The Eight Princes and Their Changing Priorities (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes

The Eight Princes and Their Changing Priorities

Introduction: leadership of the First Crusade

Unlike later military campaigns, the First Crusade lacked a single unified commander who could direct operations with clear authority. Instead, leadership was divided among eight princes from across Europe, each bringing their own political agendas, expectations, and priorities. This fragmented command structure would profoundly shape the course of the crusade.

The absence of centralised leadership meant that success depended on cooperation between leaders who often had conflicting interests. Understanding who these leaders were, what they hoped to gain, and how their priorities shifted during the campaign is essential to understanding the First Crusade's outcome.

The four contingents and their leaders

The crusading armies were organised into four main contingents - groups of forces sharing a common regional identity and leadership:

German and Lotharingian contingent:

• Led by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin of Boulogne
• Represented the interests of the Holy Roman Empire region
• Had a complex relationship with the papacy due to past conflicts

Northern French contingent:

• Led by four princes: Hugh of Vermandois, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, and Stephen of Blois
• Represented the nobility of northern France
• Generally more cooperative with papal authority

Southern French and Provençal contingent:

• Led by Raymond of Toulouse (also known as Raymond of Saint-Gilles)
• Accompanied by the pope's personal representative, Adhemar of Le Puy
• Strong papal supporters with ambitions for leadership

Italian Norman contingent:

• Led by Bohemond of Taranto and his nephew Tancred of Hauteville (though Tancred lacked princely status)
• Had previous military experience fighting against the Byzantine Empire
• Known for tactical skill but also territorial ambitions

The People's Crusade

Before the princes' armies departed, a first wave of approximately 40,000 crusaders, mainly peasants, left Europe in spring 1096. Led by Peter the Hermit and Walter Sansavoir, this poorly organised force reached Constantinople on 1 August 1096. Their undisciplined behaviour caused such problems that Byzantine Emperor Alexius I quickly shipped them to Asia Minor. Lacking military training and coordination, they established a camp at Civetot but were massacred by Turkish forces in October 1096. The few survivors joined the main princely armies at Nicomedia in May 1097, serving as a cautionary example of what could happen without proper leadership and organisation.

The aims and priorities of the eight princes

Stated aim versus actual outcomes

While all crusaders publicly claimed their primary goal was to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims, the actual outcomes for each leader reveal their true priorities:

Godfrey of Bouillon (German and Lotharingian):

• Fully committed to the stated crusading goal
• Fought through to the end at the Battle of Ascalon in August 1099
• Became the first Christian ruler of Jerusalem, taking the title "Defender of the Holy Sepulchre"
• His actions aligned most closely with the crusade's religious aims

Baldwin of Boulogne (German and Lotharingian):

• Initially participated in the crusade but his priorities shifted dramatically
• Conquered the city of Edessa in 1098 and established himself as Count of Edessa
• Abandoned the main crusading army to secure his own territory in northern Syria
• Only partially contributed to the stated aim, prioritising personal territorial gain

Hugh of Vermandois (Northern French):

• First prince to arrive at Constantinople in August 1096
• Helped secure Antioch but abandoned the crusade afterwards
• Returned home rather than continuing to Jerusalem
• Only partial contribution to the crusading goal

Robert of Normandy (Northern French):

• Remained committed throughout the entire campaign
• Fought to the end at the Battle of Ascalon
• Successfully contributed to capturing Jerusalem
• One of the more reliable leaders

Robert of Flanders (Northern French):

• Like Robert of Normandy, stayed committed to the end
• Fought at the Battle of Ascalon
• Fully contributed to achieving Jerusalem
• His father had previously sent military aid to Byzantium, establishing good relations

Stephen of Blois (Northern French):

• Participated in early stages, including the siege of Antioch
• Deserted when the siege appeared to be failing, fearing for his safety
• Abandoned the crusade before Jerusalem was reached
• Only partial contribution; his desertion damaged morale

Bohemond of Taranto (Italian Norman):

• Played crucial role in capturing Antioch through tactical brilliance
• Once Antioch was secured, established himself as Prince of Antioch
• Left the main crusade to consolidate his new principality
• Partially contributed but ultimately prioritised personal territorial ambition

Raymond of Toulouse (Southern French):

• Fought through to the Battle of Ascalon
• His desire to secure territory slowed the crusade at times
• After the First Crusade, became Count of Tripoli
• Fully participated but his ambition for leadership created tensions
• Attempted unsuccessfully to become overall commander-in-chief

What the outcomes reveal

The varied outcomes demonstrate three different priority types among the princes:

1. Religious commitment: Leaders like Godfrey, Robert of Normandy, and Robert of Flanders who fought through to Jerusalem
2. Territorial ambition: Leaders like Baldwin and Bohemond who used the crusade to establish personal principalities
3. Limited commitment: Leaders like Stephen and Hugh who withdrew when faced with difficulties

Divisions among the princes: political background

Long before reaching the Holy Land, deep divisions existed between the princes based on three key factors:

Attitude towards the papacy

The princes' relationships with Pope Urban II varied dramatically:

Papal supporters:

• Raymond of Toulouse was closely aligned with the papacy and travelled with the pope's representative, Adhemar of Le Puy
• This gave Raymond moral authority and positioned him as the pope's favoured leader
• Northern French princes generally supported papal authority

Papal opponents:

• Godfrey of Bouillon had supported Emperor Henry IV of Germany during the Investiture Controversy
• He had participated in the siege of Rome in the early 1080s against the papacy
• Though no longer openly hostile, his past created distrust, particularly with Raymond
• This political background inevitably affected cooperation between leaders

Relationship with Alexius I and the Byzantine Empire

Previous interactions with Byzantine Emperor Alexius I created significant tensions:

Hostile relationships:

• Bohemond of Taranto and the Italian Normans had fought against Alexius
• Between June 1081 and February 1082, Bohemond besieged the Byzantine city of Durazzo
• This military history made Alexius deeply suspicious of Bohemond's intentions
• The Byzantines feared the Italian Normans might use the crusade as cover for conquest

Friendly relationships:

• Robert of Flanders' father, Robert I of Flanders, had sent 500 knights to support Alexius in the 1090s
• This established positive relations and trust
• Made Robert more willing to cooperate with Byzantine requests

Neutral relationships:

• Other princes had limited prior contact with Byzantium
• Their attitudes would be shaped by their crusading experiences

These different relationships meant Alexius treated princes differently and that cooperation between them was complicated by conflicting loyalties.

Attitude towards power and territorial ambition

Perhaps most significantly, princes differed in their desire for personal power:

Power-hungry leaders:

• Bohemond of Taranto demonstrated extraordinary determination to secure Antioch as his own principality
• Used tactical brilliance and political manipulation to achieve his territorial goals
• Raymond of Toulouse sought to become overall commander-in-chief of all crusading armies
• Pursued glory and control, creating rivalries with other leaders
• Baldwin of Boulogne actively sought territory from the beginning, eventually securing Edessa

Reluctant crusaders:

• Stephen of Blois had no desire for additional power or territory
• This lack of ambition translated into weak commitment to the crusade
• When faced with danger at Antioch, he deserted rather than risk his life for limited personal gain

Committed crusaders:

• Leaders like Godfrey of Bouillon and the two Roberts appeared genuinely motivated by religious goals rather than territorial expansion
• More willing to cooperate for the common purpose of reaching Jerusalem

The journey to Constantinople: staggered departures

Different routes, different timing

The four contingents chose separate routes across Europe to reach their assembly point at Constantinople. More significantly, they departed at different times, ensuring they would not arrive together:

August 1096 - Hugh of Vermandois:

• Departed alone, without waiting for fellow northern French princes
• Travelled via the Italian port of Bari
• Shipwrecked en route to Durazzo and had to be rescued by Byzantine forces
• First to arrive at Constantinople
• His early solo arrival demonstrated the lack of coordination from the start

Early autumn 1096 - Godfrey of Bouillon (German and Lotharingian):

• Faced the longest and most difficult overland route
• Crossed through Hungary, a potentially hostile territory
• Forced to temporarily surrender his brother Baldwin as a hostage to ensure safe passage
• This humiliation illustrated the dangers of the journey

October 1096 - Bohemond of Taranto (Italian Norman):

• Lived closest to the Byzantine Empire's borders
• Crossed the Adriatic Sea relatively quickly
• Arrived at Constantinople well before the southern French

Late November 1096 - Raymond of Toulouse (Southern French):

• Chose a long south-eastern route through Europe
• This route significantly slowed their journey
• Last contingent to depart, creating the longest delay

Consequences of staggered arrivals

Negative impacts:

• Delayed the start of military operations by months
• Crusaders who arrived early had to wait, consuming supplies and creating local tensions
• Prevented unified strategic planning from the beginning
• Demonstrated the lack of common purpose and coordination

Positive impacts:

• Prevented any single region having to feed and provision the entire crusading army simultaneously
• Reduced the strain on local resources along the route
• Gave each contingent time to negotiate separately with Alexius I

The oath of vassalage: early divisions intensify

Alexius I's demand

When the princes' armies arrived at Constantinople between late 1096 and early 1097, Emperor Alexius I faced a dilemma. He distrusted some leaders and feared the disorder thousands of armed Westerners might cause. His solution was to demand an oath of vassalage from each prince.

Terms of the oath:

• Princes must swear to return any lands they captured that had previously belonged to the Byzantine Empire
• In exchange, Alexius guaranteed military support and supplies
• For medieval people, oath-breaking was considered an extraordinarily serious sin
• The oath would theoretically bind the crusaders to Byzantine interests

Different responses to the oath

The princes' varying responses to this demand revealed their true intentions and deepened existing divisions:

Those who took the oath seriously:

Godfrey of Bouillon:

• Initially resisted taking the oath
• Entered lengthy negotiations with Alexius
• Only swore the oath on 20 April 1097 after Alexius temporarily cut off his supplies
• Once sworn, he understood the seriousness of his commitment
• His later actions suggest he genuinely intended to honour the oath regarding Byzantine territory

Northern French princes (Hugh of Vermandois, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, Stephen of Blois):

• All took the oath without objection on or around 20 April 1097
• Their ready acceptance suggests their primary priority remained capturing Jerusalem
• They had no intention of claiming former Byzantine lands
• This attitude aligned with the crusade's stated religious purpose

Those who took the oath dishonestly:

Bohemond of Taranto:

• Took the oath on 10 April 1097
• Had absolutely no intention of keeping it
• His subsequent actions during the siege of Antioch proved his dishonesty
• Used tactical cunning to secure Antioch for himself despite the oath
• This demonstrates how some leaders viewed the oath as merely a formality to be ignored when convenient

Raymond of Toulouse:

• Arrived at Constantinople on 21 April 1097
• Outright refused to take the oath as Alexius demanded
• Instead, swore only to maintain the emperor's "life and honour" - a much weaker commitment
• This modified oath left him free to claim former Byzantine territory
• Revealed his territorial ambitions, particularly regarding Antioch
• Created tension with Alexius and princes who had sworn the full oath

Those who avoided the oath entirely:

Baldwin of Boulogne and Tancred of Hauteville:

• Both completely bypassed Constantinople
• Avoided taking any oath to Alexius
• Free to pursue territorial ambitions without any commitment to Byzantium
• Baldwin's later conquest of Edessa was made easier by this freedom from obligation

Significance of the oath controversy

The different responses to Alexius's oath divided the crusading leadership into clear groups:

• Group 1: Those committed primarily to reaching Jerusalem (northern French, Godfrey)
• Group 2: Those planning to claim territory regardless of oaths (Bohemond, Raymond)
• Group 3: Those who avoided commitment altogether (Baldwin, Tancred)

This division would have profound consequences for the crusade's progress and the ultimate fate of captured cities, particularly Antioch.

Turning point: the siege of Nicaea (May-June 1097)

First test of cooperation

The siege of Nicaea marked the first major military operation where the crusading leaders had to work together. The city was strategically important and heavily fortified, requiring coordinated action from all contingents.

Arrival timeline:

• Early May 1097: Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of Flanders, Hugh of Vermandois, and Tancred of Hauteville arrived
• 14 May 1097: Bohemond's forces joined the siege
• Two weeks later: Remaining armies arrived
• This meant no serious assault began until all forces had assembled

Combined strategy for success

The princes developed a dual approach that demonstrated effective cooperation:

Naval blockade:

• Crusaders blockaded the Askanian Lake surrounding Nicaea
• Cut off the city's main supply route by water
• Required coordination between different contingents controlling different sectors

Land siege:

• Maintained continuous pressure with ground forces
• Prevented any relief forces from reaching the garrison
• Divided responsibilities among the various princely armies

Result:

• On 18 June 1097, Nicaea surrendered
• The city was handed over to Byzantine control (honouring the oaths sworn to Alexius)
• First major military success of the crusade

Development of the Council of Princes

The siege's success taught the leaders crucial lessons about coordination. They established the Council of Princes - a formal decision-making body that would guide the crusade in the absence of a single commander:

How it functioned:

• Provided a forum for joint decision-making
• Included all major princely leaders
• Allowed debate and consensus-building
• Made strategic and tactical decisions collectively

Key decisions at Nicaea:

• Chose the combined land and naval blockade strategy
• Divided the army into two waves for the journey ahead
• One wave under Bohemond of Taranto
• Second wave under Raymond of Toulouse
• This division aimed to make collecting or purchasing supplies easier by spreading troops over a larger area

Established communication protocols:

• Agreed to maintain frequent contact between the two waves
• Set up systems for mutual support if either wave was attacked

Success at Dorylaeum: cooperation in action

The effectiveness of these new arrangements was quickly tested at Dorylaeum:

The crisis:

• Bohemond of Taranto and Robert of Normandy's wave was attacked by Turkish forces
• They were significantly outnumbered and in danger of being overwhelmed

The response:

• The two princes took up a defensive position
• Successfully communicated with Raymond of Toulouse's second wave
• The second wave rapidly marched to support them
• Combined forces made the Turks retreat

What it demonstrated:

• The Council of Princes' planning worked under battlefield conditions
• Leaders were willing to risk their own forces to save others
• Survival required cooperation more than individual glory
• At least in Asia Minor, shared priorities temporarily overcame divisions

Baldwin's conquest of Edessa (1097-98): first prince to abandon the crusade

Conflict in Cilicia

On 10 September 1097, both Tancred of Hauteville and Baldwin of Boulogne left the main crusading army. They travelled through Cilicia on their way south to Antioch, but used this as an opportunity to capture territory for themselves.

Conflict at Tarsus:

• Tancred captured Tarsus and raised his banners, claiming the town
• Baldwin's larger army arrived and he forcibly pulled down Tancred's banners
• Replaced them with his own, claiming Tarsus through superior military strength
• First example of crusaders fighting over territorial control

Conflict at Mamistra:

• Tancred took control of this town
• Baldwin contested his claim, leading to actual fighting between crusading forces
• This was the first instance of crusaders fighting each other rather than Muslims
• Both sides eventually withdrew from direct combat

Baldwin's decision:

• Rather than continue competing with Tancred in Cilicia
• Decided to seek territory further east
• Allowed Tancred to garrison his Cilician conquests
• Tancred resumed his journey south and rejoined the main crusade
• Baldwin went east with different priorities entirely

Journey to Edessa

Baldwin moved eastward with clear territorial ambitions:

Early conquests:

• Successfully captured Ravanda
• Took Tilbesar (Turbezel)
• Built a growing reputation as a powerful military leader
• His success preceded his arrival at Edessa

Invitation to Edessa:

• Edessa was under Armenian Christian rule, governed by Toros
• Unable to defend themselves effectively against Turkish attacks
• On 6 February 1098, Toros invited Baldwin to become his adopted son and heir
• This arrangement would give Baldwin legitimate claim to rule Edessa
• In return, Baldwin's military strength would protect the city

Toros's murder:

• Toros was deeply unpopular with the local population
• On 9 March 1098, he was murdered in a local uprising
• Baldwin became ruler of Edessa as the designated heir
• Set about consolidating complete control of his new county

Significance of Baldwin's actions

Impact on the First Crusade:

• Removed a capable military leader from the campaign
• Deprived the crusading army of his forces
• Set a precedent for other princes to establish personal territories
• Demonstrated that territorial ambition could outweigh crusading vows

Baldwin's achievement:

• Established the first crusader state in the East
• County of Edessa became a crucial buffer territory protecting crusader-held lands
• Created a model other princes would follow (particularly Bohemond at Antioch)
• Though he abandoned the immediate crusading goal, his county served long-term Christian interests in the region

Revealing priorities:

• Baldwin clearly valued personal territorial gain over the stated aim of capturing Jerusalem
• His actions showed how quickly princely priorities could shift
• Once an opportunity for power presented itself, religious motivations became secondary
• The ease with which he left the crusade demonstrated weak commitment to the collective goal

Summary