Pt 2
We shall therefore turn first to the people who were critical of western chivalry or who fought against it as enemies. If we look at the testimony of a competent but critical observer such as Anna Comnena, daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus, certain traits in the character of the western knight are represented by the Norman adventurer, a great warrior, tough and brave, rough and sometimes reckless. Count Robert of Flanders would yield to no one when he joined battle with the Saracens with some of his knights in the van of the crusaders' army. However, speaking of the time when she had to make an excuse on her father's behalf for not having hurried to the aid of the western knights after the capture of Antioch in 1098 during the First Crusade, Anna Comnena made this generalization about the tactics and strategy of the crusaders, whom she calls Celts:
The Celtic race … is independent and does not like asking for advice; they have no military discipline nor strategic skill, but as soon as they have to fight and do battle, a raging fury seizes their hearts and they become irresistible, common soldiers and leaders alike. They hurl themselves with invincible impetus into the midst of the enemy ranks as soon as the latter give a little ground. If, however, the enemy goes on laying ambushes with the necessary experience in the art of war, and attacks them according to its rules, then their courage collapses into despair. To put it shortly, the Celts are invincible in the first onslaught, but after that they are easy to overcome because their arms and equipment are very heavy, and they behave recklessly because of their impulsive nature.
Elsewhere she says: 'The Celtic race … is indeed very fiery and impetuous; once it has taken the initiative it can no longer be restrained.' This judgement agrees with the contemptuous comment of the emir Ousama ibn Munquidh on the striking force of the crusaders. In his autobiography he wrote: 'Anyone who knows anything about the Franks has looked on them as beasts, outdoing all others in courage and warlike spirit, just as animals are our superiors when it comes to strength and aggression'. But, as is clear from the words of Ousama, such a judgement is purely relative. It is made in comparison with what he saw among his own people, and this is true of the comment of Anna Comnena, who was going by what she knew of the Byzantine warriors of her day, who were not outstanding.
These judgements are too general, and do not go to the root of the matter. The essence of this can be seen in the opinion the Bedouin held of the crusaders: li Frans qui s'arme pour poour de mort! 'The Franks wear armor because they fear death!'
The formidable men in iron were held to be courageous and undaunted thanks to the armor that protected them. In its turn, this does not alter the fact that this contemptuous judgement by the Saracens was largely prompted by jealousy, because they had no such excellent protective armor themselves. The Moslems fled whenever the heavily armored knights attacked them, in order to save their lives from the long lances. At Arsuf, three successive charges by the crusaders were enough to dissuade the Saracens from making any effort at resistance in the open field for the rest of the campaign.
Fear of death, of mutilation, of wounds—there we have the chief tactical problem, for the art of war is to achieve victory with the smallest possible losses. To defeat the enemy, soldiers have to overcome their inborn fear, and despite all inner anxiety carry out the orders of their superiors. The tactical aim must therefore be to allay fear in one's own army while striving to instil panic into the enemy, if this can be done.
This vital aspect of the behaviour of men in knightly combat has not been studied by many scholars. Neglect of such an interesting field of investigation, throwing a new clear light on the psychology of knights, is doubtless due to the excellent repute noble horsemen have for this. The great individual fighter, as the classic representation of him will have it, knew no fear. Undaunted, he continued to fight until his strength was exhausted, even until the last man was driven from the bloody field of battle.
This over-simplified picture of undaunted gallantry is not really a true one. Fear in the fighting man in time of war and on the battlefield is easy to see: if it is not quickly mastered men take to their heels, fleeing in whole units, or becoming panic-stricken. To begin with a well-known example, the defection of some crusaders in the First Crusade, especially at Antioch, may be cited.
After a good start, everything went wrong, and matters became so serious that Peter the Hermit and Guillaume le Charpentier, burgrave of Melun, fled. They were overtaken by Tancred, who brought them back to the field. Bohemond publicly denounced Guillaume, whose companions begged mercy for their guilty brother-in-arms: they all understood human weakness, and knew that some men were not strong enough to overcome it. Things became still worse when the crusaders, after taking the city, found themselves encircled by a new enemy army and chose to remain in their houses instead of storming the Turkish citadel, which was still holding out and constituted a terrible danger. The knights were shaking with hunger, and fear. Just before the city fell, Stephen of Blois forsook the crusaders, despite the fact that he had formerly held an important position, possibly that of supreme commander. When he met Alexius Comnenus some time later the army he'd abandoned had, naturally, been wiped out to the last man, or so the fugitives asserted!
Fulcher of Chartres frankly recognised what difficulties the crusaders had faced in the first great battle, at Doryleum in 1097, and how afraid the knights were: 'We were all herded together like sheep in a sheepfold, trembling and frightened, and were gradually totally surrounded by the enemy'. Later, when he accompanied Baldwin of Boulogne on the latter's journey to Jerusalem, where Baldwin was to succeed his deceased brother Godfrey, he admits: 'We feigned bravery but feared death.'
On the same journey Baldwin addressed his knights thus: 'Let those who are afraid turn back.' He knew very well that no one would dare acknowledge his fear publicly and lag behind; but during the night a number of men disappeared, both knights and footsoldiers. Similarly the Norman jongleur Ambroise, whose Estoire de la guerre sainte is one of the best sources for the Third Crusade, relates how the majority of the fighting men and pilgrims were so terrified at the beginning of the battle of Arsuf that they all wished the expedition were over.
