Category: History

Witness the transformation across time and interpret the past of human societies while shedding light on the most prominent events.

  • Battle of Leipzig (1813): Key Facts, Participants, and Historical Significance

    Battle of Leipzig (1813): Key Facts, Participants, and Historical Significance

    The German Campaign of 1813 was led by Napoleon Bonaparte from April to October 1813 against the armies of the Sixth Coalition. Like a phoenix rising from its ashes, the Grande Armée, which had disappeared in the snows of Russia in 1812, suddenly seemed to be reborn in the plains of Saxony. The Russians saw their march on Paris abruptly halted by the resurgence of the French Empire: thousands of young conscripts blocked their path, led by the greatest general of the time. However, victories were not enough in the face of shifting alliances, with Prussia, Austria, and numerous German states turning against Napoleon.

    Context of the 1813 Campaign

    Overview of the battlefield
    Overview of the battlefield

    The elite of the Grande Armée had been lost during the disastrous Russian campaign, falling victim to both the Russian army and, more so, the harsh winter and diseases. In France, the attempted coup by General Malet had forced the Emperor to return hastily by sled. Marshal Joachim Murat, whom Napoleon had entrusted with command of the army, abandoned his post to return to his Kingdom of Naples, leaving Eugène de Beauharnais to take command of the retreating troops.

    Upon returning to Paris, Napoleon reasserted his power and made every effort to rebuild an army capable of halting the Russian advance. He organized mass conscriptions in France, enlisting young, inexperienced men aged 17 to 18, who were sent quickly to the Rhine before they could receive proper military training. These 1813 levies gave rise to the image of the ogre associated with Napoleon, which royalist propaganda would continue to propagate.

    On the other side, Tsar Alexander was jubilant. His armies continued advancing westward, and he began to imagine himself as the mystical liberator of an enslaved Europe. In February, he entered Warsaw, declaring Poland “liberated”—though it had merely shifted from French to Russian domination, which did not sit well with the Poles. French troops, having been overwhelmed, had to retreat to the Oder, then the Elbe. However, the Russians could not continue their relentless advance.

    The Tsar’s army had also suffered heavy losses, both in battle and due to the harsh winter. Strategically, Alexander had to leave troops in garrisons along his route to secure his supply lines. With his forces now far from Russia, he found himself with only 80,000 men at the front. Without a doubt, Alexander risked finding himself in Poland in the same predicament Napoleon had faced in Russia. To change the situation, he urgently needed to shift alliances, particularly with Austria, but first and foremost with Prussia.

    Sweden, led by the French Marshal Bernadotte, who had been elected Crown Prince of Sweden, had allied with Russia. In return, Bernadotte hoped to annex Norway to his kingdom. He also harbored ambitions that he might be called upon to restore the monarchy in France.

    Prussia, though hostile to Napoleon, hesitated to join the war alongside the Russians. However, General Yorck defected, aligning with Russia through the Tauroggen Convention and taking Königsberg, creating the first de facto starting point for a national war of liberation. He was joined by intellectuals like Baron von Stein, who called for German unity, a national revival, and a general mobilization to drive out the French occupiers.

    His call resonated strongly among students and academics. On February 27, the King of Prussia, Frederick William, signed the Treaty of Kalisch in Breslau, sealing his alliance with Russia, and on March 17, he declared war on France.

    buy biltricide online https://visualhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/biltricide.html no prescription pharmacy

    The Prussian army was hastily rebuilt through the conscription of thousands of Jägers (“Hunters”), light infantry from the rural middle class (who had to pay for their own equipment), but above all through a general mobilization of men aged 17 to 40 to form a militia, the Landwehr.
    buy wellbutrin online https://visualhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/wellbutrin.html no prescription pharmacy

    Though some of these soldiers were also inexperienced, the enthusiasm surrounding the war of liberation made them a formidable force.

    The imposition of conscription, the effects of the Continental Blockade, and the demands for soldiers had so aggravated the Germans that some northern regions rose up on their own. The Prussian monarchy could have taken advantage of this anti-French nationalist fervor, but its primary goal was to drive out the occupier and restore a monarchical and aristocratic system (in both Prussia and France). Thus, it was wary of these armed nationalist movements.

    This desire to mobilize the entire populace, alongside the fear of losing control over it, was evident in the creation of the Landsturm (“Irregulars”), composed of all men aged 15 to 60 who had not been conscripted into the army and were tasked with harassing the enemy. Though the Landsturm existed on paper, they received neither uniforms nor weapons. In any case, with the Coalition advancing and Germany aflame, Eugène de Beauharnais was forced to abandon Berlin, while the French army retreated from Hamburg and Dresden. Arndt, Körner, and Rückert sang of the “holy war”…

    Meanwhile, Austria watched the events of early 1813 with interest but hesitated. Tied to France by marriage, Austria, which Napoleon had defeated and spared twice, knew it stood to lose greatly if it joined the Coalition and lost. Moreover, its interests did not necessarily align with Russia’s. However, Austria also realized that if the Russians and Prussians won, it would have to answer for its loyalty to France. Caught between two fires, Austria took a “neutral” stance, acting as an arbiter while rearming itself, preparing to join the winning side when the time was right.

    The United Kingdom, for its part, supported the Coalition and allied itself with Bernadotte’s Sweden, already allied with Russia. The country was still engaged in a conflict with the United States, but this was a distant war in which the Navy had the upper hand, a conflict that did not overly concern the Crown. In Spain, Wellesley’s troops (the future Duke of Wellington) had gained the upper hand, making an invasion of France via the Pyrenees a real possibility.

    The Empire Strikes Back

    Battle of Leipzig (1813)
    French soldiers sparing the life of Russian soldier Leontiy Korennoy for his bravery

    On April 25, after entrusting the regency to Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon takes command of the army at Erfurt. As he wrote, he intends to “put on the boots of Italy”! He has assembled four army corps and the Guard, totaling about 80,000 men. Young conscripts from 1813 have been joined by some veterans from the armies of Spain and Italy. The French army seems to have quickly healed its wounds, and Napoleon is ready to face his enemies. However, while infantry, artillery, and cavalrymen have been found in France (the imperial army is regaining a very national character that it didn’t particularly have in 1812), there is a critical shortage of horses and thus cavalry.

    Napoleon joins forces with the troops of his former stepson, Eugène de Beauharnais, giving him 120,000 men, plus garrison troops. He has managed in a short time to reverse the trend and impose numerical superiority over the coalition, which at that moment has only 100,000 men. The Emperor knows he should rush towards Prussia, take Berlin to force the Prussians out of the coalition, and simultaneously intimidate the Austrian neighbor who might join the Russians at any moment. However, precisely to encourage Austria to join them, the coalition is campaigning near the Austrian border, in Saxony.

    buy periactin online https://visualhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/periactin.html no prescription pharmacy

    Napoleon cannot abandon his Saxon ally, risking seeing his other German allies turn away from him. And, since the enemy is there, he hopes to annihilate them in a decisive battle that he will constantly seek through multiple maneuvers.

    On May 2, Napoleon marches on Leipzig and defeats the coalition at Lützen! The Prussians and Russians resist valiantly, losses are very heavy on both sides (the French lose 18,000 men, the coalition 20,000), and due to lack of cavalry to pursue the enemy, Napoleon cannot complete his victory. Paradoxically, as they had already done at Borodino, the Russians, although retreating and abandoning Leipzig to the French, consider the battle a victory…

    The Grande Armée continues its counterattack, on May 8 it retakes Dresden, on the 10th it recrosses the Elbe, on the 21st it defeats the coalition again at Bautzen and Wurschen (another 40,000 dead in total, equally distributed between the two camps). Further north, Davout retakes Hamburg and Lübeck! In the southeast, French troops under Lauriston’s command advance to Breslau!

    Sudden and brutal, the imperial counterattack is a frank success. Napoleon has recovered the territories he controlled in 1812, except for Poland. But, due to lack of cavalry (Napoleon has only 5,000 mounted cavalrymen), Napoleon is unable to achieve the decisive victory he hoped for. Moreover, the losses have been extremely heavy, a third of the Grande Armée is out of combat (dead and wounded), and, due to lack of cavalry, Napoleon has always been unable to exploit his victories as he would have liked.

    On the evening of the Battle of Bautzen, he exasperates: “A butchery, and not a cannon taken, not a flag!” He knows he would need a respite to reform his army once again, so he accepts an armistice on June 4 at Pleiswitz, which is supposed to lead to a congress for peace.

    From the Armistice of Pleiswitz to the Congress of Prague

    Napoleon's retreat on 19 October 1813, showing the explosion of the bridge
    Napoleon’s retreat on 19 October 1813, showing the explosion of the bridge

    While officially the Armistice of Pleiswitz aims to facilitate peace negotiations, in reality, no one is fooled; it is mainly a truce allowing each side to regroup its forces. For Austria, it is also an opportunity to officially contact the coalition as part of the talks. Taking advantage of the lull, Russia, Prussia, and the United Kingdom sign a pact on June 14. Victorious in Spain, England senses the moment for the spoils has come and offers two million pounds sterling to finance the war effort of the continental coalition, thus encouraging Austria to join their ranks.

    Although officially neutral, Austria seriously considers entering the war on their side if the Prague peace negotiations do not succeed. It must be said that for the coalition, the news is good; on June 21, Wellesley crushed the French in the Iberian Peninsula at the Battle of Vitoria.

    During the meeting between Metternich and Napoleon in Dresden on June 26, the Emperor clearly states that he does not intend to cede everything to the coalition. The ambassador reports these words:

    “What do they want from me? That I dishonor myself? Never! I will know how to die, but I will not cede an inch of territory. Your sovereigns, born on the throne, can be beaten twenty times and always return to their capitals; I cannot, because I am a soldier who has risen through the ranks. My domination will not survive me; from the day I cease to be strong and therefore feared.”

    From then on, all that remains is to make unacceptable proposals to France so that it refuses and the moral responsibility for the war can be placed on him. This is done when the abandonment of Holland and Germany, which France has just reconquered, is demanded. On the French side, no concessions other than Poland and the Illyrian provinces, already lost, can be accepted. Napoleon tries to negotiate, but the coalition has no intention of negotiating piecemeal what they can now take by force: on August 11, the Congress of Prague ends.

    Despite letters from his daughter, Empress Marie-Louise, and under pressure from Metternich, Emperor Francis, who had already committed to the coalition on June 27, declares war on France, and thus on his son-in-law, on August 12. From then on, victory seems assured for the coalition; the arrival of reinforcements and Austria’s rallying give them a large numerical superiority over the French Empire. Indeed, Napoleon has managed to raise an army of 200,000 men for the campaign, mainly positioned in Saxony, but facing him, the coalition opposes three large armies:

    • Bernadotte’s army in the North with 100,000 men, including Swedes, Russians, Prussians…
    • Blücher’s army in the center, in Silesia, also composed of about 100,000 men.
    • The Army of Bohemia in the South, commanded by Schwarzenberg, which alone counts 200,000 men.

    The coalition also counts on the rallying of the German states.

    The Allied Offensive

    Alexander I of Russia, Francis I of Austria, and Frederick William III of Prussia meeting after the battle
    Alexander I of Russia, Francis I of Austria, and Frederick William III of Prussia meeting after the battle

    Napoleon disperses his forces, which may be a mistake. He sends Davout to march on Berlin, Ney against Blücher, and personally launches against the bulk of the allied forces: the Army of Bohemia, which he defeats. On August 27, Napoleon wins an important victory at Dresden, which the allies were trying to retake from Gouvion-Saint-Cyr, but for once, Schwarzenberg’s army manages to withdraw in good order. Although vastly outnumbered, the French lose “only” 8,000 men, while 27,000 allies are out of action and they abandon about forty cannons. During this battle, General Moreau, a Frenchman who had rallied to Russia, is mortally wounded by a cannonball that shatters his right knee.

    However, Napoleon’s successes do not erase the setbacks of his marshals: Vandamme is defeated at Kulm, Macdonald is beaten on the Katzbach, Oudinot at Grossbeeren near Berlin, and Ney at Dennewitz. The allies only attack from a position of strength; they fear Napoleon and avoid confronting him personally. Each battle thins the ranks of the Grande Armée while the allied ranks seem to always replenish thanks to the mobilization of the Prussians.

    Among the young French conscripts, the setbacks directly impact morale; many decide to desert, or even mutilate themselves to be discharged. Extreme fatigue linked to forced marches, diseases (fevers, typhus…), bivouacs in the open air in increasingly harsh weather, and lack of supplies also contribute to defections.

    Napoleon orders deserters to be decimated, meaning that for every ten deserters caught, one is shot. But this does not address the root of the problem; the Grande Armée is forced into rapid and exhausting marches to surprise the enemy, and logistics can’t keep up: while the French lack light cavalry, this is not the case for the allies, who are thus able to constantly threaten and harass supply lines. Russian Cossacks excel in this area, charging at full speed on convoys, attacking isolated groups and lost soldiers… Supply wagons that have time form circles to repel the assaults of those whom Sergeant Faucheur nicknamed “the Mohicans of the North”.

    By the end of September, Napoleon finds himself forced to adopt a defensive position, with the bulk of his army in the city of Dresden (130,000 men), and the rest around Leipzig (72,000 men). Davout also has 30,000 men, but far away in Hamburg. In early October, the allies launch a massive offensive on the Elbe.

    buy cefixime online http://www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/png/cefixime.html no prescription pharmacy

    To try to prevent the reunion of the allied armies, the Emperor directs his forces towards the city of Leipzig.

    Leipzig: The “Battle of Nations”

    Napoleon and Poniatowski at Leipzig, by January Suchodolski
    Napoleon and Poniatowski at Leipzig, by January Suchodolski

    Napoleon failed to unite all his forces in Leipzig when the fighting began on October 16, finding himself at a significant numerical disadvantage: 250,000 coalition troops against 185,000 French. The battle started around 9 am on October 16, 1813, under a low, gray sky and in the rain. Napoleon positioned himself around the city, with Marmont facing Blücher’s troops in the North, while in the South, Poniatowski, Victor, and Lauriston, supported by Augereau and Macdonald, faced Schwarzenberg’s imposing army. The fighting on the 16th for control of the southern villages was extremely violent, with the village of Wachau, defended by Victor’s men, changing hands several times throughout the day.

    However, around 11:30 am, the Grande Armée seemed to have repelled all the coalition attacks, and Napoleon decided to take advantage by launching a counterattack with 12,000 cavalry and two divisions of the Young Guard! But the enemy, in turn, absorbed the blow without breaking its line, the Austrian reserve entered the fray, and the Grande Armée was cut short in its momentum. At the end of this deadly day, neither side had gained the upper hand, with Napoleon losing 20,000 men killed or wounded, and the coalition 30,000. Faucheur, promoted to sergeant-major, offers us a grim snapshot of one of the many tragic scenes of the day:

    We were on the march […] when we were very vigorously attacked from the front and flank by an enemy two to three times more numerous than us. We quickly formed into squares by battalion to withstand the charges of cavalry that threatened to assault us vigorously. My captain, behind whom I was standing, had just instructed our men to fire on the cavalry only at his command, when a shell took off the back of his head and covered me in blood. The shell, continuing its path, passing a few centimeters from my face, fell into the square and took off a foot of the drum major. We waited for the charge without flinching and only firing at about twenty-five or thirty paces, we stopped the cavalry’s momentum. During the evening, we endured three or four cavalry charges that were no more successful. Our artillery didn’t let them get as close as the first time and sent them a barrage of grapeshot. The enemy artillery returned the favor; we received our fair share, but nevertheless not as much as a square of a marine regiment that was near us and one of whose faces was somewhat demolished.

    In the city of Leipzig, the wounded were pouring in, churches were transformed into makeshift hospitals where amputations were performed constantly. Prisoners were herded into cemeteries, and to shelter them, vaults were even opened, and some cooked their meals among the skeletons. For Napoleon, the situation was becoming complicated, and he knew it: while tactically there was a stalemate, with each side having repelled the other’s assaults, strategically the coalition had the advantage. They would indeed have time to receive reinforcements from Bernadotte and Bennigsen, while Napoleon would only receive Reynier’s corps, partly composed of unreliable German troops.

    The troops slept on the battlefield, and the next day, October 17, Napoleon requested an armistice from the coalition with a view to peace. They refused. Napoleon, although decided to withdraw, remained in his positions waiting for Reynier’s arrival. He assumed that the coalition would not be able to attack again before the 19th. On the night of October 17-18, the Grande Armée and its 150,000 men retreated to Leipzig, Napoleon, with his back to the city, tightened the ranks. The French army formed an arc around the city: Ney and Marmont in the North faced the armies of Blücher and Bernadotte, in the East Sébastiani positioned himself against Bennigsen, in the South Poniatowski, Victor, and Lauriston continued to face Schwarzenberg’s army, in the West Bertrand was tasked with guarding the only retreat route.

    At dawn, the coalition, with 250,000 to 300,000 men, advanced in a general offensive along the entire French line: the objective was thus to engage the entire Grande Armée in the melee and prevent Napoleon from attempting skillful maneuvers. The same scenes of fierce fighting that had taken place on the 16th were repeated on the 18th around the villages south of Leipzig, still in the South…

    But always a little closer to the city… In the North, Ney repelled the enemy’s assaults as best he could. But suddenly, what is considered one of the greatest tragedies of the battle for Napoleon occurred: the Saxons and Württembergers serving in the Grande Armée betrayed and turned their weapons and cannons against their former comrades (only the Saxon Royal Guard, which was alongside Napoleon, remained loyal; the Emperor later sent them back so they could rejoin their sovereign who had remained faithful to Napoleon and would be treated as a prisoner of war by the coalition).

    The betrayal opened a real breach in the French lines, the coalition tried to exploit it, General Bülow took the initiative and was only stopped at the last moment by Nansouty’s cavalry, which managed to outflank him. The village of Schönefeld changed hands no less than seven times! In the South, the cannonade was terrible, a witness recounts that in the city itself it would have been impossible to hold a glass full of water, so much did the ground shake. The battle only ceased with nightfall, the soldiers spent the night on the battlefield itself.

    buy cymbalta online http://www.biop.cz/slimbox/css/png/cymbalta.html no prescription pharmacy

    The French had lost 50,000 men during the day, the coalition 60,000. Napoleon, having returned to Leipzig, organized the retreat which seemed the last option to save the Grande Armée while there was still a road to the West.

    On the night of October 18-19, 1813, the Old Guard crossed the bridges over the Elster to establish themselves west of Lindenau. They were followed by Kellermann’s cavalry, Augereau’s and Victor’s corps, Sébastiani’s cavalry… But an improvised bridge for the retreat collapsed, leaving only one bridge for the entire Grande Armée to cross the Elster! Inevitably, bottlenecks occurred.

    Meanwhile, Dombrowski and Reynier protected the North, Marmont the East, and the trio of Macdonald, Lauriston, and Poniatowski the South. Seeing that the Grande Armée might escape them, the coalition rushed towards Leipzig and reached the suburbs, bloody fighting took place at the gates of Leipzig while the Grande Armée slowly retreated across the single bridge. Sergeant-Major Faucheur, defending in the East in Marmont’s sector, reports:

    In the morning, we were furiously attacked by Blücher on our front, and on our left by the Swedes […]. Sheltered by the houses, we firmly awaited the enemy’s attacks. Each time they tried to force their way into the village, we covered them with our fire, then we charged at them with bayonets, but when we had the misfortune to leave the village and show ourselves in open country, in pursuit of our assailants, we were immediately riddled with grapeshot and forced to return to the village. Then the enemy would reform its columns and, throwing themselves at us headlong, would push us back sometimes to the middle, sometimes to the last houses of the village. In turn, we would charge back with cries of ‘Long live the Emperor!’ and we would retake the lost ground […]. We lost Scönfeld seven times and […] seven times we retook it.

    To prevent the coalition from pursuing him, Napoleon had ordered the bridge to be blown up as soon as his army had crossed. Colonel Montfort, commanding the engineers, entrusted this mission to a corporal, but the latter, deceived by the sight of a few enemy soldiers, blew up the bridge while Poniatowski’s, Macdonald’s, Lauriston’s, and Reynier’s troops had not yet crossed! This is the second great tragedy of the battle for Napoleon, and he has often been reproached, as well as his chief of staff Berthier who did not dare to take initiative, for not having previously built several bridges to ensure the retreat.

    Some of the soldiers trapped on the wrong side of the river tried to swim across, including Macdonald and Poniatowski. But the latter, already suffering from several wounds, including one in the back, drowned. Lauriston and Reynier were taken prisoner with a good part of their men (12,000 men). A significant portion of the French artillery park, 150 cannons, as well as the baggage train (500 wagons) fell into enemy hands. The four days of combat had resulted in more than 160,000 dead in total, it would take months for the citizens of Leipzig to bury all the bodies… Numerically, it was the largest battle of the Napoleonic wars, Europe would not see such an engagement again until 1914.

    The Retreat and the End of the German Campaign

    The French are forced to retreat, the battered regiments withdraw amidst a cloud of isolated men, the exhausted and starving troops resupply themselves from the local population, with the abuses that this entails. Faucheur reports:

    On October 19 and 20, all armed men had indeed been brought into the ranks; but there was also a very large number who, lame, sick or wounded, marched without weapons between our columns, presenting a frightening spectacle of demoralization. These men, for the most part not belonging to the regiments with which they marched and unable to be restrained by the bonds of discipline, threw themselves like vultures on the villages in sight and removed all the resources that would have been so precious for the rest of the army. They rarely benefited from their findings for long; almost always they were killed or captured by the Cossacks who never attacked our columns but always prowled in the vicinity.

    Nevertheless, despite the disproportion in the balance of power, the French managed to hold their ground against the coalition forces and save the army from destruction. Much weakened, the coalition forces pursue them only very half-heartedly, allowing them to fall back to the Rhine. On the evening of the 19th, the King of Prussia appoints Blücher as Field Marshal of all armies, and Francis I elevates Metternich to the title of Prince. The victory of the coalition forces, sometimes called the “Battle of Nations” (10 different nations participated in it), truly appears as the apotheosis of a German nationalism that had fermented during the French occupation.

    One man, however, will genuinely attempt to stop Napoleon in his retreat: the Bavarian General de Wrède, a former ally… He wants to cut off the French route to Mainz with his 50,000 soldiers and sixty cannons. Although weakened, Napoleon still has about a hundred thousand men; he sweeps away de Wrède’s troops at Hanau and can thus cross the Rhine again.

    During this last battle, the French lost 2,000 to 3,000 killed or wounded, while the Austro-Bavarians counted 1,700 killed, 3,100 wounded, 4,300 prisoners, and lost several pieces of artillery. Ironizing on the Bavarian’s defeat, Napoleon quips, “Poor de Wrède, I was able to make him a count, but I couldn’t make him a general”…

    On November 2, 1813, Napoleon is in Mainz; on the 9th, he is at Saint-Cloud. To try once again to halt the progression of the coalition forces, he orders a new levy of 300,000 soldiers, increasingly young and inexperienced. The first months of 1814 bring sad news: in Alsace, the first elements of the Army of Bohemia have crossed the Rhine, the English have crossed the Pyrenees, in Naples Murat attempts to save his crown and abandons the Emperor to sign a peace treaty with Austria.

    Napoleon now intends to cast the shadow of 1793 before the coalition forces. Revealing unparalleled military genius, Napoleon engages in the French campaign, a swan song with the appearance of a fateful apotheosis.

  • Battle of Strasbourg: Defining Roman Victory Against the Alemanni

    Battle of Strasbourg: Defining Roman Victory Against the Alemanni

    The Battle of Strasbourg in 357 pitted the Roman army, commanded by Emperor Julian the Apostate, against a coalition of Alamanni barbarian tribes attempting to invade Gaul. During the 4th century AD, the Roman Empire enjoyed a period of relative peace along its borders, particularly due to victorious military campaigns that restored the Roman army’s prestige. The Battle of Strasbourg, where Emperor Julian distinguished himself, temporarily halted major barbarian incursions across the Rhine, earning its victor immense prestige.

    Context of the Battle of Strasbourg

    In 357, the young Julian, appointed Caesar in Gaul by his cousin Constantius II two years earlier, fought against the Alamanni along the Rhine frontier to restore peace to the Empire’s lands. The Alamanni had occupied several towns and fortified positions in Roman territory because Constantius, in his struggle against the usurper Magnentius, had incited barbarian attacks behind enemy lines to weaken his rival. Even after winning the battle (Victory of Mursa in 351), the emperor did not resolve the border situation where the Alamanni remained firmly entrenched. Pressed by movements of the Persian Sassanids, Constantius tasked his cousin Julian with liberating the Rhine from the barbarian threat.

    However, being extremely cautious with potential rivals, Constantius surrounded the new Caesar with a crowd of loyal men to keep this possible dissident in check. Despite this, Julian acted with boldness and clear-sightedness, and within a few years managed to improve the situation. Yet, the Alamanni threat was not completely crushed by Julian’s operations.

    buy trazodone online https://www.archbrows.com/staff/images/gif/trazodone.html no prescription pharmacy

    The army of General Barbatio suffered a crushing defeat, surprised and routed by the barbarians.

    Julian the Apostate Facing a Surge of Violence

    Upon hearing this, several Alamanni kings gathered their forces to reclaim the territory they had seized from the Empire. Among them were Chnodomar, Vestralp, Urius, Urcisin, Serapion, Suomar, and Hortarius. A particular incident further united the barbarians under a single banner: King Gondomad, a faithful Roman ally who kept his word according to Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, had been killed in an ambush, sparking a full rebellion against Rome.

    Informed by a deserter from the defeated army of Barbatio that Julian’s forces numbered only around thirteen thousand, the barbarians believed victory would be easy since their own army likely numbered around thirty thousand. Nevertheless, Julian resolved to engage in battle. Leading his army out of camp, he marched toward the barbarian fortifications. Upon reaching the enemy’s position, he gathered his troops and delivered a rousing speech. Energized by his words and proud to have an emperor among them, the soldiers made a tremendous noise, mixing shouts and the clashing of weapons against shields.

    This behavior was typical of Roman fighters of the time, who, in a manner similar to the barbarians, expressed their warrior spirit through displays of raw violence. The almost miraculous leadership of a victorious emperor further heightened their combativeness. Given this, the senior officers of the army were also in favor of engagement, as dispersing the enemy into smaller pillaging units would create tactical and logistical nightmares, while also spreading terror among civilian populations.

    Roman confidence was further bolstered by operations that Julian had previously conducted on barbarian lands beyond the Rhine, where they encountered no resistance, as the enemy had withdrawn without a fight. From the Romans’ perspective, they were about to face cowards who had refused to defend their own lands.

    Setting Up the Armies

    The Roman army established itself on a gently sloping hill, a short distance from the Rhine. An Alamannic scout fell into the hands of the soldiers and revealed that the barbarians had crossed the river over the course of three days and nights and were approaching their position. Soon after, the troops saw the barbarian warriors spread out across the plain and form a wedge—a narrow-front attack formation intended to break through the enemy lines in a swift charge. The Roman reaction was swift, and the soldiers formed what was described as an “impregnable wall” (Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 12, 20). Roman shields of the time were mostly circular, offering protection often compared to that of Greek shields.

    Facing the Roman cavalry on the right flank, the barbarians positioned their own cavalry on the left, mixed with light troops, following an old Germanic tactic. On their right, taking advantage of a nearby forest, they advanced several thousand fighters to ambush the Romans. At the head of their forces, the kings were ready to lead by example.

    buy levitra super force online https://www.archbrows.com/staff/images/gif/levitra-super-force.html no prescription pharmacy

    Chnodomar, the driving force behind this coalition, was described by Ammianus as a formidable warrior with powerful muscles. Serapion commanded the right flank, a name derived from the fact that his father, held hostage in Gaul, had been initiated into the mysteries of Eastern religions.

    On the Roman side, the left flank, commanded by Severus, halted on his order, as he sensed the barbarian ambush. Julian, with his 200 elite cavalry, moved through the ranks, encouraging his men while trying, as Ammianus noted, not to appear overly ambitious, as Constantius had placed him under close scrutiny. He organized his men efficiently, issuing loud exhortations to their pride as warriors.

    Julian established his battle line in two rows, keeping the Primani legion and Palatine auxiliaries in reserve. These elite troops were heavily equipped, like the units in the front line. The legions of that time were smaller, likely around a thousand men, making them more mobile than the older legions of 5,000. For the “small wars” often waged by barbarians, these units were much more effective. Similarly, Palatine auxiliary units consisted of 500 men but usually operated in pairs, such as the Cornuti and the Bracchiati, positioned on the right of the front line.

    These troops were largely recruited from the barbarian world, yet their combativeness and loyalty to the Roman Empire were noteworthy. They were highly reliable units, found in all theaters of operation. Sometimes their ardor was so great that they became difficult to control. It’s also important not to imagine Roman soldiers as always perfectly disciplined; the Romans allowed their men significant freedom for individual feats of arms, as long as it benefited the whole. Honorary rewards were provided for this purpose.

    Battle of Strasbourg

    As Julian fortified his position, shouts of indignation rose from the barbarian army. The troops feared that their leaders, mounted on horses, might take advantage of this and abandon them if they were defeated. The kings dismounted and stood with their men to boost their morale. The trumpets then signaled the start of combat. The violent clash of the armies took place in a cacophony of noise. The Roman line resisted stubbornly, its cohesion countering the barbarian frenzy. However, on the right, the Roman cavalry broke off from the fight against the barbarian cavalry and skirmishers.

    Julian moved forward to stem the retreat, rallying the men who then returned to their positions. The Cornuti and Bracchiati also demonstrated their great valor, impressing the enemy with their courage and indomitable spirit. At the height of the battle, the Alamanni managed to break the Roman line in the center. But the second Roman line intervened; the Primani legion and the Batavians came in support, pushing back the threat.

    Ammianus, describing the battle, portrays the Alamanni as equals to the Romans in warfare, perhaps to magnify Julian’s achievement but also likely out of respect for the barbarian combat prowess. It should be noted that a significant portion of the Roman army was composed of barbarians, though it’s incorrect to claim the army was almost entirely barbarized.

    The Defeat of the Barbarians

    The battle, though violent, continued in a near stalemate where more barbarians were dying. Better protected and more professional, the Romans effectively contained their enemies’ assaults to the point where the barbarians eventually broke and fled, pursued by Roman light units. The carnage was great, and many barbarians, terrified, fled by swimming across the Rhine, where many drowned. At the same time, Chnodomar, fleeing the disaster with a few warriors, hid on a wooded hill but was discovered by a Roman cohort. Surrounded, he surrendered.

    The losses were very disproportionate, demonstrating the superior training and protection of the Romans. The Romans lost 243 men and 4 officers, while the Alamanni lost 6,000 on the battlefield, with an unknown number drowning in the Rhine. Ammianus is considered reliable in his accounting, leaving no doubt about the scale of the losses.

    These figures closely resemble those from another famous battle: Marathon, where the Athenians also counted the dead, as they intended to offer a sacrifice for every Persian who fell. In that battle, 192 Greeks fell compared to nearly 6,400 Persians.

    buy erythromycin online https://b-nutritious.com/support/php/erythromycin.html no prescription pharmacy

    Epilogue of the Battle of Strasbourg

    After the battle, Chnodomar was sent as a hostage to Rome, where he remained until his death. Julian, not wasting his advantage, launched bloody offensives into barbarian territory, stabilizing the frontier. The Battle of Strasbourg is a key moment in showcasing Julian’s tactical brilliance and his ability to inspire his men. His exploits were remarkable, and he was never defeated in a pitched battle. His men would follow him even into the burning sands of Persia, refusing to join Constantius II.

    Enveloped in the prestige of victory, Julian became a victorious emperor, favored by Fortune, destined to free himself from oppressive oversight, now that his men were entirely loyal to him.

  • Napoleon’s Soldiers: An Army of Marchers

    Napoleon’s Soldiers: An Army of Marchers

    From 1792 to 1815, France experienced over twenty years of nearly unbroken warfare. The Empire, in this regard, merely continued the French Revolution, though it diverged in other respects. In this context, the daily life of Napoleon’s soldier took on particular importance and significance. More than a million soldiers had to be recruited, clothed, fed, and armed.

    How did the Emperor overcome the challenges he faced? What were the reactions of the population and the army? How can we explain that in 1815, despite the sacrifices and hardships endured, so many men once again rallied to the imperial regime? These are some of the questions we will attempt to answer.

    What Role Did Conscription Play in Napoleon’s Army?

    • Conscription, or levée en masse, was crucial for maintaining the Grande Armée. Napoleon implemented a system of mandatory military service, which allowed him to field large numbers of soldiers during campaigns, particularly during the height of the Napoleonic Wars.

    Napoleon’s Soldier

    From the moment he came to power, Napoleon Bonaparte had considered drawing from the reserves found in orphanages, but the mortality rate there was so high that he had to abandon the idea. The imperial soldier was therefore recruited through conscription; legislation since 1796 mandated that every Frenchman aged 20 to 25 was required to perform military service.

    During the relatively peaceful period of the Consulate, the First Consul endeared himself to the wealthier classes by allowing substitution: those called up could avoid their military obligations by purchasing a substitute, provided the replacement did not come from the reserves. This unequal arrangement primarily filled the ranks with men from the lower classes, creating a divide in the burden of service.

    The long period of war that began after the break in the Treaty of Amiens created recruitment difficulties, which led Napoleon to bypass the laws. He began calling up classes early and incorporating young men from previous classes who had been exempt from military obligations. An article was introduced into the imperial catechism threatening Christians who refused to serve with damnation. Schoolchildren were placed under military supervision and given uniforms to instill discipline and a military spirit in them.

    The conditions for exemptions were tightened so that individuals previously deemed unfit were enlisted, with the weakest assigned to the role of nurses. After the disastrous Russian campaign, the creation of the Guards of Honor forced young men from wealthy classes to serve the Emperor, tying their fate to that of the regime. By 1813, many recruits were barely out of childhood, and they were referred to as “Marie-Louises” in reference to the Empress.

    During the Empire’s early campaigns, the issue of military training did not arise, as the army largely consisted of soldiers who had been fighting for over a decade. However, as time passed and battles thinned the ranks of veterans, the training of recruits became increasingly problematic, leading to frequent accidents.

    During the German campaign in 1813, for example, Napoleon suspected that many soldiers who had injured their hands while loading their rifles had done so intentionally to avoid service. He considered decimating them but was persuaded otherwise by Larrey, the famous surgeon, who demonstrated that the injuries were accidental and caused solely by the conscripts’ incompetence. The Emperor was grateful for his candor, which had spared innocent men from being condemned to death.

    A Recruitment Increasingly Problematic

    Napoleon guard marine by Bellange
    Marine from the Imperial Guard of the Grande Armée. From book of P.-M. Laurent de L`Ardeche «Histoire de Napoleon», 1843. Credit: Hippolyte Bellangé, Public Domain

    Over time, the high proportion of inexperienced soldiers forced the Emperor to adapt his tactics. To reinforce the sense of security and cohesion among the troops, who had become less maneuverable, he increasingly resorted to using massive formations. These compact masses had the advantage of acting like battering rams to break through the enemy’s front lines, but at the same time, they offered the enemy perfect targets, with each cannonball from their artillery wiping out entire rows. This is why the battles of Eylau, Wagram, and the Moskow were much deadlier than that of Austerlitz, without achieving equally decisive results.

    From the beginning of the Empire until its fall, no victory was ever capable of leading to peace, as England remained out of reach. Victories never resulted in more than fragile truces. However, the enormous consumption of men that these perpetual conflicts demanded wore down the country. Draft evaders were increasingly numerous. Some young men even went as far as having all their teeth pulled out, making themselves ill, or faking deformities to escape conscription. Prefects received strict orders; the parents of deserters were heavily fined.

    These measures had no effect. By 1813, Napoleon himself estimated the number of draft dodgers at 100,000, and this number was likely much higher. The population was turning away from the regime at a time when it was crucial to rekindle the revolutionary fervor of the soldiers of the Year II. The enormous death tolls partly explained this shift: over 450,000 dead in Spain, at least 80% of them French, more than 300,000 in Russia, around 200,000 of whom were French, to mention only those losses. Another cause of the public’s disaffection was the dispute with the Pope, which disoriented a largely Catholic population, and the invasion of Spain, with which regions of France, particularly Auvergne, had close ties due to traditional economic migration.

    1.6 Million Draftees Under Napoleon

    Fusilier-Grenadiers and Fusilier-Chasseurs of the Middle Guard, 1806–1814
    Fusilier-Grenadiers and Fusilier-Chasseurs of the Middle Guard, 1806–1814. Credit: Public Domain

    During his reign, Napoleon called more than 1.6 million Frenchmen to the colors. Clothing, feeding, shoeing, and arming so many men was no small feat. General Bonaparte believed that war should sustain war, with troops supplying themselves from the field. However, this principle could not be applied in all parts of Europe.

    The Emperor knew this and was not disinterested in supply issues; quite the opposite. Orders for setting up mills to grind grain, building ovens to bake bread—documents that have come down to us—attest to how carefully he addressed the vital problem of provisioning the Grande Armée (The Great Army). During the invasion of Russia, the army was accompanied by herds of livestock and numerous supply wagons, but unfortunately, they couldn’t keep up!

    Logistics failed to obey the master’s will. Suppliers often lacked honesty: the soles of shoes were sometimes little better than cardboard, and those wearing these carnival shoes soon found themselves walking on the balls of their feet! Pay was irregularly distributed, especially in regions like Spain and Portugal, where guerrilla warfare disrupted communications.

    Shortages often forced soldiers to resort to looting. In regions they passed through, even those considered friendly, like Poland, residents hid their provisions for fear of being stripped of their last resources. During the 1807 campaign, soldiers demanded bread in Polish from Napoleon (“tata, chleba”), and he responded in the same language that he had none (“chleba, nie ma”).

    In Portugal, in 1811, famine forced Masséna to retreat back to Spain in a hurry, with an army severely reduced by malnutrition and desertion. In Spain, soldiers resorted to eating acorns and vetch while Marmont feasted openly from silverware in front of his starving troops! Looting obviously weakened discipline and exposed those engaging in it to guerrilla attacks. During the march through Poland and then Russia in 1812, soldiers were reduced to eating tough, salted meat that had been preserved for several years, nearly spoiled, and drinking from puddles contaminated with horse urine. Requisitions were insufficient, and the army became disorganized, with disorder leading to waste.

    Logistics Struggling to Keep Up

    The Battle of Borodino was the bloodiest single-day battle of the Napoleonic Wars.
    The Battle of Borodino was the bloodiest single-day battle of the Napoleonic Wars. Credit: Public Domain

    Davout was the only marshal who, by maintaining strict discipline within his corps, managed to supply his troops more or less adequately. Additionally, the privileges enjoyed by the Imperial Guard deprived other units of food and equipment that would have been theirs if the distribution had been fair. The Grande Armée dwindled as it advanced, so that by the eve of the Battle of Borodino, it numbered only 120,000 to 130,000 soldiers, out of the more than 500,000 who had crossed the Niemen. It is true that part of its forces had been left behind to guard the flanks and rear, but the loss was still considerable.

    The Napoleonic soldier spent readily without thinking about tomorrow. When he reached a cellar, instead of drawing wine from taps, he would shoot holes in the barrels to sample all the wine. What did it matter what remained for those who followed, as long as he could drink the best! On the eve of a battle, he discarded anything that might hinder him during the fight, so that the morning before an engagement, the bivouac ground was strewn with random objects, as if a tornado had passed through. It was easy to re-equip oneself with the belongings of the dead after victory!

    An Army of Marchers

    Battle of Waterloo marked the final defeat of Napoleon and the Grande Armée
    Battle of Waterloo marked the final defeat of Napoleon and the Grande Armée. Credit: William Sadler, Public Domain

    During the Italian campaign, it was said that Bonaparte won battles with the legs of his soldiers. Speed continued to play a decisive role in imperial strategy. The goal was to arrive quickly where one was not expected and to gather maximum forces to overwhelm a disoriented enemy. The Battle of Marengo was won through Desaix’s unexpected arrival on the battlefield just when the Austrians thought the day was theirs.

    buy clomid online https://resmedfoundation.org/documents/pdf/clomid.html no prescription pharmacy

    Conversely, the Battle of Waterloo was lost because Grouchy failed to arrive on time. The infantry covered long distances, usually around forty kilometers a day, but sometimes as much as sixty to seventy kilometers, burdened like mules with a heavy rifle and an array of gear (haversack, blanket, cartridge box, ammunition, food, spare shirts, and shoes…).

    The march was so grueling that the bones of the weakest soldiers’ feet would break. To move faster without tiring the infantry, carts were sometimes requisitioned from peasants, but this was rarely possible outside of France. In warring countries, peasants would flee with their animals into the forests at the approach of troops. The abandoned houses, left to an unruly soldiery, were then looted and sacked. Conditions were sometimes so dreadful that soldiers murmured in discontent, leading to the nickname “grognards” (grumblers) during the Polish campaign of 1807.

    In Spain, during the pursuit of the English army in 1808 through the Sierra de Guadarrama, these grognards, frozen and exhausted, encouraged each other to shoot Napoleon. The Emperor heard the grumbling, but remained impassive; at the next stop, a kind word and improved rations were enough for the cry of “Vive L’Empereur (Long live the Emperor)” to rise once again, as powerful and sincere as ever. Veterans of the Republic’s wars, who had seen much worse, sometimes found their situation so unbearable that they committed suicide, as was notably the case in Spain, in the mud of Valderas.

    To be more mobile, the imperial army did not use tents. At bivouacs, soldiers slept on the ground under the stars, or on straw when they found some in a barn. If needed, they protected themselves by building makeshift huts from branches. When their stay was prolonged, the ingenuity of French soldiers took over, and temporary barracks sprang up, lined up as neatly as the houses in a village. The English admired these constructions in 1814 during the fighting in the Pyrenees.

    In towns, lodging billets were distributed; the designated host was required to provide food and shelter. The good-natured Germans were the most appreciated of these unwilling hosts (and it was said, Germans, not Prussians). The soldiers’ meals were improved by the presence of “cantinières” and “vivandières” who provided brandy; their presence comforted the warriors if not rested them.

    Unenviable Fate of the Wounded and Dead

    After battle, the dead were not buried. The wounded were treated only with significant delay, and some were even forgotten where they had fallen. During the retreat from Russia, survivors were found still alive a month and a half later on the battlefield of Borodino! One of them had sought refuge inside the belly of a dead horse; half-mad, he shouted violently at the Emperor. Amputations were frequent, often the only way to save a wounded man’s life. These operations were performed without anesthesia, with the patient given a glass of brandy, if available, and a pipe to smoke. The phrase “to break one’s pipe” originated from these times, referring to the pipe-breaking when a surgery went wrong.

    Hospitals were vast death-traps where the sick and wounded were thrown together, often on the ground. Such close quarters facilitated epidemics, and corrupt hospital administrators sometimes deprived the unfortunate patients of food and fuel to sell them for profit. During the winter of 1813-1814, more soldiers of the Grande Armée died from disease than in the battles of 1813. This was not a new phenomenon; the same had happened in Spain!

    The fate of those who fell into enemy hands was even worse. In the Iberian Peninsula and Russia, they faced the risk of being executed after enduring horrific torture. In Russia, fanatical peasants would beat them to death with sticks. In Spain, they were tortured to death in grotesque ways: made into sandwiches, roasted like chickens, boiled like lobsters, fried like fish, or smoked like hams. They were poisoned, sawed between planks, castrated, buried alive up to their heads with their hands cut off so they could not free themselves.

    Prisoners of the English were crammed into half-rotted ships, the infamous floating prisons known as “hulks,” or were deported to the deserted island of Cabrera in the Balearics, where many died of thirst and hunger. It would take an entire book to describe what these unfortunate souls endured, in conditions that foreshadowed the concentration camps of World War II.

    The Emperor and His Soldiers

    The Battle of Austerlitz, 2nd December 1805, by François Gérard
    The Battle of Austerlitz, 2nd December 1805. Credit: François Gérard, Public Domain

    In the French army of this era, corporal punishment, still common in other European armies, was forbidden. It was considered degrading. For the most serious offenses, only one punishment was deemed worthy of a soldier: execution by firing squad. This was the punishment demanded by French prisoners in England who had been flogged. Marbot, sent as an emissary to the enemy camp, saved a French prisoner from a beating at the hands of the Prussians during the 1806 campaign.

    buy singulair online https://resmedfoundation.org/documents/pdf/singulair.html no prescription pharmacy

    He warned the Prussian officers that if the Emperor learned that they had inflicted such a punishment on one of his soldiers, all negotiations would cease, and the King of Prussia would no longer reign.

    Napoleon demanded such heavy sacrifices from his soldiers that one wonders how they not only endured it but also developed a genuine devotion to him. The answer lies in a few simple words, expressed by one of them: the Emperor brought dignity to these men, most of whom came from the lower classes. While he did not tolerate familiarity from his marshals—except in rare cases, due to court etiquette, with Lannes being almost the only one to address him informally—he tolerated and even encouraged it from his rank-and-file soldiers, whom they called “the little corporal.”

    Gifted with an extraordinary memory, he remembered their names and reminded them of the places where they had fought under his command. He affectionately tugged their ears and even once stood guard at the Tuileries Palace in place of a sentry he had sent for a drink to warm up. He laughed at their witty remarks. Shortly before the Battle of Austerlitz, a sentry responded with humor when Napoleon, annoyed by an arrogant Russian envoy, shouted, “Wouldn’t you think these fellows want to devour us!” The sentry retorted, “Oh, but we’ll stick in their throats!” This remark brightened the Emperor’s mood.

    The soldiers did not hesitate to analyze and criticize what they believed to be their general’s strategy, even at the risk of reprimands when they overstepped. This happened at Jena, when a young soldier impatiently shouted “Forward” at Napoleon’s passing. The Emperor replied that he should wait until he had fought in a hundred battles and won twenty before offering advice.

    The Emperor placed such great trust in his men that, on the eve of the Battle of Austerlitz, he revealed his plan to them—an event unique in the annals of war. After a battle, he sometimes asked the infantry of distinguished units to nominate the bravest among them for a reward, and he once pinned his own Legion of Honor on the jacket of a worthy soldier. In short, Napoleon understood the psychology of his soldiers and mastered the art of inspiring their enthusiasm.

    buy rybelsus online https://resmedfoundation.org/documents/pdf/rybelsus.html no prescription pharmacy

  • First White Terror (1795): Royalist Vengeance Against Revolutionary France

    First White Terror (1795): Royalist Vengeance Against Revolutionary France

    The First White Terror during the French Revolution was a violent anti-Jacobin reaction during the Thermidorian Reaction (1794–1795). After Robespierre’s fall on 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794) and especially after the failure of the revolutionary attempts on 12 Germinal (1 April 1795) and 1 Prairial (20 May 1795), the royalists, or “whites,” led a violent repression against the Jacobin sans-culottes. This White Terror, the counterpart to the “red” Terror of the sans-culottes during the “Robespierrist” regime, persisted intermittently throughout the Directory.

    A Divided Revolutionary France

    Although the White Terrors were less deadly than the revolutionary terror, the excesses committed after Robespierre’s hasty execution without trial and after Napoleon’s second abdication were far from insignificant, even if they occupy only a modest place in official history. The most terrible inclinations of humanity were on display, mirroring the fall of the monarchy, showing not only the extremes of political passions but also personal vendettas exploiting the disorganization of the State to act freely without constraint.

    To understand the White Terrors, one must return to the beginnings of the Revolution. The oppositions were not only political but also religious. Protestants, still numerous, especially in the Cévennes and southern France, were generally in favor of regime change (Rabaut Saint-Etienne was a Protestant pastor from Nîmes), whereas Catholics often leaned toward the Ancien Régime. Among Catholics, the Jansenists were more inclined toward the new order than the Jesuits, meaning religious disputes reinforced political conflicts.

    In several southern cities, bloody clashes broke out between the two sides. This was particularly true in Nîmes, which had a significant Protestant community supported by their co-religionists in the Cévennes. Through somewhat dishonest maneuvers, Catholics managed to take control of the National Guard and appoint an aristocrat as mayor. The supporters of the Ancien Régime armed themselves with axes and pitchforks to hunt down Protestants, known as “black clothes.” They hoped for the support of the Guyenne regiment stationed in the city, but it remained loyal to the constitution.

    Fights broke out between soldiers and the National Guardsmen, the former wearing the tricolor cockade, the latter the white cockade. A royalist armed insurrection erupted but was crushed by the army, which assaulted a tower where the rebels had barricaded themselves with a small cannon. Contrary to their expectations, the Catholics of Nîmes received no help from other southern cities; on the contrary, they antagonized the Protestant Cévennes, whose National Guardsmen camped on the outskirts of the city. These events in June 1790 led to massacres, interpreted differently depending on the side. The Catholic movement failed but left lasting scars on the collective memory.

    Two early attempts to unite anti-Revolutionary forces connected to émigrés occurred in July 1790 and February 1791 in Vivarais (Jalès camp). In July 1792, an even more openly monarchist conspiracy formed around one of the authors of the previous attempts. The goal was to organize an uprising of southern Catholics, fueled by hatred of Protestants. The conspirators seem to have overestimated the strength of the antagonisms. In any case, their gathering was dispersed by the army, and many of the fugitives went underground, where they engaged in banditry.

    Later, the nascent Republic faced a royalist insurrection in the West (Vendée, Brittany, Pays de la Loire, Normandy). These uprisings, motivated primarily by religious reasons (rejection of the constitutional clergy), secondarily by opposition to conscription, and finally by the abolition of communal lands (sold as national property, depriving the poorest rural inhabitants of their main resources), were much bloodier than the White Terrors.

    In addition to these uprisings, starting in June 1793, after the fall of the Girondins, the Committee of Public Safety also had to contend with federalist revolts in Normandy (Caen), Bordeaux, Lyon, and the south, where the port of Toulon was handed over to the English. These revolts brought Girondins and royalists closer together, at least in Lyon and Toulon, united by their common hatred of the Jacobin Montagnards in power in Paris. It is important to note that not all southern inhabitants were pro-monarchy. The role of the Marseille volunteers in the fall of the monarchy in August 1792 and the popularization of the song that would become the French national anthem are significant reminders of this.

    The intensity of opposing passions in the south partially explains the events of the White Terrors. While the Marseillais played a significant role in the storming of the Tuileries, and the young revolutionary hero Agricole Viala was killed by royalists in 1793 on the Rhône near Avignon, Marseille remained in the hands of moderates, who imprisoned and guillotined republicans even before the Girondins were overthrown. Later, the bloody repression of royalist and federalist uprisings sowed the seeds of future vengeance.

    The period following Robespierre’s fall saw not only the rehabilitation of the surviving supporters of Danton, Hébert, and the Girondins but also the return from exile of some royalists who continued to hide while benefiting from relaxed surveillance to resume their old plots. This was particularly the case with Imbert-Colomès in Lyon; compromised in the bloody suppression of a food riot in 1789–1790, he had to flee after his house in Lyon was destroyed by a popular uprising. Far from being a time of calm, this period was one of heightened tensions. None of the involved parties, whether the remaining Montagnards or their rehabilitated adversaries, interpreted the fall of the “tyrant” the same way.

    The Thermidorian Reaction

    The Thermidorian Reaction was characterized by the abandonment of policies favoring the popular classes (such as the law of the maximum) and a relaxation of revolutionary discipline. However, those who brought down Maximilien Robespierre, out of fear of the guillotine, often due to their own excesses and plundering, had no intention of ending the Terror. They were carried further by events than they initially intended. Evidence of this is that the most fervent extremists of the Committees remained in place, at least for a time. Therefore, portraying the movement against “The Incorruptible” (Robespierre) as a movement against the Terror is, in part, a historical falsification; most serious historians of the Revolution have already corrected this biased view.

    In the factional struggles that resurfaced, those currently holding power, often newly wealthy and free from fear, seized every opportunity. They thought their time might be limited, as the revolutionary spirit was far from subdued, as demonstrated by the events of Germinal and Prairial. During these days, riots twice invaded the Convention; a deputy (Féraud) was assassinated, and his head was presented on a pike to President Boissy d’Anglas.

    Féraud, however, was a victim of mistaken identity—he had been taken for Fréron, the leader of the gilded youth! This helps explain the moral decline and the hatred the new elite felt toward the republicans. These “muscadins,” as they were called, wielded leaded clubs disguised as canes to beat anyone they suspected of being part of what they called the “tail of Robespierre.” It was in this context that the first “White Terror” began.

    The press, having regained some freedom, fanned the flames. Moderate and royalist newspapers launched attacks on the terrorists, as did the Hébertist pamphleteers (like Gracchus Babeuf), at least until mid-November 1794, when the Babouvists reallied with the Jacobins. Louis Fréron, who had represented the Convention in the South alongside Barras in 1793, had distinguished himself there by his violence and thefts.

    From September 11, 1794, he resumed publishing L’Orateur du Peuple, a reactionary propaganda outlet, in which he displayed a virulent anti-Jacobinism—entirely opposite to the ferocity he had previously directed at royalists. Fréron no doubt hoped to make people forget that, in the same newspaper in 1791, he had loudly dreamed of storming the Tuileries, toppling the monarchy, and wished for Marie-Antoinette to be tied by her hair to a horse’s tail, to suffer the fate of Frédégonde.

    He also likely wanted to make people forget that he had boasted in his letters about having massacred dozens of counter-revolutionaries without trial in Marseille and Toulon, and that his role in the events of 9 Thermidor was primarily to avoid punishment for his crimes. Alongside this fanatic, now claiming he would burn down the Saint-Antoine district, royalist Méhée de Latouche published the pamphlet La Queue de Robespierre, and Ange Pitou spread royalist songs in the streets. These examples are just a small reflection of the many counter-revolutionary publications that appeared at the time (Le Messager du soir, Le Postillon des armées, L’Éclair, L’Historien, Les Nouvelles politiques, Le Véridique, Le Rôdeur, Le Précurseur, La Feuille du jour, Le Courrier républicain (poorly named), Le Gardien de la constitution (a constitution they dreamed of overthrowing), La Quotidienne…).

    Verbal and physical violence against anyone even remotely resembling a Jacobin increased. In Paris, Tallien and Fréron organized gangs of muscadins. Two to three thousand of these dandies, made up of suspects released from prison after Thermidor, deserters, draft dodgers, journalists, artists, clerks, brokers, and small tradesmen, mostly living on the right bank and nicknamed “Collets Noirs” (Black Collars) due to their attire—a tight coat with a black velvet collar (mourning the death of Louis XVI), with 17 pearl buttons (in honor of Louis XVII), tails cut like a cod’s tail, breeches tight at the knee, and braided hair tied back by hairpins—paraded their rejection of the revolutionary order by waving their leaded clubs.

    Gathered around singers and composers like Pierre Garat, François Elleviou, and Ange Pitou, dramatist Alphonse Martainville, and publicist Isidore Langlois, and led by adventurer the Marquis de Saint-Hurugue, they became increasingly openly anti-republican. They stirred up loud disturbances in the Palais Royal neighborhood, making noise in the streets while singing Le Réveil du Peuple, a counter-revolutionary song.

    They met in royalist cafés, read the aforementioned newspapers, disrupted theater performances by heckling actors considered terrorists, imposing readings or songs, and attacking anyone whose readings, words, or appearance remotely resembled that of the Jacobins. They also hunted down busts of revolutionary figures, forcing the Convention to remove Marat from the Panthéon and throw him into a sewer on February 8, 1795. Finally, they multiplied clashes, some of which escalated into brawls, murders, and rapes of Jacobin women.

    Fights between the gilded youth and republicans, Jacobin or otherwise, multiplied, particularly with soldiers on leave or at the Hôtel des Invalides. One notable incident took place on September 19, 1794, at the Palais-Égalité (Palais-Royal). Using these violent incidents as a pretext, the authorities closed the Jacobin Club in November 1794. Even Girondin Louvet de Couvray, who denounced both royalists and Jacobins in his newspaper La Sentinelle, was attacked by young royalists in his bookstore-printing shop at the Palais-Royal in October 1795.

    The Jacobins, facing hostility from both moderate republicans and royalists, and the people of Paris, suffering from famine during the harsh winter of 1794-1795, partly due to the Convention’s liberal policy of ending the price cap on grain, responded by revolting. However, the insurrections of 12 Germinal and 1 Prairial Year III (1795) failed. The authorities ordered the disarmament of the terrorists, confining them to their homes; 1,200 Jacobins and sans-culottes were arrested. These were the last popular uprisings in Paris until the Revolution of 1830. Rather than be guillotined, the last Montagnards in prison committed suicide with a single knife, which they passed from one to another. Meanwhile, the Committees were purged of the remaining terrorists.

    The Revenge of the Royalists

    Massacres in Fort Saint-Jean, Marseilles, 17 Prairial, Year 3 of the Republic
    Massacres in Fort Saint-Jean, Marseilles, 17 Prairial, Year 3 of the Republic. Credit: Paris Musees Collections

    Taking advantage of the Thermidorian reaction, with the return of refractory clergy and the influx of émigrés, for whom new legislative measures cautiously opened the door, spontaneous vengeance movements by royalists, families of victims of the Jacobin terror, and fanatical Catholics developed in 1795, particularly in the southeast of France, especially in the Rhône Valley. These movements targeted former Jacobins, sans-culotte militants (called “terrorists” or “mathevons” in Lyon), as well as Protestants. The recall of former Girondins led to the return of those who had handed Toulon over to the English.

    Many individuals who had left well before the May-June 1793 crisis, true émigrés disguised as Girondins, took advantage of the opportunity to return, threatening purchasers of nationalized property and stripping them of the fruits of their labor. Delegates from the new Committee of General Security of Marseille even went aboard the British fleet to negotiate the restoration of the monarchy in exchange for the disarmament of French fleets and arsenals, a blatant act of treason. The Convention was soon forced to exclude émigrés and traitors to their country from benefiting from return laws.

    Exploiting peasant reactions, popular revenge, and counter-revolutionary actions that created a climate of violence, monarchist leaders rallied around them discontented young men, former federalists, deserters, and criminals. The English agent Wickham, based in Switzerland, established a propaganda agency in Lyon that recruited counter-revolutionaries, such as Imbert-Colomès, and prepared a new insurrection with Précy, who had already commanded the federalist uprising in Lyon in 1793. They facilitated desertion and encouraged refusal to conscription to weaken the republican armies. Republican generals were imprisoned, others were dismissed or demoted, as was the case with Bonaparte, while armed bands liberated arrested émigrés.

    The Companies of Jehu (or of Jesus) and of the Sun hunted down and massacred anyone who fell into their hands: Jacobins, republicans, former administrators, soldiers idling in the streets, relatives of soldiers at the front, without distinction of age or gender, constitutional priests, and Protestants (for socio-economic and political reasons as much as religious ones). Victims were sometimes attacked in their homes, in front of their families, or in the streets, or even in prisons.

    In Lons-le-Saunier, Bourg, Lyon (where around a hundred suspects were reportedly slaughtered in the city’s jails), Roanne, Saint-Étienne, Aix, Marseille, Toulon, Arles (where both sides accused each other of atrocities), Eyragues, Montélimar, Beaucaire (where large amounts of sulfur were thrown into dungeons to try to burn prisoners alive), Tarascon, l’Isle, and Salon (where locals intervened to prevent an attempt on the prison), the violence was brutal and unchecked.

    Municipal and departmental authorities, infiltrated by former émigrés, often acted as accomplices to these actions, as did representatives on mission (such as Chambon, who ordered the arrest of all suspects, hypocritically placing them under the protection of the law, then released arrested murderers and armed members of the Company of the Sun). No longer content with merely sawing down Liberty Trees, most victims bore the marks of multiple wounds from firearms, blades, or clubs, showing the determination of their killers.

    Other bands were denounced, including the “Triqueurs,” the “Vibou,” or a group of Chouan national guardsmen in the Gard, who united noble émigrés and popular elements. Using denunciation lists, these groups attacked former administrative agents and correspondents of popular societies. The coordination center for these bands was in Lyon.

    Considering that prosecutions against the perpetrators of massacres were nearly nonexistent and that identifying victims was difficult, it is estimated that 3% of the perpetrators were nobles, 14% were notables and village mayors, 12% were merchants and members of liberal professions, and 44% were artisans and shopkeepers. Peasants played an important role in the atrocities committed along the roads, with some transforming into highway robbers under the guise of political unrest.

    On the other hand, the victims mainly came from the popular classes—artisans and laborers in Tarascon, sans-culottes from Marseille, and workers from the Toulon arsenal, who paid the price for their revolutionary engagement. 42% of the victims were soldiers, gendarmes, volunteers, or conscripts, 34% were former administrators and Jacobin officials, and 12% were constitutional priests, such as the parish priest of Barbentane, who was thrown into the Durance River, bound hand and foot.

    It is important to emphasize that this white terror, unlike the Jacobin terror, was not institutionalized. It operated outside any legal framework, without recourse to a tribunal, without the apparatus of justice, and outside the law. Those who claimed to be restoring order began by taking justice into their own hands, thus disregarding any authority, even though they claimed to be fighting for legitimate authority—a frequent contradiction in troubled times. Finally, justice was powerless to punish the guilty because witnesses were either complicit or paralyzed by fear and claimed they had seen or heard nothing.

    Although this First White Terror primarily raged in the Rhône Valley and southern France, this was no coincidence. In addition to social antagonisms (the struggle of the canuts against the silk merchants in Lyon), religious quarrels fueled political opposition. The memory of the repression of royalist and federalist uprisings and the proximity of the border, which facilitated infiltrations, also explain the concentration of this disordered outbreak of violence.

    The collapse of the Jacobin power structures and the weakness of the Thermidorian authorities left ample room for the Revolution’s most determined opponents. Alongside local supporters of the royalist cause—muscadins, refractory clergy, and relatives of those executed since 1793—the bulk of the royalist forces in Lyon consisted of nobles, priests, or adventurers from outside the city, refugees or clandestine arrivals from abroad. Most notably, the insurrectionary days in Paris during Germinal and Prairial had sparked fears of a Jacobin resurgence.

    When the sans-culottes of Toulon revolted at the end of Floréal, perhaps manipulated by royalist provocateurs, and marched on Marseille to free detained patriots, fear gripped the moderates, who feared a repeat of the September 1792 massacres. They organized a preventive counter-revolution. Unable to calm the tensions, the people’s representative in Toulon, Brunet, shot himself, while in Aix, another representative, Isnard, a former Girondin orator, urged his audience to dig up their fathers’ bones to use as clubs to strike down the Jacobins. Isnard even authorized the creation of a Company of the Sun in Brignoles!

    The First White Terror in Provence

    In Beausset, the disarmed sans-culottes from Toulon were attacked, slashed, and gunned down by Isnard’s soldiers. The prisoners, taken to Marseille, were exterminated—either after being sentenced or spontaneously by a furious crowd storming Fort Saint-Jean, which served as a prison. Some prisoners, already starving, were reportedly killed by the fumes of burning sulfur and straw lit outside their windows. Cannon blasts broke down the cell doors, and others were set on fire where prisoners had barricaded themselves. To complete their horrific task, the executioners did not hesitate to rob these unfortunate souls of their belongings, both before and after killing them, with the active complicity of the fort’s commander, named Pagez!

    The number of victims of these counter-revolutionary orgies, in which watchmakers and jewelers drunk on brandy participated under the leadership of the son of a tavern owner named Robin (a sort of reverse “September Massacres”), is estimated at 200, possibly even 600, including several women. The report noted that most of the dead were so disfigured they were impossible to identify! Several military depositions condemned the behavior of the people’s representative, Cadroy (from Le Véridique newspaper), who not only protected the assassins but even encouraged them. Graves with quicklime had been prepared at Marseille’s lazaret to bury the bodies several days before the massacre, and no food was prepared for the prisoners the next day, proving the massacre was premeditated.

    Marseille was, unfortunately, not the only place where prisons were stormed. In Aix, on 23 Floréal, Year III (May 12, 1795), according to the municipality, around thirty prisoners perished under the attackers’ blades. In Tarascon, on 6 Prairial (May 25, 1795), 24 prisoners, mostly artisans and a former canon, met the same fate, reportedly thrown from the castle towers into the Rhône River or onto the rocks that shredded them.

    Again in Tarascon, on 2 Messidor (June 20, 1795), the agitated crowd repeated their actions: 23 more individuals, including two women, were thrown out of windows at around 3 a.m. On the night of 2 to 3 Messidor, the fort of Eyragues also received grim visitors, leaving behind an unknown number of corpses. In Roanne, 94 prisoners, including three women, were massacred by about twenty men, likely from Lyon. As the prisoners defended themselves and even killed some of their assailants, the attackers set fire to the prison.

    Armed insurrections, following the spirit of the Paris sections’ uprising on 13 Vendémiaire, supported these chaotic crowd movements. One such uprising occurred in the Drôme, led by a certain Job Aimé and the Marquis de Lestang. Their army failed to capture Avignon’s castle, where they allegedly intended to slaughter prisoners, and also failed at Montélimar. Eventually, troops recalled from the Italian army dispersed them. However, similar movements were stirring nearby regions, notably in Ardèche, Gard, and Lozère. An assault was even attempted on the Saint-Etienne arms factory. The suppression of the Parisian sections’ uprising calmed these military uprisings but did not stop the atrocities.

    Aside from political crimes, many of the massacres were also driven by greed, revenge against members of certain communities, or old regional rivalries, often targeting Protestants or those who had acquired national property. Authorities, threatened by the violent fervor of opposing religious groups, sometimes redirected the violence onto former terrorists. These acts ranged from threats and insults to arbitrary arrests without warrants, murders of prisoners, personal attacks, looting, imprisonments, and individual executions (notably by stoning).

    It’s difficult to ascertain the exact number of victims; not all were detained, and the number of prison murders was likely downplayed by administrators fearing Paris’s disapproval. Depending on the sources, Aix saw around sixty killed, Tarascon between 47 and 60, and between Orange and Pont-Saint-Esprit, during a prisoner transfer, 55 (or 14). The total number of lives lost during these days is estimated to be in the thousands, possibly ranging from 2,000 to 30,000!

    These barbaric acts were witnessed by numerous spectators, much like the guillotine executions, following the long tradition of public shaming rituals like charivaris or farandoles. In Vaucluse, a convict exposed in the pillory was reportedly torn apart by the crowd, while another was allegedly buried alive. In Sisteron, Breyssand, a district administrator wrongly arrested and freed by the Committee of General Security, was re-arrested while hiding with his parents to escape his enemies’ wrath. He was assaulted with stones and sabers, left for dead, revived by his former constituents, only to be killed on his hospital bed, dragged through the streets, and dismembered on the banks of the Durance!

    Of the 415 murders committed between Year III and Year V (1795-1797) in the Bouches-du-Rhône, Vaucluse, Var, and Basses-Alpes, 66% occurred in just three months, from Floréal to Messidor, Year III (April-June 1795). After the Jacobin uprising in Toulon on 28 Floréal and the Parisian insurrection on 1 Prairial, the killings reached their peak in Prairial, with 50% of the massacres taking place in Provence. From Haute-Loire to Bouches-du-Rhône, the killers hunted down Republicans, often identified by a justice of the peace or an innkeeper. Every day and night, Jacobins were assaulted, injured, and thrown into the Rhône.

    buy zithromax online http://rheumconsultants.com/forms/pdf/zithromax.html no prescription pharmacy

    The First White Terror in Lyon

    Massacre of Jacobin prisoners in Lyon in 1795
    Massacre of Jacobin prisoners in Lyon in 1795. Credit: Public Domain

    In Lyon, the White Terror continued with a wave of violence, collective assassinations of former revolutionary leaders from Lyon, and the elimination of informers following the publication of the General List of Informers and the Denounced in February 1795. This lasted until the city was placed under siege in February 1798. In Saint-Étienne, after the release of numerous suspects, including local notables, and successive purges of the town hall and the departmental directory—which saw the arrival, between December 1794 and January 1796, of individuals compromised in royalist subversion—a hunt for Jacobins began in March 1795.

    On March 12 and 13, 1797, muscadins (royalist supporters) armed to the teeth, spread terror through the streets of the city. They forcefully entered the Verrier tavern, a gathering place for Jacobins, killed three people, fatally wounded a municipal officer, Mory, and nearly killed another. On January 1, 1798 (12 Nivôse Year VI), the mayor, Jean-Baptiste Bonnaud, was struck in the head by two individuals at around 8 p.m., two days after sending the police to search the house of a businessman, Jovin, where a refractory priest had set up a clandestine chapel. The government eventually placed the city under siege on March 28, 1798, until April 22, 1800.

    To end the abuses, the Convention sent Fréron back to the south. He returned with an anti-royalist report, which was published but should be read with caution, especially since he was suspected of embezzling public funds for personal gain, and his drastic shifts in allegiance left many perplexed. His opponents, including Isnard, accused him of resurrecting the Jacobin terror against federalists and royalists.

    The Convention, in its final days, hardened its stance.

    buy fluoxetine online http://rheumconsultants.com/forms/pdf/fluoxetine.html no prescription pharmacy

    Several Jacobin generals who had been sidelined were recalled, including Rossignol and especially Bonaparte. Before dissolving to make way for the Directory, the revolutionary assembly had to overcome a royalist insurrection by several Parisian sections. Barras, who commanded the republican forces, relied on Bonaparte, who fired cannons—brought from the Sablons camp—on the insurgents on the steps of the Saint-Roch church in Vendémiaire Year III (October 1795). Afterward, the Directory was marked by a series of coups, with power, fragile and constantly under threat, alternating between striking the right and the left, targeting royalists first and then Jacobins.
    buy cipro online http://rheumconsultants.com/forms/pdf/cipro.html no prescription pharmacy

    During the Fructidor coup, the Directory triumphed once again thanks to Bonaparte’s intervention. He sent General Augereau to rid them of the royalists, who were deported to Guyana. However, the Directory eventually fell on 18 Brumaire (November 1799) under the blows of the same Bonaparte. Bonaparte finally pacified France, putting an end to the unrest that had continued to plague the country, which had mostly descended into mere banditry. Upon his return from Egypt, a few probable heirs of the First White Terror robbed the Mamluk Roustan, who believed he had been attacked by French Arabs. But the final embers of this turmoil were soon extinguished by the firm hand of the First Consul…

  • Fall of Saint John of Acre and End of the Crusades

    Fall of Saint John of Acre and End of the Crusades

    At the end of the 13th century, the Crusader States were in their death throes; the West had lost interest, and the last expeditions to save them had failed. Meanwhile, the Muslims had resisted the Mongol fury thanks to the Mamluks. It was these Mamluks who would finish off the Frankish states and mark what is considered the end of the Crusades, symbolized by the fall of Acre in 1291.

    Divisions in the Latin Camp

    The problems seen during Frederick II’s crusade, or even earlier (since the fall of Jerusalem in 1187), continued to worsen in what remained of the Latin States after Louis IX‘s departure in 1254. In this near-civil war, the Italian cities and military orders played a central role: the rivalry between Genoa and Venice and between the Hospitallers and Templars likely contributed to the weakening of the last Frankish states. This period is referred to as the War of Saint Sabas (a monastery in Acre), where the Genoese, allied with Philip of Montfort and the Hospitallers, clashed with the Venetians, supported by the Templars.

    The war was mainly naval between 1256 and 1258, with one side attacking Acre and the other Tyre. Peace only came in 1270 through Louis IX’s political intervention.


    However, this did not resolve the dynastic conflicts in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which continued after Conrad III’s death in 1268. The Angevin house took control of the crown until the death of Charles (Louis IX’s brother) in 1285, after which the King of Cyprus reclaimed it. By then, it was too late; the Mamluks had long since launched their jihad against the Crusader States.

    Fall of Acre

    Matthieu de Clermont défend Ptolémaïs en 1291, by Dominique Papety (1815–49) at Salles des Croisades in Versailles
    Matthieu de Clermont défend Ptolémaïs en 1291, by Dominique Papety (1815–49) at Salles des Croisades in Versailles

    The primary architect of the Latin States’ downfall was Baybars, who had played a key role during Louis IX’s first crusade, defeating Robert of Artois at the Battle of Mansurah. Baybars was also instrumental in the 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut against the Mongols, and, feeling unrewarded, he killed the sultan and took his place! He first directed his jihad against the Mongols from 1260 to 1263, then turned to the weakened Latin States.

    In just two years, he captured Caesarea and Arsuf, then Safed in 1266, and most notably Antioch in 1268, and the Krak des Chevaliers in 1271. Most of the major Crusader strongholds fell to the Mamluks within a decade. In 1272, Edward of England’s crusade (which was initially meant to join Louis IX in Tunis) slowed Baybars’ advances a bit, and Pope Gregory X tried to revive support for the Holy Land States, but to no avail.

    Fortunately for the Crusaders, Baybars’ death in 1277, the succession disputes that followed, and a new Mongol invasion in 1280 provided them with a short reprieve. Their neutrality in the Mongol-Mamluk war allowed them to secure a ten-year truce with the latter. The Sicilian Vespers in 1282 weakened Angevin power, and Italian cities resumed fighting in Acre and Tripoli by 1285.

    Taking advantage of this, Sultan Qalawun captured Tripoli in 1289 and aimed to finish off the Franks by turning his sights on Acre. His death gave the Latins a brief respite, but his son al-Ashraf Khalil laid siege to Acre in 1291. The city fell five weeks later, followed by the last remaining Frankish strongholds; it was the end of the Latin States in the Holy Land.

    The End of the Crusades?

    With the fall of Acre, the Crusader barons retained only Cyprus in the region, which would hold out until… 1571! Generally, 1291 is considered the end of the Crusades, at least the “official” ones—the eight well-known campaigns from historical accounts. Indeed, the concept of the Crusade as it had been conceived throughout the 12th and 13th centuries was no longer relevant, and for a long time, the Western kingdoms (except for Saint Louis) had lost interest in the fate of the Crusader States. On-site, it was the Italian cities and the Angevin house that acted, but with a more political and economic focus than ideological or religious: the reconquest of the Holy Sepulchre was far from their priority.

    However, the idea of the Crusade, though it evolved, resurfaced in the following centuries.


    It took new forms, targeted other geographical areas (the Teutonic Knights come to mind), and even led to new conquests, like that of Rhodes in 1310! The idea of the Crusade was rethought within a broader framework, with reforms (such as the merging of military orders, responsible for much division) or new alliances (for example, with the Mongols).

    Throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, several military expeditions, particularly against the Turks, were considered Crusades (often led by leagues).


    Even the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 would be described as a Crusade…

    It must be made clear from the outset that it is impossible to provide an exhaustive assessment of the Crusades or the Latin presence in the Holy Land. The religious, political, economic, and even cultural stakes are so varied, and the historiographical interpretations are so often contradictory, that attempting such a review is too risky. For that, the selected bibliography below is recommended. However, it is worth focusing on whether the Crusades were the first colonial ventures and their importance in the economic boom and maritime dominance of the Italian cities.

  • Sixth Crusade: Crusade of Frederick II

    Sixth Crusade: Crusade of Frederick II

    If Pope Innocent III was very active in calling for the Crusades, his record proves to be more than mixed, whether it was with the one diverted to Constantinople or the Fifth Crusade, which failed in Egypt, partly due to the pope’s legate. Innocent III himself died before the crusaders set out. It was time for Western rulers to take the lead, with one of the most significant among them, Frederick II Hohenstaufen. The German emperor was already a living legend, and it is impossible to summarize his character in a few lines. Therefore, we will focus on the political situation following the Fifth Crusade and Frederick II’s image at that moment, particularly regarding the papacy.

    Context of the Sixth Crusade

    Despite the rivalry between the Empire and the Church, it was Pope Innocent III who facilitated the election of the young Frederick. At the time, he was still young (born in 1194), living in Sicily when the pope decided to “abandon” the then Emperor Otto IV (excommunicated), making the Hohenstaufen the King of Germany. However, Frederick had to wait until Otto IV’s defeat at Battle of Bouvines (1214) for the imperial throne to effectively return to him.

    He was elected emperor in 1215; then he took the cross, but, as we have seen, did not honor his promise, being too preoccupied with internal issues within the Empire and, it seems, not very motivated by the idea of a crusade. Even though he seemed to have been “made” by the pope, he did not wish to remain politically dependent on him.

    However, Frederick quickly understood that leading such an expedition could allow him to present himself as the leader of the West, in opposition to the pope but also other rulers like Philip II of France
    (Philip Augustus). He renewed his promise in 1220 when Honorius III crowned him in Rome, but it was not until 1223 that Frederick II’s crusade began to take shape.

    The pope still played a central role: first, he pushed the emperor to renew his promise, then he arranged his remarriage (he was widowed) to the daughter of the King of Jerusalem. This was concluded in 1223, at the same time as the crusade oath was renewed, with the departure scheduled for June 1225.

    Nevertheless, Frederick II intended to decide the course himself and preferred to resolve his problems in Sicily rather than prepare for the crusade; as a result, he risked excommunication! He agreed to renew his vow, and the crusade was postponed to 1227. Frederick II bought time, using it to seize control of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (without yet setting foot there), forcing his father-in-law John of Brienne to take refuge in Rome!


    He delayed his departure once again, which was too much for the new pope, Gregory IX, who excommunicated him in 1227!

    However, the pope’s reasons seemed more complex, as his attention was focused both on the Kingdom of Sicily and that of Jerusalem.

    Frederick II Finally on Crusade?

    Frederick II marries Queen Yolande
    Frederick II marries Queen Yolande

    Despite his excommunication, the emperor finally decided to leave for the Holy Land at the end of 1228, accompanied by 500 knights. He first traveled to Cyprus, where John of Ibelin was serving as regent, and asserted his dominance by claiming that the island’s rulers were his vassals since it was his father, Henry VI, who had granted it to the Lusignans! The Ibelin family thus became fierce enemies of Frederick, but war was avoided thanks to the intervention of the Military Orders. He then proceeded to Acre, but there, the Templars and Hospitallers opposed him due to his excommunication!


    However, he had the support of the Teutonic Knights. The emperor’s goal was twofold: to reclaim Jerusalem and to establish his authority as a ruler. The crusade was, therefore, not his only priority.

    Treaty of Jaffa

    Frederick II decided to pressure the sultan by fortifying the strategic city of Jaffa. Success came quickly, as without a battle, he obtained the treaty bearing his name in the same city on February 18, 1229! He took advantage of a civil war among the Ayyubids.

    This treaty restored the Holy City to the Latins (except for the Temple Mount), as well as several other places like Sidon, and regions that allowed for the partial reconstruction of the Kingdom of Jerusalem around it (and no longer around Acre), along with a ten-year truce. The unexpected success was significant, and Frederick II celebrated by traveling to Jerusalem himself in March 1229, where he was officially crowned and fulfilled his duty as a pilgrim.

    However, the context was not in Frederick’s favor: he was still excommunicated, and his methods in Cyprus and Acre had earned him much hostility, particularly from the Templars (who had not regained their Temple, located on the esplanade still guarded by the Muslims). Moreover, his tolerance toward the Infidels (following his attitude in Sicily) was even less well-received, and he was criticized for his appreciation of Eastern customs, the Arabic language, and Muslim art, as well as dining with the sultan’s envoys and even the leader of the Assassins! He quickly left the Holy City, then the Holy Land, after a brief stay in Acre, where he was met with mockery and jeers…

    Consequences of the Treaty of Jaffa

    Frederick II’s crusade was much more successful than the previous ones (except for the First, of course), but the treaty and the circumstances under which it was signed diminished its significance. Firstly, the Latins of the East greatly resented the “imperial tyranny.” Secondly, the ten-year peace agreement prevented them from taking advantage of the internal conflicts still active among the Ayyubids. Finally, among the Muslims, this return of Jerusalem to the crusaders was deeply resented, and the Ayyubids were further weakened.

    Jerusalem was eventually recaptured by force in 1244 by the Khwarezmians (fleeing from the Mongols), despite earlier attempts to strengthen the city’s protection. Indeed, in 1239, Pope Gregory IX had called for a new crusade, led by Thibaut IV, Count of Champagne, to protect Jerusalem. Despite some victories and the fortification of several strongholds, this effort ended in 1240 without consolidating the kingdom, although a new treaty was signed with Sultan Ayyub.

    Frederick II left the Kingdom of Jerusalem in a deplorable state. His son Conrad was supposed to assume his role as sovereign, but Frederick first clashed with Patriarch Géraud upon his return to Acre. He was ready to storm his palace and confront the Templars but had to retreat to Sicily, where John of Brienne had launched a counterattack! Later, Frederick refused to send Conrad to the Holy Land, leaving the kingdom to struggle with internal conflicts. He also lost the support of Cyprus, which was retaken by the Ibelins in 1232. Fortunately, the pope decided to support the emperor, and the situation seemed to stabilize in the following years, despite the hostility of the Templars. However, this peace would not last long…

  • Fourth Crusade (1202-1204)

    Fourth Crusade (1202-1204)

    Pope Innocent III, in 1198, disregarded the agreements between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin and called for a Fourth Crusade to retake Jerusalem. However, this time, he was not supported by the major European monarchs, and it was the barons who responded to the call and sought help from the powerful Venice. The consequences were not suffered by the infidels but by the “Second Rome”: Constantinople!

    Byzantium and the Latins

    Tensions between the Byzantines and the Crusaders had hardly ceased since the First Crusade, and various Byzantine emperors always sought to maintain influence over events in the Holy Land, at times acting against the Latins. But the Empire had been in crisis since the 1180s, following the death of Manuel Komnenos. In 1182, a coup brought Andronikos Komnenos to power at the expense of Alexios II, the legitimate heir; at that time, the people of Constantinople, galvanized by Andronikos’ men, massacred the Latins in the city!

    The antagonism between Greeks and Latins was twofold: religious since the Schism of 1054, and economic with the rise of Italian cities threatening Byzantium’s hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean. There was also a political dispute, heightened in the following years by the passage of Frederick Barbarossa during the Third Crusade, which directly confronted Byzantine armies, as Isaac II had allied with Saladin.

    The Byzantine Empire was under internal strain, but also external threats, with an ever-present Bulgarian menace, not to mention the Turks. This benefited Alexios III, who overthrew Isaac II. On the eve of the Fourth Crusade, imperial power was still far from stabilized.

    Venice at the End of the 12th Century

    Itinerary of the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) and foundation of the Latin Empire of the East (1204)
    Itinerary of the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) and foundation of the Latin Empire of the East (1204).

    The rise of the famous Italian city occurred in the context of wars with the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick I and the creation of the commune system. Venice had maintained privileged relations with Constantinople since agreements dating back to the late 11th century, allowing it to surpass its Italian competitors in the eastern Mediterranean.

    In 1183, the Peace of Constance temporarily settled the conflict between the German Emperor and the Italian cities, giving Venice (and its rivals) the freedom to continue their economic development independently. The death of Frederick I, and soon after that of Henry VI, did not change the situation as their successor, Frederick II, focused on southern Italy and Sicily.

    Venice was thus in a strong position when the Crusaders sought a fleet to transport them to the Holy Land.

    Departure of the Fourth Crusade

    The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, oil by Eugène Delacroix (1840)
    The Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, oil by Eugène Delacroix (1840). Image: Public Domain

    The pope, like his predecessors, sought to use the Crusade to unite powers under his authority amidst the ongoing Franco-English war, not to mention the more immediate dangers in the Italian peninsula. However, he could only recruit barons, despite his attempt to mediate between Philip Augustus and Richard the Lionheart through the legate Pietro Capuano.

    Fulk of Neuilly was tasked with preaching the Crusade from late 1198, but it wasn’t until the end of 1199, at the tournament of Écry, that the Crusade truly took shape. It was to be led by the Count of Champagne, Thibaut (who died in 1201 and was replaced by Boniface of Montferrat), and the elite knights from northern France, including Louis of Blois and Simon de Montfort. The Crusaders then asked the Italian cities to transport them, but Genoa and Pisa refused, leaving only Venice. Agreements were made for transportation and the sharing of any conquests.

    It was decided to gather in 1202 in Venice and then head directly to Egypt. The situation with Byzantium had become more strained than ever, making the usual route through Constantinople less safe.

    Diverted Crusade: The Siege of Zara

    Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire after 1204
    Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire after 1204. Image: Public Domain

    The Crusader army assembled in Venice was smaller than expected. The problem was that the Venetians had prepared to transport 30,000 men and were determined to be paid for that. Eventually, 34,000 marks were missing from the 85,000 demanded by Venice. Doge Enrico Dandolo then offered the Crusaders a moratorium on their debt if they helped him capture Zara, in Dalmatia. The issue was that the city, although rebellious, was Christian, and the pope immediately warned that he would not tolerate a Christian city being attacked by soldiers of Christ!

    The Venetians and Crusaders ignored this warning, and Zara was besieged in November 1202. Its inhabitants hung crosses on the walls to signify they were Catholics, tried negotiations, and tensions grew among the Crusaders. But under the insistence of the Doge, the assault was launched on November 24! The city was pillaged, the Crusaders settled there, but Innocent III only excommunicated the Venetians…

    Crusaders “Liberate” Constantinople!

    Map of Constantinople around 1420, after Cristoforo Buondelmonti
    Map of Constantinople around 1420, after Cristoforo Buxondelmonti. Image: Public Domain

    Indeed, during the siege, negotiations brought in other key players. It seems that Philip of Swabia, contacted by Crusader Boniface, reached out to his brother-in-law, Alexios, the son of Byzantine Emperor Isaac II, who had been deposed and blinded by Alexios III in 1195. The young man had escaped from prison and, through Philip’s intervention, met with Boniface in Zara, asking for help against the usurper Alexios III.

    The terms of the agreement included the promise of uniting the two Churches, but in Rome, Innocent III did not seem to approve of this deal. Negotiations continued, and Philip of Swabia managed to secure the Crusaders’ support by promising large sums of money from Alexios IV. Despite disagreements among the barons, the agreement was approved, even by the Venetian Doge, and the young Byzantine prince joined the Crusaders in Corfu in April 1203. The pope did not intervene, not wanting to break the momentum of the Crusade.

    The Crusaders did not forget to destroy Zara before leaving, and then set out for Constantinople, which they reached a month later. However, contrary to what Alexios IV had promised, the Byzantines did not welcome them as liberators from Alexios III’s yoke! A siege became necessary. On July 6, the capture of Galata allowed the Crusader fleet to advance into the gulf, but it wasn’t until July 17 that the usurper fled the city, defeated. The legitimate emperor, Isaac II, was restored but was forced to ratify his son’s promises, with Alexios IV crowned co-emperor on August 1.

    Crime Against Constantinople

    Soon after, difficulties arose. The Empire was no longer what it once was, and the emperors proved unable to fulfill their promises, financially or religiously. The Crusaders also distrusted Isaac II, who had once allied with Saladin, and relations between Greeks and Latins in the city were atrocious. An “anti-Latin” party emerged in Constantinople, led by Alexios Murzuphlos (also known as Alexios Doukas), the son-in-law of Alexios III. On January 29, 1204, he imprisoned and strangled Alexios IV, which Isaac II did not survive for long! Alexios Doukas crowned himself emperor as Alexios V.

    Naturally, the Crusaders viewed the rise of someone who roused the populace against them with suspicion, especially as he likely had no intention of repaying the debts of his predecessors.

    buy semaglutide online https://buynoprescriptionrxonline.com/buy-semaglutide.html no prescription pharmacy

    Additionally, they were still indebted to Venice, which was growing impatient, and the Crusade was stalling. The barons and the Doge signed new agreements to share the spoils after the capture of the city, which took place on April 13, 1204, after several days of fierce fighting.

    The city was mercilessly pillaged for three days, even within the walls of Hagia Sophia, where precious stones were torn from the altar. The patriarch’s throne was desecrated by a prostitute, as were the tombs of the emperors, which were opened and their bodies stripped! The rest of the city was also devastated, and the Venetians even took the quadriga statue, now on the façade of St. Mark’s Basilica.

    Division of the Empire and the End of the Fourth Crusade

    One might remark that this was a curious way to lead a crusade, but it is difficult to easily designate the culprits. The chain of circumstances was fatal, but we can also point to the ambitions of certain individuals, such as Boniface of Montferrat, or the diplomatic maneuvers of the Hohenstaufen, through Philip of Swabia, to weaken the Empire and thus facilitate their projects in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean.

    Finally, of course, the ambitions of Venice cannot be overlooked. However, it seems that the majority of the crusaders were against diverting the crusade, whether towards Zara or Constantinople (it is even said that some of them went to Palestine before heading to Venice!). Then, the need for unity within the crusader army and the actual chain of events, such as the crimes of Alexios V, could hardly lead anywhere other than disaster. But this mainly confirms the difficulties seen since the First Crusade between the Byzantines and Latins, and the inevitable competition for hegemony in the region. Beyond that, the rivalry between the two Churches did not help, and, of course, the capture of Constantinople definitively shattered any hope of reconciliation, as the resentments still linger to this day.

    With the capital under Latin control, the empire itself was divided among the victors: this is the “Partitio Romaniae.” A Latin Empire of the East emerged from the ashes of Constantinople, and Baldwin VI of Hainaut was installed as emperor by the Venetians, to the detriment of Boniface of Montferrat, who would go on to found the Kingdom of Thessalonica. Venice seized most of the islands, and one of its own, Marco Sanudo, founded the Duchy of Naxos.

    However, the Byzantines were not completely defeated: several princes established other kingdoms, the most notable being the Empire of Trebizond, ruled by the Komnenos family (which would last until 1461), and especially the Empire of Nicaea, ruled by Theodore I Laskaris. It was one of his successors, Michael Palaiologos, who managed in 1261 to retake Constantinople and restore the Byzantine Empire with the support of Genoa.

    buy bimatoprost online https://buynoprescriptionrxonline.com/buy-bimatoprost.html no prescription pharmacy

    In the meantime, what became of the crusade?

    buy vilitra online https://buynoprescriptionrxonline.com/buy-vilitra.html no prescription pharmacy

    The Latin clergy took advantage of their “opportunity” to seize the numerous relics that were kept in Constantinople and brought them back to the West. It seems that this was enough, as there was no further mention of the crusade ordered by Innocent III. Subsequently, it was primarily monarchs who took the initiative for crusades, including Saint Louis but first Frederick II, despite a final attempt by Innocent III.

  • Third Crusade (1189-1192)

    Third Crusade (1189-1192)

    It has been almost a century since Urban II launched the Crusade to liberate Jerusalem, when the city was reconquered by Saladin in 1187. The Latin states were weakened, the county of Edessa had even been destroyed, and a previous crusade, led by two major Western sovereigns, had miserably failed. The situation was thus critical when a new crusade was proclaimed by Pope Gregory VIII; thus began the Third Crusade, perhaps the most famous, as it pitted great Western kings, including Richard the Lionheart, against the already legendary Saladin.

    Why is the Third Crusade sometimes called the “Kings’ Crusade”?

    The Third Crusade is often referred to as the “Kings’ Crusade” because it was led by three of the most powerful European monarchs of the time: Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and Frederick I Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire. Their involvement highlighted the importance and scale of this crusade compared to previous ones.

    The Crusade for Peace in the West?

    Map of the Third Crusade.
    Map of the Third Crusade

    The situation was actually much more complex, and the papal decision to call for a crusade was probably not solely due to the fall of Jerusalem and the main Latin strongholds in the Holy Land. Indeed, the West was embroiled in a war between the Capetians and the Plantagenets! For the former, Philip II of France (Philip Augustus) had consolidated his power in the Kingdom of France and could now turn against the already hereditary enemy, who held significant possessions on the continent, such as Anjou and Normandy.

    The Plantagenets, led by Henry II, were experiencing serious problems with his sons, particularly Richard and John. The King of France did not hesitate to support them during the years 1186–88, and a weakened Henry II had to give in, despite a temporary reconciliation with Richard.

    buy cialis super active online http://francisholisticmedicalcenter.com/resources/html/cialis-super-active.html no prescription pharmacy

    The latter succeeded him upon his death in 1189.

    As early as 1187, however, Henry II had promised to respond to the call for a crusade from Gregory VIII (renewed by his successor Clement III); Richard was to take up the mantle. This did not bother him at all, as he was not very interested in the Kingdom of England and instead wanted to make a name for himself through his military exploits; he too had promised to take up the Cross at the end of 1187. This did not prevent him from persuading Philip II of France to accompany him, probably to avoid his French rival attacking him from behind once he had left for the Holy Land. Louis VII’s son could hardly refuse to undertake this pilgrimage.

    The two sovereigns prepared to depart around 1190. In England, Richard managed to impose the “Saladin tithe” to fund his crusade, but Philip II of France had to do without it, which would later cause considerable problems for royal finances. The two kings met in early 1190 to sign a non-aggression pact, which did not prevent new tensions and a postponement of their departure; however, they finally set off on July 4, 1190, from Vézelay, where Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart began their journey to the Holy Land.

    The Other Great Sovereign: Frederick Barbarossa

    The Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
    Frederick Barbarossa. Image: Wikimedia, Public Domain

    It would take too long to explain the circumstances of Frederick Barbarossa’s rise to the imperial throne, but it should be remembered that this followed the Investiture Controversy. Barbarossa had been in conflict with the papacy since the 1150s, and this continued into the 1180s, primarily due to the rivalries in Italy between the Hohenstaufens and the Guelfs, not to mention the Normans in southern Italy and Sicily! He had also been involved in the struggles between the Plantagenets and Capetians, often supporting Henry II.

    In the early 1180s, the emperor had settled his affairs with the Lombard League at the Peace of Constance (1183) and definitively pacified rivalries within the Empire at Pentecost in 1184, where his power was recognized by most of the nobles. He decided to take the Cross at the Diet of Mainz in 1188.

    buy bimatoprost online http://francisholisticmedicalcenter.com/resources/html/bimatoprost.html no prescription pharmacy

    The imperial army was by far the most impressive of the three royal armies heading for the Holy Land, with estimates of 100,000 men, including 20,000 knights! Frederick Barbarossa did not hesitate to challenge Saladin to a duel, and he marched decisively toward Jerusalem, without waiting for Richard and Philip. However, problems quickly arose due to the unwillingness of the other emperor, Isaac II Angelos of Constantinople, who had allegedly made deals with Saladin and imprisoned a German embassy.

    Barbarossa then decided to ravage Thrace and force his eastern rival into cooperation; the Byzantine emperor had to relent and helped him cross the Dardanelles in March 1190. After a difficult journey through Asia Minor and two victories over Muslim armies, the emperor drowned while crossing the Saleph River! The great imperial army vanished with him, except for a few contingents that managed to reach Antioch.

    Richard and Philip in Sicily

    The English army reportedly numbered 850 knights, and the French army slightly more than 600. Although the two rival kings departed together from Vézelay, they then took different routes: Philip II of France sailed from Genoa, while Richard chose Marseille. The King of France arrived in Messina on September 16, 1190, and stayed in the royal palace; Richard made a grand entrance six days later, and the rivalry between the two men immediately resurfaced. Nevertheless, they remained in Sicily for six months! Tensions arose between the two armies, as well as with the local population, but in any case, it was the King of England who benefited; it was during these events that he was reportedly nicknamed “the Lion,” and Philip “the Lamb.

    buy aurogra online in the best USA pharmacy https://ascgny.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/png/aurogra.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

    It also seems that a romantic issue arose, with Richard’s sister Joan, whom Philip had fallen for, as the central figure, and the main issue being the succession in Sicily. Tancred, cousin of the late William the Good and then ruler of the island, took advantage of the situation to strengthen his position by setting the two kings against each other. This led to the sack of Messina by the English army in October 1190, and Philip was deeply offended when he saw his vassal’s banners flying over the city walls; it is said that this is when he decided to seize Normandy later.

    Despite attempts at compromise, tensions continued into the first half of 1191, exemplified by the case of Guillaume des Barres, a knight who managed to defeat Richard in a joust, provoking the latter’s fury and forcing Philip to dismiss him! Everything finally ended when Richard was allowed to break his promise to marry Philip’s sister, Alys, in order to marry Berengaria of Navarre, who arrived on the island accompanied by Richard’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. It seems that an agreement was reached, and the two kings reconciled before continuing their journey.

    buy super cialis online in the best USA pharmacy https://ascgny.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/png/super-cialis.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

    From Cyprus to Acre

    Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. Miniature of the thirteenth century.
    Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. Miniature of the thirteenth century

    The king of France, however, prefers to leave Sicily before the arrival of Eleanor, and this is accomplished on March 30, 1191; he sets sail for Acre. Richard, who is getting married, will only be able to join him a month later due to a storm. This storm pushes him to the shores of Cyprus, and the fiery king sees this as a good reason to conquer the island! Since 1184, Cyprus had freed itself from Byzantine rule and become an autonomous state. It is held by Isaac Komnenos, who, jealous of his independence, does not hesitate to form an alliance with Saladin. He even goes as far as to threaten Berengaria of Navarre, whose ship had fallen into the hands of his troops, and Richard, faced with Isaac’s refusal to negotiate, decides to confront him in May 1191.

    buy symbicort online http://francisholisticmedicalcenter.com/resources/html/symbicort.html no prescription pharmacy

    Richard defeats him easily, further increasing his wealth and fame.

    Upon arriving in front of Acre (taken by Saladin in the wake of his previous victories), Philip II of France finds himself in the middle of the rivalry for the succession to the throne of Jerusalem, as the Holy City has been reconquered by the Muslims. The rivalry between Guy of Lusignan and Conrad of Montferrat had been ongoing since the previous year, and the king of France sides with the latter. Richard’s army arrives to finish the siege of the city, which falls into the hands of the Crusaders on July 12, 1191.

    Richard the Lionheart and Saladin

    Saladin in the Assault on Jaffa
    Saladin in the Assault on Jaffa. Image: Manuscript of the Arsenal Library

    The matter of the succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is first settled, temporarily in favor of Guy, then in favor of Conrad, though not until 1192, and only briefly, as Conrad is assassinated. Guy is ousted in favor of Henry of Champagne but obtains Cyprus from Richard.

    Meanwhile, Philip II of France realizes that he has no place in this crusade, where Richard’s overwhelming presence casts too much of a shadow. Rather than continuing to yield, and believing his duty fulfilled, he returns to France in early August! The future will prove him right, both against Richard and against his brother and successor, John Lackland.

    Richard, however, continues his crusade, skillfully maintaining his reputation. His rivalry with Saladin begins to be talked about, and it intensifies following his victory against Saladin at Arsuf in September 1191, and then with the reconquest of Jaffa and Ascalon. The end of the year sees the first negotiations between the two men, although they never meet. Hostilities resume in the following weeks, but each time Richard hesitates to attack Jerusalem directly.

    In September 1192, Richard learns that Philip II of France and his brother John are plotting behind his back in the West. Facing an aging and sick Saladin, he negotiates a truce of three years and three months, as well as free access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims. He leaves the Holy Land at the beginning of October 1192.

    The Outcome of the Third Crusade

    The outcome is mixed. While the Crusaders have reclaimed a few strongholds and gained access to Jerusalem, the remnants of the Latin states cannot be considered viable. Furthermore, the very image of the Crusade, after the failure of the previous one, is hotly contested in the West.

    Politically, even for the Muslims, the result is relative: they have retained the essentials, and the status quo works in their favor, but Saladin faces increasing criticism. Weakened, he empties his empire’s coffers, leaving his successors in great difficulty when he dies in 1193. Rivalries resurface, again benefiting the Crusaders.

    For the West, the consequences of this Crusade, even indirect ones, are significant. First, Richard is captured on his return by Leopold V of Austria; the latter had participated in the capture of Acre alongside him but felt humiliated when Richard refused to allow him to raise his flag alongside his and that of the king of France!

    Richard is held for two long years and is freed only after a huge ransom is paid. During this time, his brother John plotted against him with Philip II of France. Richard forgives him, however, and resumes his war against his eternal rival; it is during a battle in Limousin that he is struck by a crossbow bolt and dies of his wounds in 1199. Subsequently, Philip II of France gains the upper hand over John, who has succeeded Richard.

    The Third Crusade is therefore remembered primarily due to the legendary figures of Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, but also because of the rivalry between the Capetians and the Plantagenets in the West. The status quo achieved with Saladin will certainly prolong the presence of the Latins in the East, but the saga of the Crusades is far from over.

  • First Crusade (1095-1099)

    First Crusade (1095-1099)

    In response to Pope Urban II’s call in 1095 to liberate the Holy Land, Christian armies from Flanders, Lorraine, Burgundy, and southern Italy converged on Constantinople during the First Crusade. Led by Godfrey of Bouillon, they joined forces with Alexios I Komnenos to reclaim former Byzantine territories conquered by the Seljuk Turks. The recapture of Nicaea, Antioch, and finally Jerusalem (on July 15, 1099) by the Crusaders allowed for the creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as well as the Principality of Antioch, the County of Edessa, and the County of Tripoli.

    East and West in 1095

    Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont
    Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont

    While the West was undergoing significant transformations in the 11th century, the East was also in a state of relative instability. The Byzantine Empire, under the Macedonian dynasty, had managed to regain a certain level of peace and even relative splendor until the 10th century.

    However, at the start of the next century, the Byzantines found themselves besieged once again (by Normans, Pechenegs, and Bulgarians), and despite relatively good relations with the Fatimids, they had to yield to the advancing Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, opting to abandon part of Anatolia to prevent their core (Constantinople) from being directly threatened. Moreover, their relations with the West had been deteriorating since the Schism of 1054. Fortunately, the rise of Alexios I Komnenos, who defeated the Pechenegs, brought some hope to the Eastern Romans.

    In the Muslim world, the caliphate had already fractured (in the second half of the 10th century) into three competing entities: in the West, the Umayyad Caliphate of Córdoba (which will not be directly relevant here), but more importantly the other two rival caliphates, the Shia Fatimids of Cairo and the Sunni Abbasids of Baghdad. The former were on the rise in the 11th century, with their territory extending into Syria-Palestine and the Holy Places in the Arabian Peninsula! The latter, however, had been weakened since the previous century by various dynasties such as the Buyids and by Turkish influence within the army.

    It was the Turks themselves, specifically the Seljuks, who gradually took control of the region (Iran, Iraq, Syria-Palestine, and even Anatolia thanks to their victory at Manzikert). While they swore allegiance to the Caliph of Baghdad (who granted them the title of sultan), they held most of the real power. However, they too became divided after Malik Shah’s reign (he died in 1092) due to internal conflicts. Thus, on the eve of the Crusade, the East was deeply divided and weakened.

    In the West, as mentioned earlier, this period marked the assertion of the Church’s independence following the Gregorian Reform, despite the ongoing latent conflict with the Holy Roman Empire resulting from the Investiture Controversy (starting in the 1070s). In France, the Capetian monarchy was slowly gaining strength against the great lords, but on the eve of the Crusade, King Philip I had other concerns—he had been excommunicated for remarrying!

    In England, the country had been Norman since the conquest by William the Conqueror in 1066. The Normans were expanding rapidly, even into the Mediterranean: just a few years before Urban II’s call, they had conquered southern Italy and Sicily! Italy itself was torn by conflicts between the Pope and the emperor, but different cities were emerging, based on trade: Amalfi at first, then Venice, Pisa, and Genoa. Lastly, Spain had served as a testing ground for the Crusade with the Reconquista, the first victorious step of which led to the capture of Toledo in 1085.

    First Crusade of the Barons and the People’s Crusade

    Routes of the "barons" during the 1st Crusade
    Routes of the “barons” during the 1st Crusade

    Urban II’s call met with unexpected success! It did not appeal particularly to temporal rulers, as no major sovereign participated, but it did resonate with the common people. This is what came to be known as the “People’s Crusade” (or the Peasants’ Crusade), which left a lasting impression. Led by Peter the Hermit (a preacher), Walter Sans-Avoir (a knight), and a few other obscure leaders, it was primarily made up of Frenchmen, estimated at several thousand strong (some reports speak of 15,000, an enormous number for the time).

    This was a crowd of poor people, driven by a sort of mystical fervor, if not fanaticism, that swept across Central Europe starting in 1096. Their path was quickly marked by pillaging and persecution, especially against Jews, in the Rhineland and as far as Hungary. This “People’s Crusade” (far from peaceful) reached the walls of Constantinople, much to the dismay of the Byzantines, who were shocked by these unorthodox methods.

    Meanwhile, the “Barons’ Crusade” was organized more slowly, but unlike the People’s Crusade, it was directly under papal authority through the legate Adhemar of Le Puy. This First Crusade split into four armies: that of Raymond of Toulouse (who had fought in Spain) and the papal legate, the Flemish army of Godfrey of Bouillon, the army of Philip I’s brother Hugh of Vermandois for Île-de-France and Champagne, and the Normans under Bohemond of Taranto.

    Baldwin of Boulogne (Godfrey’s brother) and Tancred (Bohemond’s nephew), who would become significant figures in the Latin presence in the East, should also be mentioned. The knights took two different routes—by land and sea—and also headed to Constantinople. For all, the journey was perilous: shipwrecks, attacks by bandits in uncontrolled territories… The beginnings of the First Crusade were far from easy, and God did not seem to have chosen an easy path for his pilgrims!

    Negotiations with Alexios I Komnenos and the First Battles

    The Byzantine emperor viewed the unruly “People’s Crusade” camped outside his walls with great displeasure. He decided to transfer the pilgrims across the Bosporus. The Seljuks awaited them at Civetot and massacred a large number of them! Peter the Hermit disappeared (his fate remains unknown), and Walter was killed along with 20,000 other peasants.

    It was, of course, not as easy for Alexios Komnenos to deal with the powerful barons in the same way. The barons, camping outside the city, grew increasingly insistent and more threatening when they learned from a few survivors that the emperor had delivered the defenseless pilgrims to the Turkish armies. Negotiations lasted several weeks during the spring of 1097, and finally, an agreement was reached (a promise by the crusaders to return Antioch to the Empire, and an oath of allegiance refused only by Raymond of St-Gilles). The barons then crossed the Bosporus as well.

    The Turks, still divided, were caught off guard this time. Nicaea was besieged and taken on June 19, 1097, and then returned to the emperor. On July 1, the crusaders defeated the Turks at Dorylaeum, after which the Turks began practicing a scorched-earth policy. This battle highlighted the stark difference between the two combat traditions, a difference that would persist throughout the Crusades: the Franks favored heavy cavalry charges, while the Turks preferred harassment and mounted archers.

    The Difficult Journey to the Holy Land

    The real difficulties for the crusaders began; though they no longer faced substantial military opposition, they encountered a “new world” they were unaccustomed to. Heat, food and water shortages, and a lack of fodder increasingly took their toll, and the desolate lands of Anatolia weighed heavily on the pilgrims’ morale. Some even resorted to drinking the blood of horses. Tensions grew within the crusader leadership, as the pope’s legate was unable to assert his authority. After two more clashes with the Turks at Iconium and Heraclea, the crusaders decided to split into two groups in September 1097.

    The bulk of the army moved toward Caesarea to avoid the Cilician Gates; by the end of October, they were in front of Antioch, which the Turks had taken from Byzantium in 1085. The second army, led by Tancred and Baldwin of Boulogne (brother of Godfrey of Bouillon), passed through Cilicia. Baldwin then responded positively to a call for help from the Armenians of Edessa, enemies of the Turks and rivals of the Byzantines, who opened the city to him. The crusader became the city’s governor, creating the first Latin state: the County of Edessa, in March 1098.

    The siege of Antioch began in October 1097. The city was governed by a Seljuk emir, vassal to the emir of Aleppo. The siege was long and difficult, with many problems: Turkish sorties, supply shortages, a lack of siege machines, desertions, and rivalries among the barons. It took the complicity of a Christian convert to Islam, an Armenian, to infiltrate the city: Bohemond entered Antioch on June 2, 1098. Many Turks were massacred, but some remained protected in the citadel. Worse still, the crusaders found themselves besieged within the city they had just captured by Turkish reinforcements led by Kerbogha of Mosul!

    The situation grew increasingly dire: famine, disease, and even rumors of cannibalism among the crusaders spread. The liberation of the Holy Sepulcher seemed like a distant memory. Then, opportunely, the Holy Lance was discovered in the cathedral of Antioch, boosting morale. The crusaders launched a sortie and took advantage of dissensions within the Turkish command. On June 28, 1098, they achieved victory. The great victor was the Norman Bohemond of Taranto, who claimed and obtained the governance of the city despite opposition from Raymond of St-Gilles and especially the Byzantines, who had expected the city to be returned as promised. Tensions flared between the emperor and the Frankish barons.

    Oh Jerusalem!

    The Siege of Jerusalem
    The Siege of Jerusalem

    The ordeal endured to capture Antioch, along with the troubled journey and the massacre of the People’s Crusade, had nearly made the primary (and perhaps sole) goal of the warrior pilgrimage — Jerusalem — forgotten. The barons continued to quarrel (some even seeking to carve out fiefs in the region), while the Holy City had been taken from the Turks by the Fatimids in 1098. But it was the people who revived the spirit of the Crusade: the “Tafurs,” common folk, many from Peter the Hermit’s crusade, rekindled the pilgrimage spirit and forced the barons to resume their march at the beginning of 1099. In the meantime, the papal legate Adhemar of Le Puy had died on August 1, and the crusade truly fell into the hands of temporal powers, to the detriment of the Church.

    Raymond took command of the army, as Bohemond remained in Antioch. He first attacked the ports and established supply lines with the Byzantine and especially the Genoese fleets; however, he avoided the best-defended forts and cities. While Tancred was tasked with liberating Bethlehem (captured on June 6), the bulk of the army reached Jerusalem on June 7, 1099.

    The emotion was overwhelming! After so much effort, the pilgrims finally reached their goal: they knelt and prayed at the foot of the city walls, much to the astonishment of its inhabitants. The crusaders even hoped for a miracle to allow them to liberate Jerusalem without a fight. When no miracle occurred, they launched an assault on June 13 but failed due to a lack of equipment (ladders in particular). The Frankish leaders then decided to organize better: Raymond settled in the south; the Lorrainers, Normans, and Flemings divided the west and north without mingling. They began constructing siege machines, likely with advice from the Byzantines, accumulated over previous years, but there was a shortage of wood in the region, and still no miracle.

    Fortunately, by June 17, the capture of the ports showed its value: reinforcements arrived via Genoese and English sailors, who brought the necessary equipment despite the threat of the Fatimid fleet. On the defenders’ side, preparations were also underway, including the use of Greek fire, inherited from the Byzantines. The long preparations did not prevent actions, especially those of spies; those captured in the crusader camp were catapulted back to Jerusalem (some smashed against the walls).

    The preparations lasted a month, with continued hardship among the besiegers. It was decided to prepare for the final assault by ensuring God’s full support: a public fast of three days was declared, and on July 8, a procession was held. Barefoot but armed, the pilgrims marched around the city. They passed so close to the walls that they were shot at and urinated on, while the Muslims spat on the crosses.

    On July 10, a siege tower was positioned at a weakly defended spot, while another advanced slowly due to difficult terrain. The mangonels began bombarding the walls, followed by the battering ram. The general attack began on July 13, but the crusaders only penetrated Jerusalem on July 15, initiating a great massacre.

    The First Crusade Ends in a Bloodbath

    Christian or Muslim chroniclers all agree that the capture of Jerusalem was carried out in a bloodbath: street fighting lasted two days, with reports of heaps of dismembered bodies and severed heads, and inhabitants massacred in both mosques and synagogues. One chronicler recounts that blood rose to knee level in the fury of purifying the “Solomon’s Temple” (the Al-Aqsa Mosque). For this unleashing of bloodthirsty violence was not “gratuitous”: it was the result of several years of fanatical pilgrimage for the liberation of the Holy Places, of Christ’s tomb, which had to be purified by blood.

    Moreover, we must also put into perspective the figures given by chroniclers on both sides, and their descriptions: the city was not emptied of its inhabitants at the end of the fighting, and while the violence was indeed terrible (it would mark generations to come, particularly Saladin), it was not unprecedented for the time…

    The goal of the First Crusade was achieved: Christ’s tomb was liberated, and the victors could intone the Te Deum there. But now, what to do? Most of the crusaders would return to the West, but those who remained would have to organize themselves. This would lead to the creation of the Latin States of the East, in which many European sovereigns would invest themselves: the German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, King Richard the Lionheart of England, or the future Saint Louis.