Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy

by Charles W. David

FOOTNOTES

[1] Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 268: “Cum igitur in Pontivo apud Abbatisvillam, cum sui similibus iuvenibus … moraretur … audito nuntio excessus patris, confestim veniens Rotomagum, ipsam civitatem et totum ducatum sine ulla contradictione suscepit”; Chronicon, in Liber de Hyda, p. 298; cf. Ordericus, ii, p. 374; iii, p. 256; A.-S. C., a. 1086.

[2] “Omnesque thesauros suos ecclesiis et pauperibus Deique ministris distribui praecepit. Quantum vero singulis dari voluit, callide taxavit, et coram se describi a notariis imperavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 228.

[3] Ibid., p. 245.

[4] “Rotbertus in Normanniam reversus, thesauros quos invenerat monasteriis, ecclesiis, pauperibus, pro anima patris sui, largiter divisit; et Ulfum, Haroldi quondam regis Anglorum filium, Duneschaldumque, regis Scottorum Malcolmi filium, a custodia laxatos, et armis militaribus honoratos, abire permisit.” Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21.

[5] “Donum de manerio de Vain quod idem pater meus in infirmitate qua defunctus est eidem ecclesie fecit.” Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.

[6] Ibid., pp. 287-288, no. 4 a.

[7] “Mors Guillelmi regis ipso eodem die, quo Rotomagi defunctus est, in urbe Roma et in Calabria quibusdam exheredatis nunciata est, ut ab ipsis postmodum veraciter in Normannia relatum est.” Ordericus, iii, p. 249.

[8] Ibid., p. 261.

[9] Ibid., pp. 261-262.

[10] Ordericus, iii, p. 256; cf. pp. 262-263.

[11] Ibid., pp. 245-248.

[12] “Postquam de carcere liber egressus est, totum in Normannia pristinum honorem adeptus est, et consiliarius ducis, videlicet nepotis sui, factus est.” Ibid., p. 263; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 360.

[13] Ibid.; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211.

[14] Ordericus, iii, pp. 268-269. The speech is doubtless imaginary, but the argument must surely be contemporary.

[15] Ibid., p. 269; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 360.

[16] Cf. E. A. Freeman, The Reign of William Rufus (London, 1882), i, pp. 9 ff.

[17] Ordericus (iii, pp. 268-270) speaks as though the conspiracy was started late in 1087, but his account lacks convincing precision and definiteness; and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a. 1087 for 1088) which is followed by Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 22), makes the positive statement that the plot was formed during Lent. Further, we know from Henry of Huntingdon (p. 211) that the bishop of Bayeux was present at the king’s Christmas court in 1087.

[18] A.-S. C., a. 1087.

[19] Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 268-270) seems to indicate that it was begun in Normandy at some sort of a secret gathering of the barons; but the English writers convey the impression that it originated in England. Cf. William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 360; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214. It may, of course, have had a double origin.

[20] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211.

[21] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 360; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Ordericus, iii, p. 270; Freeman, William Rufus, ii, pp. 466-467.

[22] William of Malmesbury G. R., ii, p. 360.

[23] The early writers are sharply divided in their account of William of Saint-Calais in connection with the rebellion of 1088. The southern English writers believed him guilty of treason. A.-S. C., a. 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 21-22; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 360. But a contemporary narrative by a Durham writer, who was an eyewitness of the bishop’s trial, represents him as the persecuted victim of malicious enemies who had poisoned the king’s mind against him. De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi, in Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed. Thomas Arnold (London, 1882-85), i, pp. 170-195. And it should be remembered that his condemnation by the curia regis was not for the treason with which he was charged, but for his refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court. On the treatise De Iniusta Vexatione see Appendix B.

[24] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a. 1087) and Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 22) make the positive statement that the revolt broke out after Easter (16 April); but we know from a more reliable source that William Rufus took the first active measures against the bishop of Durham on 12 March, and it is clear that the rebellion was already under way at this time. De Iniusta Vexatione, in Simeon, Opera, i, p. 171; cf. p. 189.

[25] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21: “pars etenim nobiliorum Normannorum favebat regi Willelmo, sed minima; pars vero altera favebat Rotberto comiti Normannorum, et maxima”; A.-S. C., a. 1087; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214. In general on the rebellion of 1088 and all the problems connected with it see Freeman, William Rufus, i, pp. 22 ff.; ii, appendices b, c, d, e.

[26] Ordericus, iii, p. 272.

[27] Pevensey, of course, was fundamental because on the coast where Robert’s fleet was expected to make land.

[28] “Per angelos Dei, si ego essem in Alexandria, expectarent me Angli, nec ante adventum meum regem sibi facere auderent. Ipse etiam Willelmus frater meus, quod eum presumpsisse dicitis, pro capite suo sine mea permissione minime attentaret.” Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 268.

[29] “Haec primo dicebat, sed, postquam rei gestae ordinem rescivit, non minima discordia inter se et fratrem suum Willelmum emersit.” Ibid.

[30] This is the plain inference from both the Norman and the English writers. E.g., Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22.

[31] Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270.

[32] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Henry of Huntingdon p. 215; cf. William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, pp. 362, 468; Ordericus, iii, pp. 272-273; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; Des miracles advenus en l’église de Fécamp, ed. R. N. Sauvage, in Société de l’Histoire de Normandie, Mélanges, 2d series (Rouen, 1893), p. 29.

[33] Ordericus, iii, p. 244; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, pp. 268-269; A.-S. C., a. 1086; cf. William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, pp. 468, 337, where it is said that the Conqueror bequeathed to Henry “maternas possessiones.”

[34] Ordericus, iii, p. 244.

[35] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 268. His presence is further proved by his attestation of charters, e.g., 30 March 1088, charter by Ralph Fitz Anseré in favor of Jumièges (Haskins, pp. 290-291, no. 6; also in Chartes de l’abbaye de Jumièges, ed. J.-J. Vernier, Paris, 1916, i, no. 37); 7 July 1088, charter by the duke in favor of the abbey of Fécamp (Haskins, pp. 287-289, no. 4 a); shortly after September 1087, charter by the duke in favor of Saint-Étienne of Caen (ibid., p. 285, no. 1).

[38] Ordericus, iii, p. 267; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211. Robert of Torigny raises a question as to whether Robert conveyed the Cotentin to Henry outright or whether he only pledged it to him as surety for a loan. Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 269.

[39] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, H. R., p. 215; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, pp. 361, 362; Ordericus, iii, pp. 273, 277-278.

[40] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 22, 23; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 214-215; Simeon, H. R., pp. 215-216.

[41] “Tunc temporis ultra quam virum deceat in Normannia deliciabatur.” Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[42] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, pp. 269-270.

[43] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215.

[44] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, pp. 362-363.

[45] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362.

[46] Supra, p. 47.

[47] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; De Iniusta Vexatione, in Simeon, Opera, i, p. 191. At the trial of William of Saint-Calais the king says: “Bene scias, episcope, quod nunquam transfretabis, donec castellum tuum habeam. Episcopus enim Baiocensis inde me castigavit…”

[48] A.-S. C., a. 1087; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362.

[49] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Simeon, H. R., p. 216; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 273-278) gives a highly embroidered account of the siege of Rochester and of its surrender, making it the outstanding event of the period—he knows nothing of the six weeks’ siege of Pevensey—but Simeon of Durham says that Rochester surrendered “parvo peracto spatio.”

[50] He returned to Normandy and to his see at Bayeux. Ordericus, iii, p. 278; A.-S. C., a. 1087; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. According to Simeon of Durham (H. R., p. 216) he was intrusted by Duke Robert with the administration of the duchy, but this is an error. See Appendix B, infra, pp. 214-215.

[51] A.-S. C., a. 1087; Simeon, H. R., p. 116.

[52] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 362: “Ceteri omnes in fidem recepti”; Ordericus, iii, pp. 279-280; cf. pp. 276, 291. We are without specific information as to the date of the surrender of Rochester. According to Ordericus (iii, p. 279), it took place “in initio aestatis.” A charter by Duke Robert in favor of La Trinité of Fécamp is dated 7 July 1088, “quando in Angliam transire debui.” Haskins, p. 288.

[53] At the trial of Bishop William of Durham before the curia regis at Salisbury, 2 November 1088, the king refused to allow the bishop to depart from the kingdom unless he gave pledges “quod naves meas, quas sibi inveniam, non detinebit frater meus, vel aliquis suorum, ad dampnum meum.” De Iniusta Vexatione, in Simeon, Opera, i, p. 190. Some color seems to be given to the king’s fears by a statement in Des miracles advenus en l’église de Fécamp: “Adhibuit etiam mari custodes, quos illi piratas vocant, qui naves ab Anglia venientes caperent, captos si redderent, capturam suis usibus manciparent.” Société de l’Histoire de Normandie, Mélanges, 2d series, p. 29.

[54] Ordericus, iii, p. 291. William of Malmesbury (G. R., ii, 468) is not in agreement, but the statement of Ordericus seems fully confirmed by the fact that Henry attested a charter by William Rufus in favor of the church of St. Andrew at Rochester: “This grant was made to repair the damage which the king did to the church of St. Andrew, when he obtained a victory over his enemies who had unjustly gathered against him in the city of Rochester.” Davis, Regesta, no. 301.

[55] “In autumno,” according to Ordericus, iii, p. 291.

[56] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-292; cf. William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 269. According to Ordericus, Henry’s place of confinement was Bayeux, under the custody of Bishop Odo; according to William of Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny it was Rouen.

[57] Ordericus, iii, p. 305; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468. Ordericus Vitalis recounts the event as if it came just after the death of Abbot Durand of Troarn, 11 February 1088. Cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 303; R. N. Sauvage, L’abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn (Caen, 1911), p. 288. But Ordericus has already spoken of Henry’s captivity as beginning “in autumno,” 1088. Supra, n. 55. According to William of Malmesbury, he was released after a half-year’s detention. If we could rely upon this statement, and couple it with the earlier statement of Ordericus that the imprisonment began in the autumn of 1088, we could assign Henry’s release to the late winter or spring following (1089).

[58] Infra, n. 62.

[59] Ordericus, iii, p. 316. The English writers make no mention of the Winchester council. Ordericus indicates that appeals had been coming to William Rufus from the Norman church: “Ecce lacrymabilem querimoniam sancta ecclesia de transmarinis partibus ad me dirigit, quia valde moesta quotidianis fletibus madescit, quod iusto defensore et patrono carens, inter malignantes quasi ovis inter lupos consistit.” And in a later connection (iii, p. 421) he says specifically that Abbot Roger of Saint-Évroul sought aid from William Rufus.

[60] Freeman, William Rufus, i, pp. 225-226.

[61] A.-S. C., a. 1090; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 26; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363; Ordericus, iii, p. 319.

[62] Ibid., pp. 319-320; De Controversia Guillelmi Rotomagensis Archiepiscopi, in H. F., xiv, p. 68, and in Gallia Christiana, xi, instr., col. 18. The work of corrupting the Norman baronage and winning them away from their allegiance to the duke was accomplished in 1089-90. Freeman assumes the Winchester assembly above mentioned to have been the Easter Gemot of 1090. William Rufus, i, pp. 222, and n. 1. But Ordericus seems to assign it to 1089—he records the death of William of Warenne, 24 June 1089, immediately after it—and we know from the De Controversia Guillelmi that the struggle had already begun in Normandy in 1089, when Robert Curthose and King Philip besieged La Ferté-en-Bray. Further, the siege of Eu by Duke Robert in 1089 is probably to be connected in some way with the activities of William Rufus against him. Davis, Regesta, no. 310.

[63] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.

[64] Davis, Regesta, no. 310, a charter of confirmation by Duke Robert for Bishop Odo of Bayeux, dated 1089, “secundo anno principatus Roberti Guillelmi regis filii ac Normanniae comitis, dum idem Robertus esset ad obsidionem Auci ea die qua idem castrum sibi redditum est.” This would necessarily be not later than September.

[65] Ibid., no. 308, a confirmation by Duke Robert in favor of Bayeux cathedral, dated 24 April 1089, “dum esset idem Robertus comes apud Vernonem … iturus in expeditionem in Franciam.”

[66] The De Controversia Guillelmi gives the specific date 1089. H. F., xiv, p. 68. William of Malmesbury, though vague, is in agreement. G. R., ii, p. 363. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a. 1090) and Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 26) assign King Philip’s intervention vaguely to 1090.

[67] We learn the name of the castle from the De Controversia Guillelmi, in H. F., xiv, p. 68. The Chronicle (a. 1090) and Florence (ii, p. 26) both refer to it without name.

[68] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; A.-S. C., a. 1090; cf. William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363.

[69] Ordericus, iii, p. 351; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 469.

[70] The name is found in the record of a suit before the court of Henry I in 1111: “in urbe Rothomagensi gravis dissensio inter partes Pilatensium scilicet et Calloensium exorta est que multa civitatem strage vexavit et multos nobilium utriusque partis gladio prostravit.” Haskins, pp. 91-92. Ordericus (iii, p. 252) indicates that the loyalists were clearly outnumbered by the rebels.

[71] Ordericus, iii, pp. 351-353.

[72] This, at any rate, is the account given by Ordericus Vitalis, who seems, however, at this point to feel rather more than his usual rancor towards the duke.

[73] Ordericus, iii, pp. 352-357; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 469.

[74] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-346.

[75] According to Ordericus (iii, pp. 365, 377) the crossing was made in the week of 19-25 January 1091; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a. 1091) dates it 2 February, while Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) more vaguely says “mense Februario.” William Rufus dated a charter at Dover 27 January 1091, probably soon before sailing for Normandy. Davis, Regesta, no. 315. The dating clause of this charter, “anno Dominicae incarnationis mill. xc, regni vero mei iiii, indictione xiii, vi kal. Feb., luna iii,” is not consistent throughout; but the year of the reign and of the lunation both compel us to assign it to 1091. Moreover, Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and Herbert, bishop of Thetford, both of whom attest, were not raised to their sees till 1091. Cf. Freeman, William Rufus, ii, pp. 484-485. Ralph appears to have been consecrated 6 January 1091. Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum.

[76] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270; cf. A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363.

[77] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377.

[78] Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[79] According to Robert of Torigny (loc. cit.), “adminiculante Philippo rege Francorum.” It is a plausible hypothesis that William of Saint-Calais, the exiled bishop of Durham, played a part in these peace negotiations. Upon his expulsion from England, between 27 November 1088 and 3 January 1089, he went to Normandy and was received by Duke Robert “rather as a father than as an exile” (Simeon, H. D. E., p. 128) and had the administration of the duchy committed to his charge (De Iniusta Vexatione, in Simeon, Opera, i, p. 194); and he remained in Normandy and enjoyed a position of honor for three years. In 1089 he attested two of Duke Robert’s charters (Davis, Regesta, nos. 308, 310), and he also attested with the duke a charter by Hugh Painel [1089-91] (Haskins, p. 69, no. 16). Then in the third year of his expulsion, when the king’s men were being besieged in a ‘certain castle in Normandy’ and were on the point of being taken, he saved them from their peril, and by his counsel the siege was raised (Simeon, H. D. E., p. 128. Can this refer to the siege of Eu and to the pacification of February (?) 1091?) See Appendix B, infra, p. 215 and n. 14.

[80] Ordericus, iii, p. 366. Robert of Torigny gives Caen as the meeting place. Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270. But may he not have confused the peace negotiations with the general inquest into ducal rights and customs which the brothers held at Caen on 18 July of the same year? For this inquest see Haskins, pp. 277-278.

[81] The date of the treaty is not given specifically, but according to Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 378) William and Robert, after they had made peace, besieged Henry at Mont-Saint-Michel for two weeks in the middle of Lent—according to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27), during the whole of Lent. The treaty, therefore, could hardly have been concluded later than the end of February.

[82] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.

[83] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[84] Ordericus, iii, p. 366; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270; A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[85] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.

[86] Specific mention of all the lordships which we know to have been won over by the king is not made in our accounts of the treaty, but they are all covered by general statements. Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 215-216; and the references given in nn. 83, 84, supra.

[87] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; A.-S. C., a. 1091.

[88] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363.

[89] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 215-216.

[90] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. Florence and the Chronicle both add here a puzzling provision which seems to indicate that the king undertook to compensate Robert for his losses in Normandy with lands in England: “et tantum terrae in Anglia quantum conventionis inter eos fuerat comiti daret.”

[91] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[92] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[93] G. R., ii, pp. 363-364; Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 36.

[94] Supra, p. 52.

[95] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 269; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468; cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 350.

[96] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468.

[97] “Comes Henricus pedagium accepit de Chetelhulmo et de omni Constantino et super hoc facit operari homines Sancte Trinitatis de eadem villa et patria ad castella suorum hominum.” Cartulary of La Trinité of Caen, extract, in Haskins, p. 63.

[98] Ordericus, iii, pp. 350-351, 378.

[99] Ibid., p. 350; cf. pp. 318, 378; cf. also William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 468.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 363-364; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.

[102] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.

[103] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 364; Ordericus, iii, p. 378; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[104] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.

[105] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[106] Ordericus, iii, p. 378. Lent in 1091 extended from 26 February to 13 April. According to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) the siege continued through the whole of Lent.

[107] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, pp. 270-271; Annales de Mont-Saint-Michel, in Chronique de Robert de Torigni, ed. Léopold Delisle (Rouen, 1872-73), ii, pp. 222, 232; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, pp. 364, 469-470; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 36; Wace, Roman de Rou, ed. Andresen, ii, p. 409.

[108] Ibid. Freeman remarks, “We may trust the topography of the Jerseyman.” William Rufus, i, p. 286, n. 1.

[109] Wace, Roman de Rou, ii, p. 409; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.

[110] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 364; Wace, Roman de Rou, ii, p. 410.

[111] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 365; Wace, Roman de Rou, ii, p. 411.

[112] Ibid.

[113] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 365; Wace, Roman de Rou, ii, p. 412; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 271; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. These sources do indeed indicate an abandonment of the siege before its object was accomplished; but against them stands the very positive statement of Ordericus Vitalis, which is confirmed by the Annals of Winchester (infra, n. 114). Robert and William evidently did not enjoy a very complete triumph. Still there seems no doubt of Henry’s expulsion from the Cotentin.

[114] Ordericus, iii, pp. 378-379; Annales de Wintonia, in Annales Monastici, ii, p. 36; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 271.

[115] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[116] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 365. He attests a charter of confirmation by William Rufus for the bishop of Durham, evidently while on the Scottish expedition late in 1091. Davis, Regesta, no. 318.

[117] “Fereque duobus annis a bellis Normannia quievit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[118] Haskins, pp. 277-284.

[119] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 365; Ordericus, iii, pp. 381,394; A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[120] Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 28) gives the date of the crossing as “mense Augusto”; and Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 366, 377) indicates that 1 August was the date. Roger du Sap was elected abbot of Saint-Évroul on 21 July. Apparently he went immediately to the duke to seek investiture and found that the latter had already departed. Ibid., p. 381. The Rotulus Primus Monasterii Sancti Ebrulfi dates the crossing of William and Robert in 1090. Ibid., v, p. 189. But this is evidently the error of a copyist.

[121] Supra, p. 65, and n. 116.

[122] “Ambo fratres de Neustria in Angliam ex insperato tranfretaverant, mirantibus cunctis.” Ordericus, iii, p. 381.

[123] William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 365. Freeman rejects the testimony of William of Malmesbury regarding this Welsh campaign of 1091. William Rufus, ii, pp. 78-79. But I see no reason for so doing—especially since the statements coupled with it regarding Henry and the Scottish expedition are demonstrably accurate—; and how else explain the lateness of the Scottish campaign? William of Malmesbury says specifically: “Statimque primo contra Walenses, post in Scottos expeditionem movens.”

[124] Ordericus, iii, p. 394; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; A.-S. C., a. 1091.

[125] Ibid.

[126] See Appendix B, infra, pp. 215-216.

[127] De Iniusta Vexatione, in Simeon, Opera, i, p. 195. The bishop was believed to have regained the king’s favor through services which he rendered him in Normandy. Simeon, H. D. E., p. 128. In any case, under the amnesty provision of the treaty between Robert Curthose and William Rufus he was entitled to a restoration of his estates and honors in England.

[128] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28. For the reading ‘Lothian,’ instead of Leeds, see Freeman, William Rufus, ii, p. 541. Ordericus (iii, p. 394), in an obviously embroidered account, represents the two kings as facing one another from opposite sides of the Firth of Forth. But the English writers say specifically that Malcolm had advanced into Lothian to meet the English forces.

[129] Supra, p. 31.

[130] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; William of Malmesbury, G. R., ii, p. 366; Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-395.

[131] We have no other record of this homage. Can it have taken place in 1080, when Malcolm made his submission to Robert, who was then leading the Conqueror’s army against him?

[132] Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-396.

[133] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; A.-S. C., a. 1091.

[134] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29; A.-S. C., a. 1091. At some point on the homeward march the three brothers joined with a distinguished company of nobles and prelates in the attestation of a charter of the lately restored Bishop William of Durham. Davis, Regesta, no. 318; cf. Freeman, William Rufus, i, p. 305; ii, p. 535.

[135] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.

[136] A.-S. C., a. 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29.

[137] “In illis namque diebus, Willelmus, Anglorum rex strenuus, mortuus est, eiusque morte tota Cenomannorum regio perturbata.” Actus Pontificum, p. 385.

[138] Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 273: “Unde factum est, ut paulo post mortem ipsius regis idem dux Robertus, de quo nunc sermo est, in principio sui ducatus, iam tunc rebellionis contumaciam attentantes in ipsis suis finibus ducto exercitu Normannorum, eos compescuit”; Ordericus, iii, p. 327: “ipso [i.e., the Conqueror] mortuo statim de rebellione machinari coeperunt.” The statement of the Actus Pontificum (supra, n. 137) is not convincing because the next sentence opens with the rebellion of 1090. Robert of Torigny shows himself poorly informed in these matters. The statement of Ordericus is vague, and his record elsewhere does not point to any serious disturbances till later in the reign.

[139] Ordericus, iii, pp. 293, 296.

[140] Ibid., pp. 289, 292.

[141] Ibid., p. 293.

[142] Ordericus, iii, p. 296. The fragment of a charter by Robert “Normannie princeps et Cenomannorum comes,” granting the tithe of his customs and rents at Fresnay to Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, should probably be assigned to this visit. Cartulaire de S.-Vincent, no. 532.

[143] Ordericus, iii, p. 269.

[144] Osmond de Gaprée was killed at the siege on 1 September. Ordericus, iii, p. 297: Ordericus was probably well informed, since Osmond was buried at Saint-Évroul. This date makes it possible to say definitely that this expedition into Maine did not take place in 1087, for William the Conqueror did not die till 9 September of that year. It is not so clear that it did not take place after 1088; yet between this and the successful rebellion of 1090 there were the threatened disturbances which Fulk is said to have repressed for a year. Cf. Latouche, Maine, p. 40, n. 2.

[145] Ordericus, iii, pp. 296-297.

[146] Ibid., iii, p. 297.

[147] Supra, p. 55.

[148] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.

[149] Ibid., pp. 320-323.

[150] He granted Bavent, Noyon-sur-Andelle, Gacé, and Gravençon to William of Évreux, and Pont-Saint-Pierre to William of Breteuil, his nephew. Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.

[151] Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-332; Actus Pontificum, pp. 385 ff.; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, pp. 272-273.

[152] Actus Pontificum, p. 385.

[153] Ordericus, iii, pp. 328-329; Actus Pontificum, pp. 385-386.

[154] He was the son of Azzo II, marquis of Este, and Gersent, eldest daughter of Herbert Éveille-Chien.

[155] Actus Pontificum, p. 386; Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-328.

[156] “Ipse autem Rotbertus, ultra modum inertie et voluptati deditus, nichil dignum ratione respondens, que Cenomannenses fecerant, pro eo quod inepto homini nimis honerosi viderentur, non multum sibi displicuisse monstravit.” Actus Pontificum, p. 386. This is a remarkable corroboration of Ordericus Vitalis in his view of Robert’s character.

[157] Actus Pontificum, pp. 387-390. Hoël’s presence in England early in 1091 is proved by his attestation of two charters by William Rufus, at Dover (27 January) and at Hastings. Davis, Regesta, nos. 315, 319. It is not unlikely that Hoël returned to Normandy with the king, who was evidently about to sail at the time the Dover charter was issued.

[158] Actus Pontificum, pp. 391-392. He celebrated Easter (13 April) and Pentecost (1 June) at Solesmes; and arriving at La Couture 28 June, he observed the day of the Apostles on the 29th; and the ceremony in the cathedral church took place the day following. Chartularium Insignis Ecclesiae Cenomanensis quod dicitur Liber Albus Capituli (Le Mans, 1869), no. 178; cf. Cartulaire de S.-Vincent, no. 117. The year in which these events occurred requires some further discussion. Latouche, though admitting with Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 327) that the revolt began in 1090, still believes that Hugh did not arrive in Maine until after Easter 1091, that Hoël was in England from November to March 1091-92, and that his return and reconciliation with Hugh took place at the end of June 1092. Maine, pp. 41-44. Latouche bases his chronological deductions upon a charter by Hugh in favor of Marmoutier, given at Tours, according to Latouche, on 13 April 1091. Bibliothèque Nationale MSS., Collection Baluze, 76, fol. 14. Since Hugh does not bear the title of count in this document, Latouche argues that he had not yet arrived in Maine, and, therefore, that the subsequent events of the revolution must be carried forward through 1091 into 1092. The dating clause of the charter in question, as kindly furnished me by M. Henri Omont, is as follows: “Factum hoc mᵒ anno et lxxxxi. ab incarnatione Domini, indictione xiiii. anno xxxiiii. Philippi regis, primo anno R. archiepiscopatus, secundi Aurelianensis. Aderbal scolae minister secundarius scriptsit.” Granting that this is a document of the year 1091—which is by no means likely, in view of the year of the reign and of Ralph, archbishop of Tours—there still appears to be no reason why Latouche should assign it to the Easter date (13 April); and upon other evidence it is clear that Hugh arrived in Maine at a much earlier period: (1) It is not clear from the Actus Pontificum (pp. 386-387), as Latouche supposes (p. 42, n. 6), that Hoël was already in Normandy upon Hugh’s arrival in Maine, but quite the contrary. (2) Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 328, 330) indicates that Hugh was induced to come to Maine because Robert Curthose and William Rufus were at war, and that a strong argument in favor of his return to Italy was the fact that they had recently made peace and were meditating an attack upon Maine. This we know to have been in the spring and summer of 1091, and not in 1092 after William Rufus had returned to England. (3) A charter by William Rufus proves the presence of Hoël in England 27 January 1091, and not November-March 1091-92, as Latouche supposes. Davis, Regesta, no. 315. (4) Finally, two charters in favor of Saint-Julien of Tours, dated 11 November 1091, prove that Helias was already at that time count of Maine with Hoël’s approval, and incidentally show that Hoël was not then in England. Charles de S.-Julien de Tours, nos. 43, 44.

[159] Ordericus, iii, pp. 329-330; cf Actus Pontificum, p. 393.

[160] Ordericus, iii, p. 330. This gives an important synchronism for dating.

[161] Ibid., iii, pp. 331-332; Actus Pontificum, p. 393; Cartulaire de S.-Vincent, no. 117.

[162] Bishop Hoël and Count Helias join in confirming a charter by Alberic de la Milesse, 11 November 1091. Chartes de S.-Julien de Tours, nos. 43, 44. Count Helias attests a confirmation by Fulk le Réchin, 27 July 1092. Halphen, Anjou, p. 320, no. 262.

[163] Supra, pp. 66-67.

[164] Davis, Regesta, nos. 308, 310, 324; Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.

[165] Supra, p. 43.

[166] Ordericus, iii, p. 263; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 288.

[167] Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.

[168] Ibid., pp. 297-298.

[169] Castle of Montaigu. Ibid., p. 420.

[170] Ibid., p. 333.

[171] Castles of Saint-Saëns, Arques, and Bures. Ibid., p. 320. These grants to Helias proved to be a source of strength rather than of weakness.

[172] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-296.

[173] “Verum deficiente alimonia castrum captum est, et praefatus municeps iussu irati ducis protinus oculis privatus est. Aliis quoque pluribus, qui contumaciter ibidem restiterant principi Normanniae, debilitatio membrorum inflicta est ex sententia curiae.” Ibid., p. 297. This is the only instance I have met with where Robert might be charged with cruelty. The distinction between the blinding of Robert Quarrel by the duke’s command and the mutilation of others by sentence of the curia is curious.

[174] Ibid., pp. 337-342.

[175] See, e.g., Ordericus, iii, p. 299.

[176] Ordericus, iii, p. 299.

[177] Ibid., pp. 299-300.

[178] Ibid., p. 358.

[179] Ibid., pp. 301-302.

[180] Ibid., pp. 333-334.

[181] Ibid., pp. 361-366.

[182] Ibid., pp. 417-420.

[183] Ibid., v, p. 4.

[184] Ordericus, ii, p. 469; iii, pp. 332-333, 335-336, 412-416.

[185] Ibid., iii, pp. 332-333, 412.

[186] Ibid., pp. 415-416. Robert of Torigny calls this “quamdam rem dignam memoria.” Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 290.

[187] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-348; supra, p. 58.

[188] Ordericus, iii, pp. 384-385; Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, p. 271; Wace, Roman de Rou, ii, p. 413.

[189] Ibid., p. 414; Ordericus, iii, p. 418.

[190] “Ille vero contra Rodbertum, Normanniae comitem, viriliter arma sumpsit, incendiis et rapinis expulsionis suae iniuriam vindicavit, multosque cepit et carceri mancipavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 385.

[191] Interpolations de Robert de Torigny, in William of Jumièges, pp. 271-272.

[192] Ordericus, iii, pp. 289, 303, 332, 357.

[193] Haskins, pp. 63-64.

[194] Cartulaire de S.-Vincent, no. 532.

[195] Ordericus, iii, pp. 297, 303, 381; Milo Crispin, Vita Willelmi Abbatis Beccensis Tertii, in Migne, cl, col. 717.

[196] Round, C. D. F., no. 1115; Davis, Regesta, no. 342; Haskins, p. 70, no. 36.

[197] Haskins, pp. 66-70.

[198] Supra, p. 65.

[199] Ordericus, iii, p. 420; Charter by Duke Robert in favor of La Trinité of Fécamp, in Haskins, p. 289, no. 4 c.

[200] For a full discussion of Robert’s government, see Haskins, pp. 62-78.

[201] Gallia Christiana, xi, instr., col. 221.

[202] H. F., xiv, p. 68.

[203] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.

[204] Ibid., p. 381.

[205] Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. Martin Rule (London, 1884), p. 37; Epistolae Anselmi, bk. iii, no. 10, in Migne, clix, col. 31.

[206] Epistolae Anselmi, bk. iii, no. 15, in Migne, clix, col. 39; cf. ibid., nos. 8, 14; Milo Crispin, Vita Willelmi Abbatis, in Migne, cl, col. 717.

[207] De Controversia Guillelmi, in H. F., xiv, pp. 68-69; Heinrich Böhmer, Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im xi. und xii. Jahrhundert (Leipsic, 1899), p. 146. According to Böhmer, the suspension of Archbishop William took place towards the end of 1093. There is an unpublished tract by the ‘Anonymous of York’ upon the exemption of the monastery of Fécamp in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 415, pp. 264-265. Cf. Karl Hampe, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xxii (1897), pp. 669-672; Böhmer, op. cit., pp. 177, 180.

[208] Supra, p. 68.

[209] “This power he reserves for his brother, King William, as well as for himself.” Davis, Regesta, no. 327.

[210] A.-S. C., a. 1094; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[211] Eadmer, p. 43.

[212] A.-S. C., a. 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note; cf. Eadmer, p. 47.

[213] Ibid., cf. Davis, Regesta, nos. 347, 348.

[214] A.-S. C., a. 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in note. In 1094 Lent extended from 22 February to 9 April. If by ‘Midlent’ an exact day is designated, it was probably Sunday, 19 March.

[215] A.-S. C., a. 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, and MS. C, in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217. Florence of Worcester is the sole authority for ‘Campus Martius’ and for the fact that after the conferences Robert went to Rouen and William Rufus to Eu. Henry of Huntingdon mentions only the final meeting. A phrase in a letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres makes it not improbable that King Philip was present at this conference: “iturus vobiscum ad placitum quod futurum est inter regem Anglorum et comitem Normannorum.” H. F., xv, p. 82, no. 28; cf. Fliche, Philippe Iᵉʳ, p. 299. But the letter is undated, and proof is lacking that it refers to the conference of 1094. There is no basis for Fliche’s assumption that the meeting between William and Robert took place at Pontoise or at Chaumont-en-Vexin. Ivo’s letter contains no such evidence. The above mentioned places are named only as a rendezvous for Philip and Ivo preparatory to proceeding to the meeting between Robert and William.

[216] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34.

[217] A.-S. C., a. 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[218] References as in n. 217, supra.

[219] Argentan is pretty clearly, though not certainly, the place designated. Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 34), who seems generally best informed on these events, has “Argentinum,” about which there can be no question. The readings of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (a. 1094) and of Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217) are “castel aet Argentses” and “Argentes,” which might refer to Argentan or Argences. Thomas Stapleton says that the place in question was Argentan. Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae sub Regibus Angliae (London, 1840-44), ii, p. xxx. I cannot discover that there was any castle at Argences in the eleventh century.

[220] Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 34-35; A.-S. C., a. 1094; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[221] A.-S. C., a. 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[222] According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217), they actually besieged Eu.

[223] A.-S. C., a. 1094.

[224] Ibid., a. 1094; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.

[225] Fliche sets forth the extraordinary hypothesis that there was no war between William Rufus and Robert Curthose in 1094, though he admits the meeting between them and the unsuccessful attempt at a reconciliation. He bases his hypothesis upon the fact that Ordericus Vitalis makes no mention of the war of 1094, and that the account of the campaign of 1094 as set forth in the English sources bears certain resemblances to that of 1091. He argues that the English writers in their confusion have assigned events to 1094 which really belong to 1091—in brief, that there was only one campaign, that of 1091: “Et alors ne faudrait-il pas reporter toute la campagne racontée ici à l’année 1090-1091?” Philippe Iᵉʳ, pp. 298-300. In point of fact there is far less duplication between the events of 1090-91 and 1094 than Fliche supposes, and such resemblances as exist are readily accounted for by the fact that William Rufus had his headquarters at Eu on both occasions and pursued the same general policy throughout his dealings with Robert Curthose and King Philip. It may be admitted as extraordinary that the events of 1094 have escaped the attention of Ordericus Vitalis; but to reject the highly circumstantial accounts of the English writers is to betray a strange lack of appreciation of the range and accuracy of their information.

[226] A.-S. C., a. 1094.

[227] Ibid. According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 218), the king’s original order had been to proceed to London.

[228] Eadmer, p. 52.

[229] A.-S. C., a. 1095; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35.

[230] A.-S. C., a. 1095; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 218.

---

CHAPTER IV
THE CRUSADE

The year 1096 marks the beginning of a new era in the history of western civilization as well as in the life of Robert Curthose. On 27 November 1095,[1] Pope Urban II had preached his momentous sermon before the assembled multitude at Clermont, and ‘the gates of the Latin world were opened’[2] upon the East. “It was the miracle of the Lord in our time,” writes Henry of Huntingdon, “and a thing before unheard of in all the ages, that such divers peoples and so many distinguished princes, leaving their splendid possessions, their wives, and their children, set forth with one accord and in scorn of death to seek the most unknown regions.”[3]

It was natural that the stirring words of Pope Urban should find a ready hearing among the ‘untamed race of the Normans.’[4] The great adventurers of their age, they were destined to play the most vigorous and aggressive, if not the most devout and single-minded, part in the supreme adventure of the Latin world in the Middle Ages. Moreover, the situation of Duke Robert at home was such that new fields of opportunity and adventure offered peculiar attractions to him. Lacking the indomitable energy of his great forbears and the Norman genius for organization, government, and law, surrounded by enemies both within and without his dominions, his tenure of the duchy had become a heavy burden. His war with William Rufus still dragged on. Disloyal barons continued to desert to the English cause; and twenty Norman castles were said to be in the Red King’s hands. Prince Henry, long firmly established at Domfront, and now backed by the strong arm and the long purse of his older brother, had gained control of ‘a great part of Normandy’; and the ‘soft duke’ had fallen into contempt among his turbulent subjects. Disobedience and disorder were everywhere on the increase, and the unarmed population lacked a protector.[5] An expedition to the Holy Land at the head of a splendidly equipped band of knights, with new scenes and new adventures and plenary indulgence for past sins, offered a welcome prospect of escape from the trying situation in which Duke Robert found himself in the spring of 1096.[6]

Yet the First Crusade was a papal, not a Norman, enterprise.[7] At the provincial council of Rouen which was convened in February, 1096, for the purpose of ratifying the canons of the council of Clermont, there is, oddly enough, no evidence that the projected Crusade was taken under consideration by the Norman clergy.[8] The initiative of the Pope, on the other hand, was clear-cut and vigorous, and his activity can be traced with some fulness. From Clermont Urban proceeded on a tour of western France; and passing northward through Poitou and Anjou early in 1096, he arrived at Le Mans in the middle of February and was at Vendôme near the end of the month. Then turning back southward, he was still occupied with the Crusade in a council at Tours in March.[9] The Pope seems not to have entered Normandy at all; but he was close to the border while in Maine and at Vendôme, and it is not improbable that it was during this period that he took the first steps towards launching the Crusade in the Norman lands.

Pope Urban’s first duty, if he wished to raise large forces in Normandy for the Crusade, was obviously the promotion of peace between the warring sons of William the Conqueror. It was not to be thought of that Robert Curthose should lead a Norman army to the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre while William Rufus continued the struggle to deprive him of his duchy. Accordingly, the Pope sent Abbot Gerento of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon as his special agent to undertake the delicate task of negotiating a peace.[10] The abbot was with William Rufus in England at Easter (13 April) 1096.[11] He crossed to Normandy before the end of May;[12] and remaining there throughout the summer, brought the peace negotiations to a successful termination, and accompanied the crusading host upon the initial stages of its journey as it departed in the autumn.[13] It may be conjectured that during this whole period Gerento was engaged in the work of promoting the Crusade in Normandy; and this conclusion is fully in accord with the statements of the chroniclers that Duke Robert took the cross “at the admonition of Pope Urban”[14] and “by the counsel of certain men of religion.”[15]

The treaty which had been concluded at the abbot’s instance was wisely drawn to meet the exigencies of Robert’s situation. Not only did it bring about the necessary peace, but upon such terms as to provide the impecunious duke with ample funds for his distant enterprise. Normandy was to be taken in pledge by William Rufus, and in exchange Robert was to receive a loan of 10,000 marks of silver.[16] The date at which this bargain was struck cannot be exactly determined, but, in any case, it was early enough to allow the king time to extort money from his unfortunate subjects by means which provoked a general outcry.[17] An aid (auxilium) was demanded of the barons, and an extraordinary Danegeld was levied at the rate of four shillings to the hide throughout the kingdom. Though the clergy had from early times been exempted from this tax, their privileges were not now respected; and they were obliged to pay their full share along with the lay nobles.[18] Churches were stripped of their ornaments in order that the sum might be raised.[19]

Meanwhile, in Normandy and the surrounding lands, preparations for the Crusade had been going steadily forward; though it must be owned that we have but slight information concerning the measures which were taken, beyond what may be inferred from the occasional record of a mortgage of lands to a religious house in exchange for a loan of ready cash for the journey,[20] or from the names of a relatively small number of men and women[21]—less than fifty in all—who, stirred by religious impulse, the spirit of adventure, or the hope of gain, followed the duke’s example and took the cross.

So far as it is possible to describe it at this distance, Robert Curthose certainly travelled at the head of an interesting and honorable company, which, drawn not only from Normandy but from the surrounding lands, was altogether worthy of the dignity of the Conqueror’s eldest son. To attempt a comprehensive enumeration would be tedious, but the names of at least the more important of the duke’s companions should be recorded.[22] Of the Norman bishops, the only ones who took the cross were Odo of Bayeux and Gilbert of Évreux. Both had been present at the council of Clermont as ‘legates’ of their fellow bishops; and Odo, at any rate, had been in touch with Abbot Gerento in Normandy during the summer of 1096. Yet it is doubtful whether he was a very active promoter of the Crusade, for some, at least, believed that he had taken the cross for personal reasons rather than out of zeal for the Holy War. He had been driven from England after the failure of the rebellion against William Rufus in 1088, and the king’s wrath against him had not been appeased. Rather than remain in Normandy to become the subject of his bitter enemy, he preferred to undertake the hardships of the distant pilgrimage. Among the lay nobles from Normandy who accompanied Robert on the Crusade we meet with no very great names; but it is interesting to note that the list contains not only such life-long friends of the duke as Ivo and Alberic of Grandmesnil, but also—a fruit of the recent pacification—his late enemies Count Stephen of Aumale and Gerard of Gournay. The great house of Bellême was represented by Philip the Clerk, one of its younger scions. Mention should also be made of Roger of Barneville, an obscure knight from western Normandy, who was destined to lose his life in a skirmish with the Turks at Antioch, and whose noble character and unexampled bravery made him a great favorite with the army.

The neighboring lands of northern France contributed an equally distinguished company to Duke Robert’s forces. His cousin, Count Robert of Flanders, and his less heroic brother-in-law, Count Stephen of Blois and Chartres, both found it to their advantage to travel with him, as did also Alan Fergant, duke of Brittany, and a notable list of Bretons. Among these latter may be mentioned Alan, the steward of Archbishop Baldric of Dol;[23] Ralph de Gael, the one-time earl of Norfolk whose treason had caused the Conqueror to drive him forth from England; Conan de Lamballe, who was killed by the Turks at Antioch; and Riou de Lohéac, who died while on the Crusade, but sent back to the church of his lordship a casket of precious relics which included a portion of the true cross and a fragment of the Sepulchre. From Perche came Rotrou of Mortagne, son of the then reigning Count Geoffrey. And from the Flemish border came old Hugh, count of Saint-Pol, and his brave son Enguerrand, who gave his life for the Christian cause at Marra in Syria; Walter of Saint-Valery and his valiant son Bernard, who according to one account was the first to scale the wall of Jerusalem. The forces of Duke Robert also included a number of Manceaux,[24] but Helias of La Flèche, the count of Maine, was not among them. Stirred by the common impulse, he had taken the cross, apparently designing to travel with Robert Curthose. But when he learned that William Rufus would grant him no peace, but proposed to bring Maine back under Norman domination by force of arms, he was obliged to abandon his undertaking and remain at home to defend his county.[25]

From England, strangely enough, only two crusaders of known name and history have come to light among the followers of Robert Curthose: the Norman William de Percy, the great benefactor of Whitby abbey, and Arnulf of Hesdin, a Fleming. Neither, it will be observed, was a native Englishman. The Anglo-Saxon chronicler remarks that the preaching of Pope Urban caused “a great excitement through all this nation,”[26] and English mariners are known to have coöperated with the crusaders on the Syrian coast.[27] Yet England still lay largely beyond the range of continental affairs and the great movements of world history, and the part played by the English in the First Crusade appears to have been of minor importance. William of Malmesbury observes truly that ‘but a faint murmur of Asiatic affairs reached the ears of those who dwelt beyond the British Ocean.’[28]

The standard-bearer of Duke Robert throughout the Crusade is said to have been Pain Peverel, the distinguished Norman knight who later was granted a barony in England by Henry I and became the patron of Barnwell priory. As his chaplain, or chancellor, Robert took Arnulf of Chocques, the clever Flemish adventurer who had long served in the ducal family as preceptor of his eldest sister, Princess Cecilia, and who later rose to the dignity of patriarch of Jerusalem.[29] And finally mention should be made of Fulcher of Chartres, the well known historian of the Crusade, who travelled with the ducal forces as far as Marash in Armenia, and who up to that point may almost be regarded as the official historiographer of the northern Norman contingent.

While preparations for the Crusade were being pushed forward in Normandy and the adjoining lands, William Rufus had completed the work of collecting English treasure for the Norman loan, and in September 1096[30] he crossed the Channel. Meeting the duke, apparently at Rouen,[31] he paid over the 10,000 marks which had been agreed upon, and received the duchy in pledge.[32] Thus was Robert supplied with funds for his distant journey, and when this most necessary matter had been arranged, final preparations were speedily brought to an end, and the duke took his place at the head of his forces.

Near the end of September, or early in October,[33] amid tearful but courageous leave-takings from friends and loved ones,[34] the crusaders set forth upon their long pilgrimage. As they moved forward over the first stages of the march, their numbers were considerably augmented by additional forces which flowed in from districts along the way.[35] At Pontarlier on the upper waters of the Doubs, Abbot Gerento of Dijon and his faithful secretary, Hugh of Flavigny, who had accompanied the host thus far, and must have viewed with much satisfaction the successful culmination of their enterprise, took their leave of the leaders and turned back.[36]

From Pontarlier the route probably lay by the well known road of pilgrimage and commerce past the great monastery of Saint-Maurice and over the Alps by the Great St. Bernard to Aosta, and thence across the valley of the Po and over the Apennines to Lucca.[37] At Lucca the crusaders were met by Urban II, who conferred with the leaders, Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, and gave his blessing to the departing host as it moved on southward and came to Rome ‘rejoicing.’[38] But in the basilica of St. Peter the crusaders found little joy, for the great church, with the exception of a single tower, was in the hands of the men of the anti-Pope, who, sword in hand, seized the offerings of the faithful from off the altar, and from the roof hurled down stones upon the pilgrims as they prostrated themselves in prayer.[39] Saddened by such outrages, but not delaying to avenge them, they pushed on southward, pausing at Monte Cassino to ask a blessing of St. Benedict as they passed,[40] and came to the port of Bari.[41]

Already tidings of the great enterprise which Pope Urban had launched had stirred one of the ablest chiefs of the southern Normans to action. Bohemond, prince of Taranto, the oldest son of Robert Guiscard, was engaged in the siege of Amalfi with his uncle, Count Roger of Sicily, when news reached him that early contingents of French crusaders had already arrived in Italy. The possibilities of the great adventure fired his ardent imagination, and, “seized with a divine inspiration,” he took the cross. Then, dramatically ordering his magnificent cloak to be cut into crosses, he distributed them among such of the knights present as were willing to follow his example; and so great was the rush of men to his standard, that Count Roger found himself almost deserted, and was obliged to abandon the siege and retire in dudgeon to Sicily.[42] Before the arrival of Robert Curthose and the northern Normans, Bohemond had already crossed the Adriatic at the head of a splendid band of knights and entered upon the road to Constantinople.

The hopes of Robert and his followers to make an immediate crossing and push on in the footsteps of Bohemond were doomed to disappointment. When they arrived at Bari, winter was already close at hand, and the Italian mariners were unwilling to undertake the transport of such an army in the inclement season.[43] Duke Robert and Count Stephen, therefore, were obliged to turn aside and winter in Apulia and Calabria.[44] Only the more active Robert of Flanders with his smaller forces managed to make the winter passage and push on towards Constantinople.[45] Meanwhile, Roger Bursa, duke of Apulia, received Robert of Normandy with much honor “as his natural lord” and supplied him with abundant provisions for himself and his noble associates.[46] Many of the poorer crusaders, however, were confronted with a grave problem. To winter peacefully in a friendly country which they could not plunder seemed quite out of the question; and, fearing lest they should fall into want, they sold their bows, and, resuming pilgrims’ staves, turned back ‘ignominiously’ to their northern homes.[47] Their more fortunate comrades, the nobles, however, found generous hospitality among friends;[48] and the winter months must have passed pleasantly for these northern Normans in the sunny Italian climate among their distinguished kinsmen. Bishop Odo of Bayeux, still vigorous and active, in spite of his advanced years, crossed over to Sicily, and paid a visit to Count Roger’s beautiful capital at Palermo. There he was taken with a fatal illness, and died early in 1097. His fellow bishop, Gilbert of Évreux, buried him in the great cathedral church of St. Mary; and Count Roger reared a splendid monument over his grave.[49]

With the return of spring, in the month of March, Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois assembled their forces at Brindisi and prepared to push on to Constantinople, the general rendezvous of all the crusading armies. The embarkation was marred by a tragic accident. One of the vessels broke up and went to pieces almost within the harbor with some four hundred souls on board, besides horses and mules and quantities of money. Overwhelmed by fear in the presence of such a catastrophe, some of the more faint-hearted landsmen abandoned the Crusade altogether and turned back homeward, declaring that they would never entrust themselves to the deceitful waves. Doubtless more would have followed their example, had it not been discovered that the bodies washed ashore after the wreck bore upon their shoulders the miraculous imprint of the cross. Encouraged by this token of divine favor, the crusaders place their trust in the omnipotent God, and, raising sail on Easter morning (April 5) amid the blare of many trumpets, pushed out to sea.[50]

Sailing before a gentle breeze, they made the passage without further accident, and landed on the fourth day at two small ports some ten miles distant from Durazzo. Thence, passing Durazzo, they advanced along the ancient Roman road, the Via Egnatia, with few adventures and by relatively rapid marches towards Constantinople.[51] The route lay up the valley of the Skumbi and through a mountainous region to Ochrida, the ancient capital of Bulgaria, and then on past Monastir and across the Vardar to Salonica on the Aegean, a city ‘abounding in all good things.’ There the crusaders pitched their tents and rested for four days, and then pushed on by the coast road through Kavala and Rodosto to Constantinople, where they encamped outside the city and rested for a fortnight in the latter half of May.[52]

The magnificent oriental capital with its noble churches and stately palaces, its broad streets filled with works of art, its abounding wealth in gold and silver and rich hangings, its eunuchs, and its busy merchants from beyond sea,[53] made a deep impression upon the minds of the crusaders, although they were not permitted to view it at great advantage. For earlier bands who had gone before them had not passed through the city without plundering, and the Greeks had learned to be wary. The Emperor Alexius ordered the crusaders to be well supplied with markets outside the walls, but only in bands of five or six at a time would he permit them to enter the city of wonders and pray in the various churches.[54]

Meanwhile, the leaders, Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, were being sumptuously entertained and assiduously flattered by the Emperor.[55] The real contest between him and the crusading chieftains had already taken place and been practically settled before the arrival of the northern Normans.[56] After the greater leaders, Godfrey of Bouillon and Bohemond, had yielded to the Emperor’s demands and entered into treaty relations with him, he had clearly gained his point, and it was not to be supposed that he would meet with serious obstacles in dealing with the princes who came later. Least of all were such difficulties to be expected in Robert Curthose and Stephen of Blois. Both promptly took the oath that was required of them;[57] for, explains Fulcher of Chartres—evidently voicing a sentiment which had become general—it was necessary for the crusaders to consolidate their friendship with the Emperor, since without his support and coöperation they could not advance freely through his dominions, and it would be impossible for fresh recruits to follow by the route which they had taken.

When Robert and Stephen had satisfied the demands of the Emperor, he loaded them with gifts of money and silks and horses, and, providing ships, had them ferried over with their forces to the Asiatic shore.[58] As they advanced beyond Nicomedia past the battle field where the forces of Peter the Hermit had met disaster the previous winter, the Normans were moved to tears at the sight of the whitening bones which still lay unburied;[59] but pressing on without pausing, they reached Nicaea in the first week of June.[60] There they received an enthusiastic welcome from the crusaders who had preceded them and who, since the middle of May, had been besieging the city; and, passing around to the southern side, they took up their position before the walls between the forces of Robert of Flanders and Raymond of Toulouse.[61]

For the remainder of the expedition the exploits of Robert are for the most part merged in the general action of the Crusade and must, for want of detailed information, be narrated briefly. Though a leader of the first rank, Robert was hardly to be compared with Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond, or Raymond of Toulouse. He has, therefore, received but an incidental treatment at the hands of the contemporary writers.

It is not recorded that Robert and his forces in any way distinguished themselves at the siege of Nicaea. They had arrived too late to share in the splendid victory over Kilij Arslan (Soliman II), sultan of Iconium, on 16 May.[62] Doubtless they were also too late to play an important part in the construction of the elaborate siege machinery which formed so marked a feature in the operations against the city. On 19 June Nicaea surrendered;[63] and Robert hurried away with the other leaders to congratulate the Emperor upon the victory and to share in the rich gifts which Alexius was bestowing upon the Franks as a reward for their services.[64]

Events moved rapidly after the fall of Nicaea. By 26 June some of the crusaders were already on the march. Robert with his habitual slackness took a more leisurely leave of the Emperor[65] and did not advance till two days later. But he quickly came up with the rest of the forces at a bridge over a small tributary of the Sangarius; and from that point the whole crusading host moved forward on the morning of 29 June before daybreak.[66] Either by accident or design the army was separated into two divisions,[67] which advanced by different, but roughly parallel, routes. At the head of the smaller force, mainly composed of Normans, marched the Norman leaders, Robert Curthose, Bohemond, and Tancred. Raymond, Godfrey, Hugh of Vermandois, and Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy, with their followers made up the larger division. As the Normans pitched camp on the second evening their scouts reported the enemy’s presence ahead, and special watches were set to guard the tents; but the night passed without incident. When, however, on the following morning (1 July) the march was resumed, the way was soon barred by the enemy in force under the command of Kilij Arslan. The Normans hastily prepared for battle; and towards eight or nine o’clock an engagement was begun which continued with uninterrupted fury till well after midday. Though the Normans fought valiantly, they could not long maintain the unequal contest. The mounted knights were hurled back in disorder upon the foot soldiers; and the heroic efforts of Bohemond and Robert to rally their forces and resume the offensive were of no avail. The crusaders, greatly outnumbered, and terrified by the outlandish modes of warfare practiced by their enemies, were overwhelmed and thrown back in wild confusion upon their camp. It was a desperate moment. The Christian forces were packed together “like sheep in a fold.” Priests were praying, knights were prostrate confessing their sins. The panic was general. But suddenly, when all seemed lost, relief came. Earlier in the day a messenger had been despatched to the crusaders of the other division, who were advancing at some distance by a separate route. When they learned of the desperate plight of the Normans, they rushed to arms, and, by hard riding across country, arrived upon the scene of battle barely in time to save their companions from annihilation. Strengthened by these reënforcements, the Normans quickly re-formed their battle order and renewed the contest; and the Turks, unexpectedly confronted by an enemy doubled in numbers, turned in flight and were swept from the field. The crusaders pursued them till nightfall, plundered their camp, and took quantities of booty.[68]

There can be no doubt that Robert Curthose fought bravely, as befitted one of his ancestry,[69] on the field of Dorylaeum. But the accounts, nearly contemporary though they be, which picture him as the supremely brave leader, whose heroic action checked the rout of the Christians and saved the day, belong rather to the realm of legend than of sober history.[70] A just estimate based upon strictly reliable sources must recognize that Robert divided the honors of Dorylaeum with Bohemond and the other leaders, but must assign him a part in the battle somewhat subordinate to that played by the great leader of the southern Normans.

The rout of the Turks at Dorylaeum opened the way through Asia Minor; and on 4 July,[71] after a two days’ halt to rest and to bury the dead,[72] the crusaders entered upon the long march to Antioch, the great Seljuk stronghold in northern Syria.[73] No serious opposition was encountered from the enemy; and on 20 October,[74] after three and a half months of varied hardships, they arrived at the so-called Iron Bridge (Djisr el-Hadid) over the Orontes a few miles above Antioch. Robert Curthose led the vanguard[75] which encountered outposts of the enemy at the bridge and defeated them in a sharp engagement; and that night the crusaders camped beside the river.[76] Next day (21 October) they pushed on to Antioch and took up their positions before the city.[77]

The siege of Antioch was a problem fit to try the resources, spirit, and endurance of the greatest commander. Its massive walls and towers, far superior to anything then known in western Europe, rendered it impregnable by assault. It was held by a strong garrison under the command of a resourceful emir; and the besiegers were in constant danger from a sortie in force. Moreover, the beleaguered garrison was not to be left without assistance; and more than once the crusaders had to meet and drive off a relief force in greatly superior numbers. And finally, the food problem soon became so acute as to threaten the besiegers with starvation; and to hunger were added the hardships of the winter season. Plainly this was not the kind of warfare which appealed to the easy-going, pleasure-loving Robert of Normandy. During the early stages of the siege, while the abundant supplies of a fertile district still held out, he played his part with courage and spirit, as, for example, when he joined with Bohemond and Robert of Flanders in a victorious fight against the Turks on the Aleppo road near Harim in November.[78] But when, in December, the crusaders began to feel the pinch of famine,[79] Robert could not withstand the temptation to withdraw to more pleasant winter quarters at Laodicea.[80]

Though the preaching of the Crusade had aroused little enthusiasm among the upper classes in England, it had met with a curious response among the English seamen. Assembling a considerable fleet, they had passed the Straits of Gibraltar and arrived off the Syrian coast well in advance of the crusading forces which were making their way across the highlands of Asia Minor; and in concert with the Emperor—who, it must not be forgotten, was coöperating with the crusaders both by land and sea—they had captured Laodicea and established themselves there before the land forces had arrived at Antioch. Well stocked with provisions from Cyprus, and protected from pirates by the English fleet, which secured its trade communications with the islands, Laodicea offered tempting quarters for one who had tired of the rigors of the winter siege at Antioch. Moreover, the English mariners appear to have been menaced in their possession by wandering bands of the enemy in the surrounding country and in need of reënforcements. Accordingly, they appealed to Robert of Normandy as their most natural lord among the crusading chieftains, and besought him to come to Laodicea as their protector.

Accepting this invitation with alacrity, Robert retired from Antioch in December 1097, and, joining his friends at Laodicea, gave himself up to sleep and idleness, content with forwarding a part of the abundant provisions which he enjoyed to his suffering comrades at the siege. The situation of the besiegers, however, was precarious, and they could not long remain indifferent to the absence of so important a leader as Robert. Soon they summoned him to return; and when their appeal met with no response, they repeated it and finally threatened him with excommunication. Thus pressed, Robert had no choice but to yield, and, very reluctantly turning his back upon the comforts of Laodicea, he returned to the hardships of the siege.

Robert was back at Antioch for the crisis of 8 and 9 February 1098, which was brought on by the arrival of Ridwan of Aleppo at the head of a large Turkish relief force. He attended the war council of 8 February which determined upon a plan of action;[81] and next day, while Bohemond and the mounted knights were winning their splendid victory over the forces of Ridwan,[82] he assumed command, along with the bishop of Le Puy and the count of Flanders, over the foot soldiers who remained behind to maintain the siege and guard the camp.[83] And though the Turkish garrison attempted a sortie in force from three gates, Robert and his comrades kept up a hard but victorious struggle throughout the day, and at nightfall drove the enemy back within the walls.[84]

From the defeat of Ridwan of Aleppo until the capture of Antioch, 3 June 1098, we lose sight of Robert completely; and it must remain a matter of doubt whether he was privy to the secret negotiations by which Bohemond, corrupting a Turkish guard, succeeded at last in opening the gates of the impregnable fortress.[85] Robert was certainly present at the capture of Antioch[86] and played his part honorably in the trying days which followed.

The month of June brought the crusaders face to face with the gravest crisis with which they had yet been confronted. The citadel of Antioch still held out against them; and, within two days after their victorious entrance into the city, advance guards of a vast Moslem army under the command of Kerboga of Mosul arrived before the gates. By the 8th of the month the Franks were compelled to burn their outworks and retire within the walls, themselves to stand a siege.[87] Though not especially mentioned, Robert doubtless took his part in the all-day struggle of 10 June; and when, next morning, it was discovered that a panic was spreading through the ranks, and that some of the forces, followers of Robert among them, had already let themselves down over the wall and fled,[88] he promptly joined with the other leaders in the solemn oath by which they mutually bound themselves to stand firm to the end.[89] And when finally, on 28 June, it was decided to stake all on a battle with Kerboga in the open, he led the third division[90] in the action and shared in the greatest victory of the Christians during the First Crusade. A few days later he attended the council at which it was determined, in view of the summer heat and the scarcity of water, to postpone the advance upon Jerusalem until 1 November;[91] and with that the leaders parted company.

How Robert passed the summer months, it is impossible to say. Probably he sought cooler and more healthful quarters away from pest-ridden Antioch. But he was evidently there again on 11 September, for he joined the other leaders in the letter to Urban II in which they recounted the progress of the Crusade, reported the death of Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, and urged the Pope himself to come and join them.[92] Robert was certainly at Antioch on 1 November, the day set for the general advance upon Jerusalem.[93]

But the advance was again delayed by a bitter quarrel which had broken out between Bohemond and Raymond of Toulouse over the possession of Antioch.[94] And now we find Robert, in the rôle of peacemaker, joining with the other disinterested leaders who desired to respect their pledges to the Emperor in an effort to arbitrate the difficulties.[95] But all these efforts were in vain, for when the arbitrators had arrived at a decision on the merits of the case, they lacked authority to enforce their judgment, and dared not announce it lest matters should be made worse. Finally, however, a truce was agreed upon in the hope of continuing the Crusade;[96] and Robert departed with Raymond and others to lay siege to Marra.[97] But hardly had this place been taken (11 December),[98] when the quarrel between Bohemond and Raymond flamed up afresh; and now the controversy spread from the leaders to the ranks, and the army was divided into two bitter factions.[99] Again Robert joined the other leaders in council at Rugia in an attempt to bring about a reconciliation;[100] but again all efforts failed, and Raymond and Bohemond remained at enmity.

Meanwhile, the count of Toulouse, yielding to popular pressure in the army, determined upon an independent advance to Jerusalem; and in order to isolate his rival the more effectually, he undertook to hire other leaders to follow him. To Godfrey of Bouillon and to Robert Curthose he offered 10,000 solidi, to the count of Flanders 6000, to Tancred 5000, and to others in accordance with their dignity.[101] Tancred definitely closed with the offer,[102] and there is reason for believing that Robert Curthose also accepted it.[103] In any case, Robert joined Raymond and Tancred at Kafartab, 14 January 1099, and two days later the three leaders moved southward with their followers towards Jerusalem, Robert and Tancred leading the vanguard while Raymond brought up the rear. As they moved southward up the beautiful valley of the Orontes, panic-stricken emirs along their line of march sent to purchase peace at any price and poured out their wealth in gifts, while the plunder of a fertile countryside supplied the crusaders with still greater abundance.[104] Crossing the river at a ford a short distance above Shaizar, they made their way over the mountainous divide and descended towards the sea into the rich valley of El-Bukeia.[105] Halting there for a fortnight’s rest and the celebration of the Purification,[106] they crossed the valley and encamped before the great fortress of Arka on the northern slopes of Lebanon (14 February). The neighboring port of Tortosa fell into their hands almost immediately, and when easy communication with the sea had thus been secured, they settled down to the siege of Arka.[107] This caused another delay of three months, and though Robert, Raymond, and Tancred each built siege towers,[108] no progress was made towards reducing the fortress. Even with the aid of Godfrey and Robert of Flanders, who came up with their forces 14 March, all their efforts were unavailing.[109]

Meanwhile, fresh disputes arose within the ranks of the army; and the Provençals, who at Marra had vented their rage upon Bohemond and his followers, now turned against Robert and the northern Normans. The genuineness of the so-called Holy Lance had been called in question.[110] Many of the Normans believed that the discovery of the Lance at Antioch had been a mere hoax got up by the vision-loving followers of Count Raymond; and on this question opinion in the army was sharply divided.[111] Arnulf of Chocques, Duke Robert’s chaplain, was regarded as the “chief of all the unbelievers,”[112] and upon him the bitter hatred of the Provençals was concentrated. An attempt was made to settle the controversy by an ordeal; but this resulted indecisively, and each side continued to believe as before. Arnulf was firmly supported by the duke and the Norman party generally, and the attacks of his enemies met with no success.[113]

While time was thus being wasted in disputes and recriminations the season was rapidly advancing; and since Arka showed no signs of capitulating, the leaders, Duke Robert among them, decided to abandon the siege and push on forthwith to Jerusalem.[114] Breaking camp 13 May, they advanced along the coast road by rapid marches, and on 7 June arrived before the Holy City,[115] ‘rejoicing and exulting.’[116]

Of the multitudes who had set out from Europe three years before, comparatively few had endured to complete this last stage of the pilgrimage. Not only were the ranks of the army greatly thinned, but half of the leaders had either fallen behind or turned back. The bishop of Le Puy had died at Antioch the previous August; Baldwin, Duke Godfrey’s brother, had turned aside to become count of Edessa; Bohemond had remained to pursue his ambitious schemes at Antioch; Hugh of Vermandois had been sent upon a mission to the Emperor; and Stephen of Blois had deserted and returned to Europe to face the reproaches of his more heroic Norman wife.

With forces so diminished, a complete investment of Jerusalem was out of the question. If the city was to be taken at all, it would have to be carried by storm. The crusaders, therefore, selected approaches and prepared for an assault upon the walls. If, as has been suggested, Robert Curthose had been, since the previous January, in the hire of Raymond of Toulouse,[117] the connection between them was now severed; and during the siege of Jerusalem Robert’s operations were strategically combined with those of Duke Godfrey and Robert of Flanders. With them he took up his position before the northern wall to the west of St. Stephen’s church.[118]

The assault upon the city on 13 June failed miserably through the almost complete lack of siege machinery; and it became clear that far more elaborate preparations would have to be made. It was decided, therefore, to construct at all costs two movable wooden siege towers and other apparatus.[119] Count Raymond assumed responsibility for one of the towers; the providing of the other was undertaken by Godfrey, Robert Curthose, and Robert of Flanders.[120] Owing to the barrenness of the region around Jerusalem, wood for the construction was not to be had near at hand; but guided by a friendly Syrian Christian, the two Roberts with a band of knights and foot soldiers made their way to a distant forest in the hills ‘in the direction of Arabia’, and, loading wood upon camels, brought it back to Jerusalem, where the building operations were pushed forward with feverish activity for almost four weeks.[121] When the work had almost reached completion, Godfrey and his associates determined upon a sudden change of plan; and, during the night of 9-10 July, they had their tower and other engines taken apart and moved a mile eastward towards the valley of Jehoshaphat, to a point where level ground offered a good approach, and where the wall was weaker, not having been reënforced by the beleaguered garrison.[122]

During the next three days the siege tower and other apparatus were again assembled and set in order for action; and at dawn 14 July the assault was begun.[123] All day long it was pressed with vigor, and though the defenders fought with the heroism of desperation, endeavoring to set fire to the tower as it was moved forward,[124] all their efforts failed. Next morning at daybreak the attack was renewed, Robert Curthose and Tancred operating the mangonels which cleared the way for the tower to be rolled up close to the wall.[125] The garrison still stood stoutly to the defence and let down bags filled with straw to break the shock of the missiles hurled from the mangonels. The Christians were filled with discouragement.[126] But as the hour approached at which the Saviour was raised upon the cross (9 A.M.), their mighty effort at last was crowned with success.[127] With burning arrows they managed to fire the sacks of straw with which the wall was protected; and as the flames burst forth the defenders were compelled to retire. Then dropping a bridge from the tower to the wall, the crusaders rushed across and carried all before them.[128] Soon the gates were opened and the city was given over to carnage and plunder.[129] With victory assured, the blood-stained warriors paused momentarily in their work of destruction, and, “rejoicing and weeping from excess of joy,” turned aside to render adoration at the Sepulchre and fulfil their vows;[130] but not for two days were the pillage and slaughter ended.[131]

It remained for the crusaders to elect a ruler of the newly conquered city and territory. After two conferences[132] and much discussion the choice of the leaders fell upon Godfrey of Bouillon, the position having first been offered to Raymond of Toulouse.[133] “Though unwilling,” Godfrey was elected “advocate of the church of the Holy Sepulchre.”[134] A generation later the belief was widely current that the honor had also been offered to Robert Curthose and declined by him;[135] but it rests upon no acceptable contemporary authority, and appears to have been a later invention.

Hardly had Godfrey been raised to his new dignity when he became involved in a dispute with the count of Toulouse, not unlike the quarrel which had arisen between Raymond and Bohemond after the capture of Antioch. Raymond was holding the Tower of David and declined to hand it over to the new ruler. But Godfrey was strongly supported in his just demand by Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders and by many even of Raymond’s own followers, who were eager to return home and desired the count to lead them; and under pressure Raymond, always sensitive to popular opinion, was obliged to yield.[136] It was during this same period that Duke Robert’s chaplain, Arnulf of Chocques, was raised to the dignity of acting patriarch of Jerusalem (1 August).[137] Though only a priest—perhaps not even in subdeacon’s orders—and of obscure birth, he had contrived by his learning, personality, and eloquence to make himself the leader of the anti-Provençal party; and his elevation to this high position was another notable victory for the enemies of Count Raymond.

Meanwhile a new peril arose to menace the crusaders in the enjoyment of their conquests. Before any of the leaders had completed their preparations for the homeward journey, news arrived that the emir Malik el-Afdhal, grand vizier of the caliph of Egypt, was rapidly approaching at the head of a great army.[138] Once more the crusaders were to be put to the test of a battle in the open with an enemy in greatly superior numbers. On 11 August the leaders concentrated their forces in the vicinity of Ascalon and prepared for battle.[139] Next morning at dawn they advanced into a pleasant valley near the seashore and drew up their forces in battle order. Duke Godfrey led the left wing, farthest inland, Count Raymond the right beside the sea, while the centre was commanded by the two Roberts, Tancred, and Eustace of Boulogne.[140] When all was ready, the crusaders moved forward, while the Saracens held their positions and awaited the attack.[141] As the opposing forces came together Robert Curthose perceived the standard of the emir—a lance of silver surmounted by a golden sphere—which served as the rallying point for the Saracen forces; and charging the standard-bearer at full speed, he wounded him mortally[142] and caused the standard itself to be captured by the crusaders. Spurred on by Robert’s brilliant example, the count of Flanders and Tancred dashed forward to the attack and carried all before them right into the enemy’s camp. The victory of the centre was complete; and the Saracens broke and fled, many of them being slain by the Christians who pursued them. Vast quantities of booty were taken and borne away by the victors to Jerusalem.[143] Robert of Normandy purchased for twenty marks of silver the standard of the emir, which had been captured by his own heroic act, and presented it to Arnulf, the acting patriarch, to be placed in the church of the Sepulchre as a memorial of the great victory.[144]

With the battle of Ascalon the contemporary histories of the Crusade come abruptly to an end, and it becomes more difficult than ever to piece together a connected account of the exploits of Robert Curthose in the Holy Land. If the account of Ordericus Vitalis can be trusted, he again assumed the rôle of mediator, together with Robert of Flanders, in the fresh quarrel which broke out between Godfrey and the count of Toulouse over the expected surrender of Ascalon.[145] But his efforts met with no success, and the Saracens, learning of the dissension among the leaders, closed their gates. For more than fifty years Ascalon remained in the hands of the enemy, a constant menace to the peace and prosperity of the Latin Kingdom.

Nothing now remained to detain longer in the Holy Land Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders, and other crusaders who had no personal ambitions to promote. Having bathed in the Jordan and gathered palms at Jericho according to the immemorial custom of Jerusalem-farers,[146] they took leave of Godfrey and Tancred and set forth upon the homeward journey in company with Count Raymond.[147] As they proceeded northward by the coast road they learned that Bohemond had taken advantage of their absence in the south to lay siege to the friendly city of Laodicea. But making a short halt at Jebeleh, they quickly came to an understanding with the Laodiceans; and when they had compelled Bohemond to retire from his disgraceful enterprise, they were received into the city with great rejoicing.[148] It was then the month of September.[149] Raymond, who by this time—as Chalandon has made perfectly clear[150]—was acting in close agreement with Alexius, garrisoned the fortresses in the Emperor’s name and remained to hold the city against the machinations of Bohemond.[151]

After a brief sojourn at Laodicea, Robert Curthose and Robert of Flanders and many of their comrades continued their homeward journey by sea,[152] embarking, apparently, upon imperial ships and sailing for Constantinople, where they were magnificently received by the Emperor.[153] To all who would enter his service he offered great rewards and honors; but the two Roberts desired to push on homeward without delay. Accordingly, he presented them with rich gifts and granted them markets and a free passage through his territories; and so they returned to Italy and were received with great rejoicing by Roger of Sicily, Roger Bursa, Geoffrey of Conversano, and other relatives and compatriots.[154]

Here Duke Robert paused and comfortably rested upon his enviable reputation while he enjoyed the sumptuous entertainment of admiring friends and made plans for the future. His position during this second sojourn in Italy was indeed an enviable one. For once in his life he had played a distinguished part in a great adventure worthy of the best traditions of the Normans. It is true that he had not displayed so great energy and resourcefulness as some of the other leaders. Bohemond and Tancred, had they been present, might in a measure have eclipsed his fame. But for the moment he stood without a rival; and it is little wonder that he gained the hand of one of the great heiresses of Norman Italy together with a dower sufficiently rich to enable him to redeem his duchy.[155]

The Crusade had been a fortunate venture in the life of Robert Curthose. He had set out from Normandy with a record of continuous failure and a reputation for weakness and incompetence. He was now returning with all the prestige and glory of a great crusading prince, his past sins and failures all forgotten. He was soon to become a hero of romance; and, among modern writers, Freeman has not hesitated to praise him as a skilled commander, “ever foremost in fight and council.”[156] But a careful reading of the sources hardly justifies the bestowal of such praise. Robert had, it is true, shown some fine qualities as a crusader. He had kept faith with the Greek Emperor and won his lasting gratitude. His generosity and good-fellowship had gained him many friends and followers,[157] and it is not recorded that any one was his enemy. As a warrior he had always fought with distinguished bravery, and in the battle of Ascalon, at least, he had performed a greater feat of arms than any of his comrades. He had gone to the Holy Land with no ulterior ambitions, and in this respect he stands in happy contrast with the self-seeking Bohemond and the grasping count of Toulouse. His disinterestedness had gained him a certain distinction enjoyed by no other crusader, save perhaps his cousin, Count Robert of Flanders; and it is not without reason that he appears frequently among the peacemakers, who in the general interest undertook to reconcile the quarrels of rival leaders. Yet he was still the same indulgent, affable, ‘sleepy duke,’[158] who had failed in the government of his duchy once and was to fail again. Though brave and active in the moment of danger, he was in no sense comparable as a general or as a statesman with such leaders as Bohemond and Godfrey; and on the whole the judgment of Freeman must be reversed. Robert was, so far as we know, never foremost in council; he was rarely foremost on the field of battle; and he showed no particular capacity for generalship. But with such qualities as he possessed, he was content to coöperate harmoniously with the more active and resourceful leaders, persevering on the way until the pagan had been vanquished and the Sepulchre had been won. Not unnaturally he returned to Europe in the enjoyment of fame and honor.