time, the "pot-shaped" helmet for combat conditions was replaced by the "bascinet"—a small helmet pointed at the top with a low nape, protected in front by a movable visor with a strongly protruding central part, which is why it was called a "hound's skull." A long chainmail aventail covering the neck and shoulders was attached to the "bascinet," and finally, in the 15th century, full armor appeared, where the construction of large solid steel plates repeated the structure of the human body. It was this armor that later authors of historical studies and novels mocked, moving it back by centuries. And they mocked it in vain. It turned out that armor of this type possessed magnificent combat qualities; it was not only very strong but also convenient.
Such armor weighed about 25 kilograms. (Note that armor sets from Eastern Europe and Asia weighed nearly as much.) But this weight was evenly distributed across the entire body. All movable parts were assembled from narrow plates riveted to straps, so the armor did not restrict movement at all. Nowadays during film shoots, athletes and artists wear authentic armor. A trained person can easily work in armor 8 hours a day, walk, ride, mount the saddle themselves, and get up from the ground. And as for knights getting tired in their armor—do modern hockey players not get tired in their battles?
Armor of the 15th century, called "Gothic" due to the pointed shapes of its parts, was replaced in the early 16th century by "Maximilian" armor, in which the entire surface of the plating was covered with fluting that lightened the weight of the armor.
In connection with the reinforcement of armor, the role of the knightly sword declined slightly, but the lance continued to serve faithfully; if it did not pierce, it knocked the opponent out of the saddle. By the 16th century, it turned into a thick three-meter pole with a small point. Such a heavy pike, possessing terrible piercing power, could no longer be held with one hand. Therefore, it was supported by a steel rest screwed to the chest of the breastplate.
And yet, armor in which one could neither stand nor turn did exist. These were the tournament armors of the 16th century. Tournaments, lavishly staged games where the prizes were the armor and horse of the defeated opponent, have been known since the 11th century. Until the end of the 15th century, knights at tournaments fought mainly with blunt weapons and in ordinary combat armor. But in the 16th century, rules became stricter; they began to fight with sharp weapons. The desire to die in a game was even less than in battle, and tournament armor became "specialized." For foot combat, armor was made completely closed and required special sophistication from masters in inventing additional movable joints. A set for group combat—wall against wall—differed from combat gear only in that the left part of the chest, shoulder, and chin—the places where a lance strike was directed—were protected by an additional, complex-shaped thick iron plate screwed to the breastplate. On the other hand, armor for mounted jousting weighed up to 85 kilograms. It covered only the head and torso of the rider but had a thickness of about one centimeter and was almost immobile—since one only needed to strike with the lance. The knight was dressed in it by being placed on a log raised above the ground, as he could not mount a horse from the ground, and the fighter could endure it for only a very short time. The tournament lance looked like a real log, with a steel disk attached at the grip—protection for the right hand and the right side of the chest. The tournament horse was also dressed in especially thick armor, and on top of the steel breastplate, a thick leather roll stuffed with something soft was placed. The knight sat in a huge saddle, the rear bow of which was supported by steel rods, and the front bow was so wide, high, and extended downward that, reinforced with steel, it reliably protected the rider's legs. And all this apparatus was covered with the richest heraldic mantles and caparisons; heraldic figures made of wood towered on the helmets, and lances were wrapped in ribbons.
Armor and swords—witnesses, and by no means silent ones, of an entire era in the development of military affairs, blacksmithing, and decorative art, witnesses of glory and shame—now stand quietly in museums and halls, while the bones of their owners smolder on battlefields under majestic tombstones. And though we know not only of the height of knightly spirit but also of the baseness of feudal warriors, they still appear to us as described by the author of the "Song of Roland":
…Steel spurs are worn upon their feet,
White chainmail is light yet strong,
Visors lowered on bright helmets,
Swords in golden trim at their belts,
Shields suspended around their necks,
And sharp lances held in their hands.



The forum does not support large messages; it produces clones. And for one large message, it duplicates the same one when creating a second. So we will do it this way.

This is the external paraphernalia of the Templars... but the essence of their existence was hidden from the eyes of the world, except for a few initiates, and consisted in the desire for profit (control over the "pilgrims' trail" - pilgrims to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the desire to grab a larger piece of land in the East). The activities were shrouded in religious (mystical) ideas...

In the end, the Order was dissolved (and, in fact, completely destroyed) by the same papacy... The reason is the same - money and redistribution of property... Although it may not have been completely destroyed... The current Masonic movement may have its roots in ancient Templar rituals... :)

The Crusades.

The First Crusade (1096-1099)


****************************

The Siege of Acre and the Crusade of Richard the Lionheart

(August 1189 - October 1192)

Engravings are posted below.
Guy de Lusignan gained his freedom in the summer of 1188 in exchange for the city of Ascalon, which Queen Sibylla had surrendered to Saladin as ransom for her husband. Saladin demanded an oath from Guy that he would sail overseas and never again take up arms against the sultan. After his release, Lusignan ordered a witty response to be delivered to Saladin – that he had indeed crossed the sea strait separating Tortosa from the island of Ruad. And he hung his sword not on his belt, but on the saddle strap: thus, it was not he, but his horse who carried the weapon!

The Kingdom of Jerusalem (cities, castles, fortresses, fortifications)

Upon returning to the kingdom, Guy clashed with Margrave Conrad of Montferrat, who had managed to hold Tyre and gather the nobility around himself, creating something of a center for the kingdom's revival. Many barons who had opposed Guy's accession to the royal throne now rallied around Conrad. Thus, when Guy appeared with Queen Sibylla under the walls of Tyre, Conrad ordered it be said "that he would never allow them to step within the city limits." The Margrave intended to hold Tyre until the arrival of the kings from overseas and, by the will of the late Baldwin IV, wished to let them decide whose claim to the throne was more valid – Sibylla's or Isabella's.
Having been refused by Conrad, Guy de Lusignan went to Tripoli where he established his residence; from there, in April 1189, he again attempted to force Conrad to recognize his rights to Tyre. After being refused once more, Guy decided to move toward conquering his own kingdom. He managed to rally almost all the barons who had been deprived of hope for the return of their own estates by Conrad's ideas. Guy assembled a small army consisting mainly of Sicilian knights who arrived in the Holy Land in 1188, as well as Jerusalemite barons and knights. One of the commanders of the royal army was the king's brother, Geoffroi de Lusignan, who had arrived from Europe.


From Tripoli, the king led his army in a rapid march through lands occupied by Saladin: without stopping at Tyre, on August 26, 1189, he reached Cazale Humbert, and just a day later the Franks appeared under Acre. Saladin, who was besieging Beaufort at the time, did not believe Guy's boldness and missed the opportunity to destroy him in the passes of Scandalion; by the time he rushed to meet him, it was too late—Guy had already fortified his positions. According to Arnold of Lübeck, there were only two hundred knights under Guy's command.
One by one, Western crusaders arrived under the walls of Acre, and Italian squadrons blockaded the city – the Third Crusade had been announced in the West. Conrad of Montferrat also set sail for Acre but still did not recognize Guy's authority. Italians, Germans, Champenois, Burgundians, Danes, Frisians, Bretons, and Flemings arrived at Acre. In September, the Christian army repelled an attack by a small Muslim army that attempted to lift the siege of the city. Overjoyed by this event, the Christians overlooked the fact that Saladin was within a three-week march with a significantly larger army. When Saladin approached, he managed to restore land communication between Acre and his army, rendering the naval blockade of the city useless. On October 4, 1189, Guy de Lusignan attempted to sever the Muslims' connection to the city, but his initial success was not sustained. In this battle, Gerard de Ridefort, Grand Master of the Order of the Temple, was captured and later executed. The Franks found themselves trapped between the city they were besieging and the sultan's army. Due to the threat of an epidemic, Saladin was forced to move his camp eastward; then the Franks restored the blockade by digging a ditch around Acre.
Saladin decided to restore communication with Acre, which he had just lost, using a fleet. Thanks to fierce fighting at sea, the Egyptian squadron managed to supply the garrison of Acre with provisions, but it could not prevent Conrad of Montferrat from bringing food from Tyre to the Frankish camp: the battle of March 4, 1190, ended the short-lived Muslim naval superiority.
On land, large siege towers were built for the assault on the city, but they were soon destroyed by the Muslims (May 5, 1190). On July 25, 1190, contrary to Guy de Lusignan's orders, Frankish infantry launched a surprise attack on the Muslim camp but suffered defeat; seven thousand killed "sergeants" remained on the battlefield. On July 27, 1190, Henry I, Count of Champagne, arrived at the crusader camp, which saved the Franks' position, but now both the besiegers and the besieged were threatened by famine.
On October 7, 1190, Frederick, Duke of Swabia, son of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, arrived under the walls of Acre with the small remnants of his father's crusading force. Guy and Frederick undertook a march to Haifa for provisions (November 1190), which was unsuccessful; however, so was Saladin's intention to crush their army. With the arrival of winter, the Muslims regained the advantage at sea, managing to break the blockade and partially replace the garrison of Acre (February 13, 1191).

The Siege of Acre
(engraving by Gustave Doré)


The crusaders' military operations became more successful as soon as Philip II Augustus arrived (April 20, 1191). Philip Augustus discovered that most French knights, led by his cousin Philip of Beauvais, were inclined toward Conrad of Montferrat; he then brought him from Tyre to the walls of Acre and declared himself Conrad's patron. In response, the "Angevin" party, favorable to Guy as a subject of the Plantagenets, publicly took Lusignan's side. Guy, Onfroi IV Lord of Montreal, and Geoffroi de Lusignan sailed to meet Richard I and arrived in time to help him conquer Cyprus.
With Richard's arrival (June 7, 1191), the conflict between Guy de Lusignan and Conrad of Montferrat continued: on June 24, 1191, Geoffroi de Lusignan challenged Conrad to a judicial duel, accusing him of treachery, betrayal, and perjury toward the legitimate king of Jerusalem. Conrad did not dare accept the challenge and departed for Tyre; only the persuasions of the King of France forced him to return to the crusader camp.
After Richard sank the last Muslim galley at sea and Philip II Augustus conducted several powerful assaults on the city, the kings "divided" their duties: the King of England took charge of the battle against Saladin's army, and the King of France took charge of the siege of Acre. After one of the most ferocious assaults on the city, the garrison of Acre announced its capitulation, and Saladin was forced to begin negotiations for the surrender of the city: he promised to pay 200 thousand dinars, release 2,500 prisoners, and return the Holy Cross captured at Hattin [1] to the Christians. Acre fell on July 12, 1191. Acre fell and was transferred into the possession of Guy de Lusignan.

On July 27 and 28, 1191, a meeting of the kingdom took place in Acre where the conflict between Guy and Conrad was considered; they reached a compromise: Guy was recognized as king for life; Conrad became his heir and received Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut as fiefs; Jaffa, which Guy had owned before his accession to the throne, would pass after his death to the king's closest relative, his brother Geoffroi (who was later replaced by another brother – Amery). To avoid any subsequent claims, it was decreed: if Conrad and Isabella [2] died without an heir, the kingdom would go to Richard I Plantagenet.
Richard the Lionheart during the Massacre of Ayyadieh
(engraving by Gustave Doré)

Immediately after the meeting, Philip II Augustus left Acre and first went to Tyre, where he handed over his prisoners to Conrad, including the ruler of Acre, "Karakua" or Karakush, and from there – to France. King Richard remained the sole leader of the crusading force, if one does not count Hugh III Capet, Duke of Burgundy [3], who commanded a strong French army (650 knights, 1,300 squires) left by King Philip.
Dissatisfied with the slowness with which Saladin fulfilled the terms of Acre's capitulation (although prisoners and the Holy Cross had been brought to the Muslim camp), Richard I lost patience and on August 20, 1191, ordered the slaughter of 2,700 prisoners taken in Acre, sparing only those who were able to pay a ransom. In response to this unforgivable act, Saladin ordered all Frankish prisoners executed.
On August 22, 1191, Richard headed south toward Haifa; his army moved in a solid column, and the fleet provided provisions from the sea. He managed to retake Haifa from the Muslims, crossed the demolished Capernaum and Le Merle, and reached Caesarea, which had also been destroyed by Saladin's order. On September 7, 1191, the Christian army approached Arsuf, near which a fierce battle took place, in which Richard emerged victorious over Saladin.
After the defeat at Arsuf, Saladin ordered the destruction of Jaffa and Ascalon (the garrisons of these cities refused to hold them, fearing the fate that befell the garrison of Acre), the fortified church in Lydda, and Ram Castle.







****************************

The Council of Clermont,
The People's Crusade

Urban II at the Council of Clermont

On January 27, 1095, the Western world entered a new phase of its development. The cause was the sermon of Pope Urban II (March 12, 1088 - July 29, 1099) delivered on a field near the town of Clermont (southern France). A crowd of clerics and laypeople of various estates listened intently to every word of the pontiff, his call to Frankish knighthood to vow to liberate the Christians of the East from Muslim slavery and reclaim the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the infidels.
To the cries of the crowd "Thus God wills it!" ("Deus lo voult!"), Adhemar of Le Puy, Bishop of Le Puy, stepped forward to Urban and was the first to take the cross from the Pope's hands. According to the chronicler Robert of Reims, the Pope concluded his sermon by saying: "Let this cry be your military signal, for these words are spoken by God… Let [he who has taken the vow] wear the image of the Lord's cross on his forehead or chest. He who wishes, having taken the vow, to return [removing the vow], let him place this image on his back between the shoulder blades…".
The cry "Deus lo voult!", which shook the Clermont plateau, was picked up in every corner of the Christian West with a readiness that Pope Urban II himself did not expect. Having subsided slightly, this cry would be heard for at least another two centuries.

Urban placed his hopes exclusively on knights and other combat-capable units; it was in them that he saw a crusading army capable of routing the Muslims and reclaiming what was lost. However, as news of the expedition to the East spread from Sicily to Scandinavia, more and more men and women from all social strata of the population took the cross.
The first to set out were completely unorganized detachments consisting of: Boulogne corsairs, Flemish, Frisian, and Antwerp pirates; popular crowds led by: Peter the Hermit, the knight Walter the Penniless (some historians call him the Pauper), Walter of Teck, the Count of Tübingen, Folkmar, Gottschalk, Emicho of Leiningen. While the barons prepared for the expedition, this "people" left northern France, Flanders, Normandy, the Rhineland, Saxony and rushed toward Constantinople. This campaign was destined to be called the People's Crusade. On the way, crowds of hungry people obtained food by looting and ravaging everything they could. Many were killed in armed clashes with the local populations of Hungary and the Byzantine Empire, and those who did reach Constantinople in August 1096 were quickly transported by the Greeks across the Bosphorus to Asia Minor. There they split into two groups. One attempted to capture the city of Nicaea but was surrounded and slaughtered by Turks on October 21, 1096 near Civitot. A similar fate awaited the second group. Of the twenty-five thousand who came to Byzantium, only three thousand survived, who returned to Constantinople, chosen as the gathering place for the main crusader army's forces. And only then did the real First Crusade begin. After the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II remained in France until September 1096, observing the preparations for the crusade. He maintained correspondence with Adhemar of Le Puy, appointed papal legate to the crusader army, and with Raymond IV of Toulouse, whom he wished to make the military leader of the campaign.
Each baron who decided to participate in the campaign separately gathered his men and formed a detachment, equipping them at his own expense; other "lone" fighters could join a lord's detachment on the way if they were from the same region; petty knights who lacked food for the entire journey fell under the command of any baron willing to take over their maintenance.

The crusader army was a union of four main detachments that advanced toward Constantinople along different roads: each detachment followed its own route, which resulted in far fewer difficulties with food and provisions. The size of the "regular" armies is poorly known. The total number of the crusader army consists of approximately sixty thousand warriors and as many other participants: pilgrims, women, servants.

In mid-August 1096, Godfrey of Bouillon (Godefroi de Bouillon), Duke of Lower Lorraine, set out on the campaign. Before leaving his homeland, Godfrey sold his ancestral estates in Andenne, including Boulogne, to Bishop Otbert of Liège. He was joined by his own brothers Eustace, Count of Boulogne, and Baldwin, Count of Hainaut and Toul, as well as cousin Baldwin de Burcq. This detachment moved by land through Germany, crossed the Hungarian border near Tulln and Zemlin, crossed Bulgaria, passed through Belgrade, Niš, Sofia, Philippopolis, and reached Constantinople on December 23, 1096. This journey was not without difficulties. In Hungary, for instance, negotiations had to be held with King Coloman, as they still remembered the participants of the People's Crusade. Godfrey personally met with Coloman and left his brother Baldwin as a hostage along with his wife and children; the death penalty was announced in the crusader detachment for any looting, and Coloman (1068-1116), for his part, threatened his subjects with the same punishment if they dared to raise food prices. Everything proceeded without incident, which cannot be said of the passage through Byzantium. On the way to Constantinople, the "Lorrainers" plundered Selebria in response to the capture of Hugh of Vermandois and announced their intention to storm the empire's capital when their food supplies were cut off. After lengthy negotiations (December 1096 - April 1097), Alexios Komnenos (Byzantine Emperor (1081-1118)) managed to deal a blow that forced the Duke of Lower Lorraine to submit to the emperor.

The detachment from northern and central France consisted of four armies. The lands of the French crown provided an army under the command of the king's brother Hugh, Count of Vermandois. King Philip of France did not take the cross as he had been excommunicated by the Church.
Three armies formed in northern France. Robert, Duke of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror, prepared to leave his duchy as he enjoyed very limited power and small incomes. By mortgaging his Norman duchy to his brother, King William II Rufus of England, for ten thousand marks, Robert obtained the sum necessary for the campaign and gathered knights from Normandy and England around himself. Two other armies were led by the nephew and brother-in-law of the Duke of Normandy – Robert Fries, Count of Flanders, and Stephen, Count of Blois (1089-1102).
All four armies of northern and central France crossed the Alps and passed through Italian cities: Lucca, where Urban II blessed the crusaders, Monte Cassino, and Bari, where they embarked on ships to cross the Adriatic Sea.
The landing of the main part of the detachment took place in the Dyrrhachium area, and their further path lay along the Via Egnatia, through Brindisi, Durazzo, Thessaloniki, and then they approached Constantinople.

Thank you for your additions.

Please create a reply after this message so that I can continue... The messages are very large; the forum does not accept them and tries to merge them, deleting 2 and putting 1 in its place.

By the way, I have a question. Was there a force in Rus' that could rival the knights in power and be capable of opposing them?

Once, the knights failed to conquer Rus', which means it existed. In its time, the Golden Horde had the most disciplined and combat-ready army. They even reached Rome. The Mongols simply shot down the knights with bows, without engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The heavily armored knights were unable to catch up with them.

Correct, Attila used the same tactic against heavily armored cavalry when leading the Huns into battle. As we all know, Genghis Khan also used this tactic in his time.

Since the knights did not defeat Rus', it means it existed.

The problem is that the Livonian Order almost captured Rus'. After the Battle on the Ice, Alexander Nevsky clearly understood that Rus' was weak and could not resist the foreigners from the West, especially since Genghis Khan was advancing on Rus' from the East. Alexander quickly swore allegiance to him. So, as we can see, the knights were stopped by the Mongols from conquering Rus'.

Just not Genghis Khan, but his grandson Batu Khan. And during the Battle on the Ice, Rus' had already been defeated by the Mongols.

I'm continuing, dear forum members and guests)

The First Crusade (1096-1099)

Part of the crusaders from Hugo de Vermandois' detachment did not manage to cross into Byzantium before winter set in, and they spent the winter in Italy. Bohemond of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, took advantage of this. He convinced the remaining crusaders to join him and continue their campaign under his command. Bohemond also managed to persuade a detachment of warriors occupied with the siege of the Mediterranean port of Amalfi to join the march East. Tancred of Apulia, nephew of Robert Guiscard, also decided to take part in the campaign with his army.
This detachment, which became an unexpected reinforcement for the crusaders, crossed the Adriatic and landed between Dyrrhachium and Avlon. Further, they followed the Via Egnatia, which is already known to us. The army's progress was difficult; the warriors were tired and starving, it was winter, and the roads were ruined. The South Italian Normans aroused distrust among the Greeks, as they had been long-time enemies of Byzantium due to repeated clashes over possession of Dalmatia. As soon as the Normans entered the empire's territory, the local population immediately stopped supplying food to the crusaders. Bohemond and Tancred's detachment was small but disciplined. To resume food supplies, an order was given to begin looting. The city of Castoria was plundered. There were repeated skirmishes with imperial troops, but as soon as food supplies resumed, Bohemond intervened and stopped the looting, ordering that stolen livestock be returned to the local population. After celebrating Christmas in Castoria, the warriors from southern Italy appeared at the walls of Constantinople on August 16, 1097.

The detachment from southern France was led by Raymond de Saint-Gilles, one of the most powerful feudal lords of southern France and the oldest in the entire crusading army — he had turned 55. The Count of Toulouse took upon himself the equipping of a huge number of poor crusaders, and therefore his army was the most numerous and more burdened than others by civilians: the count himself brought his wife and son.
The detachment's route lay through the Po Valley, northern Italy, Dalmatia, and Serbia. In Serbia, likely due to the slow progress of the army, food began to run short. For more than forty days, Raymond's crusaders wandered in a thick fog across devastated land. In Scutari, Raymond tried to negotiate with the Serbian prince Bodin, but learned that the Serbs simply had nothing to sell. Things did not improve when the army reached the Via Egnatia (Thessaloniki, Rusia, Rodosto), where the Normans had passed before them and left nothing edible. In Pelagonia, the detachment was attacked by a cavalry corps (Pechenegs?), sent by Emperor Alexios to observe the crusaders. Infuriated, the Provençals plundered Rozza but were battered near the city of Rodosto. Despite the hardships, Raymond de Saint-Gilles' detachment arrived in Constantinople by April 27, 1097. Raymond de Saint-Gilles himself preceded the main part of his troops by several days.

The forces of the West converged on Constantinople from late 1096 to early 1097. The Emperor of Byzantium saw benefit in the campaign; for him, it was a good chance to push the Turks away from Asia Minor and Syria with the help of the crusaders. However, knowing about the clashes between Byzantine troops and crusader detachments, he began to fear their presence under the walls of his capital. Taking advantage of the lack of unified leadership in the crusader army, Alexios tried to prevent all detachments from gathering around Constantinople at the same time and ferried them to the Asian shore as they arrived. The emperor held conversations with each army leader, urging them "to become his vassal and take the oath customary among Latins."
The first person Alexios Komnenos met was Hugo, Count of Vermandois. While still in Italy, he had sent two letters to the emperor, notifying him of his decision to take the cross and that he would land on Byzantine soil in Durazzo. Based on these letters, appropriate arrangements were made in Constantinople. The ruler of Durazzo, the emperor's own nephew, John Komnenos, was ordered to immediately notify the capital of Hugo's appearance. Several ships of the Greek fleet cruised near the shore awaiting the count's arrival. Preceding his detachment, Hugo de Vermandois boarded a ship and headed for Byzantium. However, while crossing the Adriatic Sea, he encountered a storm and was washed ashore, saving only his clothes from his possessions. John managed to win the favor of the brother of the King of France and escort him to Constantinople.
In Constantinople, Count Vermandois was awaited by an honorary reception. This happened approximately in December 1096. Alexios Komnenos was very kind to him, showing honor and attention, and without much struggle convinced him to give a vassal's oath. Rumors instantly spread in the West that Hugo was a prisoner and that the emperor had forced him to take a feudal oath. In response to Hugo's captivity, Godfrey of Bouillon ordered the plundering of Selimbria and surrounding lands. The detachment of the Duke of Lower Lorraine arrived first under the walls of Constantinople and became completely dependent on Alexios. Nevertheless, for three months Godfrey refrained from taking the oath and, having fortified himself in a suburb of Constantinople, awaited the arrival of other crusader detachments. In April 1097, skirmishes began with Pecheneg and Slavic cavalry corps. Hamstrung in many respects, Godfrey was forced to take the oath. The oath was accompanied by a treaty: the crusaders pledged to hand over their conquests to Alexios, and in return, he promised to send reinforcements and provisions. No later than April 10, 1097, the Lotharingian army was ferried to the Asian shore of the Bosphorus.
After some time, Bohemond of Taranto appeared under the walls of Constantinople. He separated from his detachment, entrusting it to Tancred, and hurried to the capital. The negotiations were brief: Bohemond found no particular objections to the feudal oath and calmly called himself a vassal of the Emperor of Byzantium. Bohemond even asked Alexios for the position of Grand Domestic of the East, that is, commander-in-chief of the Eastern army. The emperor skillfully evaded the answer, promising only to grant him a fief outside Antioch (that is, near Aleppo and Damascus, lands conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century and never returned to the empire) sized as 14 days' journey for 8 days, a peculiar Muslim mark beneficial to the Byzantines.
The remaining detachments arrived mostly in May. All feudal lords took the feudal oath without much hesitation, with the exception of Tancred and the Count of Toulouse. Raymond de Saint-Gilles yielded neither to requests nor threats. It was decided to settle on a compromise: the count swore not to harm the life or imperial rank of Alexios.
As soon as the oaths and promises were obtained, Alexios Komnenos arranged a luxurious reception at the Blachernae Palace, where Alexios' residence was located. The emperor showered gifts upon all who took the oath of loyalty; they were given pay and provided with food until Antioch. From Constantinople to Jerusalem.

Accompanied by a Byzantine corps under the command of Tatikios, the crusaders entered the Sultanate of Rum (Konya/Iconium). The sultan, Kilij Arslan, belonged to a Seljuk clan that feuded with the Seljuks of Iran and Iraq, and was also at war with the Turkic military dynasty of the Danishmends (northern Anatolia).
Circumstances favored the Western army. Kilij Arslan, having destroyed the crowds of the People's Crusade, did not expect a new danger and was far from Nicaea, busy recruiting a new army. The city of Nicaea was located on the shore of a lake, surrounded by steep mountains. The siege of the capital of Anatolia, the residence of the Sultan of Rum, lasted seven weeks. But when the crusaders burst into the city (June 26, 1097), they were amazed to learn that Emperor Alexios Komnenos had been conducting secret negotiations with the Turkish garrison, promising to spare all citizens' lives if they surrendered Nicaea personally to him. Tatikios reminded the crusaders of the feudal oath given to the Emperor of Byzantium in the capital, and the leaders were forced to yield and repeat the oath once more, which even the most steadfast, including Tancred, did not refuse. Thus, Nicaea became a Byzantine city again for more than two centuries.

Siege of Nicaea by the crusaders

From Nicaea, the path of the crusaders went through Dorylaion. On July 1, 1097, the forces of the Anatolian Turks under the command of Sultan Kilij Arslan and Emir Hassan Danishmend (facing a common threat, enemies became allies) fell upon one of two detachments led by Bohemond and Robert Norman. At the critical moment, the Normans were saved by Godfrey of Bouillon arriving with the rest of the army. The Battle of Dorylaion turned into a defeat for the Turks. However, the Frankish cavalry soon began to dwindle: all Western horses perished in the sands of Phrygia. The Turks left "scorched" earth behind them, and even the capture of the city of Konya (Iconium) on August 15, 1097, did not improve the food situation.
After victory at the city of Heraclea (September 10), the crusading army split into two corps: one under the command of Tancred and Baldwin of Boulogne moved to Cilicia, the second — north where it took Caesarea, returned to the Byzantines along with the city of Comana (a Franco-Byzantine garrison led by Pierre d'Aups remained there). The second detachment descended to Marash (October 1097) and approached Antioch.

Tancred and Baldwin stayed in Cilicia, where they hoped to receive help from Armenian leaders. They drove out the Turks from Tarsus, but eventually quarreled. Baldwin demanded that Tarsus be surrendered to him on the pretext that his detachment was more numerous than Tancred's. Tancred left the city and moved toward Mamlistra, which was captured. Baldwin, leaving a garrison in Tarsus, approached Mamlistra. The Normans, convinced that Baldwin intended to take this city from them as well, took up arms. A battle broke out between Christian warriors under the walls of the city. The next day, however, the opponents reconciled in the name of faith. Having reconciled, Tancred and Baldwin passed through Coxon and headed for Marash. Baldwin's wife died in Marash, where she was buried.
Godfrey of Bouillon accused his brother, Baldwin, of injustice and violence toward Tancred. Whether due to resentment or other reasons, Baldwin yielded to the call of Armenian leaders and arrived in Edessa. He was adopted by the city's ruler, Thoros, and married his daughter — Ada. Baldwin brought only 80 knights with him, but soon scattered warriors, those who had previously lost their horses, hastily joined him in Edessa, where eventually more than two hundred gathered. In time, Baldwin did not hesitate to get rid of Thoros, or a popular uprising helped him in this. Thus, on March 10, 1098, the future County of Edessa was born.

Siege of Antioch.

This miniature, an example of the illustrative school in Acre shortly before the city's fall in 1291, perfectly depicts the powerful walls of Antioch — one of the reasons for such a long siege.

On October 20, 1097, the main part of the Christian army approached the well-fortified and abundantly supplied populous Antioch. The siege continued until June 3, 1098. The defeated city went to Bohemond. However, the crusaders had to lock themselves in the city they had taken, as the Emir of Mosul, Kerbog (Kurbuk), approached the besieged city with a huge army that had spent a month unsuccessfully besieging Edessa. On June 5, the second siege of Antioch began; the huge Muslim army established a complete blockade. On June 28, by a swift attack of the Frankish army, the same Emir of Mosul's army was defeated and the siege of Antioch was lifted.
During the siege of Antioch, Bishop Adhemar, the papal legate, died of illness. The place of the deceased legate was taken by a new one — the Archbishop of Pisa, Adalbert, better known as Daimbert or Dagobert.
For more than six months, the crusaders rested in Antioch. The campaign almost ended, first due to hardships and diseases, then due to prosperity. Many knights and infantrymen left for Edessa to join Baldwin — among them were: Dre de Nel, Ranald de Toul, and Fulcher of Chartres. Stephen of Blois and Hugo de Vermandois returned home. The Franks also lost the help of Byzantium, albeit insignificant.
Following the example of Baldwin of Bouillon and Bohemond of Taranto, Raymond de Saint-Gilles desired to create a small Provençal principality based on the fortresses of Albar and Marat (Ma'arrat). He left a small garrison of seven knights in Albar led by Bishop Pierre of Narbonne. For several weeks, Raymond, with the assistance of the Count of Flanders and the Duke of Normandy, besieged the city of Marat. The capture of the city was accompanied by the slaughter of the entire Muslim population. On January 13, 1099, the troops left Marat and moved toward Sheizar. Further, bypassing the future Krak des Chevaliers, they approached Tripoli. On February 14, 1099, one of the Provençal detachments began the siege of the city of Arcas; others stormed the cities of Maraclea and Tortosa, while the army of Godfrey and Tancred besieged Jabala, another coastal city.

During the stop at Arcas, two embassies arrived at the crusaders' camp: one from Emperor Alexios, the other — from the Caliph of Cairo. Alexios asked them to wait for his arrival with troops; the Caliph of Egypt offered the crusaders free passage to Jerusalem, but exclusively for unarmed pilgrims. Raymond became so absorbed in the idea of a Provençal principality that he did not wish to leave the Tripoli region and diligently continued the siege of Arcas, awaiting Alexios' arrival. To continue their march on Jerusalem, the crusaders were forced to burn their tents and move as an unorganized crowd toward the Holy City. Godfrey persuaded the Count of Toulouse through requests to lift the siege of the city.

Crusaders at the walls of Jerusalem

The troops passed through Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre without meeting resistance on their way. The rulers of the cities sent them food and declared their peaceableness and submission. Passing through Acre, the crusaders received a promise from the city's ruler to submit to their power if they conquered Jerusalem. On June 3, 1099, the Franks occupied Ramla, and suddenly the question arose: whether to go besiege Damascus or undertake a siege of Cairo. They limited themselves to sending a detachment of one hundred knights led by Tancred and Baldwin de Burc to Bethlehem.
On June 7, 1099, the troops approached Jerusalem. The crusader army at that moment consisted of twenty thousand infantrymen and one and a half thousand knights. Among the leaders of the Western armies who reached the walls of Jerusalem were: Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Eustace, Duke Robert, Robert Count of Flanders, Raymond de Saint-Gilles, and Tancred.
At dawn on June 14, the crusaders stormed Jerusalem. During the siege, great help was provided by six ships from Genoa and Pisa; they arrived in captured Jaffa and delivered all necessary siege equipment and provisions.
The Crusade was crowned with success: Jerusalem was liberated and returned to Christianity. The Crusade (1101-1102)


News of the capture of Jerusalem (June 15, 1099) prompted many new crusaders to set out for the East. The victories of the crusaders inflamed hearts and minds throughout Europe; letters from the East written after the capture of Antioch, Jerusalem, and the Battle of Ascalon were read to the people from church pulpits. Those who had taken the cross in 1096 but did not go on the campaign, those who left their brothers in difficult moments, became despised by the people. Hugo, Count of Vermandois, who after the capture of Antioch went with an embassy to Constantinople and never returned; Stephen, Count of Blois, who fled during the siege of Antioch by Kerbog, Emir of Mosul, and all who acted similarly, were forced to take part in a new crusade.
One army of Lombards, reinforced by German and Burgundian-Champenois detachments, whose number, according to chroniclers, was from 50,000 to 160,000 people, set out through Bulgaria and the Greek provinces, committing terrible violence. On all roads to Constantinople, this army engaged exclusively in looting. Upon arriving in Constantinople, the army received Raymond de Saint-Gilles as its leader. Having crossed the Bosphorus, the crusaders did not want to take the road used by the armies of the First Crusade (1096-1099) and forced the barons — Raymond de Saint-Gilles, Stephen Count of Blois, Eudes Duke of Burgundy, and Conrad the Constable — to lead them another way. After three weeks of travel through fertile lands, they reached Ankara (Ancra), which they captured on June 23, 1101, and handed over to Emperor Alexios. The further path of the pilgrims was scorched earth, where they had to feed on leaves, bark, and roots of wild plants. All along the way, the Turks reminded them of their existence with frequent attacks on those lagging behind the army, the sick, and generally the weak parts of the troops. The Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Toulouse were in charge of protecting the rear guard. Every day became more difficult; the Turks grew bolder, the road harder, hunger stronger; at a council of leaders, it was decided to enter battle. On the appointed day near Amasya on August 5, 1101, the Christians formed into combat positions; the Bishop of Milan passed through the army ranks showing the hand of St. Ambrose as a pledge of God's blessing, and Raymond presented the warriors with a spear found in Antioch. The reason for the crusaders' defeat can be considered that the detachments of each baron fought alone rather than with combined forces, as a result of which they fled one by one. At night, Raymond de Saint-Gilles and other noble barons and knights left the camp. The remaining crusaders and pilgrims were destroyed in the morning by Turkish forces; fugitives were pursued and killed. Only three thousand people managed to escape, led by the Counts of Toulouse and Blois, the Duke of Burgundy, and the imperial constable Conrad.

Another army, consisting of Burgundian warriors under the command of William, Count of Nevers and Auxerre (15,000 people), monks, women, and children, reaching Constantinople crossed the Bosphorus and moved toward Ankara to meet the first army, whose fate they did not yet know. Not meeting the first army, it turned off the road to Ankara and headed for Iconium, where it was attacked by Turks and lost a significant number of troops. Turning onto the southern road, the remnants of the army moved in the direction of Heraclea. The entire journey was plagued by a lack of water, making thirst unbearable. The Turks blocked all wells and springs on the army's path. Not far from Heraclea there was a river, but the crusaders did not find it. The exhausted army was surrounded and destroyed at Heraclea in August 1101. Only 700 people managed to escape. Count Nevers, having found refuge in Marash, reached Antioch with the remnants of his army.
A third army led by William of Poitiers, Hugo de Vermandois, Welf Duke of Bavaria, and Ida Marchioness of Austria, consisting largely of unarmed pilgrims — as a result of which its number according to some reports reached 60,000 people — was routed at Heraclea in early September 1101. William of Poitiers, accompanied by only one squire, escaped into the mountains, then hid in a place near Tarsus and finally reached Antioch. Hugo de Vermandois, brother of the King of France, died of wounds in Tarsus. The Duke of Bavaria also managed to escape Turkish pursuit. The fate of Marchioness Ida is unknown.

In the spring of 1103, the surviving detachments of the three armies joined in Antioch. They reached Jerusalem; after celebrating Easter, some departed for the West, while others remained in the East.
**********************************************************

Download archive with paintings and engravings.

2 of them.





Link=

http://relaxbest.narod.ru/progi/CRUSADES.zip

That's all for now. Keep the topic going)

Thank you all! to those who support this topic. Your discussions add great color to it.

*************************************************
Yes, here I am posting a photograph, I think) it's on topic.