INTRODUCTION
The Fifth Crusade had its beginnings in 1213, when Pope Innocent III announced his intention to summon a council of the church to meet in 1215 to discuss reform of the church and the promotion of the crusade. It ended in Egypt in 1221 on the Nile road between Damietta and al-Man
rah with the surrender of a major part of the crusader army to the forces of the sultan, al-K
mil. Its failure marked the last time that a medieval pope would succeed in mounting a major expedition for the liberation of the Holy Land. This crusade involved more extensive planning and a greater commitment than any of its predecessors. Preachers carried its message to virtually all parts of Europe, from Scandinavia to Sicily, from Ireland to Poland. Its ranks were filled with men—and women—of myriad tongues. The greatest charismatic of the age, Francis of Assisi, visited the crusader camp. Through long periods of frustration and intense suffering, the crusader army persevered. In desperation over the threat it posed, the sultan offered several times to exchange Jerusalem for the conquered city of Damietta, the “key to Egypt,” but the crusaders refused. Finally, with victory seemingly in their grasp, they lost everything. Yet another disaster had been added to the heavy burden of failure that already weighed on the crusade movement and its supporters because of the meagre results of the Second and Third crusades and the turning of the Fourth Crusade from its goal in the East to the conquest of Constantinople and much of the Byzantine Empire.
Despite the intense interest among modern scholars in the history of the crusade, there has been no previous monograph dedicated completely to the Fifth Crusade, if we except the lengthy essay published by Hermann Hoogeweg a century ago.1 Shortly before Hoogeweg's work appeared, that indefatigable harvester of crusade sources, Reinhold Röhricht, had begun to collect materials relating to this expedition, which he published in three separate volumes between 1879 and 1891.2 The major beneficiaries of this industry have been the authors of the numerous general histories of the crusades, especially those who have included lengthier discussions of the Fifth Crusade in their multivolume studies.3 The most detailed treatment in English is that written by Thomas C. Van Cleve for Kenneth Setton's History of the Crusades.4 Among shorter histories, the best account is that found in Hans Eberhard Mayer's excellent synthesis The Crusades. There have been, however, numerous books and articles devoted to particular aspects of this crusade or individuals among its leaders. Helmut Roscher's Papst Innocenz III und die Kreuzzüge is a pathbreaking study of the development of that pope's idea of crusade and of the manner in which he worked to carry it out so long as he lived. Since Innocent died in 1216, however, Roscher has little to say about the implementation of the crusade by his successor, Pope Honorius III. Among crusade leaders, the cardinal legate, Pelagius, has attracted continuing attention and controversy.5 Other studies have dealt with John of Brienne, the king of Jerusalem; James of Vitry, the distinguished crusade preacher and bishop of Acre; and Robert Courçon, the papal legate who preached the crusade in France.6 There is a considerable literature devoted to Francis of Assisi's visit to the East.7 The Fifth Crusade has also attracted the attention of genealogists and historians interested in crusade participation.8 Special studies on canon law, preaching, and finance have contributed to our understanding of its place within the broader movement, as do those general works dealing with the developing ideology of the crusade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.9
The absence of a specific history of this crusade has been due not as much to a lack of interest as to the absorption of scholars with these other approaches. Recently, however, there has been a renewed concern with individual crusades, and this, combined with other trends in recent research, has demonstrated the need for a study of the Fifth Crusade by highlighting its importance in the history of the crusade movement in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.10
The dominant interpretations of the Fifth Crusade have hitherto focussed on military history, emphasizing personality conflicts and decrying the lack of effective leadership that led to the defeat of the crusader army.11 The leadership question, in both its political and military aspects, has exercised a continuing attraction for those interested in this crusade. As a consequence, most accounts have spent relatively little time on the background and preparation of the crusade. To a considerable degree, this approach reflects the attitudes found in contemporary chronicles and narratives that have provided the chief foundation for general histories of the crusades. From the time of Hoogeweg to the present, the figure of Cardinal Pelagius has remained central to these discussions. Although studies by Hassler, Donovan, and Mansilla have attempted to present Pelagius in a more favorable light, Mayer has not hesitated to lay a large part of the blame for the defeat of the crusaders at his door.12 Likewise, the failure of Emperor Frederick II to fulfill his crusade VOW has encouraged some historians to stress the tensions between the empire and papacy. For Van Cleve, papal-imperial conflict formed an ideological basis for Frederick's postponements of his vow to go on crusade and his quarrel with Pope Gregory IX after Frederick's failure to depart in 1227.13 Steven Runciman has been critical of the abilities of John of Brienne to provide the leadership needed by the crusader army at Damietta.14 Even Roscher, who did not discuss the Fifth Crusade in any detail, concluded that it failed because of the national rivalries of the participants and the conflict between Pelagius and other leaders of the crusade.15
On a related question, opinion has been more divided. Van Cleve and Mayer have argued that Innocent III deliberately excluded the crowned heads of Europe from this crusade in order to keep it an exclusively papal enterprise.16 Mayer maintained that Innocent was “most unpleasantly surprised when the young Hohenstaufen, Frederick II, took the cross in 1215.”17 Van Cleve regarded Frederick's action as a “declaration of independence from the papacy.”18 But Hans Martin Schaller suggested in 1957 that papal agents at Frederick's court both knew and approved of his assumption of the cross.19 More recently, Roscher not only accepted Schaller's position, but argued that Innocent had tried to ensure the participation of King John of England in the crusade as well.20 He stressed, however, that this crusade was a papal initiative and, to a large extent, a papal responsibility. The views of Mayer and Roscher have moved beyond this question, taking into account changes that had occurred in the papal office, especially under the forceful leadership of Innocent III. While it is true that the crusade, since its inception, had been the affair of the popes, no previous pope had marshalled the resources of his office and of the whole church so vigorously in its behalf. Mayer has suggested that Innocent was at least partially motivated by a desire to use the crusade to realize “his hierarchical ideas.”21 But he also recognized that this pope was sensitive to popular support for the crusade movement. A growing body of literature on the evolution of the idea of crusade in the eleventh and twelfth centuries had already tied its development to an emergent lay spirituality, which aspired to the monastic ideal of “imitatio Christi” and its pursuit in the gospel-inspired vita apostolica, with emphasis on evangelical poverty.22 The most original contributions of Mayer and Roscher have been in identifying the continuing influence of these ideas on the crusade, and especially in delineating Innocent III's own debt to them in the formulation of his ideas. The import of this research has shifted interest from the military history of the crusade toward the study of the society from which the movement sprang.
The present study is an attempt to carry this approach still further and at the same time to explore a number of problems that have not yet received the attention they deserve. In short, it builds on previous work on organization, preaching, and finance and develops previously neglected evidence concerning the recruitment and composition of the crusader army. This research provides the background and framework for a detailed narrative that places this crusade in the context of the movement as a whole. If there is any overriding theme, it is founded on an effort to seek a better understanding of the motives behind the crusade, the commitments made by so many in its behalf, and the reasons for its failure through an investigation of its relation to western European society in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.
Although we now have a good idea of Innocent's strong commitment and careful planning for the Fifth Crusade, much of the implementation of his program remains in shadow. Yet this aspect of his plan may well represent a more original and significant contribution to the crusade movement than his ideological formulations. While he certainly possessed an almost intuitive grasp of the connections between his program and the spiritual currents that enveloped the religious movements of his age, his great genius was as an innovative executor of a broadly conceived vision of the crusade. In some areas, such as the selection of crusade procurators, he drew on the administrative experience of the Roman curia.23 But the full significance of the roles of crusade legates, commissioners, and preachers has yet to be explored. Above all, previous assumptions regarding the relationship between preaching and recruitment have led to a neglect of the latter topic, which is so important for an understanding of such fundamental questions as the degree of popular interest in the crusade, the composition of the crusader army, and the effects of the recruitment effort on the outcome of the crusade. Through a number of case studies, I have tried to show that the recruitment process was much more complex than previously believed. Moreover, I have made a special effort to trace the relationship between the papal peace program, enacted to promote the crusade, and recruitment.
Techniques developed by social historians and others have enabled historians to pursue questions regarding the behavior of social groups in greater depth and precision than was previously possible. Through a computer-assisted analysis of information about origins, status, arrivals, and death or return of more than eight hundred individuals known to have taken vows to go on the Fifth Crusade, it has been possible to study the composition of the crusader army in somewhat greater detail, to see where its components originated, in what kind of groups they were organized, and how these functioned within the crusade host.24 A study of arrivals and, to a limited degree, of departures has shed light on the manpower problem that confronted crusade leaders. An examination of mortality rates has added another dimension to research on this question. As a result of these studies, it has been possible to recast the leadership question, which has been central in the explanation of the outcome of this crusade, by placing it against the background of the decision-making process and the options that were available to the leaders at various stages in the crusade.
It is no longer possible to view the Fifth Crusade merely in light of a lack of effective military leadership or as an indicator of the failure of the spiritual and temporal authorities within medieval society to work together in behalf of the crusade. Rather, we have to consider the capacity of western Europe to carry out the ambitious papal program developed between 1213 and 1215. Further, we are confronted with the reality that the papal plan for this crusade had implications that went well beyond its military goals. The linkages between the reform program of the papacy and the crusade, which had become increasingly more explicit during the twelfth century, now achieved a unity so intimate that failure of the crusade could affect the capacity of the papacy to provide effective leadership for the reform of the church. The future of the crusade movement was itself at risk. To write the history of the Fifth Crusade, therefore, is a task that goes well beyond the story of the disastrous defeat of the crusader army at Damietta. It involves an effort to examine the nature of the commitment of western European society to the crusade. The results of that examination indicate that the crusade was a victim of the increasing concentration of many western secular leaders on domestic priorities rather than on the universalism of the papal agenda for Latin Christendom.
As earlier writers have long recognized, it is possible to understand the origins of the Fifth Crusade only by studying its relationship to the two previous crusades that occurred during Innocent's reign. One was the Fourth Crusade, which he summoned in 1198; the other was the spontaneous outburst known as the Children's Crusade. The former was one of the major disappointments of the pope's pontificate; the latter showed the depth of popular frustration over the failure of the highest leaders of medieval society to liberate the Holy Places from the hands of the Moslems. The loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 and the meagre result of the Third Crusade, led by Frederick Barbarossa, Philip Augustus, and Richard the Lion-Hearted, at first shocked Europeans and then disappointed their hopes for the recapture of Jerusalem. The Third Crusade accomplished little more than to place the crusade more firmly on the agenda of Latin Europe.
Nevertheless, it was not until 1198, early in the pontificate of Innocent III, that planning began for a new crusade. From the start, Innocent, at thirty-seven the youngest medieval pope, took a more active role in promoting the new crusade than had Gregory VIII, the pope at the time of the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin, or Clement III, who succeeded him in 1187. It soon became apparent that the secular rulers of the West would not participate in the new crusade. The succession to the imperial crown remained unsettled after the death of Henry VI in 1197, and England and France were at war. In 1199, Richard the Lion-Hearted died, and his brother John carried on that struggle. During the Third Crusade, Richard and other secular rulers had enacted taxes or otherwise assumed chief responsibility for the cost of the crusade. Since there was no likelihood of their participation, Innocent in 1199 proclaimed a tax of a fortieth on ecclesiastical incomes for one year. The preaching of the crusade met with its greatest response in France and Italy. The nobility of Champagne, many with a family tradition of participation in the crusade, were especially prominent, at least until the death of their count.25 The most famous crusade preacher was Fulk of Neuilly, a parish priest who had studied at Paris, where he had imbibed many of the ideas of such reform-minded supporters of the crusade as Peter of Blois and Peter the Chanter. For him, “the true chosen ones” to achieve victory in the crusade through divine favor were the poor. The rich, led by the kings, had failed. This open appeal to those who advocated reform based on the evangelical virtues reflected their attitude that the future of the crusade depended more on moral preparation and divine favor than upon the power and wealth of secular rulers. It was a message with which the Paris-educated Innocent III could not help but be familiar.
The leaders of the crusade, were optimistic, and they entered into a treaty with the Venetians for transport that reflected their estimate of the numbers who would flock to the cross. Donald Queller has compellingly described the problems confronting the crusaders from this point.26 True to their agreement, the Venetians built ships and readied transport for the expected crusaders. But the projections of the leaders proved much too ambitious, and they found themselves unable to meet the payments required of them. Drawn into a web of intrigue and commitments, they first joined the Venetians in an attack on the Dalmatian port of Zara, to which the Venetians had laid claim. Successful in this endeavor, they were persuaded to aid Alexius IV, son of the deposed Byzantine emperor, in his bid to gain the throne of Constantinople. In return, he promised substantial aid for the crusade. The campaign to install Alexius in Constantinople was a success, but the results were disappointing. He was unable to deliver on most of his promises. The unhappy crusaders laid siege to the city and captured it in 1204. To the frustration of those who had already been disappointed by the meagre results of the Third Crusade was added this further failure. Few of the participants in this crusade journeyed on to the Holy Land. Moreover, a legacy of conflict between the Latin West and the Greek East received further stimulus from this event. Finally, the effort involved in trying to maintain the Latin conquests in Greece drained support from the crusade movement.
It was not merely the pope and the leadership of the church, or even the secular rulers, who felt the major impact of the diversion of the Fourth Crusade. These leaders were able to rationalize about the advantages, real or supposed, that sprang from the conquest of Constantinople. It was among the masses that disappointment was greatest. The failure of yet another crusade served to reinforce the view that Christians had not sufficiently prepared themselves to win God's support in their fight against the Moslems. Very likely, considerable dissatisfaction simmered after the failure of the Fourth Crusade. Whether this delayed reaction or some other trigger touched off the popular movements of the year 1212 is impossible to say. Already in the immediate aftermath of Pope Urban II's summons of the First Crusade in 1095 the so-called Peasants’ Crusade had revealed the potential of the crusade idea to inflame the popular imagination, especially of those people already caught up in the early poverty movement. By the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, such currents were, if anything, broader and deeper. The potential for a mass response was great. Recently, Peter Raedts, in his revisionist study of the Children's Crusade, has argued that dissatisfaction with the failure of the rich and powerful to achieve the liberation of the Holy Land was a significant factor in its origination.27
The Children's Crusade has long evoked images of misguided enthusiasm and tragic consequences. For Paul Alphandéry, it was a pilgrimage of innocents.28 Like the biblical Innocents, these too were led to betrayal, slavery, and slaughter. The works of Miccoli and Raedts, however, have questioned the traditional depiction of this movement as a children's crusade. Miccoli's reading of the evidence raised the question whether many of the participants were not adults rather than children. Raedts has further argued that the terms puer and pueri did not refer to children but to the class of dependents, and he has suggested a relationship of this group to the apostolic poverty movement.29 He has rejected a Marxist view of the movement as a social protest against the rich and powerful based on class in favor of the position that these “poor” were acting from a fundamentally religious motivation. They saw themselves as the elect of God for the liberation of the Holy Land. Theirs was the authentic “imitatio Christi,” they believed, and therefore God would surrender the Holy Land to them rather than to the rich and powerful.
The main thrust of these interpretations is that the Children's Crusade was a popular response to the failure of the crusades led by the kings and great magnates of western Europe. If true, this line of thought may help to explain some aspects of Innocent III's approach to the Fifth Crusade. Certainly it suggests a close relationship between the events of 1212 and the announcement of the council and the crusade in the following year. It is therefore valuable, to reexamine the movement in this light.
In the spring of 1212, shortly after Easter, masses of peasants, some members of the lower clergy, and perhaps some of higher station began to leave from the area around Cologne and head southward with the announced intention of liberating Jerusalem. Their numbers swelled as they moved through Trier and Speyer. About this time, a certain Nicholas, a youth but hardly a child, emerged as their leader. All along their path they were greeted with enthusiasm, fed, sheltered, and encouraged by the masses, though some among the clergy were critical of their judgment in thinking that they could succeed where their leaders had failed. They crossed into northern Italy by one of the Alpine passes and came to Piacenza. Apparently Innocent III had learned of their intentions and sent messengers to intercept them. There is no reliable record of what happened, but presumably he tried to discourage the unfit and the too young and to persuade the suitable to await an organized expedition. There is a suggestion of this, at least, in the story that he gave this advice to Nicholas, who later went on the Fifth Crusade in fulfillment of his vow. Of greater significance is the fact that the pope was apparently well informed regarding the nature and intent of this pilgrimage.
Shortly after the German group set out, a group of similar character left from the region around Vendôme and travelled perhaps to Paris or southward toward Marseilles. The account that records the arrival of these pilgrims in Paris says that they were sent back home by the king. Part of the tradition that describes their journey to Marseilles recounts how some found transport only to be shipwrecked. Merchants sold some of the survivors into slavery. Much less is securely known about the French group than about the Germans, and the later accounts already have the ring of legend. But we may be certain that the popular movement in the Rhineland at least had a counterpart in France.
On the eve of Innocent III's announcement of his intention to summon a council to discuss the reform of the church and the liberation of the Holy Land, an atmosphere of failure and frustration gripped the imagination of many among the lower classes. There was a clear need to examine and alter the agenda of the medieval church with respect to the crusade. At stake was the initiative the papacy had forged for itself during the course of the twelfth century. Western Europe was awaiting the response of the pope, and Innocent III grasped fully the need to go beyond the actions of his predecessors, but he was determined to do so only on the basis of a thorough rethinking and a detailed plan. He was not about to commit the church to precipitous action that might well end in yet another failure. It is this fundamental reevaluation of the crusade and the subsequent effort to carry out the resulting program that form the subject of this book.
NOTES
1. The lack of such an account was noted more than forty years ago by John L. LaMonte in “Some Problems in Crusading Historiography.” See Hoogeweg, “Der Kreuzzug von Damiette, 1218–1221.”
2. Röhricht, Quinti Belli sacri scriptores minores, Testimonia minora de quinto bello sacro, and Studien zur Geschichte des fünften Kreuzzuges. In the notes, these will be abbreviated as: SS, T, and FK.
3. The number of general histories of the crusades is legion. A listing of those published to the early 1960s may be found in Hans Eberhard Mayer, Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, 96–98, and the same author's “Literaturbericht über die Geschichte der Kreuzzüge,” esp. 679–84.
4. Van Cleve, “The Fifth Crusade.”
5. For a recent discussion of the leadership question, see my article “Honorius III and the Leadership of the Crusade.” This article represents a preliminary stage in my research, but it is useful for certain of its arguments and its citation of the literature.
6. Boehm, Johann von Brienne; Funk, Jakob von Vitry; and Dickson and Dickson, “Cardinal Robert de Courson.”
7. For references to the literature on Francis's mission to the East, see my article “Francesco d'Assisi e la Quinta Crociata: Una Missione di Pace.”
8. There are numerous studies of crusade participation by German, French, Italian, English, and other crusaders. Those dealing with the Fifth Crusade have been listed in the bibliography. Among the more significant recent studies have been Dieter Rüdebusch, Der Anteil Niedersachsens an den Kreuzzügen und Heidenfahrten, and Dieter Wojtecki, Studien zur Personengeschichte des deutschen Ordens in 13. Jahrhundert.
9. Special studies may be found in the bibliography, but see especially Étienne Delaruelle, L'idée de croisade au moyen âge, which contains the important essays written by this scholar on the ideological development of the idea of crusade.
10. See, for example, Donald Queller, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201–1204, and William C. Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade.
11. See, for example, Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3: 170. See also Mayer, Crusades, 218.
12. Mayer, 218; Hassler, Heerführer der Kurie, Donovan, Pelagius, and Mansilla “pelayo Gaitan.”
13. Van Cleve, “Crusade of Frederick II.”
14. Runciman, Crusades, 3: 170.
15. Roscher, Innocenz III, 167.
16. Van Cleve, “Fifth Crusade,” 378; Mayer, Crusades, 205–7.
17. Mayer, Crusades, 209.
18. Van Cleve, “Crusade of Frederick II,” 431.
19. Schaller, “Kanzlei,” esp. 257.
20. Roscher, Innocenz III, 153–58. For a different view on John's assumption of the vow, see Christopher R. Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England, 262–63.
21. Mayer, Crusades, 205.
22. Mayer and Roscher have relied on the works of Paul Alphandéry, La Chrétienté et l'idée de croisade, and E. Delaruelle, L'idée de croisade, as well as the substantial literature on the papacy and the reform movements of the twelfth century.
23. Roscher, Innocenz III, 148–52, and Pixton, “Anwerbung.”
24. See appendixes 2, 3, and 4. The basis for this research was the list published by Röhricht in his Studien zur Geschichte des fünften Kreuzzuges, 79–135, augmented by Beatrice N. Siedschlag, English Participation in the Crusades, 1150–1220 (hereafter cited as Sied.), and numerous other studies and sources. This process has involved an enormous task of checking and correcting, removing duplications, and searching for verification of doubtful entries. There if no pretense that the list is complete, but every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy.
25. Longnon, Compagnons de Villehardouin.
26. Queller, Fourth Crusade.
27. Raedts, “Children's Crusade of 1212.” Raedts provides a detailed discussion of the primary and secondary literature dealing with this crusade.
28. Alphandéry, Chrétienté, 2: 115–28.
29. Miccoli, “La crociata dei fanciulli”; Raedts, “Children's Crusade of 1212,” 295–300.