HISTORYCZNYCH I PEDAGOGICZNYCH INSTYTUT Wydział Nauk

POD KIERUNKIEM/SOUS LA DIRECTION DES Napisana

Stanisław Rosik

Dr hab Damien Carraz

Jerzy Strzelczyk

Victor John

Tolan

Richard W Southern

UNIWERSYTET WROCŁAWSKI

Keywords:

Faces of Muhammad: Western Perceptions of the Prophet of Islam from the

Table of Contents

The relationship between Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere...................................................................................................36 1.3 Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere.................................................................................................................52 2.2. Imitatio Caroli Magni......................................................................................................57 2.3 Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe. [...] And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.

~ Herodotus, The Histories (Ỉστορίαι), I, 4, 1, 3-4 1 .

Herodotus of Halicarnassus (ca. 484 BC-ca. 425 BC) in The Histories (Ỉστορίαι) presented the binary oppositions such as Hellenes/Barbarians, Europe/Asia to organize the main thematic axis of the struggle between the East and the West, culminating in the Greek-Persian wars 2 . The Greek historian was looking for the sources of the conflict in the Trojan War (not counting the abduction of women from both sides, which was considered a triviality not leading to the escalation of the conflict), which was undertaken in a preventive manner; the Hellenes attacked Asia so as not to be attacked in Europe. According to Herodotus, that was the reason of the hostility of the peoples of Asia and Hellenes, which ultimately led to a military confrontation during his own life. Worth paying attention is to the ethnocentric representation of the Persians and other peoples of Asia by the author; they are perceived as barbarians, so those who do not use human speech, issuing foreign sounding words and who do not belong to the Hellenic culture. Furthermore, they come from another continent and consider themselves the successors of Priam, whose kingdom was destroyed by the Hellenes. Thus, the whole image of the Persians and other peoples of Asia functions in the historiographical vision of a Greek historian, where the events taking place in the Iliad are part of 1 Herodoti Historiae, libros I-IV continens, ed. H.B. Rosén, Leipzig 1987, I, 4, 1, 3-4; Herodotus, The Histories: Vol. 1 of 2, parallel English/Greek, ed. G.C. Macaulay, London-New York 1890 [repr. 2007], p. 4. the knowledge about the surrounding world.

Herodotus of Halicarnassus is commonly known as the father of history. Therefore, in this perspective the topic of perception of the "other" in the historiography is present from its beginnings [START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] . However, this statement does not mean that the mechanisms of stereotypical representation of the enemy did not change, did not evolve, did not undergo the modifications, did not refer to a specific socio-political reality, drawing from a specific resource of knowledge and interpretive solutions; and even more, it does not assume an almost uninterrupted continuity in the stereotypical representation of the Oriental world from the times of Herodotus to the present day.

Worth noting is, however, that the aforementioned subject attracts considerable interest, as it refers to one of the key aspects of being a human, namely the life in a group, the coexistence with other people. Thus, from Herodotus and the beginnig of history to the contemporary times, in the field of social sciences and humanities, the issue of perception of the "other" is popular.

The aim of this thesis is to examine how the image of a specific group of "others" was shaped and how it functioned in the Latin-Christian socio-cultural context at the end of the 11th and at the beginning of the 12th century. The research is based on the eyewitness accounts of the First Crusade such as the Gesta Francorum, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere of Peter Tudebode, Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem and Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres. The analysis is devoted to the case of Muslims, with whom the Latin-Christians entered into increased contacts because of the expedition to Jerusalem. According to this point of view, the question arises about the historical and socio-cultural circumstances of shaping the image of the Muslims in the analysed sources, and about the role of the enemy in particular passages as well as in the general perspective of the whole works. Thus, the study will illustrate the morphology, sources and functions of the image of the Muslims from the Latin perspective and the symbolic content of specific representation.

In this work, the term of the enemy-infidel is considered from the perspective of the Latin and Christian authors of the sources, as an opponent that the Crusaders faced in the military struggles during the expedition to Jerusalem, for the most part being Seljuk Turks (not exploring the extent of their Islamization), or their subordinate peoples, bearing in mind that they were in ethnic minority in the Middle East, and the Fatimids and their subjects. The research area is determined by the framework of written sources. All descriptions expressing the attitudes and the ideas of the chroniclers toward the Muslims will be taken into account. The choice of the base of the sources and its narrowing to a similar literary genre (gesta and historia), allows to relatively narrow the 3 Cf. The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres, ed. J. Pigoń, Newcastle upon Tyne 2008; in this volume the scholars presented, among others, the ancient historians' methods of describing the external world, understood as a non-Greek or a non-Roman world, starting from Herodotus' tradition.

range of differentiation of the forms of shaping the image of Muslims, focusing on the detailed analysis of the descriptions, and also provide a basis for comparisons in a limited, but wellestablished base.

The work is divided into four chapters. The first one presents selected methodological approaches in the research on the issue of "otherness" in the historiography of the presentation of the East-West relationship and the proposed approach to the subject on the background of the current studies on the history of the Crusades. Furthermore, this part of the study contains information about terminology, methodological assumptions and cognitive tools used in the work.

The next three chapters have been divided to create the interpretation levels, allowing to systematize numerous mentions found in the source material and adopting a chronological key, starting from the earliest, which is Gesta Francorum and almost a twin source written by Peter Tudebode. It was assumed that these two accounts differ so little and have so much in common in terms of the composition of text, use of the vocabulary and the topics structure, that devoting separate chapters to them would lead to duplication of content. The third chapter contains the representation of the "other" in the account of Raymond of Aguilers, and fourth is devoted to the Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres. Each chapter of the source analysis has its own conclusion to indicate the trends of individual authors. In contrast, in the final conclusions the similarities and common points, shared by all writers, will be indicated, as well as the significant differences in the representations of Muslims made by individual authors. In the case of source citations, I tried to present both the Latin language of the original and use the available translations in English.

I. The image of Muslims as an "other" as a problem in scientific reflection (state of research and methodological basis of the study)

1. Selected methodological approaches concerning the image of the Muslims in the Latin cultural circle in the Middle Ages [START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] The perception of the Muslims in the Latin cultural circle in the period of the Crusades as a research problem has existed almost from the beginning of modern historical research on the subject of the history of the Crusades. One of the first scholar who drew his particular attention to this subject was a German historian Hans Prutz, who in 1883 published Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge 5 . In this book, the author considered the Crusades as the catalyst for spreading the Arab's ideas and thought in the Christianity. Thus, the main aim of H. Prutz was to trace the cultural impact of "East" on "West". This subject of his interest recalls the earlier work of Ernest Renan who focused on presenting the influence of the thoughts of Arab philosophers on the Latin world [START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] .

However, H. Prutz turned his attention to the different issue. He also pointed out that the presentation of Mohammed and Islam, circulating in the Latin cultural circle, was presented in the point of view of the theological thought of Christian authors, who, like Guibert of Nogent, saw the Prophet as the heresiarch 7 . Furthermore, H. Prutz found it rather strange that in the Latin West, despite the existing contacts of the Christian and Muslim world since the Arab expansion in the 7th century, little was known what the religion of Muslims really was 8 .

In a similar vein of a historical reflection, which focuses on the showing of the Christians-Muslims contacts and the perception of the Islam in the Latin medieval literature, the studies of Alessandro d'Ancona may be further read. In 1889 he published La leggenda di Maometto in Occidente [START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF] . The author showed that in the Western legends about Mohammed, the Christian authors 4 The aim of this chapter is not to present the whole, very rich debate and historiographic tradition concerning the topic of the perception/representation of the Muslims in the Western medieval thought, but to outline the ways of approaching the subject with an indication of the main directions of interpretation and an indication of the place of this research on the background of the historiography; a fuller lecture on historiography cf. D.R. Blanks, Western View Of Islam the Premodern Period: A brief History of Past Approaches, in: Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of Other, eds. M. Frassetto, D.R. Blanks, New York 1999, pp. 11-53. 5 H. Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge, Berlin 1883. H. Prutz, op. cit., pp. 21-35. 8 Ibid., p. 72. 9 A. d'Ancona, La leggenda di Maometto in Occidente, "Giornale storico de letteratura italiana" 13 (1889), pp. 199-281; the subject is still in vein; the most recent studies on this topic cf. S. Kangas, Inimicus Dei et sanctae Christianitatis? Saracens and Their Prophet in TwelfthCentury Crusade Propaganda and Western Travesties of Muhammad's Life, in: The Crusades and the Near East: Cultural histories, ed. C. Kostick, London 2011, pp. 131-160; J.V. Tolan, Un Mahomet d'Occident? La valorisation du prophète de l'islam dans l'Europe chrétienne (XIVe-XVIIe siècles), in: À la rencontre de l'Autre au Moyen Âge, In memoriam Jacques Le Goff. Actes des premières Assises franco-polonaises d'histoire médiévale, eds. P. Josserand, J. Pysiak, Rennes 2017, pp. 173-195; cf. Idem, understood Islam not as a new religion, but as a new schism which the Christian world had to face.

At the beginning of the 20th century, several scholars such as Paul Alphandery and Hans Preuss also turned their attention to the presentation of Mohammed in the Latin sources in the context of Christian eschatology 10 . P. Alphandery presented that in the Christian thought the founder of Islam was mostly considered (with a few exceptions such as Alvaró de Córdoba) as a powerful heretic or a false prophet, who played his role, along with other heretics, in the medieval thought, but he was not depicted as an Antichrist -the main opponent of Christ 11 .

Another important figure of the Islamic world, who relatively quickly became the subject of studies was Salah ad-Din (Saladin). Authors, such as Gaston Paris, illustrated that the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty and the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria (1174-1193) was presented in the Latin legends as a character who embodied the model of the knightly ideal of the West 12 . Generally, in the works of this period, scholars tried to explain misunderstandings and erroneous information about the world of Islam, which appeared in medieval literature, as well as to present the attitudes of the Latin writers toward the Orient 13 . In this perspective, it is worth noting an approach to attempt to "realistically" explain the names of Muslim gods appearing in the chansons de gestes as distorted forms of the Arabic words 14 .

An American scholar, Dana C. Munro in The Western Attitude toward Islam during the Period of the Crusades presented the accounts of Christian writers describing the sermon of Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, in which the atrocities of the Turks were exposed and which were to be allowed on Christians, as the propaganda used to stimulate Christians to participate in the expedition to the Holy Land 15 . Furthermore, D.C. Munro illustrated the other mentions about the Muslims such as the accusations of idolatry, immoral behaviour or cowardiness as the visible sign of the papal propaganda. To show the contrast, the author presented that the mutual contacts established after the First Crusade have helped to overcome cultural barriers; there were mutual political alliances or marriages between representatives of both religions. D.C. Munro indicated on many other issues connected with the topic of presentation of the Islam by Westerners, such as the development of polemical thought with Islam, starting from Peter the Venerable, the positive image of Saladin in the Christian world, and accounts of the later pilgrims like Burchard of Mount Sion from the late 13th century, who mentioned that Muslims were very hospitable to him, which contradicted the collective imaginations. D.C. Munro put the main emphasis of his considerations on the presentation of the Christian propaganda which, despite appearing the mentions depicting Muslims in a good light, remained unchanged during the propagation of Crusades until their ceased at the end of the 13th century.

Although he did not literally express this, his approach is visible: all descriptions presenting Muslims negatively show that the Christian writers did not really delve into the essence of Islam, moving among propaganda conventional representations that departed from the factual substrate 16 . D.C. Munro had his successors in this approach. In the Islam and the West. The Making of an Image, Norman Daniel analyzed the Christain-Muslim political and religious interactions which stay behind distorted image of Islam in Christendom 17 . The author presented that the traditional attitudes of Westerners toward Islam was formed in the Middle Ages, especially in the period of 1100-1350, and was only slightly modified to the 20th century 18 . N. Daniel saw the roots of the deformed image of Islam, based on misunderstanding and distortions, in the war psychosis of Christian writers soon after the Arab invasion on the lands of the Byzantine Empire [START_REF]Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade[END_REF] . Later, the attitudes toward Islam created by Greeks, Arab Christians and Mozarabs were adapted by the Latin cultural circle, where the integrated view was established 20 .

In the N. Daniel's opinion, such a distorted image was based on religious intolerance and hostility. As D.R. Blanks shows, N. Daniel considered the Latin medieval writers through the prism of his own times, claiming that they were aggressive, xenophobic, ignorant and narrow-minded, which prevented an interreligious debate 21 . N. Daniel presented the idea of contrast between Christians and Muslims among the Latin theologians, writing that the religion of Islam was a threat 16 Cf. D.R. Blanks,Western View Of Islam the Premodern Period...,p. 22. 17 N. Daniel, Islam and the West. The Making of an Image, Edinburgh 1960 [repr. 2009]. 18 Ibid., p. 11. [START_REF]Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade[END_REF] Ibid., p. 12; cf. J.C. Lamoreaux, Early Eastern Christian Responses to Islam, in: Medieval Perceptions of Islam: A Book of Essays, ed. J.V. Tolan, New York-London 1996, pp. 3-31. 20 N. Daniel,Islam and the West...,p. 13. 21 D.R. Blanks, Western View Of Islam the Premodern Period..., p. 27. legacy of Ancient Rome. Moreover, the author illustrated the world of Christians as agrarian, feudal, and monastic, celibate, sacerdotal, and hierarchical, while Islamic society is urban, courtly, and cosmopolitan, sensual, lay, and egalitarian 33 . In this perspective, the author saw the sources of negative depiction of Muslims (treated by R.W. Southern as a certain monolith, without the division into Turks or Arabs) by the Westerners as a result of a certain cultural inferiority of the Christian world and the result of an almost continuous military conflict with the world of Islam.

Philippe Sénac discerns the roots of the negative presentation of Muslims in a very similar way. In the L'Occident médiéval face à l'Islam. L'image de l'autre, he explores the birth of this image as the result of Muslim invasion in the 8th century on the West. Before this period the West did not much interact with Islam, which was emphasized by the author in the chapter entitled "Silences" -the period of a lack of attention devoted to the world of Islam. The invasion provided to assimilate Islam into the plague of God announced by Apocalypse, and its Prophet to Antichrist, and as a whole to a heresy 34 . P. Sénac notes that such a collective reflection leads to the sermon of Pope Urban II in Clermont in 1095, which was a key point in the creation of the image of Islam as the enemy number one of Christianity -the cruel and brutal enemy 35 . Then, the author shows how this image was circulated by the Church through the art; the Muslims are associated with the black colour, exoticism, luxury, evil, and they appear as an inverted version of Christianity. However, in the face of the frequent and direct contacts with Muslims, the strategy of considering the Islam changes. The polemical currents appear, which do not only aim at the extermination of the enemy, and in the 15th century the religious opponent begins to be perceived as an equal among Western scholars 36 .

What is worth emphasizing, P. Sénac clearly states that the aim of his work is not to present the state of Western knowledge about Islam, nor the mutual relations between the two societies, but to show the image of Islam in the perspective of collective imaginations. The author presents that the problem is not so much about distinguishing what the medieval West knew about the Muslim religion for centuries, but to perceive the representation that the Christians made of it 37 .

It should be pointed out that the French historiography, for the study of the perception of the Muslims in the Christian world, added the concepts of collective ideas and representation, including through detailed research in medieval art, but also on the group of the written sources such as the chansons de geste. Before N. Daniel published the Heroes and Saracens, in 1982 Paul Bancourt turned his attention to the presentation of Muslims in le Cycle du Roi 38 . The author drew attention to the issues that were not very present in the secondary literature on the subject, namely the world presented in the text: the way of presenting the external appearance of Muslim figures, their names or character traits, on the background of which the Christian heroes are presented. P. Bancourt's literary view on the topic does enrich the overall discussion; his methodological approach goes beyond specific sources, such as chansons de gestes.

polemical treaties showing the superiority of Christianity over Islam through the historical texts adapting the Muslim expansion since the 7th century to the Christian vision of the world. J.V. Tolan in reference to N. Daniel, practically leaves no doubt that the image of Muslims created by the writers of Christian world is in the vast majority hostile or hateful. Therefore, the base of the J.V.

Tolan's considerations are the research questions how and for what purpose the language of hatred or the dehumanization of the Muslims was created and transmitted, and how the literary forms and knowledge about the Islamic world were used.

Tomaž Mastnak supposes that the overall image of the Christian perception of the Muslims and the nature of their religion through the Western eyes presented in the studies of J.V. Tolan will not change drastically [START_REF] Mastnak | Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages[END_REF] . Therefore, T. Mastnak shows three new perspectives for the future research on this subject, which should enrich the scientific discourse. The first is the proposal of the much more detailed study on the singular writers and their cultural context. The second option is to examine the mutually hostile views, including not only the Latin Christianity, but also the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire, showing the comprehensive perspective. The third possibility is the study in the perspective of the longue durée, which actually enjoys unflagging popularity and is present in the work of J.V. Tolan, reviewed by T. Mastnak. Another possibility is the concept of trans-cultural borrowing proposed by Benjamin Kedar and Cyril Aslanov [START_REF] Kedar | Problems in the study of trans-cultural borrowing in the Frankish Levant, in: Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterlichen Europa: Vorträge und Workshops einer internationalen Frühlingsschule[END_REF] . The authors present the principles according to which it can be stated that the act of trans-cultural borrowing took place, distinguishing four main type of evidence. The first is the explicitl, literal announcement in the source, when a borrowing occurs, such as the mention of Arnold of Lübeck that the Franks adopted the use of postal pigeons from Muslims 47 . The second type is the textual evidence of the trait, term, function etc. which exists in one culture and suddenly appears in another one under the same name or slightly modified, such as the term of turcopoles, which derived from the Greek -τουρκόπουλοι. The third type is a trait's chronologically confirmed geographical diffusion such as the spread of the decorative ribbed groin vaults in the Near East's Latin churches. The fourth occurs when the previous prinicples do not take place, but when the specific, well-documented trait in one culture suddenly appears in the another culture, in case of previous absence in it 48 . In consequence, it indicates that there was probably a borrowing from this culture in which this trait was present as the first. The proposal of B. Kedar and C. Aslanov could be seen as a part of a long methodological tradition of searching for traces of interaction between the world of Islam and Christianity and gives it a certain frame, quite loose considering their fourth type.

Armelle Leclercq, in a way answering on the postualte of comparative analysis, juxtaposing Christian and Muslim writings, which presents their enemies in the 12th and 13th century 49 . She examines the numerous aspects of the strategies of depiction of the religious "other", arguing that each side of the conflict presented the enemy in a similar way, which is a curious mix of admiration and desire for humiliation. Furthermore, each side presents the binary opposition, where the conflict is considered as the war between good and evil, and that the Muslim writers also gave the label of idolatry and polytheism to the Christians 50 . Worth mentioning is also that A. Leclercq in her analysis presented that the confrontation between Christians and Muslims during the First Crusade had a significant impact on representation of the Islam in the texts, because it increased the precision and the degree of probability, despite the existence of legendary and fictitious schemes 51 .

Another methodological proposition is the work of Kristin Skottki, which is a successful attempt to look differently at the issue of presenting Muslims in the Latin sources 52 . After a detailed presentation of the main issues in historiography on the subject, she notes that the search for a general, very synthetic image of Islam is doomed to failure, because it shows that the Christian sources are characterized by a huge diversity in the way of presenting an "other". K. Skottki presents that the depiction of the Muslims in the Latin sources is not the result of the cultural contacts during the Crusades, nor a case of specific attitudes of each author and his biographical experiences. Instead, she argues that the Christian authors' representations of the Islam were closely related to the Bible and other theological texts, and the historiography is determined by historiographical and theological modes of interpretations. As a response, K. Skottki proposes a narrative approach to examine the various functions, ways of showing an "other" and transcultural relations by analyzing selected sources regarding the Crusades. It is also worth paying attention to the author's research questionnaire. K. Skottki poses the questions about the existence of "Crusade Chronicle" ("Kreuzzugschronik") and what difficulties in interpretation appear in this genre of the source. Furthermore, influenced by the E. Said's concept, she is interested whether there is a hostility, negative emotional adjustment or belief about the superiority of the Christian world over Islam. In general, many scholars present an opinion about a lack of understanding and interest in the Muslims' socio-political reality and their religion in the Latin cultural circle as a result of which a historical and a factual picture of the Islamic world suffered. After all, the sources describing the Muslims and their religion come from their fiercest enemies: in the majority that were the priests and monks who represented a different religion and did not hesitate to present the worst possible image of hostile religion and its followers. Therefore, the modern scholars' efforts were made to derive justification for the various shortcomings and distortions of the Latin sources. In this perspective, any inaccuracies in the depictions or hostile presentations were mainly attempted to explain from the perspective of the cultural distinctiveness of Christians and Muslims. It also seems important to use the achievements of the scientific debate on the state of the humanities and social sciences during the crisis of the school of Annales, where the devalued concept of mentality has been replaced by the concept of representation 59 . In this perspective, the aim of the study is defined as an attempt to show the images of Muslims through the prism of collective ideas: not what Christians knew about Islam, but what representations about them they created, and how this image relates to the intellectual and socio-cultural context of each author.

In the studies on the image of Islam in the Christian sources, worth emphasizing is that in research practice between the boundaries of two approaches: the hyper-critical, such as one of E. Said, where almost all the mentions made by the medieval writers are wrong and distorted a priori 60 ; and the hyper-optimistic, that even the wildest stories of Crusaders about their enemy are related to historical reality, there are solutions that lie in the middle of these approaches 61 . Because firstly, a biblical or literary scheme does not necessarily distort the image of reality. Secondly, the existence of information of purely literary genesis should be also taken into account. Thirdly, the original contribution of the individual authors must also be considered. Fourthly, the writers such as the anonymous author of Gesta Francorum, Raymond of Aguilers and Pons of Balazuc (Balazun), Peter Tudebode and Fulcher of Chartres actually took part in the First Crusade. Therefore, their accounts were written by people who have really come into contact with the world of Islam, knowing it not only from the tradition of literature, but also through their own experience. Thus, the misleading belief is that any information about the perception of Muslims by Latin writers must be devoid of empirical grounds.

In this context, the identification of the relationship between the source image and the factual substrate deserves special attention. However, the comprehensive research on the 59 Cf. A. Burguière, L'École des Annales: Une histoire intellectuelle, Paris 2006, pp. 269-297. 60 Cf. E. Said,Orientalism...,p. 71. 61 Cf. N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 26. interpretation layer in the texts cannot focus only on examining of the credibility of individual authors and the authorship of each account, because in this perspective the basic, and often even the only aim is to inform and resolve the reality of a given description, not referring to the literary specificity of the source. Meanwhile, in the medieval sources, an important role was also played by the interpretation of events according to a more general concept of a work, conditioned by a theological thought, a literary genre and the current public usefulness of the source: influencing the thoughts and actions of people and social groups, and instructing them by using the historical exempla 62 .

Methodology and theorethical thought of the work

Drawing the methodological framework of this work, it is necessary to emphasize that in the study of the literary sources, the object of research is the textual externalization of the intellectual background of individual medieval authors, consisting of their personal observations, attitudes circulated in their local societies and their education. Hence, it is an image shaped in a given sociocultural context of the Europa Christiana -in general, the community whose cultural inheritance was a mixture of Roman tradition and the Latin language, Christian religion and Germanic ethos of the military aristocrats 63 .

As Paul Ricoeur presented, what the authors would have wanted to say is only available through "the world of the text" 64 . Influenced by Edmund Husserl's "Lebenswelt", P. Ricoeur considered the world as a broad horizon of all cosmological, historical, cultural, anthropological and ethical meanings 65 . According to P. Ricoeur's thought, "the world of the text" is a projected world symbolically transfigured, whose specifity cannot be expressed by use of the common language. Therefore, the concept of "the world of the text" indicates that the reader is not only unable to fully understand the world of the author's ideas, but also the text itself, because of a barrier in the linguistic layer. However, getting to know the author's intentions is not impossible. According to P.

Ricoeur, "the world of the author" hides behind "the world of text" and is available only through it.

Research on "the world of the author", i.e. research on the author's literary workshop and the wider political and socio-cultural context of the period in which he created, allows to determine the 62 E. Potkowski, Problemy kultury piśmienniczej łacińskiego średniowiecza, "Przegląd Humanistyczny" 38/3 (1994), pp. 21-40. 63 R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350, London 1994. 64 P. Ricoeur Język, tekst, interpretacja. Wybór pism, transl. by P. Graff, K. Rosner, Warszawa 1989, pp. 236-242, pp. 224-245 [P. Ricoeur, La fonction herméneutique de la distanciation, in: Idem, Du texte à l'action, Paris 1986, pp. 101-117]. 65 Cf. I. Petrovici, Philosophy as hermeneutics. The world of the text concept in Paul Ricoeur's hermeneutics, "Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences" 71 (2013), pp. 21-27. boundaries of the interpretation of the text, which is a certain proposal of the world's view and can help to reach or bring the author's intentions 66 .

In the case of this work, the approach assumes that there is a relationship between what has been written by each author and factual substrate, but each of the descriptions passes through the prism of the author's language and his general reflection, expressing the attitudes toward the "other" of his specific society 67 . Therefore, as was shown by Stanisław Rosik in relation to the cultural conflict on the example of the Christian interpretation of the religion of the Slavs, the information about the "other" could be organized into the scheme; 1) the literary descriptions having nothing to do with the reality; 2) the descriptions of the reality, with caution in some cases that the Latin language could carry some interpretation; 3) the facts dressed in the ancient and biblical literary tradition; 4) the descriptions related to the facts, although not precise 68 .

Furthermore, it should be emphasized in which historical circumstances the analyzed accounts were created. The end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century was not a time of polemical currents in Latin Christianity with Islam, but a military confrontation against, according to crusading propaganda, the threat for an existence of Christendom in the East. In this point of view, the image of the Muslims should be considered in accordance to the so-called sociological law of Simmel-Coser, according to which the self-identification of the group is emphasized in situations of a conflict with a different, "other" community, contributing to the strengthening intragroup relationships based on the bipolar opposition "us -them", and affecting the negative representation of the enemy 69 .

The written sources being the subject of this study, Gesta Francorum, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere of Peter Tudebode, Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Ihierusalem, and Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium, were created by the eyewitnesses of the First Crusade. Taking this as one of the guidelines, this state of affairs implies that they should be perceived in the perspective of the source studies, as written at a particular stage of shaping historical consciousness. Basing on scholastic terminology, all of them were created at the early stage of "participation in the history" (videre, meminere) → "making a record" (testificare, tradere) 70 . From this point of view, the 66 Cf. P. Ricoeur,Język,tekst,interpretacja..., Cf. S. Rosik, Interpretacja chrześcijańska religii pogańskich w świetle kronik niemieckich XI-XII wieku (Thietmar, Adam z Bremy, Helmold), Wrocław 2000, pp. 33-42. 68 Ibid., p. 29. 69 Cf. L.A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, New York 1956, pp. 33-38, 87-110; Idem, Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change, "The British Journal of Sociology" 8/ 3 (1957), pp. 197-207;Idem, Master of Sociological Thought, New York 1977, pp. 45-60;T.H. Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, London 2002, pp. 10, 16. 70 B. Kürbis, O drogach zapisu i recepcji treści historycznych, in: Eadem, Na progach historii, vol. 2, Poznań 2001, pp. 323-325. accounts of the indicated above authors could be considered through the prism of the phenomenology of the encounter, which is the experience of the Crusade's participants reconstructed within their socio-cultural context, and the intellectual reflection on the encounter with the Muslims produced the text of each source [START_REF] Cf | Cultures in Conflict: Encounters Between European and Noneuropean Cultures 1492-1800[END_REF] .

In this way, the phenomenon of "xenophany" in its specific manifestations seems to be a key cognitive tool in order to organize all information regarding the presentation of the "other" [START_REF] Benedyktowicz | Portrety "obcego[END_REF] . The term "xenophany" was coined from two greek words: ὁ ξένος (xénos) -"foreign", "other", "alien" and φαίνειν (phainéin) -"to bring to light", "make to appear", "appear", "show", "reveal". The "xenophany" comprises everything that expresses strangeness, otherness, being the other and becoming different. In short, this is the phenomenon of the perception of all manifestations revealing the "otherness" of the experienced group or individual. Basing on the Greek tradition of presentation of the other peoples, particular attention should be paid to all kinds of "xenophany" manifestations, which include τὸ ὄνομα (onoma) -the name and terms using for describing the "other"; τὸ εἶδος (éidos) -the external appearance; τὸ ἦθος (èthos) -the customs, habits, system of values, character, behavior in the sphere of morality and principles of policy; ἠ δίαιτα (diaïta) -the mode, way of life. All of the elements constitute a frame, filled with specific content, being manifestations of the rhetoric of the "otherness", that is all the measures such as the literary topoi used in shaping the image of the enemy-infidel and emphasizing his "otherness" [START_REF] Cf | Koncepcja struktury zjawiska "Ksenofanii[END_REF] . In such way, this study refers to the research of Wrocław's medievalist Lech A. Tyszkiewicz, who pointed out the topical depiction of the peoples considered as "others", specifically Slavs and Huns [START_REF] Tyszkiewicz | Hunowie w Europie. Ich wpływ na Cesarstwo Wschodnie i Zachodnie oraz na ludy barbarzyńskie[END_REF] . He noticed a significant relationship between ancient sources and the categories created on its base, like the view and the terminology used by writers in relation to the geography, ethnography and history of peoples known to varying degrees, and the workshop of medieval authors, which is visible in their use of the repetitive topoi, which would not be understood without knowledge in ancient literature 75 .

Therefore, the encounter with the external group, as for instance the Muslims in this study, took the form of the phenomenon of "xenophany", which gains its shape by looking at any moral, linguistic, cultural, ethnic or cultural differences, manifesting differences in every area of knowledge about the surrounding world, carrying symbolic content, whose boundaries set the framework of culture and tradition. The "xenophany" is linked to the "us -them" dichotomy, which can combine the features of own community to another in order to specify and define himself [START_REF] Eriksen | We and Us: Two Modes of Group Identification[END_REF] .

Perception of the "other" often takes a form of a pejorative judgement situating him in the periphery of the human's oikumene and assigning him to inhuman behavior, by using the cognitive tools such as the stereotypes. However, the stereotypes about the "other" created by the Latin West should not be considered as mere prejudices and misinterpretations, but as psychosocial mechanisms, which are needed to deal with the unfamiliar. As Urs Bitterli argues the error lies not in using stereotypes, but in supposing that stereotypes are fully adequate representations [START_REF] Bitterli | [END_REF] . Thus, the stereotype is not just falsehood, but as associated with the mechanisms of categorization and generalization, it is a simplified thought construct, ordering reality, creating a general presentation of specific groups or individuals. It has the form of complex, multi-layer and dual judgments (it contains positive and negative feelings at the same time, although the latter are usually dominant), not necessarily verified, assigning specific features and behavioral patterns, based on the principle of homogeneity of the group being depicted. Therefore, the stereotype is a certain defense mechanism, determining the position of a given group toward "other", transmitting information and serving to exalt or criticize "us" group [START_REF] Cf | Intergroup Relations[END_REF] .

The encounter with the "other" and giving it textual shape is one of the foundations of the human knowledge about the surrounding world through illustrating the mental states of the groups in which this image was shaped. From this point of view, all the issues discussed in the work can be covered by the broad concept of socio-cultural facts, in the perspective of failure of distinguish the clear boundary between what is social and what is cultural. The so-called historical facts are always received, understood, interpreted and presented in a given socio-cultural context. The author of the source functions in a specific context -a set of coexisting, related social, cultural and political factors that make up the historical background of a particular society. Drawing an image of events, the author uses specific, regular solutions, deeply rooted in the intellectual background of this society, and he creates a message for a given group of recipients. At the same time, he expresses attitudes, norms of behavior, views of reality, and tendencies present in his social group [START_REF] Banaszkiewicz | Potrójne zwycięstwo Mazowszan nad Pomorzanami -Gall II, 49 -czyli historyk między "rzeczywistością prawdziwą" a schematem porządkującym[END_REF] . Thus, the outlined field of the study situates the presented work as a part of the discourse over all representations in the social and collective imagination.

The concept of the "representation" refers to the schemes of perception, which bear the classification and prioritization of actions that construct the social world. Research by using the concept of the "representation" require the considerations through a well-defined group who perceived the "other" [START_REF] Furthermore | Raymond has repeatedly stated that such death is understood as martyrdom. After Roger's death, sadness and fear (dolor et timor) engulfed the Franks and many of them sought escape 1282 , and later even some of deserters informed the Turks about the Crusaders' situation in Antioch 1283 . In the narration about the Frankish embassy in the eve of the crucial battle of Antioch, Kurbugha was presented as a[END_REF] . From this perspective the key concept of the work is considered. The image, very closely related to the concept of "representation", is understood as a mental and collective portrayal, a distorted prism of reality, defined by socio-cultural and collective considerations: it can be both rationalization and simplification of specific phenomenon. The image is a product of collective experience, attitudes, emotions, a manifestation of the systems of norms and ideas, commonly shared by a given group. Hence, the sociological inspirations of the methodological thought cannot be ignored. The idea of "collective representation" is dated back to the works of Émile Durkheim 81 . His work entitled Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse lay the groundwork for a reflection on the concept of "collective representation" 82 . É. Durkheim's thought was creatively developed, which led to the invention of the concept of "social representation", which is understood as a process rooted in people's interactions with their social and physical environment, that makes it possible to interpret reality in order to better integrate it 83 .

Therefore, remaining in the circle of methodological thought associated with social representation, the four basic functions of the image can be indicated with the aim of organising the information about the "other" and harmonize the activities of the community: 1) the function of knowing (la fonction de savoir), which allows to understand and explain reality by acquiring knowledge, interpreted in a given socio-cultural context; 2) the identity function (la fonction identitaire), which places the individual in the society, and allows to develop a social identity in accordance with the given system of norms and values; 3) the function of orientation (la fonction d'orientation), according to which the representation defines what is desirable, appropriate, legal or unacceptable depending on the social context; 4) the function of justification (la fonction de justification) allows to legitimize decisions, actions and behaviors toward the other social groups 84 .

Such considered image refers to the concept of the "otherness", which is a relative idea [START_REF] Furthermore | Raymond has repeatedly stated that such death is understood as martyrdom. After Roger's death, sadness and fear (dolor et timor) engulfed the Franks and many of them sought escape 1282 , and later even some of deserters informed the Turks about the Crusaders' situation in Antioch 1283 . In the narration about the Frankish embassy in the eve of the crucial battle of Antioch, Kurbugha was presented as a[END_REF] Cf. R. Chartier, Le monde comme représentation, "Annales. Economies, sociétés, civilisations" 44/6 (1989), pp. 1505-1520. 81 Cf. É. Durkheim, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, Paris 1912 [repr. 2003]. 82 Ibid., p. 22. 83 Cf. J.-C. Abric, Les représentations sociales: aspects théoretiques, in: Pratiques sociales et représentations, ed. J.-C. Abric, Paris 1994, p. 15. 84 J.-C. Abric, Les représentations sociales..., pp. 15-46; depending on the circumstances of experiencing, as was already emphasized by Georg Simmel 85 .

The "other" in relation to the "us" group are only those who in a specific situation are perceived as "other" 86 . Therefore, the "otherness" is an individual or collective ability to distinguish oneself from another group or individual. When it comes to perception of the "other", the image takes a certain shape often fueled by fear of the unknown and refusal of what is different.

Then, the main aim of the study is to examine the image of the enemy in the eyewitnesses' sources describing the First Crusade into the framework of the "xenophany's" manifestations, understand in the broad perspective of the all mechanisms used by Christian writers, which reveal the enemy's "otherness". In this perspective, the subject of study will be attitudes, views, symbols, literary devices such as the topoi, text composition, symbolic content, context of use of each mention and function in the text, carrying the information about the attitude toward the enemy of the Crusaders. In such a way, not only will the role of the "other" in each of the sources be presented, but also the perception of the surrounding world, the issue of collective identity, intellectual background, system of norms and values or political and theological attitude toward the Muslims of the individual authors. On the pages of this work, the image of a specific group of "others" will be presented, functioning in a given socio-cultural context of each eyewitnesses authors. As the group of the "others" is considered the enemy whom the authors of the accounts about the First Crusade faced in their expedition to Jerusalem, who were mostly the Seljuk Turks and their subjects or the Fatimids' soldiers. An important prospect of this research will be an attempt to present rather local discourse of each author, who came from different groups and regions (Aguilers/Le Puy-en-Velay in Auvergne, Southern Italy, Chartres in Northern France and Civray in Aquitaine), than to create a unified, excessively synthesized way of presenting the Crusaders' enemy 87 . Such a presentation will show the similarities and differences of the overall image of the "other" that appears in the texts of the participants of the First Crusade. In this perspective, this work stays in reference to the proposal of the much more detailed study on the singular writers and their socio-cultural context.

The work has a chronological order -from the earliest written source, describing the First Crusade to the last one. According to this composition of the study, the research question appears on 85 G. Simmel, Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, Leipzig 1908 [repr. 1992], pp. 685-708. 86 Cf. Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l'espace des sociétés, eds. J. Lévy, M. Lussault, Paris-Berlin 2003, pp. 58-59: caractéristique de ce qui est autre, de ce qui est extérieur à un "soi", à une réalité de référence: individu et par extension, groupe, société, chose lieu […] c'est la condition de l'autre au regard d'un soi. 87 The research of the local discourses, created in a similar period and concerning one event (the Christianization mission of Saint Otton of Bamberg in Pomerania through the prism of three of his Vitae), showing the divergence of views or presented events between the authors, was made by S. Rosik, cf. Idem, Conversio Gentis Pomeranorum..., pp. 83-102. the subject of the transmission of content related to the presentation of Muslims between the authors of such early accounts of the expedition to Jerusalem. If such a transmission existed, which content was important enough to be included on the pages of not just one source. Moreover, it is also worth considering the extent to which these are the accounts of the different Crusader circles, and to what extent this is a result of intertextuality. Therefore, did the authors of the eyewitness accounts attempt to use other written sources in shaping the image of the "other" and which content was duplicated. A common argument for a terminus ad quem of the existence of the Gesta Francorum is the description made by Ekkehard of Aura, who in 1101 was at the pilgrimage to Jerusalem where he saw a libellus -a little book about the history of the First Crusade 91 . However, there is no clear 88 Cf. H. Oehler, Studien zu den Gesta Francorum, "Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch" 6 (1970) evidence that libellus mentioned by Ekkehard was the one of the versions of Gesta Francorum. J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill rejected the opinion that it was the anonymous' work and they indicated the Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers, a letter of Daimbert of Pisa to the Pope and a lost chronicle as a potential Ekkehard's sources 92 . Furthermore, later they suggested a letter of Daimbert as the most probable inspiration for Abbot of Aura 93 . J. France inclined to this line of interpretation and he claimed that it seemed that Ekkehard of Aura did not ever use the Gesta Francorum in his description of the Crusades, and he was under the influence of the letter of Daimbert of Pisa to the Pope [START_REF] France | The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum in the Early Twelfth-Century Sources for the First Crusade[END_REF] . Moreover, there is a possibility that at least one other source was available in Jerusalem at that time [START_REF] Knoch | Studien zu Albert von Aachen[END_REF] , because Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem was completed more or less in the same period, but it was certainly finished around 1105 [START_REF] Krey | The First Crusade. The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants[END_REF] .

II. The Image of the

N. Dass supposed that libellus was no more than the register with a chronology and summary of the main events of the Crusade and could describe the main characters and leaders of the expedition [START_REF] Gf (dass | 101 Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi[END_REF] . However, Baldric of Dol, who composed his work on the topic of the First Crusade around 1107, said about the Gesta Francorum that it is an excessively rustic little book (libellum … nimis rusticanum) 98 . Furthermore, he used the word libellus several times in his literary creativity, and it usually had the meaning of a small volume as in a dedication to a certain Odo 99 . Commonly known as Bartolf of Nangis, who wrote the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnatium before 1109, mentioned about his main source -the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana, by naming it by a term libellus 100 . In fact, these quotations create an analogy that helps to understand the word libellus as a rather small volume than something like a register or a summary with the main events and characters of the First Crusade. In the same sense, as a small volume, Regino of Prüm (died in 915) evokes this word in his chronicle: Haec, quae supra expressa sunt, in quodem libello reperi plebeio et rusticano sermone composita 101 (I discovered the things which I have been laid out above in a certain booklet composed in the language of plebeians and rustics) 102 . The word libellus has a wide semantic field ("a little book", "pamphlet", "manuscript", "writing", "journal", "diary", "letter") and as a problematic term should be rather considered in a different perspective in Ekkehard's relation and in the works of Baldric and Bartolf. In this case, it seems that Bishop of Dol and Bartolf of Nangis simply used a different meaning of the word libellus than Ekkehard and all the references need not to be treated in the same way. Furthermore, according to the proposition of N. Dass, there is no analogy in the structure of Ekkehard's work in comparision with the other sources from that period. There is no confirmation that the source in a form of a register with names and dates existed. Therefore, most likely is that the libellus mentioned by Ekkehard was one of the sources known to us and most likely it was a letter of Daimbert of Pisa to the Pope. Thus the argument from the terminus ad quem for 1101 due to the mention of Abbot of Aura should not be used in the case of Gesta Francorum.

To finish the consideration about the libellus, it should be mentioned that N. Dass supposed that the language of this source was most likely Latin. He argued that Ekkehard of Aura, a German cleric, could not read in the vernacular language like Old French and we have no evidence for existence any source in Old German describing the First Crusade from the beginning of the 12th century 103 . This proposal seems most likely, especially given that it is Daimbert's letter.

The next argument, which may restrict the dating, is that Raymond of Aguilers used this account before 1105 104 . He should finished his own work -Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Ihierusalem about 1101, because he claimed that Raymond of Saint-Gilles wanted to return to homeland, but the Count of Toulouse participated in the Crusade of 1101 in Anatolia that summer, so probably the chronicler had ended the writing before this expedition and he had no information about this event. Furthermore, he did not describe any mention about the death or make any suggestions that Raymond of Saint-Gilles died in 1105. H. Hagenmeyer in his critical edition of the Gesta Francorum presented many passages in the Raymond's account which were inspired by the work of an anonymous writer. At the same time, a German scholar paid his attention to the significant differences in both texts as a result, among others, of the Raymond's personal participation in the expedition 105 . This point of view was developed by J. France 106 , who did not agree with the suggestion that Raymond of Aguilers had not used the Gesta Francorum 107 . An analysis of the points of similarity in the Hagenmeyer's table made by J. France suggests that the clear textual similarity of both texts is demonstrable, but also that in other cases is very possible 108 .

In conclusion, on the base of comparison of both texts made by H. Hagenmeyer and with J. France's remarks it can be assumed that Raymond had the contact with the Gesta Francorum and he used many phrases in his own work and both texts have many common inspirations.

The further event is connected with Bohemond, who in the opinion of many authors due to the positive tone of Gesta Francorum treated this account as his apology 109 . Bohemond probably took the Gesta Francorum in 1104 with him during his return to Italy and France to bring reinforcements for a war against the Byzantine Empire. At that time, the some anti-Byzantine contents were probably added to the text and the anonymous work was transmitted and circulated in lands of the Kingdom of France during his journey in 1106 and it contributed to spreading a negative image of the Byzantine Empire in the West 110 . The Gesta Franocorum was source base for others descriptions of the First Crusade made by three Benedictine authors: Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Nogent 111 .

A strong argument for a rather early date for the completion of the Gesta Francorum is that the author did not mention and not even give any allusions about the death of Duke Godfrey of Lotharingia, which was on 18 July 1100 112 . Moreover, the description of the election of Godfrey as the prince of Jerusalem on 23 July 1099 was written with a positive tone without any signs of the future death of Duke Godfrey, although it was a great chance for the Latin author to make a description of the attributes of a hero of the Franks 113 . Therefore, it is a base to make an assumption that the anonymous author had no knowledge about this very important event during the preparation of the text of Gesta Francorum 114 . Furthermore, the author had mentioned the election of Arnulf of Chocques as the Patriarch of Jerusalem, which took place on 1st August 1099 115 . However, he did not make any references that this election was considered uncanonical, because Arnulf was not yet a deacon and he was deposed and replaced by Daimbert of Pisa in December 1099 116 .

On this base the Gesta Francorum should be dated to the time shortly after the ending event of the account -the return to Jerusalem at 13 August 1099, and shortly before December 1099 and terminus ad quem should be 1101, but not because of Ekkehard's mention about libellus, but the existence of the Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum. Further anti-Byzantine passages could be added about 1104. In fact, this proposition is situated in the framework of H. Hagenmeyer's tradition who dated back the Gesta Francorum about 1100-1101 and this is the most common version in the historiography of the Crusades.

Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere

The account of Peter Tudebode has survived to our times in four manuscripts. Three of them date back to the 12th century: Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Latin 4892, which was a base for J. Bongars edition, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Latin 5135 A, used in the Recueil des historiens des croisades and London, British Museum, MS Harley Latin 3904. The last manuscript Faculté de Médecine de Montpellier, MS Latin 142 is dated on the 13th century 117 .

In the historiography it is the common opinion that the Peter Tudebode's account was composed at the beginning of the 12th century and in comparison to the Gesta Francorum scholars did not pay so much attention to the date of completion of the work. Even the editors J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill did not present too many arguments on this issue 118 . The reflections on the date of origin of Tudebode's account remains in a close connection with the case of Gesta Francorum and as J.

France emphasized; the author of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere did not give any clue to when he composed his work and in the case of datation, everything depends of the perspective about the originality of his work 119 .

For the early date of composing, the Peter Tudebode's account testify the arguments based on historical events similar to the Gesta Francorum. The author was a participant of the First Crusade and he gave a clear testimony of it on the pages of his work. Peter confirmed his own participation in the expedition by presenting himself and by mentioning the events in which he participated or which were important to him; such as the burial of Arvedus Tudebode, the death of Arnaldus Tudebode, who were probably the members of the chronicler's family 120 . When he described the death of Arnaldus he shared a reflection that those of the Crusaders who remained alive were afraid of decapitation by the Turks 121 . The author wrote about election of Godfrey as the ruler of Jerusalem, but there are no references to his future death 122 . Even if the Gesta Francorum was the base source for Peter, as a cleric (probably connected with the monastery of Civray), could compose the words of praise for the first Latin ruler in the Holy City. Peter Tudebode mentioned the election of Arnulf of Chocques as the Patriarch of Jerusalem and he did not write about the later events when Daimbert of Pisa was established as the new Patriarch 123 . It seems that these events should be the important content for a cleric. The most basic argument is that he had no knowledge about indicated events. Unless he considered that the return from the Ascalon's campaign was the perfect end of the whole expedition and the later events did not strike him as important. He could also consider that he could not introduce such significant changes in the structure of the Gesta Francorum's narration, which could be explained on the basis of the authority which enjoyed the written word in the Middle Ages, as a channeler of collective tradition.

However, there are arguments, which could narrow the date of the creation of the account.

An important fact is that Peter Tudebode did not put his attention to glorify Bohemond on such degree as in the Gesta Francorum 124 . That could suggests two things: Peter had an access to a version without the interpolation with the anti-Byzantine tones and the praise of worthy of Bohemond probably added around 1104 or even if Tudebode used later version of Gesta with these additions he did not make from this part an important content in his own work. If we assume that the first proposition is more likely (because Peter did not want to change the general undertone of the Gesta Francorum, he did not have the reasons to lower the meaning and the authority of Bohemond and others characters from Norman contingent or simply he could not have had a contact with the new version of Gesta Francorum after 1104, when the Norman prince reached the Italy), that could suggests that Tudebode may have written his account before the 1104, because of lack of further Bohemond's interpolations known from the text of Gesta Francorum.

Another important issue is that the author of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere used in his work the passages taken from the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem of Raymond of Aguilers, which is the most visible in the description of the passage through Sclavonia 125 or mention about Pons of Balazuc (Balazun), the second author of the Raymond's account 126 . As it has been indicated above, the Raymond's account was written by 1101 or 1102, so that could be terminus post quem of Peter's work. However, on the base of the presented arguments the Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere is dated on the beginning of the 12th century around 1101-122 PT, p. 142. 123 PT, p. 142. 124 Cf. J. Flori, Chroniqueurs et propagandistes..., pp. 89-99. 125 Cf. PT, pp. 32-43; J. France, The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem...,p. 55. 126 PT, p. 132. 1104.

The relationship between Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum and

Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere

The historiography provides three conceptions about the origins and relations between both texts. Chronologically the first was the opinion that the Peter Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere was the base source for anonymous' Gesta Francorum, which was considered as an abridged version of Tudebode's work 127 . In this perspectiwe, in 1611 J. Bongars published the Gesta Dei per Francos -the collected materials of several French writers among which was the Gesta Francorum 128 . The next publisher J. Besly in 1641 also gave the priority to Tudebode's work 129 . Similarly, in 1687 J. Mabillon repeated the earlier argumentation 130 .

Furthermore, the editors of Recueil des historiens des croisades at the end of 19th century published the anonymous' account under the title: Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum, seu Tudebodus abbreviatus (which could be translated into Gesta Francourm and others who went to Jerusalem or abbreviation of Tudebode) 131 .

H. von Sybel proposed the opposite conception in the work Geschichte der ersten Kreuzzuges 132 . He claimed that Peter Tudebode was a plagiarist of the Gesta Francorum, who also used the Raymond of Aguilers' account, whereas the Gesta Francorum does not have any passage from Raymond's Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Moreover, Tudebode uses the first and third person in his narration, while in the Gesta Francorum only the first person's narration is used; the Gesta Francorum is written from the perspective of a soldier and the Tudebode's narration is more inspired by the ecclestastic discourse; Tudebode makes the additions which are anecdotic and personal and could be easily interpolated. H. Hagenmeyer in his critical edition of the Gesta Francorum from 1890 followed this line of interpretation and he acknowledged that the work of the anonymous author was an original text and Peter Tudebode had used this account as a base source in which he added some own memories and pieces of information from Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem 133 . This idea met with great acceptance in the 127 Cf. J. Flori,Chroniqueurs et propagandistes...,p. 67. 128 Gesta Dei per Francos sive orientalium expeditionum et regni Francorum Hierosolymitani historia a variis sed illius aevi scriptoribus litteris commendata, ed. J. Bongars, Hanover 1611. 129 Petrus Tudebodus, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, ed. J. Besly, in: Historiae Francorum scriptores, ed. A. Duchesne, vol. 4, Paris 1641. 130 PT, p. 9. 131 GF (RHC), pp. 119-163. 132 H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, Düsseldorf 1841. 133 GF, pp. 48-58. scientific community, especially since it was subsequently enriched and confirmed by L. Bréhier in his edition 134 , and currently dominates in historiography and it is present in the critical editions of source 135 . However, there is another point of view, which was signalled on the base that the three accounts: Gesta Francorum and the works of Peter Tudebode and Raymond of Aguilers have very much in common. The conclusion was that the accounts had the common last source, which long ago disappeared 136 . Over a decade ago, J. Rubenstein, completing the query by adding a comparative material of Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, presented this hypothesis most clearly 137 .

He finished his article with a conclusion that Gesta Francorum, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere and the Monte Cassino's Chronicle were based on a common source -the Jerusalem history, but they all had lost some contents during the process of composition of text 138 . An American author referred to the romantic vision of J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill who wrote that: Certainly, there must have been a better and more official lost source or sources of the First Crusade. It is incredible that an expedition of the magnitude of crusade would have been first recorded by a simple Norman knight, an unknown canon, an obscure priest, and a few letter writers without benefit of official scribes from various households 139 .

the name as an author, played an important role in the mentality of clergy 140 .

Returning to the proposition of J. Rubenstein, in my opinion, he unnecessarily created the term of the Jerusalem history, and it would be much more precise to speak of the early or just draft version of the Gesta Francorum. As a new historiographical creation, the Jerusalem history, introduces unnecessary confusion in terminology and suggests that this lost chronicle was somewhat different than the Gesta Francorum. However, no one at the beginning of the 12th century or even later mentioned other chronicle. One could assume that the Ekkehard's libellus was the lost source, but in such a case the hypothesis that this is the early version of Gesta Francorum is equally firmly seated, because it is base only on a supposition without taking into account the contents of the relation, and as has been pointed out most likely it was a Daimbert's letter to the Pope 141 . It is much to create a hypothesis on the base of the source that we have a confirmation that this source existed and there is no need to create another one.

It was indicated that the common points of the Gesta Francorum and the Monte Cassino's

Chronicle are e.g. the use of term motio to describe the expedition to Jerusalem, the triple repetition of the Crusaders' warcry Deus vult, the list of Bohemond's followers, the description of the siege of Amalfi by the Normans, etc. 142 . However, the intertextual relations are also possible to explain in the perspective of H. Hagenmeyer or from the point of view of Ur-Gesta -an early version of the manuscript of Gesta Francorum, without creating a completely new chronicle, which was a common source 143 . Copying and transcribing content from one source to another was a common practice at the beginning of the 12th century. In this case, the Gesta Francorum, even in the earlier version of the manuscript, could be a base source for other authors. It seems that J. Rubenstein rejects the possibility of others authors own intellectuals contributions, such as the development of certain themes from the Gesta Francorum text, adding other biblical citations or the smoothing or distortion of the language, by suggesting that the author probably had an access to another text 144 . In this case, if we assume that the Gesta Francorum, in earlier manuscript's version than we knew to our times that is the archetype, was the first source in which there is a description of the First Crusade, the other authors probably benefited from it, hence the overlapping content. Furthermore, the authors such as Raymond of Aguilers and Peter Tudebode participated in the First Crusade, so the different passages can be explained as their own memories, like the description of Peter 140 P. Klopsch, Anonymität und Selbstnennung mittellateinischer Autoren, "Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch" 4 (1967), pp. 9-25; W. Giese, Beobachtungen und Gedanken zu autobiographischen Einschüben in der Historiographie des früheren Mittelalters (800-1150), "Innsbrucker Historische Studien" 4 (1981), pp. 7-16. 141 Cf. J. Flori,Chroniqueurs et propagandistes..., Cf. L. Russo, The Monte Cassino Tradition of the First Crusade, in: Writing the Early Crusades: Text, Transmission and Memory, eds. M. Bull, D. Kempf, Woodbridge 2014, pp. 57-58. 143 Cf. the propositions of stemma codicum presented by S. Niskanen,op. cit.,pp. 296,315. 144 J. Rubenstein, What is the Gesta Francorum..., p. 188. Tudebode's members of family deaths, the list of deserters from Antioch or the testimonies of the others participants of the so-called Peasants' Crusade 145 . Therefore, it seems to be more legitimate to pose a question about Gesta Francorum's tradition and transmission of contents from this to the other sources: the problem of "the Gesta family" rahter that the issue of the lost common source named Jerusalem history 146 .

Authorship of the accounts

The authorship of the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere should not make the problems: the author of the first account was Anonymous, whose name will always remain a mystery, and the author of the second source was Peter Tudebode. However, the cases of authorship of the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode in the historiography are not so obvious.

Anonymous or not, author or authors of the Gesta Francorum

In the historiography there are three main conceptions about authorship of the Gesta Francorum. The first in the chronological order is that the anonymous author came from Southern Italy and he could be a Norman. He was probably the younger son of a nobleman or a simple soldier, a supporter of Bohemond, who in his youth was educated as a priest or he had a contact with a basic education, because he could read and quote the Bible 147 . He took part in the First Crusade and his work is an eyewitness account of this event. Although there is no mention in the Gesta Francorum that the author was neither a member nor a younger son of noble family, which is also a stereotype of the older literature, or that he was educated for becoming a priest. However, there are many pieces of evidence that the author was a member of the Italian-Norman contingent and supporter of Bohemond and this aspect is not generally questioned 148 . The chronicler refers to the Kingdom of France as ultra montanas 149 , he uses vocabulary associated with the vernacular Italian or French language 150 and he exhibits the characters from Norman's expedition very 145 For a more complete list of content present in Tudebode's Historia and absent in Gesta cf. M. Bull, The Relationship Between the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere..., pp. 5-7. 146 Cf. J. France, The Use of the Anonymous Gesta Francorum...,GF (Bréhier),p. vii;GF (Hill), pp. xi-xvi; H.-J. Witzel, Le problème de l'auteur des Gesta Francorum, "Moyen-Age" 61 (1955), pp. 319-328;K.B. Wolf, Crusade and Narrative..., pp. 207-216. 148 J. Flori, Bohémond d'Antioche, chevalier d'Aventure, Paris 2007 accurately, giving them the most important role in the whole Crusade 151 . L. Bréhier signalled the second interpretation. He suggested that the Gesta Francorum can be divided into four parts, probably written by different people at various times because of the different stylistic levels. He distinguished the relation of an anonymous eyewitness knight, the descriptions of events in which the author could not take part like the mention about the so-called People's Crusade or the arrival of Godfrey of Bouillon to Constantinople, the episodes in which the story is presented from the Muslim's side like the speech of Soliman (Kilij Arslan) or a dialog between Kurbugha and his mother, and later interpolations 152 . However, the conclusion of L.

Bréhier was that the author was a priest who cooperated with a layman 153 . The idea that the Gesta Francorum was written by different people was taken by many authors, among whom is J.

Rubenstein. He proposed a conception that this work is a collection of sermons and stories from different sources and it is not an eyewitness account of one participant of the Crusade 154 .

The third conception was presented by N. Dass, who proposed the collective authorship of the Gesta Francorum. The core of this proposition is supported by the manuscript tradition. On the earliest manuscript of Gesta Francorumm from the beginning of 12th century which is Vatican Reginensis latini 641 there are two lines with four names of two clerks and two laymen: Petrus clericus de Mirabea. Wilelmus clericus de Vosaillia. Gauterea de Funfreide laicus. Johannes de Gelis laicus 155 . N. Dass argued that this record could not be signatures or the names of the owners of the manuscript, because such ways of marking books or self-identity were unfamiliar during this period. Therefore, these are the names of the Gesta Francorum's authors 156 . The palaeography suggests that the inscription dates at the beginning of the 12th century. Furthermore, this proposition is connected with the problem posed by L. Bréhier about the four stylistic levels and an authorship of a clerk with a laymen and could be an explanation for this issue. However, N. Dass did not mention that there was a possibility that these names belonged to the copyists, not the authors. What is worth emphasizing, the list of alleged authors indicates the South-French origin of some of them.

Peter came from Mirabeau, maybe it is a village in today's Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region in South-Eastern France, but there are several places of this name, so the precision in localisation is 151 Cf. E. Jamison, Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with .., pp. 117-139. 155 This list of names appears at the end of the manuscript Vatican Reginensis latini 641. 156 GF (Dass), p. 6. extremely difficult. Walter was from Fontfroide, maybe it is the place, which could be identified with the Fontfroide near Narbonne, where from the end of the 11th century the Benedictine monastery was placed, and that was the place under the influences of Count of Toulouse. The place of origin of the last two William of Vosailles and John of Gélis is unknown.

In this perspective, the author of the Gesta Francorum was not, therefore, probably an anonymous Norman knight, but a collective author, both clerics and lay people. Possible is that their names are not anonymous, but they have survived on the oldest known manuscripts, although this perspective is tempting with their cognitive optimism. However, it is still most likely the account of the eyewitnesses with some later interpolations, which was the base source for others chronicles 157 .

The perspective of collective authorship shows a larger social background of the Gesta Francorum as a testimony of more people than only one anonymous author.

However, the statement of L. Bréhier that the author of Gesta Francorum was a priest who cooperated with a layman could be reshaped 158 . The best analogy for that is known from the process of writing of the Historia Francorum, which was written by Raymond of Aguilers, who cooperated with Pons of Balazuc (Balazun), but it does not have to be the only option. Perhaps, the author of Gesta Francorum was a priest, who went through trivium education, but also took part in the fighting against the Turks and other forces of Muslims rulers during the First Crusade. It does not seem quite impossible. Looking at the 12th century, the division between sacerdotium and regnum or imperium was too often pointed out and taken as a certainty. However, this Gregorian perspective during the formation of accounts describing the First Crusade was fighting for its place in the 157 Rather confusing seems to be the considerations of Y.N. Harari, who indicates that the Gesta Francorum is not an eyewitness account at all, but later he says: By that I do not mean that the Gesta's anonymous author was not present at the First Crusade. Rather, I mean that he had no intention of writing "an eyewitness account", and that the text he produced lacks the main characteristics of eyewitness accounts, as weel as their main merits and faults (cf. Y.N. Harari, op. cit., p. 86). Furthermore, at the beginnig of his article he made a definition that Eyewitness accounts are texts whose main purpose is to narrate what their authors have seen and experienced and that accordingly privilege factual accurancy over skill of writing and breadth of interpretation (cf. Y.N. Harari, op. cit., p. 77). However, according to him the Gesta Francorum is rather a history than an eyewitness account, because, according to Y.N. Harari, the eyewitness account should contain facts, not fictitious content like invented speeches and dialogues (Y.N. Harari, op. cit., p. 89). This approach seems redundant, because it leads to a specific "correction" of the historical source; moreover it seems that author rejected the so-called cultural facts and he did not consider that all fantasies in the historical sources are culturally grounded and played its role as a carrier of information. Furthermore, by making his own definition he could easily throw away the Gesta Francorum from the sphere of eyewitness accounts. Y.N. Harari tries to take away the nature of the eyewitness account, and at the same time, he does not show that the author or authors of Gesta Francorum did not participate in the First Crusade, but even this basic approach in considering whether it was an eyewitness account was rejected by Y.N. Harari. In addition, it is necessary to emphasize the opposition that Y.N. Harari made, contrasting the literary genre of the epic and the eyewitness account, stating that the Gesta is closer to the Song of Roland than, for example, Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Iherosolymitana. It seems that it is an anachronism in this, because the author considers the value of a historical source from a cohesive perspective where fictitious content is clearly separated from the realm of facts, however, was it the same in the 12th century? Did the people of the Middle Ages clearly separate the sphere of fiction from facts and this was important in creating accounts? Was it then that the bestiaries and all the hagiographic myths were understood by people of that time as fiction? 158 GF (Bréhier), p. vii. Longsword, Earl of Salisbury and half-brother of King John 165 . The fighting priest was also mentioned in a Byzantine source from 12th century. Anna Komnene in the Alexias describes that the commander of the Byzantine fleet, Marianus Mavrocatacalon, during the struggle against the invasion of Bohemond in 1107-1108, fought with an armed priest who almost killed him. In the value system of a Byzantine princess, the priest could not simultaneously fulfill his duties and fight with a sword in his hands with enemies. Therefore, she summarizes the whole narration: For this barbarian race is no less devoted to sacred things than it is to war (ὁ δέ τοι βάρβαρος Λατῖνος ἅμα τὲ τὰ θεῖα μεταχειριεῖται καὶ τὴν ἀσπίδα) 166 . Thus, it seems that the author of Gesta Francorum may have been one person, who was a clergyman with appropriate intellectual preparation, and at the same time taking an active part in the battles against the enemy during the expedition. Such a presentation of the authorship would explain the various stylistic levels present in the Gesta Francorum and first-person narrative.

Furthermore, on the pages of his work, the author of Gesta Francorum clearly shows the division into the milites and pauperes according to the participants of the Crusade, which suggests that he was probably of noble origin 167 .

Norman's origin of the author should not raise doubts. He participated in the expedition to Jerusalem in the Bohemond's contingent, and much of the content of his account is covered by the descriptions from the crossing of the Balkans to the capture of Antioch by Crusaders and the battle against Kurbugha in which he was a member of Norman troops. After that, the author of Gesta Francorum left Bohemond's service and joined Raymond of Toulouse who was leading the Franks to Jerusalem. The author's strong support to Bohemond was expressed by the use of splendid epithets referring to the Norman leader such as bellipotens, acerrimus, vir prudens, fortissimus or fortissimus Christi atheleta and sharing the antagonism toward the Byzantine Empire 168 .

Nevertheless, the author still remains anonymous, because it is not possible to determine his identity. The considerations about the author's identity are not supported by popular practice in the Middle Ages, where literary works are usually not signed by the author, but remain anonymous, all to the greater glory of God (ad maiorem Dei gloriam), where the author was considered only as an intermediary between God and the recipient of his work 169 . Some historians mentioned that the "regional identity" of Peter was indicated by emphasizing the role of Gaston of Béarn in the important event for the whole expedition such as defending La Mahomerie, the battle of Antioch, the assault of Jerusalem or the battle of Ascalon 173 . However, it must be noted that the links between Béarn and Civray should not be understood so easily in the same "regional identity" of Aquitaine, because both places are nearly 400 km apart and the region was not a cultural and political monolith. Aquitaine, as well as Gaston of Béarn, belonged to the circle of supporters of the papal reform in Southern France, being described as fideles beati Petri 178 . Therefore, probably the indicated ties determined a certain "regional identity" of Tudebode.

Returning to the issue of authorship, J. Rubenstein supposed that Peter Tudebode was not a writer of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere179 . The argumentation of the American scholar was based on the hypothesis that the Jerusalem history existed and the text was in the use at least from the beginning of the 12th century to the date of creation of Historia belli sacri at 1127. In J.

Rubenstein's opinion, Peter was a veteran of the Crusade who had acquired in Rubenstein's terminology the Jerusalem history, and he modified this text by adding on the margins personal observations and memories. Later, someone rewrote the account with the additions and in this way the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere was created. Thus, the account was not Peter's creation, and he did not write a preface180 . Furthermore, there is no manuscript with the name of Petrus Tudebodus as an author on the opening page181 .

Although some of the remark seems important for the discourse, the idea of J. Rubenstein is based on the assumption outside the sources that Peter Tudebode could get the draft version of the Gesta Francorum or rather the Jerusalem history. J. Rubenstein considers Tudebode as a veteran of the First Crusade who was not a writer and even a compiler, but he only added the personal observations and later someone created from this personal manuscript of Peter a work as a whole.

However, why was Tudebode in possession of such a draft? Or were there many participants of the Crusade who had this draft and only Tudebode's work (excluding the Peregrinatio Antiochie per Vrbanum papam facta, Cambridge, St Catharine's College, MS 3) with personal addnotations survives? Does it mean (bearing in mind the Hills' vision) that a priest from Civray among many thousands of Crusaders at the beginning of the 12th century was so wealthy that he could afford a manuscript, even if it was only a draft? Why did he change the beginning of the account to describe the crossing through Sclavonia? Therefore, which route was described in the Jerusalem history?

Alternatively, did the anonymous author who took the manuscript of Tudebode had changed the beginning of the account? If so, what was his purpose?

The proposition of J. Rubenstein suggests that the manuscript, which could have belonged to Peter Tudebode flew out from circulation and would have no impact on the further development of the manuscript tradition. Unless Peter bought only one of the drafts of Gesta Francorum. In this case, how many versions of the manuscripts of Jerusalem history existed at the beginning of the 12th century that he could buy one copy? Finally, who was the anonymous author of the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere? There is too much uncertainty in this proposition, which increases with each new question.

In conclusion, it should be pointed out that there are no so strong arguments to create in this case a new person -the anonymous author of the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. It is most likely that Peter Tudebode, the participant of the First Crusade from Civray, was the author of the account, which was based on the text of the Gesta Francorum, most likely on an earlier version of the manuscript that we knew, before the further anti-Byzantine additions 182 . Moreover, the author had the memories and observations at his disposal -not only his own, but probably of the whole surrounding community.

1.4. The language of the sources and intellectual background

The language and stylistic of the sources indicate the intellectual background of the authors.

In this subsection, there is no need to distinguish two sources: Peter's Historia and Gesta

Francorum, because the language and intellectual background of the authors seem really close.

Other contemporary chroniclers have already spoken about the subject of the Gesta Francorum's style (which was paraphrased by Peter Tudebode). participants of the expedition, which actually was almost three-year military campaign. Both sources reflect the intellectual background of its authors: the fighting knights or the clerics with the basics of education writing a rough Latin with many vernacular inserts. However, H. Oehler has shown that the author of Gesta Francorum was not a primitive writer with only basic knowledge in Latin, but he rather operated in a tradition quite different from the Benedictines' authors and he should not be judged in the framework of the classical Latin of Cicero. A German scholar argued that in the Gesta Francorum were used the stylistic devices such as alliteration, rhymes, assonances and rhythmic cursus (he distinguished the cursus planus, tardus, velox) at the end of the phrases 188 . This language of the source shows the audience, which consisted of rather simple knights and The Latin used in the sources is close to the vernacular language. The author of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode rarely used the grammatical structures characteristic for the classical writers 201 . The accusatives, ablative absolute, participles and infinitives in the Gesta Francorum are rare and the preposition de replaced more the classical preposition ex 202 . However, the language of Gesta Francorum is quite clear, unlike some of the sentences of Peter Tudebode, which seem to be a feverish search for synonyms in a paraphrase, distorting both the correct syntax and the meaning of phrases. For instance, in version of Gesta Francorum: Illi vero, qui evadere potuerunt, in Cyvito fugerunt; alii praecipitabant se in mare, alii latebant in silvis et montanis 203 , transformed into Illi quidem qui potuerunt vivi evadere fugerunt ad Civito; alii miserunt se in mare; alii in silvam super montaneam 204 . In this example, a visible syntax defect in using of ablative of place could be observed; in the Gesta Francorum's version is a non-classical usage with a preposition of in with ablative, while in Tudebode's Historia there is a preposition ad, which should be used with accusative, but here it is simply used incorrectly. Moreover, the simple phrase in silvis et montanis (in the woods (or forest) and mountains) from the Gesta Francorum turns into a form of in silvam super montaneam (in the wood (or forest) on the top of mountain) in Peter Tudebode's account 205 . Furthermore, on the pages of both accounts many words from vernacular replaced the Latin terms, such as burgus instead of suburbium, casale for casa 206 , caballus for equus and multones (muttons or sheep) instead of agnus 207 . On the other hand, many words describing the name of foreign nations, villages or people were dressed in the Latin form like Athenasi 208 , Marasim 209 or Cassianus 210 . The structure of Gesta's and Historia's narration could be described as a sequential.

The sentences are rather small units, which do not create dependent clause between one and the next sentence. Usually they are linked with the previous sentence with the words like denique, tandem, deinde, igitur, itaque, ibi and others 211 . The difference, which catches the eye in the stylistic of both accounts, is that Tudebode used quod, usque and eis instead of Gesta's ut, donec and illis 212 . Furthermore, there are many differences in using the verbs, adjectives, conjunctions and in the construction of whole phrases 213 , such as Denique sic pervenimus ad Rusam civitatem, illicque hospitati sumus 214 any evidence that the authors were solidly educated in this matter, although some phrases could come from the grammar books 227 . Thus, most likely is that the authors did not have much contact with the works of classical writers or they were mostly inspired by the biblical tradition.

The Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere belong to the literary genre of gesta, the description of the deeds 228 . The gesta is the composition of the stories about a historical event, a chivalry epic, which contains stories, deeds, fame and attitudes especially worthy of commemoration. The gesta need not be dedicated to a single person that may be a whole series of characters and collective entity. This gesta, and it seems that there is not clear difference in the accounts of the First Crusade between the gesta and historia, is much less interested in chronological consequence of accidents, and much more in the acts and deeds. For the authors of such works chronology is not important, because the historical process is presented as the achievements of eminent personalities. This kind of historiography is similar to the epic poetry, because of the tendency to commemorate the deeds of war. The form of gesta as freer in the composition and selection of the material, describing the events interesting to a wide circle of audience was popular in the 11th and 12th centuries, and it was the base for the development of the poetry about the deeds of chivalry in vernacular languages.

Structure of the accounts

The content, style and even the structure of both accounts are quite similar. The authors described, except for a few cases, these same events. However, in the historiography, there are few proposals for the division of structure of the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano 226 GF,p. 38. 227 C. Morris,The Gesta Francorum as Narrative...,p. 57;note 7,p. 69. 228 It should be noted that S. Niskanen proposed some remarks, concerning the literary genre of GF and PT, claiming that these sources comprise the elements from various literary genres, e.g. hagiography, itinerary and histriography, and the rules defining the genres in medieval were not strict, therefore, the modern historians failed to define what GF truly is (cf. S. Niskanen, op. cit., p. 312). However, the examples classified by S. Niskanen as the use of a hagiography or an itinerary are an essence of the epic, e.g. the divine intervention in human affairs, intertwining of the divine and human world, or the recount of a journey, the physical (Odysseus in the Odyssey) as well as mental (Achilles in the Iliad) or both. In this perspective, it seems that the Itinerarium Burdigalense and other works of this type are quite a weak analogy to Gesta Francorum, since they describe a journey to Jerusalem, but not in the form of an epic, without the epic deeds as the military struggles. Therefore, the title Itinerarium Hierosolimitanorum, which according to S. Itinere229 . In the most recent English translation, N. Dass divided the Gesta Francorum into ten narratives or books, claiming that this division comes from the earliest manuscripts, but it seems surprising that not all the books are ended by the short prayers, so characteristic for the authors' style. However, H. Hagenmeyer divided the Gesta Francorum into eight books with thirty-nine chapters 230 . All the books in the Hagenmeyer's division end with a short hymn of praises to God such as Per omnia benedictus Deus. Amen (Blessed be God in all things. Amen)231 or qui es benedictus et laudabilis in saecula saeculorum. Amen (Who is blessed and praised forever and ever.

Amen)232 . Hence, I will use this division for the Latin quotations in accordance with this critical edition.

The first book consists of the events from the end of 1095 to the battle of Vardar on 18 The role of the Franks was highlighted as they were the only mentioned recipients of the crusading message. They were also aware of the time that had come. From this perspective, the participants of the Crusade, the Franks, are the new chosen people, who accomplish the God's plan 239 . Now the question arises; who were the Franks in the opinion of authors of Gesta and Historia? The important thing is that the term "Franks" should not be considered as the geographical and ethnic but rather as the cultural community, which shared a common political tradition 240 . To highlight this line of interpretation it should be invoked the comparison material. For instance, from this perspective the mention of Notker the Stammerer could be understood. In the 10th century he wrote that the Gauls, Aquitanians, Edui, Spaniards, Alemanni and Bavarians earned the honour of calling themselves "Franks" 241 . This short information shows a non-ethnic definition of the term "Frank", which can become anyone who deserves it. An important content of a common tradition was the heritage of the Franks' Empire reigned by Charlemagne, who extended the borders of the Christian world.

According to the sources created on the eve of the First Crusade, for instance Chanson de Roland in the Oxford's version written about 1100, the Empire of Charles the Great extended on the 237 About the crossing of the natural obstacles like sea or mountain range as a severe ordeal, cf. T. Cf. A. Falk, Franks andSaracens. Reality andFantasy in the Crusades, London 2010, pp. 39-44. 241 Notker, Gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris, in: MGH: SRG N.S. 12, ed. H.F. Haefele, Berlin 1959, I, 10, p. 13. all regions of Gaul, Flanders, Bavaria, Normandy, England, Scotland, Iceland, Aquitaine, Provence, Italy, Saxony, Poland, Spain, Brittany, and even the Byzantine Empire 242 . It can be summed up briefly that the limits of his imagined dominion swirled almost the entire Christian world of the 12th century. This idealized vision of the borders of the Charlemagne's realm plays an important role in the collective memory of the Western Christians 243 . In this perspective the being "Frank" meant to be a part of this cultural, religious and political legacy, so it is obvious why for example the Normans wanted to participate in this idea. For Dudo of Saint-Quentin the Normans were a new people, who could revive the Franks' race, but still they were considered definitely as the Franks 244 .

Furthermore, many of the rulers, kings, princes and emperors of the Christian world wanted to participate in Charlemagne's legacy through the compounds of the blood like Godfrey of Bouillon or the counts of Vermandois; the continuation of the political program of the expansion and defence of Christianity in the case of Ottonians and even Piast's dynasty 245 . In conclusion it must be said that it seems that the Franks in the chroniclers' thought were rather understood, perceived as a community of a common tradition and religion non in an ethnic or geographical label. The Crusaders were Normans, Provencals, Lotharingians, Bretons, etc. but in the broader sense of identity they were Franks and Christians, the descendants of the Empire ruled in the Golden Age by Charles the Great.

Returning to the Urban's mission, in his speech on the pages of both accounts it was important that the participants of the expedition to the Holy Sepulchre would suffer for the name of Christ on the Earth, but they would gain a great reward in a Heaven. However, one condition was placed at the beginning: the participants must have a pure heart and spirit (puroque corde et mente) 246 . This correlation, in the perspective of future expedition, was established by the prestige of the Pope, the clergy and the Bible. The imitatio Christi as a pattern of conduct and a moral determinant; a road to Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem as a main goal of whole iter; and a God's reward were the main spiritual motivation to take the cross on the pages of Gesta and Historia 247 .

Furthermore, as the sign of the following by Jesus' steps and as the sign of God's support and submit to His will, the people had the cross on their right shoulders 248 .

The only passage, which could be considered as the presentation of the enemy was pointed out in the aim of the expedition, which was to retake the Holy Sepulchre from the power of tartarus: Franci [...] dicentes sese Christi unanimiter sequi vestigia, quibus de manu erant redempti tartarea 249 , (the Franks […] saying that they were united in one will in the footsteps of Christ by whom they had been saved from the hands of Tartarus) 250 . It is difficult to explain the exact source of inspiration for the authors who used this phrase. The term tartarus from Greek mythology was transferred to the Latin literature and for instance P. Vergilius Maro describes it as a place for a sinners in Aeneid 251 . Furthermore, the term tartarus appears once in the Bible, in the Second Epistle of Saint Peter, as a place where God send the sinful angels 252 . Moreover, Raymond of Aguilers mentioned the servants of Tartarus (ministri Tartharei), who attacked Adhemar of Le Puy after his death, in the vision of Peter Batholomew 253 . Perhaps the term tartarus could also be a loose allusion or a circulating, well-known phrase. However, the term was clearly associated with the Hell and known to the authors and probably to the audience of the sources, because the message seems very clear: the term tartarus clearly indicates its connection with something evil, briefly it could be understood as a synonym of Hell 254 .

The important clue in understanding the mentioned passage is the phrase, showing the idea of following Christ's footsteps (Franci [...] dicentes sese Christi unanimiter sequi vestigia) 255 . Thus, it seems that the mention could be understood as the pious people should overcome the evil forces, as well as Jesus by His own death triumphed over the death and won the gates of the Hell 256 . From the presented point of view, the analysed passage indicates that the expedition to the Holy Sepulchre was an imitatio Christi and a divine plan was to fight against the Evil, represented by the term of tartarus.

An another example of these frames of the imitatio Christi, available even for poorly educated participants, was that the Crusaders considered themselves as the knights of Christ (milites Christi) 257 , knights of the true God (milites veri Dei) 258 , army of Christ (milites et exercitum Christi) 259 or pilgrims-knights of Christ (Christi milites peregrini) 260 . The logical consequence indicates that the army of Christ represented by Christians has the enemy, the armies of Evil described as the enemies of God (inimici Dei) 261 and of God and holy Christianity (inimici Dei et Sanctae Christianitatis) 262 . So in consequence provides to a statement that the idea of iter to Jerusalem is based on a strong binary opposition.

The term miles Christi was a topos, corresponding to a Letter of Saint Paul to Timotheus and it was present in the works of authors of investiture polemics 263 . It was a term most common in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia for describing the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem, starting from the nobles such as Bohemond or Raymond of Saint-Gilles and ending on the unnamed soldiers. The category of miles Christi shows the dynamism of the social roles presented by the intellectual elites. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the role and the image of the knighthood as a social group characterized by certain characteristics started to change. The idea of miles Christi, until that time reserved exclusively for the monks who are fight spiritually, is adapted to secular warriors as the defenders of Christianity 264 . According to this model, the fight against the enemy of God was a spiritual one. That kind of devotion and entrust to God could be rewarded, and in this perspective during the First Crusade, warriors dying in battle with Muslims are considered martyrs 265 . This phenomenon, in earlier centuries rather rare, now became frequent. In this process, the clergy played the most important role and their changing of attitudes towards war and warriors, whose new vision of knighthood was prominent in their writings from that period 266 .

Imitatio Caroli Magni

The importance of the tradition in the intellectual background of the Gesta's and Historia's authors reveals in the reference to Charlemagne. The expedition's forces led by Peter the Hermit and Godfrey of Bouillon, his brother Baldwin of Boulogne and also Baldwin of Mons in the Gesta's version had chosen the way through Hungary, which in common opinion was the route of Charles the Great to Constantinople: Isti potentissimi milites et alii plures, quo ignoro, venerunt per viam, quam iam dudum Karolus Magnus, mirificus rex Franciae, aptari fecit usque Constantinopolim 267 (These most powerful warriors and many others, whom I do not know, went by the road which Charlemagne, the wondrous king of Francia, once had constructed all the way to Constantinople 268 ). However, the question arises from which source or sources the chroniclers learned about the Emperor's pilgrimage to Jerusalem?

In search of a text which was written before the First Crusade and which describes about the expedition of the emperor of Franks to Jerusalem, which could had any influence on a popular audience, it must be invoked the Descriptio qualiter… 269 . Around 1080 in the intellectual background of Philip I, the King of France, was written an account about the pilgrimage of Charles the Great to the East in which he helped the Byzantine Emperor and Patriarch of Jerusalem in defeating the pagans and he restored the peace in Holy Land 270 . After all his deeds, Charlemagne returned to his realm with the holy relics from the Byzantine ruler. It seems that this source might have been an inspiration for the further descriptions on this subject, but some scholars suggested rather indirect influence of the legend of Charlemagne. The base for these considerations is that the Descriptio qualiter… was not well known before the First Crusade and there is no sign that the authors of Gesta and Historia had knowledge about it. This text became quite popular only in the first decades of the 12th century and the characters such as Hugo of Fleury and Odo of Deuil had a contact with it 271 . Some scholars suggested that Charles the Great was not a literal pattern for the chroniclers of the First Crusade, but rather he reflected from according to a popular point of view a strength of his Empire, which was Latin and Christian, and that he victoriously fought with the heathens, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Constantinople and his reign was a Golden Age and Furthermore, what is worth emphasizing, the Prussians derived from the Saxons, who never surrendered to the Charlemagne and immigrated to Prussia 274 . By this analogy, an interpretation risk can be taken, in which the authors of Gesta and Historia saw the Crusade's leaders as the ideological descendants of Charlemagne from the perspective of whole Christianitas 275 . The aim of the expedition is to fight against pagans and expand the boundaries of Christianity, which would be an act worthy of commemoration on the pages of accounts. Furthermore, Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Boulogne were in far extent descendants of the Franks' ruler, but the literal connotation of this gained only in the later historiography 276 . In this perspective, the expedition to Holy Sepulchre had the strong support in the 272 E. Vance, Semiotics and Power: Relics, Icons, and the Voyage de Charlemagne à Jerusalem et à Constantinople, "Romanic Review" 79 (1988), pp. 170-171; J. Flori, La Guerre sainte: La formation de l'idée de croisade dans l'Occident chrétien, Paris 2001, pp. 31, 228, 313-314;M. Gabriele, op. cit., pp. 69-70. 273 GA, I, 6, p. 17; about the Prussians in this chronicle cf. D.A. Sikorski, Galla Anonima wiadomości o Prusach. Próba weryfikacji wybranych hipotez, "Kwartalnik Historyczny" 110/2 (2003), pp. 5-23;S. Rosik, Bolesław..., pp. 171, 197, 254, 303. 274 GA, I, 6, p. 17;on Christian tradition associated with Charlemagne; the First Crusade is a part of universal history and the heroes were bound to it through their imperial pedigree.

2.3. Representation of the enemy: Turks as barbarians, enemy of God, excommunicated race, pagans and unbelievers One of the aspects of "xenophany" is τὄ ὄνομα (onoma) -the name, the term used in the representation of the "other". This may be the name of the person or community that is classified as "other" and thus emphasizes the identity or name given by the observer, the "us" group, equipped with specific symbolic content or adapted to language requirements, which also points to the difference of the holder. In the Christian thought, the man on the base of God's donation, reigned the world by naming: And from the earth the Lord God made every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and took them to the man to see what names he would give them: and whatever name he gave to any living thing, that was its name. And the man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every beast of the field; but Adam had no one like himself as a help277 . For Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, encyclopaedist, who lived at the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, and the author of the work of Etymologiae, understanding the name meant gaining knowledge of the thing in itself, since it was possible to derive information from the very aspect of the name278 . In this context, the name is a fact, created by language expression. The name transmits information, but also creates socio-cultural facts.

According to Isidore of Seville, expressing pre-existing Christian thought, the division of the world into people of different languages was the result of the exile of the people of Paradise and the Deluge, but it also served as a punishment for taking pride in the erection of the Tower of Babel. All the people on Earth were descendants of Noah through his three sons: Shem, ancestor of the peoples inhabiting Syria, Palestine and Arabia; Ham, ancestor of the Caanan and African tribes, who for their unworthy behaviour was cursed and placed lowest in the brethren, and also Japheth, the father of the peoples of the North279 . In such genealogical boundaries, the common ancestor of a given people was indicated, giving it a specific place in the hierarchy according to the Old Testament key.

One of the consequences of the military contacts with the enemies was the problem of its representation on the pages of the accounts.

the pages of both works. A conversion will not make the Turks change physically and it is not present in the Christian thought to try to baptize an animal. Therefore, if it is a possibility to convert the enemy, the Turks could not be considered as animals, so nonhumans, by describing them as barbarians 287 . Describing someone as a barbarian was the essence of cultural separateness and clear indication that he belongs to the category of "other", which is associated with assigning certain stereotypical features in its description. In fact, using this is a general term, combined with specific or only superficial location information for groups belonging to this category.

Thus, from the beginning of the description of the First Crusade, the enemies were described as gens barbara, which is the opposite to gens Christiana in a holistic perspective. This organization of the narration is connected with a clear distinction in the sphere of socio-culture of the enemy. The Turks during the People's Crusade broke the principles in the religious and social life of Christians by killing the innocents among which was a priest celebrating Mass 288 . However, the direct use of the phrase gens barbara suggested that the chroniclers wanted to emphasize differences between the Christians and their enemies. They used one of the most popular invectives in the Latin vocabulary, which probably was well known to the audience. Furthermore, this was a strong figure of speech, carrying content indicating that the enemy is contempt for its distinctiveness. In the composition of the texts, the image of the Turks as the gens barbara will be gradually built up with the development of action and increasingly frequent interactions with the enemy on the pages of both accounts.

Enemy of God and Holy Christianity

One of the most important phrase with the theological reference used in the representation of the enemy are the terms the enemies of God or the enemies of God and Holy Christianity (Turci, inimici Dei et Sanctae Christianitatis; vero inimici Dei et sanctae Christianitatis) 289 . For the first time this kind of expression appears in the description of the battle of Dorylaeum, according to the chroniclers, ended with a crushing victory, which was emphasized by the symbolic number of four.

The Turks fled from the victorious Frankish troops for four days and four nights and the number four is associated with the symbolic meaning of the four sides of the world, the world created by God 290 . In the Book of Revelation a clear example could be found; the four animals or four angels 287 I would like to warmly thank prof. Jean-Luc Fray for this suggestion. 288 Cf. II. 2.4.5.1.2. The massacre in Civetot -the priest's death on the altar. 289 GF, X, 1, p. 208; PT, p. 55. 290 Cf. R.E. Curtius, op. cit., pp. 526-536; D. Forstner, Die Welt der christlichen Symbole, Innsbruck-Wien 1977 [repr. 1966], p. 50.

can extend their power over the whole inhabited world 291 . Thus, the symbolic of number four is a clear indication that the victory of Christians was complete. However, the term inimici Dei et Sanctae Christianitatis is not only a distinction, a label of enemy, but also a presentation of a historiosophical vision of the chroniclers. In the intellectual background of the authors of Gesta and Historia, the God's providence was the main category, which organized the knowledge about the surrounding world 292 . The term inimici Dei et Sanctae Christianitas shows the place of the Turks outside the Christianity as the forces of Devil itself. In contrast to the Gesta Francorum, Peter

Tudebode adds a passage that the victory in the battle of Dorylaeum was achieved with the help of God and the forces of enemy were destroyed by the nod of God (Deo annuente) 293 . Therefore, Tudebode's account creates a relation that the enemies of God were defeated by the divine help.

The Turks were described as the inimici nostri in further struggles against the Franks. In the description about the campaign of Baldwin and Tancred in Cilicia, there is a clear bipolar opposition between the Turks and Christians. When Tancred came to Tarsus: Exierunt denique Turci de urbe et venerunt obviam eis atque in unum congregati properaverunt ad bellum contra Christianos. Appropinquantibus itaque nostris et pugnantibus, dederunt inimici nostri fugam, revertentes in urbem celeri gressu 294 (And the Turks emerged from that city as together in one and came forward to attack and fight the Christians. But our men advanced and fought and our men put the enemy to flight who fled as possible back to the city) 295 . The phrase inimici nostri could be useful to understand the passage, which seems to be interpreted by many scholars in the wrong way.

Namely, the word nostri is not an ethnic label -a simple understanding in the ethnic category of the chroniclers as the Normans or someone else 296 . The term nostri used in both accounts should be rather understood as the Christians, the largest category, and the forces of Tancred are only pars pro toto. The role of the enemy in this interpretation should also be taken into account. They were described as the inimici nostri, the phrase that was present on the earlier pages of both accounts. It was used to describe the enemy of Christians and God sensu largo. In consequence, in this passage the authors made the clear indication: the Christians fight against the enemy -the Turks, so the understanding of the word nostri as the Normans is rather inadequate.

The author of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode presented the Turks from Antioch during the council of the Crusade's leaders as the enemies of Christ (inimici Christi) 297 or the 291 Rev 20.8;4.6;7.1. 292 As was clearly pointed by J. Riley-Smith: Nothing was believed to happen outside the control of divine providence, cf. Idem, The First Crusade and the Idea..., p. 100. 293 PT, p. 57. 294 GF,X,5,p. 218;cf. PT,p. 58. 295 GF (Dass), p. 47. 296 C. Morris,The Gesta Francorum...,pp. 64,[67][68]XXVIII,2,p. 364. enemies of God (inimici Dei) 298 . The Turks of Antioch are generally described as our enemy (inimici nostri), even in short mentions 299 , or as the enemy of God and of "us" (inimici nostri et Dei, scilicet Turci) 300 . According to Peter Tudebode, the Christians were besieged by the other pagans and enemies of God and Holy Christianity (ab aliis paganis, inimicis Dei et sanctae Christianitatis) 301 . In another narration, describing the death of one thousand participants of Crusade, Bohemond with a few warriors comes quickly to Christian camp and says about the ambush. The Crusaders, after invoking the name of Christ and are confident in their hope of reaching the Holy Sepulchre, approach to fight against the enemy of theirs and God's itself (inimici Dei et nostri) 302 . The Turks thought that they had overcome the Christians and were sure that this day was the day of their victory, but the chroniclers write that the God did not allow this to happen.

The knights of true God (milites igitur veri Dei) armed with the sign of the cross, charged fiercely at the enemy and the Turks fled from the battlefield to the city 303 . Those of them who did not cross the bridge were killed. The rest of them were pushed into the river and it was made red by the blood of the Turks 304 .

In one of the visions in which Apostle Andrew gives the directions to the Crusaders to achieve a victory, the Franks shall daily sing congregati sunt 305 , which in a full version is: congregati sunt inimici nostri et gloriantur in virtute sua: contere fortitudinem illorum, Domine, et disperge illos, ut cognoscant quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi tu, Deus noster (Our enemies have gathered and they glory in their might: destroy their strength, O Lord, and scatter them, that they may know there is none who fights for us, but you, our God). It was a church song, which was sung on the first Sunday of October, and it was referred to the biblical Maccabean Revolt 306 . Furthermore, the broader biblical context of the idea of God's fighting on the side of His followers could be invoked. It was also fully expressed in the Book of Exodus: Dixerunt ergo is an arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God, to help us and to fight our battles) 308 or in the Book of Nehemiah: In loco quocumque audieritis clangorem tubae, illuc concurrite ad nos: Deus noster pugnabit pro nobis (In the place where you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us) 309 . According to the passages from the Bible, it should be pointed out that the idea of God's fighting on the side of Israelites in the battles against the enemy has topical character.

From this point of view, the strong connection between the war of the Chosen People with their persecutors, described as the inimici nostri, shows the intellectual background of the Crusade's chroniclers, who heavily refer to the biblical patterns 310 . Therefore, the expedition to Jerusalem in an another episode known from the biblical discourse of a battle with the forces of Evil. The whole vision was testified by swear on the Gospels and the crucifix made by a priest. Then the leaders of the Crusade swore an oath that none of them would flee and none of them turned away from the road to Jerusalem.

The bad situation in the Crusaders' camp during the siege of Antioch was signalled by the description of the great famine, during which pilgrims ate the flesh of horses and donkeys, trees and leaves of figs or vines, and all the food was extremely expensive. The reason for this hunger were the Turks, described in this place as the profane ones and enemies of God (profani et inimici Dei) 311 , who kept the Crusaders closely sealed up inside the Antioch. Furthermore, in the narration describing the attack of the Turkish garrison of Antioch on the Frankish forces a clear binary presentation could be observed. The Turks realised that Bohemond and Robert of Flanders, who were considered at that time the bravest men among the Franks according to Tudebode 312 , were not among the Crusade's army and they attacked the besiegers. At the beginning of the narration, they were presented as the enemies of God and of holy Christianity (Turci denique inimici Dei et sanctae Christianitatis) 313 . After this indication of the nature of the enemy, the Turks were described also as the iniquissimi barbari (the dreadful barbarians) 314 . In the battle, which was between the besiegers and forces of Antioch's garrison many Christians were killed, among them was a seneschal of Adhémar of Le Puy 315 . The chroniclers said that if there was no river between nos et illos, many more Christians, would die from the hands of Turks. The whole narration was composed on the base 308 of the rhetoric of conflict. There is a clear distinction that the Turks are understood as the "others", who were enemies of God and the whole Christianitas. The bipolar opposition was presented in a phrase nos et illos, but also in an indication on the community of expedition's participants with a term in nostram gentem (or in nostra gente), using to depicted the Christians 316 .

The chroniclers explain the defeat of Crusaders by the absence of the Bohemond and Robert of Flanders, who were not among the besiegers of Antioch. They were enjoying the fresh glory of victory in the battle with the succour, and Tudebode describes them as the prudentissimos milites (the very wise or skillful men) 317 . Their absence was the reason for the Turks to attack the Crusaders and without their help, the Christians, in the reality of narration, must bear losses. The battle is a defeat for the Franks and they lost the seneschal of Adhémar. The seneschal was an important character at the courts in the 12th century. This was an official with the highest rank in the Franks after the liquidation of the majordomus office by Pepin in 751. The seneschal replaced his sovereign during his absence in all civil, judicial and military matters 318 . Probably, he was the most significant person from the Adhémar's household, so the loss of such character certainly was painful.

Furthermore, in the description of Gesta and Historia he carries and protects the banner of Bishop Le Puy. The banner were real and symbolic military signs, because they served as a communication link between the leader and the unit, and as an identity mark, so the loss of banner could mean a defeat of the whole military unit.

According to the meaning of the word inimicus and its symbolic references the Turks are hostile, a bipolar antithesis of amicus, someone who is bound by ties of amicitia ("friendship"), and someone who should help and support all good actions of his amicus 319 . The agreements based on the amicitia were also present on the field of bilateral agreements in the Medieval diplomacy.

Charles the Bald made an agreement based on the amicitia with Bernard of Septimania in 841.

Henry the Fowler used the idea of amicitia to establish the good relations with the main landlords in his Kingdom, and that was the base of his reign. Mieszko I, the Prince of Poland, was known as an amicus imperatori 320 . Furthermore, one of the most important things that effectively cement ties between friends is the common enemy and one of the tools used to do so is a gossip. This leads to tendency to exaggerate the negative qualities of the friends' enemies and neglect their positive traits. These connotations clearly show the positive character of amicitia, an antithesis of inimicitia.

However, it seems that the symbolic references of the authors should be of biblical tradition where the phrases, such as the enemy of the cross of Christ (inimici crucis Christi) 321 , the enemy of God (inimicus Dei) 322 , or the enemy of Lord (inimici Domini) 323 appear. However, in the broader context of the biblical discourse, the greatest enemy of God and Christianity is the Devil 324 and the demons who gather the nations against God 325 . According to the Bible, God will bring on everyone who persistently supports these enemies annihilation 326 , and God must rule until all of the enemies are defeated 327 . Therefore, the Muslim opponents of the Crusaders were described by the terms used in the Christian scriptures and thus they were inscribed by the authors in the history of Christianity, taking a specific place; the enemies of God are at the same time enemies of the Christians, because the enemy does not want to allow them to reconcile with God and to accomplish God's purpose.

Diabolical references

As it was presented above, the enemy of the Franks on the pages of both accounts are perceived as a binary opposition to the knighthood of the Christ and as the enemy of God. This perspective is reinforced by authors by using the diabolical references to the enemy. At the beginning of both accounts, in the Urban's proclaim of the expedition to capture the Holy Sepulchre, the chroniclers mention the hands of the Tartarus, which spread their power over the holy sanctity of Christianity: Franci [...] dicentes sese Christi unanimiter sequi vestigia, quibus de manu erant redempti tartarea 328 , (the Franks […] saying that they were united in one will in the footsteps of Christ by whom they had been saved from the hands of Tartarus) 329 .

More directly, the Turks were described by the authors, during the description of one of the battles around the city of Antioch, as the ones who gave souls to the Devil and supporters of Satan , 3-4, pp. 197-199; cf. GF (Dass), p. 41.

appear on the pages of both accounts. For instance, during the description of the Frankish passage through the territory of enemy, the authors mention that the Christians entered into the diabolical mountains (in diabolicam montanam) 332 . Furthermore, the sacred buildings of the Turks were presented in the diabolical perspective; the Turks buried their deaths in the building, which was described as diabolicum atrium (a diabolical hall) 333 . In the description of the taking of the city of Albara 334 , the Turks' temple was named as the house of the devil, which will be transformed by the new bishop into the temple of the true God (de domo diabolica templum Deo vivo et vero et oracula

Sanctorum consecraret) 335 . The domus diaboli 336 (the house of Devil) in the city of Albara should be identified with a mosque. The image of the Devil's house could be a reference to Revelation 2.9,

where the Devil's house lies in a broader context of the forces hostile to God and humanity 337 .

On the pages of both accounts the Turks are presented as the part of the Devil's forces who are the enemies of God and His knighthood, because they interfere in the realization of God's plan of salvation. The image of the Turks as the allies or even a tool of the Devil in both accounts is congruent with the all diabolical symbolism such as the literary image of the hands of Tartarus over the Holy Sepulchre or the diabolical sounds making by Turks during the battle. Therefore, in the sources the Devil could manifest himself in the wildness of the landscape, the enemy's temple or in the Turkish way of war's conduct 338 . By using the specific wordplay the chroniclers emphasized the role of the enemy as the servants of the Devil, which clearly shows the category of diabolisation 339 .

It seems that such labelling of the enemy could be a reminiscence of the St Augustine's perspective of the conflict between the civitas Dei and civitas diaboli. In this perspective the deeds of the Franks have been fully justified as a part of the divine's plan.

The race of excommunicates

An important case in a reference to a catalogue of the hostile nations seems to be the description of the Christian allies of the enemy. In a short passage, the chroniclers note that the Turks from Antioch were very well informed about the situation in Crusaders' camp during the siege, because of the Syrians and Armenians, willing to share their information with the Turks. They came to the camps of Christians, while their wives were still inside Antioch and they reported everything they had seen to the Turks 340 .

In this mention, the local Eastern Christians from Antioch were described as allies of the enemy of the However, the understanding of the term of excommunicati in Gesta Francorum and Peter's

Historia could be rather characterized in the biblical tradition than in the literary references to the indicated above discourse, in the perspective of the impossibility of indicating unambiguous intertextual connections apart from some possible inspirations 349 . In the reference to the Gospel of Matthew, there is a claim that anyone who does not listen to the Church should be treated as a heathen and a tax collector 350 . The Second Epistle to the Corynthians clearly shows that there is no possibility to create a community with the unbelievers 351 . Therefore, according to the biblical tradition the authors could interpret the Turks as a people, which is literally (excommunicati) excluded from the Christian community, not necessarily defining expressis verbis the clear categorization of Islam as a Christian heresy, especially in the perspective of a domination of the literally expressed paganism of the enemy. Thus, it can be seen that the authors reached for the diversification of the literary tools in the representation of the religious diversity of the "other".

Pagans, unbelievers and tyrants

The term "pagan" seems to be the most popular term in the accounts to define an enemy.

However, the questions should be posed about the symbolic content behind this term. During the preparation for the Crusade, Bohemond had besieged Amalfi in Southern Italy. He heard about the Christians, mostly the Franks, who were preparing the expedition to Jerusalem. According to Gesta Francorum the main objective was the fight against the pagan people and the recapture of the Holy 347 J.V. Sepulchre: ituram ad Domini sepulcrum et paratam ad proelium contra gentem paganorum 352 . The passage seems to be a clear indication of the "otherness" of the enemy in bipolar opposition, because before using the term gentem paganorum the author of Gesta Francorum makes a previous description about gentem Christianorum (the Christian people), thus clearly opposing the heroes against the enemies 353 . However, in the Tudebode's version there is no such opposition: quatinus Sancti Sepulchri viam de manu eriperet pessimorum paganorum utrum alterius foret liberata et Christianis omnibus undique staret patefacta 354 (they planned to seize the way to Holy Sepulchre from the hands of the very evil pagans and so free it and give full access to all Christians) 355 . Peter does not use the term gens, instead of this he puts emphasis on the strengthening of invective using the superlative of malus, a, um -"bad", "evil": pessimorum. Furthermore, Tudebode indicates that the goal of the expedition was to provide all Christians with access to the Holy Sepulchre. Therefore, it could be seen that not always does the same symbolic content function in such similar sources.

Nonetheless, in both accounts the enemy is considered in the framework of the pagan people. The label of pagan seems to be useful in the literary workshop of the authors to make a clear binary opposition; in the siege of Ma'arrat an-Numan the chroniclers mention that God exalted the Christians and cast down the pagandom (christianitatem exaltaret ac paganismum deponeret) 356 .

Furthermore, in one of the visions during the siege of Antioch, to a certain priest (in Tudebode's narration named Stephen), Saint Peter, Mary and Jesus Christ appeared and told him that the victory would be given to the Crusaders. Furthermore, Saint Peter said that for a long time the pagan people (paganorum gens) held Jesus' house (domum) or in a Tudebode's version the churches (ecclesias), where they had done many unutterable evil things (ineffabilia mala), but now there is a time to drive out enemies from these places 357 . The further description of the battle will show the help from the Heaven that Jesus promised to come in five days. However, the expedition's participants shall expel the pagan women (paganis mulieribus), because they are the reason for a great stench (immensus fetor) which rises up to Heaven 358 .

The phrase with the pagan women is a clear example of "otherness" in the accounts; an example of the ban on blood ties between the Christians and the Muslims during the Crusades' period. The sexual relations between men and women is one of the most basic elements of the human life and of the organization of the society. Through marriages, the group could create the relations with the other group and establish friendly connections. However, in the Gesta Francorum and Peter's Historia the sexual relations between the Christians and Muslims are presented as forbidden for the Franks, and considered as a sin and a source of failures. The connection of the Muslims' women with the bad smell, which rises up to Heaven, indicates the impurity of a sexual act with them 359 .

The tradition of banning sexual relations between Christians and people of a different faith was not born on the First Crusade, but it had a long-established position. In the New Testament the prohibition of marriages with the people of the other faith than Christianity appears in the Letters to Corinthians 360 . Furthermore, in the XV, XVI and LXXVIII canons of Synod of Elvira, which took place in the 4th century, the marriage and other sexual relations of Christians with Jews, pagans and heretics were prohibited 361 . Similarly, the Council in Trullo in 692 and the synods of the Syrian and Armenian Eastern Churches provided recommendations in the same manner 362 .

The ban on blood ties with the "others" is visible in the later legal source. The closest legal source regulating relations between Christians and Muslims was established more than 20 years after the First Crusade at the Council of Nablus 363 . Although it is dangerous to use the source for so many years after the events, it seems to be a source of invaluable value, which presents a pattern of perfect conduct and condemns an intimate contact with "other" in the socio-cultural context of Kingdom of Jerusalem. In the Canons of the Council of Nablus, which were created in 1120, the particular attention was put on the sexual sphere between Franks and Saracens. Four articles in a total of twenty-five, i.e. XII, XIII, XIV, XV, from the whole codex concern the sexual relations between Franks and Saracens, which were prohibited 364 . Moreover, the Council of Lateran in 1215 decided that the Jews and Saracens of both genders in all Christian countries should have the different dress from the rest of the population, because of the possibility of the sexual intercourse by mistake (per errorem) 365 . However, that was not a new idea, because in the Canons of the Council of Nablus it was indicated that if the Saracens dressed in the Frankish way they would be punished by monetary fine. On the existence of the general belief of the ban on blood with the member of a different religion or race also proves the Quran, where it is clearly stated that the marriages between the Muslims women and others are forbidden (Quran, 2:221). However, in the period of the Frist Crusade the harems of the Muslims rulers were many of non-Islamic women, and the Crusaders had the sexual relations with Muslims, which was expressed in the accounts as a sin and it was condemned by Christ himself in a vision of a certain priest 366 .

The label of "the pagan people" appears in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia in the catalogues of hostile nations; in the description of the Kurbugha's arrival, where the Turkish commander enjoys the support of the innumerable pagan people (innumeras gentes paganorum) 367 ; or in the besieging the fortress of Arqah, which according to the chroniclers: was filled with innumerable pagan people, namely Turks, Saracens, Arabs, and Paulicians (Publicans -T.P.). They had admirably fortified the castle and defended themselves bravely (Quod castrum plenum erat innumerabili gente paganorum, videlicet Turcorum, Saracenorum, Arabum, Publicanorum, qui mirabiliter munierunt castrum illud et defendebant se fortiter) 368 . Furthermore, according to Tudebode, the forces of Christians after capturing the city of Antioch were besieged by the other pagans and enemies of God and Holy Christianity (ab aliis paganis, inimicis Dei et sanctae Christianitatis) 369 .

Descriptions of the battles often use the terms such as the race of pagans (paganorum gens) 370 , pagans (pagani) 371 , heathens (gentiles) 372 or unbelievers (incredulos) 373 . The representation of the enemy as the pagan seems to be highlighted by the authors, because even in a short mention about Saint George, they informed that he was martyred by the pagans 374 . In the narration about Raymond Pilet and Raymond of Taurina and their victory over two hundred Arabs before the siege of Jerusalem, they fight against those unbelievers (contra illos incredulos) 375 or with those pagans (cum illis paganis) 376 . Furthermore, in a short passage about taking the city of Rusa and many other castles by Peter of Roasa, which is the praise of bravery and military skills of this character, the enemy is presented as the pagan people on the background of the Armenians. When the local communities, consisting mostly of Armenians, heard about Peter and his previous brave deed they surrendered to him 377 . It could be observe that according to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the pagans are different from the local Christians, most likely Armenians, who are subjected to them. Thus, the chroniclers underlined the difference in the sphere religion. Moreover, from the perspective of narration the local communities understand the argument of strength. If the Franks could defeat the pagans, the Armenians would willingly surrender their castles to Crusaders.

As could be seen the enemy was described also by using the words which seem to be the synonyms of the term pagan such as increduli or gentiles, in a sense of non-Christians 378 . During the siege of Antioch there is a short narration about the Turkish attack from the citadel, which in fact is a story about the hero, named Hugo li Forcenez or Hugo lo Forsenet unknown to this time, who belonged to the army of Godfrey of Monte Scabioso 379 . The enemy, described here as the heathens (gentiles), stormed the tower, which was defended by three Crusaders 380 . Two of them were wounded, but the third one was fighting for the whole day. He killed two of the Turks and broke three lances in his hands. The information about such a small skirmish, where there were only three Crusaders and some of attackers two out of whom were killed, suggests the character of the sources as the story of knightly deeds. The accounts were prepared for the knights' audience, which could have a personal pattern of a great warrior, who could be known to the other participants. That was an important content for the chroniclers even if this was a small skirmish.

Representation of the enemy as the pagan race is significant in the Tudebode's description of procession around the walls of Jerusalem from the church of Saint Marie at Syon to the church of the first martyr Saint Stephen 381 . According to the author the priests prayed and sang the Psalms in the intention of the deliberation of the Holy Sepulchre and Jerusalem from the pagan race (a paganorum gente deliberet) 382 . The response of the defenders of city to these events in the Peter's narration is presented in the perspective of the "otherness" in the religious sphere and counteracting toward the attitudes of the Crusaders. Firstly, the Muslims made a similar procession on the walls of the city with the standard of Mohammed and with a piece of cloth on him. Secondly, when the Christians reached the church of Saint Stephen during the procession, they started to laugh, yell at the horns, throw insults and perform all acts of mockery (clamabant, ululabant cum bucinis et omne 377 GF,XI,5,p. 234;PT,p. 62. 378 GF,XXVI,1,p. 345;PT,p. 102. 379 GF,XXVI,1,PT,p. 102. 380 GF,XXVI,1,p. 345;PT,p. 102. 381 Cf. K. Skottki,op. cit.,p. 273. 382 genus derisionis quodcumque reperire poterant faciebant) 383 . Furthermore, they made a cross from the wood and in the sight of the Franks, they beat upon the cross with sticks and shattered it against the walls, saying to the Crusaders: Frango agip salip, which means Franks, is this a good cross?

(Franci, est bona crux?) 384 . The image of the "other" was highlighted by the act of desecration of the cross, as the sign of the spiritual dimension of the war between the Christians and their enemies;

and by the words in the Arabic language, adopted to the Latin alphabet, which highly indicated on the "otherness" of the defenders of Jerusalem in the linguistic sphere, especially that those were blasphemous.

From this point of view, seeing the humiliation of the cross and blasphemy the Franks with the pain in their hearts walked in the procession to the church in a Mount of Olives; a significant place for the whole Christianity, where the Ascension took place and where, according to Tudebode, Arnulf of Chocques preached a sermon to the Crusaders in which he told that God sent His mercy to men who followed him even to His grave. The defenders of the city wanted to threaten the Christians by running between the Holy Sepulchre and Temple of Solomon, but the Franks continued their procession and reached other holy places like the Monastery of Blessed Mary in Josaphat and returned to Mount of Olives. At the end of the narration, Peter Tudebode informed that he was a participant of this procession, so he was an eyewitness of this event 385 .

The multitude of the details given by the author and his own mention suggest that he participated in the procession around the walls of Jerusalem. His account is much richer than the relation of the Gesta Francorum or Raymond of Aguilers. Tudebode presents the liturgical aspects of military campaign of besieging Jerusalem, perhaps that was the important content for him as a clerk from Civray. From his point of view, the procession was a way to reverse any failures by emphasizing the zeal in religious practices which would be rewarded by God's protection over the Franks during the assault. Furthermore, he describes the defenders of the city as the spiritual enemy, who desecrated the holy cross and performed many blasphemous acts. Tudebode considers the siege of Jerusalem as another example of the war against the enemy in the two dimensions; earthly, represented by besiege and military aspects, and spiritual, indicated by the procession around the city wall. The words of the chroniclers, which are summary of the narration about the massacre of Jerusalem, allow to understand the perspective of the Franks. They destroy the race of the pagans (gens paganorum), who desecrated the Holy Sepulchre, the Holy Cross, who killed the Christians, both Eastern and Western, and this "race" was an obstacle on the pilgrimage way to the holy places of Jerusalem.

To summarize, in both accounts the enemy was described as pagans. That was one of the most crucial words as a data carrier of the interpretation of "other". The term "pagan" on the pages of the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia should be interpreted in the framework of Ecclesiastical Latin as "heathen", "pagan", "unbeliever" opposite to the Christian. However, it seems that this description of the enemy has a broader meaning.

Firstly, according to the Christian thought the pagans could be considered through the prism Secondly, despite the potential impact of such literary tradition it should be emphasized that subsequent generations in the Middle Ages gained their own experiences of contact with pagans, and it is not necessary to completely absolutize the writings of Saint Augustine or biblical discourse as only existing in the intellectual background of the authors 389 . The confrontation with the cultural and religious "other" was a fact, and the participants of the First Crusade wrote about the real enemies they encountered. Therefore, worth noting is that the term "pagan" should not be rigidly applied to the patristic pattern, but basing on the intelectual background and experiences of the chroniclers, it could be pointed out that they first of all presented the idea of the Christian community, which was constituted in the relation to God 390 . Thus, the terms "pagans", "unbelievers" 386 Cf. É. and "heathens" described all who did not belong to the Christian community of the faithful, who do not share the same God.

In the Peter Tudebode's text, there is a significant difference to the narration of Gesta Francorum in terms of describing the enemy. In the description of the battle in which the twelve enemy emirs were to die, Tudebode mentions that the local Syrians, Armenians and Greeks were attacking the Franks by using the arrows on the orders of the tyrannical Turkish leaders (iussu maiorum tyrannorum Turcorum) 391 . The Turks in the description were presented as tyrants, which term in the Gesta Francorum was never used 392 . This may suggest that it was Peter's literary invention, who wanted to give even more negative colour to the enemy by entering it into the label of a tyrant. The term of tyrant (tyrannus) came to Latin through the Greek language, and the word itself had a pre-Greek, Phrygian or eastern origin. The Greek cognate for the Latin tyrannus was a neutral term for a ruler who had usurped power, but did not necessarily abuse it. However, the term used by author of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere could be defined by the negative usage of that word, taken from allusions, well-worn and common phrases or by possible inspirations, which could be references to other sources of knowledge. In this case the Bible could be a possible source of inspiration for Tudebode. Although, in the Bible the word tyrannus is in use twenty times, the context of its use is not always negative, as can also be seen in the translations of the Vulgate into modern languages, when the word of tyrannus is often not given through his literal equivalent 393 . Furthermore, some phrases have a sense of describing the cruelty, injustice or wickedness of rulers, who rule only by a force, which could be loosely associated with tyrants 394 . However, the negative uses of this word in the Bible should be taken into account, and especially from the 2nd Book of Maccabees: Menelaus, a High Priest in Jerusalem posed on his seat by king Antioch, was described as not worthy of his office: animos vero crudelis tyranni, et ferae beluae iram gerens (he had the temper of a cruel tyrant and could be as fierce as a wild animal) 395 . Moreover, in another passage the king Antioch himself was presented as a cruel tyrant 396 . It can be seen, therefore, that in the image of a religious conflict, one did not hesitate to use this term to emphasize the negative aspects of the opponent.

A clear moralistic feature, negatively depicting the tyranny was presented also by Roman authors, for instance by Sallust and Cicero, pointing to the opposition between tyranny and liberty; 391 GF,XVIII,8,p. 284;PT,p. 76. 392 PT,p. 76. 393 1 Kgs 16.20;Est 6.9;Job 15.20;34.19;35.9;Wis 12.14;14.16;16.4;Sir 11.5;Ezek 23.23;Dan 1.3;3.2;3.3 the tyrant was someone who usurped too much power and was a threat for the libertas 397 . Christian authors easily adopted the accusation of tyranny, as a negative form of rulership. The tyranny perceived as a type of power not fitting for the Christian model of ruler and was used as a rhetoric device to present the enemy in a bad light with a label of a usurper or someone bad and cruel 398 .

However, it seems doubtful that Tudebode refers to the literary vision of the tyrant of ancient times.

Perhaps it is necessary to take into account the general meaning of the word -which is rather difficult to grasp -circulating among people with Latin language skills. In any case, clear is that he uses the word "tyrant" in a negative sense; therefore, Tudebode's accusation of the enemy pushes the Turks into the framework of the literary figure common understanding of a tyrant, which at least at very basic scale had to be understandable to its recipients.

Representation of the military struggles against the enemy

The Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia are the accounts where the military struggle against the enemy plays significant role. However, the narrative structure and using of the literary topoi or cliché representation seem to be just as important as well as historical content described by the authors. Thus, the content considered fictitious in the sense of traditional historiography requires exposure.

The catalogue of the enemy

As it was mentioned above, it seems that in the historiosophical perspective the expedition to Jerusalem was the war between Christians and pagans, not only with the Turks, or even more accurately the Seljuk Turks, but also with the whole palette of nations who are not the Christians.

According to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia at the beginning of the every significant battle aside from the Turks were also other nations. The authors in the description of the battle of Dorylaeum wrote that the forces of the enemy consisted of the Turks, the Arabs, the Saracens, the Angulani, and all the rest of the barbarous people at once ran away, over the mountains and out across the plains. Many were the Turks, Persians, Paulicians (Publicans -T.P.), Saracens, Angulani, and other pagans who all numbered three hundred and sixty thousand, besides 397 Cf. A. Ryan, On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present, New York 2012, passim. 398 Cf. H. Wieruszowski, Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus, In Twelfth-Century Political Thought, "Speculum" 38/1 (1963) Firstly, in the Historia and Gesta the enemies' peoples were described as the race of excommunicates. As it was mentioned above, in the Christian thought, this is the reminiscence of the Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew, when someone who does wrong and did not listen the Church should be as a Gentile for the rest of Christians -that is he should not belong to the community 405 . The exclusion from the Christianitas brings the human or people to the area of Evil.

The other part of narration suggests the further forms of strengthening the exclusion message. The image of the "other" from the anekumene was highlighted by the mention that all the enemies of Crusaders could be described as omnes barbarae nationes (all the rest of the barbarous people) 406 .

Bearing in mind the meaning of the word "barbarus" it should be pointed out that these passages on the pages of accounts indicated the "otherness" in the religious and socio-cultural sphere of the enemy. The authors clearly presented the bipolar opposition between the Crusaders and the hostile nations from Orient.

In this outlined framework, the names of the ennumerated people should be taken into account. The name of the Turks, derived from the word from the Turkish language Türkler. It is the name of the ethnic group, and it seems that it is the precise word for the nation on the pages of the Crusade's chroniclers without the specific reference to the biblical or ancient literary tradition.

Using this name, actually the most popular in Gesta Francorum and Historia for describing the forces of enemy, shows the current events, which occurred before the First Crusade. Namely, that the Seljuk Turks came and settled on the political scene of the Orient and their ethnic name was present in the popular discourse, so that it could not be omitted in the description of the events.

The word "Arab" has been present in the history from the ancient times, for instance in the Bible or the Assyrian chronicles, and it was a cultural term used to any of the largely nomadic Semitic people from the Arabian Peninsula and Syrian Desert 407 . After the Arab conquests in the 7th and 8th centuries, the word "Arab" referred to a large number of people, who lived in the Arabian Peninsula, and Western Asia, North Africa and western Indian Ocean islands. Thus, the term "Arab" is rather cultural due to the fact that the majority of Arabs are descendants of peoples conquered during the Arab conquest, including Aramenians, Vandals, Berbers, Hellenized inhabitants of the Middle East and the Romanized inhabitants of North Africa. In this perspective, the understanding of the term "Arab" in the ethnic perspective seems to be doubtful. For instance, in the mention of the battle of Dorylaeum, the authors of Gesta and Historia inform that among the Turks and other hostile nations were the Arabs 408 . Similarly, the Arabs appear in the battle of Antioch against the Turkish commander of the city Yaghi Siyan The patriarch soon had a son from the right bed with the Sarah -Isaac, and Hagar with her son was exiled to the desert. God promised to Abraham that his first son would also be the ancestor of the great people. The symbolic content points to the inferiority of Ishmael's exile from the Egyptian slave and to the punishment that touched him -he was banished to the desert for sneering at Isaac 416 . The Christian discourse on the subject of origin of the name Saracens was quite popular.

For instance, John of Damascus wrote that the Saracens were descendants of Hagar, because Sarah threw her away without nothing, so he combined two word: "Sarah" and κενός (kenos) -"empty", "empty-handed" 417 . In the version of Jerome the "Saracens" are the descendants of the biblical Ishmael and the term Saracen is a specific attempt to usurp the symbolic and biblical content by the Muslims -it is an attempt to attribute the origin to Sarah, not Hagar 418 . In the opinion of Christian authors, it even happened that one of them mentioned that the Arabs prefer the name "Saracens", because they are ashamed of being the sons of a slave -Hagar 419 . However, Eusebius of Caesaria already combined the Arabs with the Saracens. The perspective of the First Crusade's chroniclers seems similar, because there are not signs that the term "Saracens" was understood as an ethnic description.

It is important to understand that the meaning of the invective connected with the term "Saracens" is the allegory of Sarah and Hagar from the Letter to the Galatians 420 . Abraham had two sons. One was born of a free woman and the other of the slave. The first was conceived by the cause of the promise given by God, and the second only by human corporality. Female descendants greatest flowering of Paulicianism took place in the 9th century, but in the 10th century, this group began to fade away. From the beginning of its existence, the Paulicians were considered heretical, first by the Armenian Church, later by the orthodox Byzantine Church. Its sound clearly indicates some relationship with the name of Paul, but on the other hand, it is not known which Paul that could have been. Armenian "paulikios" was a scorn for Paul's name, thus, it seems that Paulicians were the supporters of some Paul who did not enjoy much esteem in the higher circles of the clergy and society in the 7th century 429 . What is important is that they inhabitated the South-Eastern part of Asia Minor, but as a result of the displacement made by Emperor John I Tzmiskes (969-976) they also appeared in Thrace near Philippopolis. Anna Komnene also mentions their presence in this city 430 .

Perhaps, the Normans encountered with some of them in the Pelagonia 431 . However, it is interesting that the chroniclers did not refer strictly to Publicani, but not precisely to heretics; Tudebode mentions castrum hereticorum and Gesta Francorum says about congregatio haereticorum 432 . Therefore, this is not a clear identification of heretics from the Balkans known from further passages Publicani. Furthermore, in the description of the unsuccessful siege of the city of Arqah the authors indicated that 433 : It was filled with innumerable pagan people, namely Turks, Saracens, Arabs, and Paulicians (Publicans -T.P.). They had admirably fortified the castle and defended themselves bravely (Quod castrum plenum erat innumerabili gente paganorum, videlicet Turcorum, Saracenorum, Arabum, Publicanorum, qui mirabiliter munierunt castrum illud et defendebant se fortiter) 434 . In this case, the literary use of the term Publicani is rather noticeable, because it is difficult to find testimonies that the Paulicians were present in Arqah.

Furthermore, the question may be asked, since the Crusaders were to strictly recognize from among the heretical factions of the Paulicians, why is there no mention of Massalians or other Manichean groups, which were present in areas of their activity? The multiplicity of references to Publicani in different territories, from Asia Minor, Antioch to Arqah, and in two different foe's armies (Kilij Arslan and Kurbugha) suggests that it could be a general term, used on the one hand to literally strengthen the enemy's forces, and on the other to identify all representatives of various heretical groups. Thus, in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the term Publicani was 429 Cf. N.G. Garsoian, op. cit., pp. 186-230; Ch.L. Vertanes, The Rise of the Paulician Movement in Armenia and its Impact on Medieval Europe, "Journal of Armenian Studies" 2/2 (1985-1986), pp. 3-27. 430 Alexias, VI,2,1,p. 170. 431 GF,IV,5,p. 160;PT,p. 41. 432 GF,IV,5,p. 160;PT,p. 41. 433 According to the chroniclers the siege of Arqah was an important episode, because besiege was a reason for receiving a martyrdom for many Christians, such as Anselm of Ribemont, an author of two letters from the East and William the Picard (GF, XXXV, 3, pp. 435-436). Tudebode extended the list of martyrs by adding of Pons de Balazun, the co-writer of Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem (PT, p. 132). 434 GF (Dass), p. 98; GF, XXXIV, 11, p. 425: PT, p. 128. used in the "otherness'" indication perspective, not necessarily identifying them with the Paulicians.

The term Angulans or Agulans according to the hypothesis of H. Grégoire derived from the Arab ghoulan -"a boy", and this is a general term which could describe a recruit in an Arabic world. In the Byzantine literary tradition, the term ghoulanos describes the forces of Arabic emir, who prepares an action against the Empire 435 . In the chansons de geste the term Agulans was generally used for naming the pagan people and from this word probably derived the name of king of Saracens Agolant in the Chanson d'Aspremont from around 1190 as was presented by P.

Bancourt 436 . The later tradition presented the Agulans as fierce and savage, who bark like dogs and talk in their sleep 437 .

The catalogue of the enemy was enriched in further descriptions of the struggle against the enemy. In the narration about capturing the city of Antioch, as a result of an agreement between Bohemond and a certain Pirus/Pyrus of Turkish origin (de genere Turcorum) 438 , the authors mentioned that the Christians heard that the great army of their enemy consisted of the Turks, Paulicians, Angulans, Azymites and many other pagan nations approach, which the authors could not name and number (Turcorum, Publicanorum, Angulanorum, Azimitarum et aliarum plurimarum nationum gentilium, quas numerare neque nominare nescio) 439 . The next indicated nation was described as the Azymites. It is rather a technical word for describing the enemy. Perhaps it derives from a Greek term used in 1053 by the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Latins, who were users of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. In this sense it could be understood as a reminiscence of the dispute between Latin and Orthodox believers 440 . However, the questions arise: why was the Greek term transferred into Latin language and why was it used for naming the enemy nation? Probably, the term was unknown in its original meaning to the Latin chroniclers, and they applied it to name the other nation, thinking that this word was in use among the Greeks to indicate the unknown Eastern people. The clear Byzantine origin indicates that the term Azymites can be understood as an example of trans-cultural borrowing, which actually took place at the end of the 11th century 441 .

The strongest army on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia was under command of Kurbugha in the battle of Antioch. In the perspective of the literary world of the authors, there could be observed a significant desire to emphasize the enemy's strength, because in 435 H. Grégoire, De Marsile à Andermas ou l'Islam et Byzance dans l'épopée française, "Miscellana Giovanni Mercati" 5 (1946), pp. 456-458. 436 S. Loutchiskaya, Barbarae nationes..., p. 102;cf. P. Bancourt, op. cit., pp. 22-23, 43. 437 The Canso d'Antioca. An Occitan Epic Chronicle of the First Crusade, eds. L. M. Paterson, C. Sweetenham, Aldershot 2003, v. 321-322, p. 212. 438 GF, XX, 1, p. 293;cf. PT, p. 82. 439 GF, XX, 3, p. 297;PT, p. 84. 440 GF (Dass), note 5, p. 136. 441 Cf. B. Kedar, C. Aslanov, Problems in the study of trans-cultural borrowing..., pp. 277-285. the description of his army the widest catalogue of hostile nations was used. The strength of Kurbugha's army was highlighted by the description that the rulers of Jerusalem and Damascus supported him 442 , and that he had the support of the innumerable pagan (innumeras gentes paganorum) forces consisting of the Turks, Arabs, Saracens, Publicans, Azymites, Kurds, Persians, Angulans and other innumerable men 443 . The Kurds (Curtos) are new on the pages of both accounts.

The term referred to the amalgam of the nomadic tribes, which were differed from the Persians.

However, in the Middle Ages, the Kurdish ethnic identity gradually developed, and there are clear evidences of Kurdish ethnic identity from the 12th century. The Kurds lived and still live in the area of the Kurdistan (the lands of the Kurds), which include current South-Eastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq and North-Western Iran 444 . Perhaps in the Gesta Francorum and Historia, this name reflects the learning about the world by the Crusaders, who distinguished the new ethnic group in their catalogue of enemy.

In the narration about the battle of Ascalon, Peter Tudebode describes the army of Fatimids saying that in the service of the ruler of Egypt were the Turks, Saracens, Arabs, Agulans, Kurds, Azopartes, Azymites, and other pagans (Turcorum, Sarracenorum et Arabum, Agulanorum et Curtorum, Achupartorum, Azimitorum et aliorum paganorum) 445 . The nation of Azoparts, which appears for the first time in this short passage, according to E.C. Armstrong derives from a word "Azopart" in Old French, which was used for naming an Ethiope, and in the general sense for the people of black skin 446 . In the medieval Christian thought, the Ethiopians have a black skin, because of their souls' sins and such a vision is present in the Moralia in Job of the Pope Gregory the Great 447 . The black colour in a literary reality was a specific mark of "otherness", which distinguished the enemy among all people as sinners 448 .

The catalogue of the nations appears also in a service of someone who could be described not as a true friend of Crusaders, because the important place in both accounts occupies the struggle 442 GF, XXI, 1,PT,p. 88. 443 GF, XXI, 1, pp. 314-315; PT, p. 89. 444 Cf. J. Boris, Arab Ethnonyms ( 'Ajam, 'Arab, Badu and Turk) against the imperial forces. It seems that the sources' authors underlined the role of "others", non-Christian mercenaries in the Byzantine army. When Godfrey and his army arrived at Byzantine capital, Alexius commanded that he had tp change the place of the stay from the camp outside the city (extra urbem) to the suburb of Constantinople (in burgo urbis) 449 . Soon the supply problems of Duke's army began to appear.

When the Crusaders each day were searching the straw for the horses, the Turcopoles (Turcopolis/Torcopolis) 450 and Pechengs (Pincinatis/Pincinacis) attacked them on the Emperor's order 451 . However, Baldwin, the Duke's brother, attacked the Byzantine's forces and according to the chroniclers with the help of God (Deo iuvante) 452 , he overcame and killed some of them. The fire used in the extermination of heretics symbolizes here a tool of destruction, of God's wrath and punishment, which God sometimes sent to infidels or heretics like in the famous biblical episode of Sodom and Gomorrah 454 . Furthermore, in the New Testament, the fire has acquired a purifying symbolism. God tests people the same way gold is tried -in the fire, which has the power to purge out of all that is superfluous and worthless. Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark himself says that everyone will be tested in suffering and experience: For every one with fire shall be salted, and every sacrifice with salt shall be salted 455 . In this perspective, the Normans' forces were the tool of God for destroying the heretics and this was an important content for the chroniclers, who 449 GF,III,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF]p. 141;cf. PT,p. 38. 450 The term Turcopolis/Torcopolis derived from Greek term τουρκόπουλοι, "sons of Turks"; it is in use by modern historians to designate the Eastern mercenaries in the service of the Crusader States, which is obviously not the case here, and to describe the Byzantine forces formed from the children of mixed Greek and Turkish parentage, fought on a way of light cavalry. On the pages of Gesta and Historia one of the first encounters of the Western knights with this type of army was described. 451 GF, III,5,p. 142;cf. PT,p. 38. 452 GF,III,5,p. 142;PT,p. 39. 453 GF,IV,5,PT,p. 41. 454 457 . The authors indicated that Bohemond led the gens Christi, so the Emperor who was indeed a Christian could not attack him.

However, Alexius made the opposite decision by sending the Turcopoles and Pechengs on the Normans. After the response of the captives that they only executed the orders, Bohemond let them unpunished.

His act brings to mind the Vergil's principle: parcere subiectis et debellare superbos (spare the vanquished and subdue the arrogant) 458 . Although there are no direct signs on the pages of both accounts that the authors were inspired by the classical literature, the phrase was very common in medieval knowledge and system of values 459 . In this case, the broader cultural context should be taken in account. In the New Testament, forgiveness for enemy is one of the important themes of Jesus' teaching. It becomes an important necessity expressed in the Pater Noster: And Forgive us Our Trespasses, as we Forgive those who Trespass against Us. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus reminds Peter, who is afraid of turning the mercy of forgiveness into credulity, that the Christians must forgive their brethren 77 times 460 . Moreover, Jesus commands to pray for his enemies. Thus making a Christian becomes the son of the Father, who is good to the just and the unjust 461 . He also recommends that the Christian should be prepared to lose rather than be too cruel or harsh to the abusers 462 . Paul in the Letter to the Romans orders to always repay good for evil and leave the vengeance to God 463 . In this biblical discourse, in the descriptions from Gesta and Historia Bohemond, as the merciful for the Turcopoles and Pechengs, is a true pure heart participant of expedition mentioned on the first pages of chronicles and he proceeds rightly. This is a sign that the journey of Normans in contrast to People's Crusade of Peter the Hermit will succeed.

Peter Tudebode described that the attacks of the mercenary forces of the Byzantine's Emperor consisted of Turks, Pechengs, Kumans, Slavs, Uzes and Athenasi on the forces of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Adhémar of Le Puy 464 . In the skirmishes, the Provencal army lost some knights among which Pontius Rainaud and his brother stood out. Even Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy was robbed by the Byzantine mercenaries and his life was spared only by the God's mercy (eius misericordiam) 465 , and the help of his companions who came to the rescue. According to the Tudebode's Historia near the castle of Buchinat the army of Raymond attacked the Pechengs who awaited the Christians in ambush. The count of Toulouse with his troops killed some of them and forced the rest to flee. In the same time, the emperor send conciliatory letters, but he also ordered to the mercenaries to keep an eye on the Provencals. When Raymond reached Roussa with his troops:

Cives autem illius civitatis aperte quicquid nocendi ingenio agere potuerant, contra illos faciebant 466 (And the inhabitants of this town openly commited whatever devilish harm they could devise against them [Christians]) 467 . In response to such behaviour, Raymond attacked and captured the town. Further, at the Rodosto the Provencals were attacked once more by the Byzantine forces.

Finally, they reached the Constantinople.

The every expedition of the Crusaders met with the forces of the Byzantine mercenaries, who were Pechengs, Turcopoles or even Turks. Alexius Komnenus on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere is presented as someone who wants to destroy or weaken the united forces of all Christians from the West. It should be pointed out that to realize this plan he used the forces of the Nomads, Turcopoles and the main enemy -the Turks were his mercenaries. The nations mentioned by the chroniclers highlighted the exoticism and "otherness" of the Byzantine forces. Furthermore, the inhabitants of Roussa were hostile to the Provencals and Bohemond must have destroyed the town of heretics.

More light on the catalogue's function in the narration of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account can be indicated in the literary genre to which these sources belong. One of the elements of the rhetoric of war in the epic is the catalogue of heroes, and the catalogue of hostile nations in Gesta and Historia plays a similar role to the catalogue of the ships in Iliad or Aeneid' catalogue of Italian heroes 468 . However, the authors' knowledge about the Iliad is highly improbable, because of its lack in the canon of lectures in trivium (in the Western Europe was known only a short Latin excerpt of this work), but the Aeneid' inspiration seems possible, as well as the references to oral poetry, because in the Chanson de Roland a presentation of the heroes and their adversaries also appears 469 . Enumeration of the allies or enemies shows their power or weakness, the relationships 464 PT, p. 44. 465 PT, p. 44. 466 PT, p. 45. 467 Cf. PT (Hill&Hill), p. 28. 468 Ilias,II,Aeneis,VII, Cf. the twelve peers of France and twelve Saracens; Chanson de Roland…, v. 105-107; v. 2405-2442; C. between them, the territorial, cultural and political affiliation. From the perspective of the literary genre of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the names of participants are very important. This allow to indicate the leaders, who led the Christians' forces, but also the particular knights, who became new heroes in the chroniclers' perspective. The prestige gained on the expedition was very valuable and in the view of the epic story priceless.

In the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere at the beginning of the Tudebode does not mention these characters. The list of Norman's warrior elite was important for the Gesta Francorum and this is a strong argument that the authors in some ways were related with Bohemond and his army.

To summarize, it should be pointed out that the main aim of the enumeration of the enemies' nations for the Crusade's chroniclers was the representation of the overwhelming power of enemy and the indication on his "otherness" 474 . The religion, non-Christian religion, plays the main role in the representation of the Orient's peoples, which are hostile to expedition's participants. This is an aspect of showing the identity of Crusaders, as the chosen and led by God warriors, who confront the heathens. Perhaps the ancient names have lost their original meaning, and the Arabs such as the Persians means Muslims' enemy, but especially the Turks from the geographically understood Persia and they all were considered as the followers of Allah. However, Persians could also have carried content as a literary tradition: a stereotype of the ancient enemy of Rome 475 . The specific symbolical content is associated with the term Saracens. This is a reference to the biblical genealogical discourse, according to which, the Saracens are descendants of a slave Hagar, and instead the Christians come from Sarah -the legitimate wife of Abraham. This consideration brings to mind the worse origins of the Muslims. The Angulans is a term used as the strengthening of the message, just as the Paulicians and others nations which are described in the general perspective as the barbarae nationes. The chroniclers use the catalogue of hostile nations as a mean to express the "otherness" and the power of the enemies of Christians -the power which is highlighted by a long list of nations fighting on the enemy side. Furthermore, as could be observed, the authors used all kinds of literary tools to enrich their arguments; they used names known in other cultural circles (Azymites), they referred to names from the language of the vernacular epics (Azopart), they called ethnic names like Turks and cultural ones like Saracens. Thus, it is clear that the range of the "other" representation strategies in the case of naming was very rich and the literary layer was based on the factual substrate being a mix of literary topoi and relations about the socio-political world of the enemy.

Huge number of enemy's forces

In connection with the catalogue of hostile nations another literary device used by the chroniclers remains. The power of the enemy forces on the pages of the both accounts could be highlighted by the indication on their great number 476 . In the description of the battle against Kilij Arslan at Nicaea, the forces of enemy were estimated at 360,000, except for the Arabs, who supported the army of the Turkish leader, who was recognised by the eyewitnesses as the number that only God knows 477 . During the battle of Dorylaeum, Bohemond was attacked by the innumerable forces of Turks (innumerabiles Turcos) 478 . Likewise, according to Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia, at the battle of Heraclea the great number of Turks (nimia Turcorum) was waiting for the Christian army in ambush 479 . The strength of Kurbugha's army was highlighted by the support of the innumerable pagan nations (innumeras gentes paganorum) 480 . In the description of the fortress of Arqah, the chroniclers mention that: It was filled with innumerable pagan people (Quod castrum plenum erat innumerabili gente paganorum) 481 . Similarly, the city of Ma'arat an-Numan, described as Marra, was presented as a place of great multitude of Saracens 476 Cf. C. Sweetenham,Crusaders in a Hall of Mirrors...,p. 55. 477 GF,IX,[START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF]p. 204;PT,p. 54. 478 GF,IX,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF][START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF]X,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF]p. 214;PT,p. 57. 480 GF,XXI,1,PT,p. 89. 481 GF (Dass),p. 98;GF,XXXIV,11,p. 425: PT,p. 128. and Turks and Arabs and other pagans 482 . The forces of Fatimids in the battle of Ascalon were presented in the following way: it was innumerable crowd of pagans and no one knows their numbers except God Himself (Paganorum multitudo erat innumerabilis, numeroumque eorum nemo scit nisi solus Deo) 483 .

However, against the huge forces of the enemy, great deeds could be achieved. In addition to bad Christians' situation during the long lasting siege of Antioch, the Franks heard about the innumerable forces of the Turks (innumerabilem gentem Turcorum), who was coming against the Crusaders 484 . In the Tudebode's version, the enemies' forces numbered twenty-five thousand soldiers 485 . In the Gesta Francorum's version of the battle against this Muslim succour, a praise of glory is dedicated to Bohemond; he was the main commander of the forces, which were prepared for the attack on the Turks. The enemy was divided into two lines. Christians created six units and five of this charged at the Turks. Bohemoned with his own unit stayed in reserve. According to the chroniclers, the battle was so fierce, that the javelins darkened the air 486 . The Turks used their second line of troops and attacked the Crusaders so fiercely (acriter) that the Franks began to fall back. At this sight, Bohemond called Robert son of Gerard and said:

Vade quam citius potes, ut vir fortis, et recordare prudentium antiquorumque nostorum fortium parentum et esto acer in adiutorium Dei Sanctique Sepulcri; et revera scias, quia hoc bellum carnale non est, sed spirituale. Esto igitur fortissimus athleta Christi. Vade in pace, Dominus sit tecum ubique! (Go forward swiftly, like a brave man and remember the wisdom of antiquity, the bravery of our forebears and be fierce in helping to the God and of the Holy Sepulcher. And know that this battle, in reality, is not of the flesh, but of the spirit. Therefore be the bravest athlete of Christ! Go in peace and may the Lord be with you always) 487 .

The speech that the chroniclers put into Bohemond's mouths shows several aspects of perceiving the fight against the Turks and important contents for the audience of sources. The role of Robert was highlighted. He was a son of Gerard, Count of Buonalbergo and Ariano, a cousin of Bohemond and his constable. After the Crusade, Robert returned to southern Italy where he died in about 1119 488 . In this passage of Gesta Francorum he was presented as a hero. He is the receiver and executor of the will of Bohemond. Robert is responsible for an attack on the enemy and the further description strengthened his image. With the sign of cross on the shields, the army under his command was led to the battle. Robert attacked the enemy so fiercely that he was compared to a lion who comes out of its cave and that has been hungry for three or four years and thirsting for the blood of cattle. The wordplay indicates that the Turks are like the flock of sheep in comparison to Bohemond's cousin. According to the accounts, the lion falls with violence upon the flock of sheeps (ruit inter agmina gregum) and Robert fell upon the flock of Turks (agebat inter agmina Turcorum) so fiercely that the banner that he carried flew above the heads of Turks 489 .

The comparison to the lion refers to the symbolism of a powerful and unstoppable force and emphasizes the bravery of Bohemond's constable. In many cases in the Bible, the image of a lion appears in a similar context. In Isaiah, Jeremiah and Psalm 22 and 104, a lion represents a powerful force. Juda Maccabeus was also described as a young, roaring lion throwing himself at the prey; it was an act of glorifying the character 490 . On the other hand, the Turks are like the flock and in comparison made in narration they have no chance to win against such a fierce leader with his forces. The symbolism of a sheep as a submissive, meek animal, which is often a victim is a rhetorical figure used to ridicule the enemy. However, this rhetorical figure is presented only in Gesta Francorum, which suggests that the aim of these passages was different for Tudebode and for Gesta Francorum, where the importance of Robert, a close kin of Bohemond, significantly increases and praises his deeds.

Returning to the essence of Bohemond speech, he remembers his constable about the ancestors and their wisdom. The indication on the memoria is an important aspect of oral communities; the whole epic transmitted the content about brave ancestors, who should be a model to imitate and all commemorative practices should keep alive the remembrance of their deeds; that is the case of collective consciousness of knightly families 491 . Furthermore, Bohemond commanded to Robert to be fierce in battle and invoke the image of God and Holy Sepulchre. Robert should be an athlete of Christ, because this is the spiritual war between God and forces of evil represented by the Turks 492 . The distinction on the bellum carnale and bellum spirituale is a formula, which is derived from the Ephesian antithesis, and it shows that the chroniclers understood the war between Christians and Muslims as the second one, in the terms of fighting for salvation 493 .

According to Gesta Francorum, the attack of Robert was decisive in achieving the victory 489 GF, XVII, 5, p. 271. As could be observed, the label of a huge number of the enemy was present in the intellectual background of the participants of the First Crusade. It is therefore not surprising that almost all of the military struggles against the enemy on the pages of the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account were presented in the same manner of the huge number of the enemy forces.

Hence, the number of the enemy described as an innumerable or numerous (innumerabilis, nimia, multitudinis, numerus, etc.) should be considered as a topical character of the transmission of content. The Turks on the pages of both accounts almost never stayed to fight against the Christians without a huge amount of troops. This aspect of the representation of enemy shows their strength and power in the face of Crusaders, who only with the God's protection could succeed. A huge number of enemy troops also acts as a narrative background; by defeating such great enemy forces, the Crusaders could gain enormous glory in the battlefield; it seems that this content was extremely important to the recipients of the sources.

The leaders of the enemy

One of the most important aspects of the epic is to present the opponents of the heroes, because the positive characters stand out against their background. In the representation of the "other", therefore, the hostile commanders played an important role.

Kilij Arslan

The first enemy indicated by name on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia was Kilij Arslan. The chroniclers wrote his name as Solimanus, adding that he was a son of Soliman the Old (Solimannus vetus) that is Süleyman I of Rum 498 . Similarly, Anselm of Ribemont and Stephen of Blois in their letters write the form of Kilij Arslan's name as Solimannus 499 .

Therefore, a question should be posed about the source of this form of writing the name of the Turkish ruler.

The fact is that the Turkish name Süleyman, or Arabic Sulaymān, derives from Hebraic Shelomo and a famous and wise king of Ishrael wore this name. In the Vulgate's version, for sure known to the chroniclers, it was described as Salomon. In that case, it seems surprising that the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere did not use the biblical inspiration to write the name of the enemy and make such an assimilation. On the one hand, it is possible that the chroniclers did simply not associate the name worn by the Turkish leader with the biblical figure. Furthermore, giving a name associated in their socio-cultural context so clearly and evidently to the wise, biblical king was certainly not in the interest of the ethnocentric perspective of the chroniclers. Therefore, it is rather difficult to indicate a direct literary, biblical inspiration, which the chroniclers followed when they wrote the name of the Turkish leader. Thus, another 498 GF, X, option should be taken into account.

Kilij Arslan was a son of Süleyman I, described by the chroniclers as Solimannus vetus -Süleyman the Old 500 . It seems clear that the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia named Kilij

Arslan in strong connection to his father's name. This relationship may have arisen in connection with the naming practice known in the Muslim cultural circle, namely giving the prefix -Ibn to the names 501 . From this perspective, it seems possible that the Crusaders could hear the form "ibn Süleyman" and hence such a record. It is more likely, therefore, that the name of the Turkish leader did not come from the textual inspiration, but from the encounter experience during the expedition.

In conclusion, the case of Kilij Arslan could be an example of the process of Latinization of the foreign words (the Turkish Süleyman or Arabic Sulaymān) in the accounts. Furthermore, the act of naming Kilij Arslan without a referencce to a biblical king, but with an indication that this name was a strange and exotic one seems the most logical, because in that way they could emphasize the "otherness" of the enemy. Kilij Arslan was simply described as dux -a military leader of the Turks, which rather should not be understood as a precise title of the Turkish ruler, but a term known by the authors from their own political perspective and ascribed to the enemy. According to the authors, Kilij

Arslan fled after the fall of Nicaea and the battle of Dorylaeum, meeting ten thousand Arabs, who questioned him about the reason for his escape. However, it is puzzling that the chroniclers mentioned Arabs, because their settlement territories were far beyond central Anatolia. In this case, it seems more likely that using the Arabs was a conscious literary choice in a fictive speech, referring to the catalogue of enemies 502 . Returning to the speech, the interlocutors called Kilij Arslan as the unfortunate man, more unfortunate than all nations (O infelix et infelicior omnibus gentilibus!) 503 . With tears in his eyes, Kilij Arslan answered that he once had defeated the Franks, and led many of them into captivity, but he could not endure the next wave of them, innumerable in numbers, he had to escape from their hands and he was very frightened because of their power. At the end, he recommended to the Arabs that they should escape alive, which could be interpreted as the ascribing to the enemy the trait of cowardice 504 . After this speech, they turned back and spread out through the Byzantine's lands.

Undoubtedly, the words of Kilij Arslan were made for the needs of the Frankish audience by the chroniclers. Furthermore, it seems that this speech was stylized on a foreign-sounding in a 500 GF, X, slightly bizarre fashion and with using many unnecessary words, which stays in a contrast with the economy of words presented by author on the other pages of his work 505 . However, this speech has a function only in the context of whole works. Kilij Arslan was presented as a strong leader who defeated the first wave of Crusaders and made a massacre of unarmed pilgrims, but ultimately he lost the city of Nicaea and was beaten in a general battle. After such a defeat, he was broken and even in the face of the forces of Arabs, which were so many, he understood that the only way was escape from the Franks. In conclusion, it must be said that this narration was created to emphasize the strength of the Crusaders who beat the enemy and avenge participants of the so-called People's Crusade. Nevertheless, what is important is in the perspective of presenting the enemy's leader is that he started by his somewhat bizarre speech the looting of Christians, but he himself was defeated by the Crusaders. Kilij Arslan, after this narration, disappears from both accounts, thus his role is rather short but clearly sharp; he is the first major obstacle for the Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem, and certainly he is presented as an "other", because of his bizarre sounding speech, and despite initial successes Kilij Arslan bears a defeat, which he announces himself -defeated himself admits defeat.

Yaghi Siyan

On the pages of the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere the ruler of Antioch was named Cassianus. N. Morton suggested that this version of Yaghi Siyan's name's transcription could be inspired by a veneration of a major church in Antioch, the church of Cassianus 506 . However, it is extremely difficult to find a deeper connection between the name of the Turkish commander and the name of the patron saint of the church than rather loose combinations of the known name of the saint, worshiped in Antioch, and the form of writing the name of the city commander. There were more important churches in Antioch, like of Saint Peter, but this did not translate into any record of the name. Perhaps the transcription of the name as Cassianus is a deformed form of Turkish Yaghi Siyan (Yağısıyan), which was adapted to the Latin of both authors, based on the Turkish pronunciation of the name (Turkish: [ˈya(ɰ)ɯsɯjan]), which is very similar to the pronunciation of the Latin form. Yaghi Siyan's image in the Peter's work was significantly enriched compared to the description known from Gesta Francorum, where he is actually the commander of the defence of Antioch and the descriptions that would in any way give more information about him are rarely 505 GF (Hill), pp. xv-xvi. 506 N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., note 55, p. 120. found. However, Peter Tudebode writes a narration about a certain knight who was taken captive. In this passage, the influence of the hagiographic tradition was manifested 507 . In the Tudebode's work, the deeds of the Christian knights who participated in the First Crusade are very close to the martyrologists, often referring to the theme of martyrdom. To realize the importance of the descriptions of martyrdom in the crusading sources, the attention should be paid to the fact that in Christianity the voluntary acceptance of death because of faith is the highest act of love that a Christian is capable of doing, being also a reference to the death of Christ 508 . It is often a question of the eternal life of the knights fallen in the battles against the "Saracens" and who, in fact, earned the crown of martyrdom. In certain scenes of conversion, by the structure of the text, the form and the language of the descriptions of the martyrdom of Christian prisoners, one can detect a certain number of parallels with the martyrologists who tell of the persecution of the first Christians by the Romans 509 . It is no coincidence that the chroniclers afterwards assimilated the Muslims to the persecutors of Christians, and the Crusaders to the martyrs of the faith on a pattern of the first centuries of Christianity.

There are many indications that account the test of forced conversion to the Islam of Rainald Porchet lies in this perspective 510 . According to Tudebode, Yaghi Siyan took Rainald Porchet as a prisoner 511 . The ruler of Antioch demanded from Christians a ransom to release this knight.

However, Rainald Porchet refused and told to the other Franks that they should pray for him and be sure that they would capture Antioch because of the Turkish heavy losses in last battle. Yaghi Siyan then proposed to the knight to enjoy life honourably with the Turks. Rainald asked how he could live among the Turks without sinning. Then the ruler of Antioch asked him to deny the God and convert to Islam, described as the faith in Mohammed and other gods. If Rainald would accepted the offer, he would have a lot of gold, women, all kind of luxury and temporal goods. Rainald asked for a time for consideration and started to pray to God. The ruler of Antioch asked the translator what Rainald was saying. Finally, when Yaghi Siyan heard that this knight refused Muslims' gods 507 Cf. J.V. Tolan,Saracens..., J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea..., According to J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill theauthor used the language taken from martyrologies, cf. PT, notes 31-38, pp. , p. 194; 170-174, pp. 197-201; 178-180, pp. 204-205; 182-187, pp. 205-209). The time and place of creation of the Chanson d'Antioche raise doubts, but it was probably written during or shortly after the First Crusade, but it was reworked at the end of the 12th century by or on behalf of Granidor of Douai, based on the works of Robert the Monk and Albert of Aix (cf. R.F. Cook, op. cit., pp. 66-75; H. Kleber, Wer ist der Verfasser der Chanson d'Antioche? Revision einer Streitfrage, "Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur" 94 (1984), pp. 115-142; The Chanson d'Antioche, pp. 3-9, 49-57).

and goods, accusing the Muslims of idolatry, Yaghi Siyan fell into anger and ordered to decapitate Rainald. At that moment the angels, singing the Psalms of David, bore Rainald's soul to Heaven and he became one of the martyrs 512 .

After that description, worth highlighting is the Tudebode's narration about the martyrdom of other Christians remaining in captivity, which is complement to the whole scene. Yaghi Siyan turned in a towering rage, because he could not make Rainald turn apostate, and he ordered to strip all the Christians taken into captivity and commanded that they be bound with ropes in a circle.

Then Yaghi Siyan ordered to burn them all, because, as the chronicler said, he was an enemy of God 513 . Tudebode creates the chain of symbolic meanings in this presentation of the martyrs' death.

He claimed that dying by order of Yaghi Siyan the Crusaders were in white stoles before the Lord 514 . The role of symbolic of white colour is connected with the symbolic of transition, change of state such as beginning of life, burial of ceremonies, or white ornaments of Passover. Therefore, these white stoles seem to evoke the passage to eternal life. The image of martyrdom was underlined by the reference to the symbol of white vestures as the colour of the vestments of the saved 515 . Furthermore, in the hymn Te Deum laudamus, whose authorship is attributed to Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, the phrase falls: Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus (the English translation: The noble army of Martyrs praise thee, but candidatus rather refers to the basic meaning of that word as "dessed in white"), emphasizing the white colour as attributed to the martyrs. Therefore, this short description underlines the bad image of the religious "other", who persecuted the Christians, who suffered a martyr's death. In the Tudebode's narration the opposition between eathly and heavenly dimension is clearly visible: even though Yaghi Siyan undressed the Christians from the earth's clothing, they wore the white vestments of the martyrs, which emphasizes their closeness to God 516 . Therefore, the sphere of sacrum defeated the temporal dimension. Peter Tudebode mentioned that the Franks on the sight of their companions' death shrieked and screamed, mourning their comrades, which also shows the emotional bond between the participants of the Crusade 517 . Furthermore, it seems clear that the chronicler considered the Christian dead as the martyrs.

enemy 518 . Looking at the Tudebode's work in its entirety, Rainald Porchet seems to be an antithesis of another Rainald from the description about the so-called People's Crusade, who along with his companions changed the religion when the accidents did not turn to Christian thought. However, Rainald Porchet at the beginning of the narration resigned from the purchase for him. In this perspective, he was prepared for the martyr death. From the point of view of Tudebode, Rainald himself considered unworthy ransom, which emphasizes his modesty. Moreover, he said to the Christians that the victory was close, because of the heavy losses of the Turks due the last battle and they should stay in the faith in God and Holy Sepulchre, which indicates a well-known literary topos in which a person facing death can predict future events 519 .

Rainald in the face of the enemy did not renounce the faith for what he paid the highest price. He was beheaded which situates him in the pantheon of the decapitated saints as Saint Paul, Saint John the Baptist or Saint Jacob the Elder (whose death was presented on the capitol of the Crusader Cathedral from the beginning of the 12th century in Nazareth) 520 . This perspective brings to mind the times of persecution of Christians and Rainald's death is presented into this framework.

Furthermore, it highlights the image of the Muslims as the new persecutors of the Christian faith, and the act of burning the Crusaders emphasizes the role of the enemy as a brutal "other" and a threat for the existence of the Christians. Therefore, the narration about Rainald in the Tudebode's account could be considered as the exemplum of the right attitude, which should be represented by the participants of the Crusade in the face of the enemy, being prepared for the martyrdom. In fact,

Tudebode presents the martyrdom of Rainald in terms taken from the hagiographic works 521 . The narration also shows that the chronicler portrayed Islam as a cult of idols and imagine that

Mohammed is one of their chief gods 522 . In the Tudebode's Historia Yaghi Siyan was shown in a clearly negative light as a persecutor of Christians who committed cruel acts against the Franks and all of the symbolic content associated with the ruler of Antioch emphasized his "otherness".

In the Tudebode's account, the death of Yaghi Siyan seems to be the response to the death of Rainald Porchet, some kind of a revenge. When the city of Antioch was captured, the Crusaders killed all the Turks and Saracens on their way. Only those who took refuge in the citadel escaped from the slaughter 523 . Crusaders killed the enemies with a joyful voice: Deus le volt! or Deus lo volt!, which is a clear indication of the war cry of the participants of the expedition and it bears to mind the binary opposition between the Franks and their opponents 524 . Among the victims was the ruler of Antioch Yaghi Siyan, who fled from the city to a nearby village and was killed by the local Syrians and Armenians, which could be interpreted as an act of revenge for the persecution of the local communities, and he was decapitated and his head was brought to Bohemond. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the author of the decapitation could hope to gain a substantial reward and this was a promising act of elevation and enrichment. As the chroniclers inform, the sword belt and scabbard of Yaghi Siyan were worth sixty bezants, which also shows his wealth 525 .

Shams ad-Daula

In the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the son of Yaghi Siyan, named

Sensadolus -a Latinized form of Shams ad-Daula -appears 526 . After the capture of the city of Antioch, he fled with the remaining forces to the citadel. He went to Kurbugha when he arrived to Antioch. According to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account, with tears in the eyes

Sensadolus said to the invincible prince that the Franks besieged him in the city and he asks for help. They killed Yaghi Siyan and they wanted to chase up the Turks from Asia Minor ( Romania), Syria, and even Khorasan. Furthermore, they wanted and could kill Shams ad-Daula/Sensadolus, Kurbugha and even all others of their race. In his speech, stylizing in the bizarre-sounding fashion, which was put by the Latin chroniclers into his mouth, he played a specific role. Shams ad-Daula highlights the strength of the Franks and that they were a threat for an existence for an entire race of the Turks 527 , and the Crusaders had a strength to expel the Turks from this territory 528 .

After that speech, in the narration Kurbugha replies to Shams ad-Daula that he will rescue him from this situation, but he must give him a citadel of the city. The son of Yaghi Siyan said that if Kurbugha could kill the Franks and send their heads to him, he would give him a citadel, do a homage, and guard a citadel for the Turks' leader 529 . The reply of Shams ad-Daula brings to mind the feudal hierarchy, which was an important component of a social life for the Franks and the chroniclers, not for the Turks. ,[2][START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]PT,p. 89. 527 GF,XXI,[2][START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]PT,p. 89. 528 GF,XXI,[2][START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]PT,p. 89. 529 GF,XXI,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]pp. 316;PT,XXI,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]p. 316;cf. PT,p. 90. a man of Kurbugha 531 . Because of such an action, he guards a citadel of Antioch as a donation from the hands of Kurbugha, but he is not the independent ruler. Shams ad-Daula asks for help, donation and protection; he turns to atabeg of Mosul as a vassal to liege. However, Kurbugha replies that he does not want to grant him a citadel, because he wants to have it in his own hands 532 . Shams ad-Daula in this case is treated as a rather not very loyal and trustworthy ally in the opinion of Kurbugha, especially that later atabeg of Mosul grants the citadel to a trustworthy commander 533 .

The son of Yaghi Siyan disappears from the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia and the audience do not know his fate. Perhaps in the opinion of the authors, Shams ad-Daula is not such a significant figure to end his description, or they think that surrender to Kurbugha is such an ending 534 . Thus, Shams ad-Daula does not play too much role in both accounts. 2.4.3.4. Kurbugha Kurbugha (Curbaram 535 , Curbaan 536 ) was the most important enemy described in both accounts and the chroniclers pay a lot of attention to him. He was presented as the leader of the army of the sultan of Persia (princeps militiae Soldani Persae) 537 . His name, although refers to the historical figure and it is a clear indication to pronunciation his name in Arabic, perhaps is a symbolic association with the conventional construction of personal names of pagan enemy in the chansons de geste, where it frequently begins with the prefix "Cor-", which refers to the strength of possessor 538 . In fact, Kurbugha was the atabeg of Mosul, and he served under the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustazhir (1094-1118). Kurbugha appears in the narration, while he was in Khorasan, receiving a message from Yaghi Siyan who claimed that he would donate him the city of Antioch and a great amount of money if he rescued him from the hands of the Franks. Kurbugha gathered a large army and received a permission from the Caliph to kill Christians. The Caliph was described as the Pope of Muslims: Calipha, illorum Apostolico 539 . That shows that the Christians considered the Caliph as a spiritual leader of the Turks, and the authors saw the Muslim political and religious world as reflection of the Christian world 540 . In consequence, it creates the binary opposition between the world of Christians as the space/territory where the Pope in Rome is the spiritual leader, and the world of enemy, which is a domain of Caliph. In this perspective the image of the confrontation of the spiritual forces on an earthly dimension was emphasized.

According to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account, the strength of Kurbugha's army was enormous, and as it was mentioned above, it was highlighted by a catalogue of hostile nations, which contained the greatest amount of the enemy in both sources. However, the narration about the struggle of the Franks against Kurbugha was prepared in such a way, that although the enemy is powerful, the audience should not have doubts to know who would win the upcoming clash. This is because the authors used the literary device of the prophetic signs of promise future for the Franks.

In the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, Kurbugha, after receiving the citadel of Antioch from Shams ad-Daula/Sensadolus, granted this strategic place to one of his commanders, who was veracious, gentle, peaceful, honourable and wise (verax, mitis, pacificus, honestus, prudens) 541 . However, a response of appointed commander was far from optimism. He said that he would never want to guard a citadel, but he would make this under one condition: if the Franks defeated the Turks in a battle, he would surrender the citadel of Antioch to the Christians. Kurbugha replied that knowing the honesty and wisdom of this commander he agreed on that terms 542 .

There should be not doubt that the narration of the siege of Antioch was written after the battle and success of Crusaders, from the perspective of the authors' knowledge of accidents. It was demonstrated that Antioch would fall into the hands of Franks after the general battle against Kurbugha. The commander of the citadel, who was presented by the chroniclers as a very positive person, is somewhat ahead of the course of events. His speech suggests that he knows that there will be a battle and Crusaders will win, therefore he will surrender to them a citadel. Kurbugha accepted a condition of his emir, because he was sure that everything that his commander does is good, as he said on the pages of the accounts 543 . This line of the literary interpretation of this narration is strengthened, because after the battle of Antioch the commander of the citadel surrenders and takes quickly the banners of Christian's leaders. Therefore, it seems that the authors want to highlight that the unnamed Kurbugha's commander was a harbinger of the future events. He knows that the Christians will defeat Kurbugha, because he informed Kurbugha before the order that he would surrender to the Franks if the atabeg of Mosul lost the battle. In the accounts, it creates the box 540 Cf. S. Loutchiskaya, The Muslim Political World as Mirrored in the First Crusade Chronicles, in: The Crusader World, ed. A.J. Boas, London-New York 2016, pp. 346-361. 541 GF, XXI, 5, p. 318;PT, pp. 90-91. 542 GF, XXI, 5, p. 318;PT, pp. 90-91. 543 GF, XXI, 5, p. 318;PT, p. 91. structure, which begins from the speech of the commander and Kurbugha and has its end in the surrender of a citadel and soon afterward the baptism of the commander of citadel and some of his men. Christianization in the accounts of the First Crusades has its own specific character. This was not an expedition, which had a goal in a conversion of the Turks to the Christian faith. However, the baptism of the Turks appeared in the pages of the Crusades' accounts, but as S. Loutchitskaya pointed out, in the chronicles describing the First Crusade, the conversion of Muslims to Christianity is considered not as a result of reflection or missionary activity, but rather as a fruit of a miracle, a divine intervention, and also the great success in the battle should be added 544 . This perspective shows the spiritual superiority of Christianity over Islam, which is believed to be a religion of luxury, wealth and pride. Therefore, in consequence, the narration about the commander of the citadel of Antioch has a prophetic mark, but it is not only one of the signs of the future great victory of Crusaders' forces at Antioch over Kurbugha.

When Kurbugha returned to his army, the Turks made fun of the weapons of Franks. They brought a cheap sword covered with rust, a hideous or loathsome bow and a useless spear 545 .

Because of this view, the Turkish commander laughed and said to his warriors that these were the ferocious and brilliant weapons of Christians, with whom they wanted to conquer Asia, expel the Turks from the Khorasan, obliterate their name beyond the rivers of the Amazons, and capture However, the questions posed by Bohemond have the symbolical meaning for the community of Crusade's participants. The weapons used in the battle by warriors were very important not only in the particular sphere of reality, but also in the sphere of literary layer. Many weapons, especially the swords of famous knights from chansons de gestes, have their own names such as Durendal or Durandal of Roland, Joyeuse of Charlemagne, Tizona of Rodrigo El Cid.

However, in the indicated passages it was only briefly mentioned that the Christians: Deferunt arma ad bellum congrua (They take the weapons suitable for battle) 551 or deferunt utique arma iugiter ad bellum convenientia (Certainly they always take the suitable weapons for conflicts) 552 . The terms arma congrua or arma convenientia (the suitable weapons) seem to be a content important to the warriors' audience of sources. In the epic stories that meant that the participants were ready to fight and Bohemond should join to the expedition.

The answer to the second question has a different meaning. The Christ's cross as the emblem played a role of the identity index. The cross is a universal symbol of all Christians. Furthermore, it indicates the faith and religious zeal of participants and their fervour and enthusiasm for the expedition. The third response could be considered as a linker of both responses, because it brings to mind the society of a warrior, who needs the war cry to establish and highlight the identity during the battle, and on the base of the words Deus (le) hoc vult it shows the religious zeal of participants and their affiliation in the expedition to Jerusalem. Furthermore, this war cry has a universal form connected with the Providence: the God wills it, that they should fight against the pagans and recapture the Holy Sepulchre. In the face of such strong answers Bohemond, inspired by the Holy Spirit, cut up his cloak to pieces and made into crosses and joined the expedition 553 .

In the case of the description of the Kurbugha's camp, the Turks claim that the Crusaders have no weapon to realise their goals, outlined as very serious projects. However, in the previous narration it can be seen that the response of the Crusaders to Bohemond sounded different and in their opinion the Crusaders were well prepared for the battle. Moreover, it seems that the context of the presentation of Frankish weapons may suggest an interpretation based on the poverty of the Crusaders, who in the face of the powerful Turkish forces do not stand out with particularly good weapons, placing their trust rather in God than in the military equipment. This moralisitc tone is visible in other details of the narration; the Turks not only laughed because of the pilgrims' weapons, but they were also confident of win. However, the regular theme of the whole expedition 550 GF, p. 151, note 10; cf. PT (Hill&Hill), note 24, p. 24. 551 GF, IV, 1, p. 151; cf. GF (Dass), p. 30. 552 PT, p. 40; cf. PT (Hill&hill), p. 24. 553 GF, IV, 1, pp. 151-152; PT, p. 40. to Jerusalem in the accounts is the conviction that in the face of battle should be humility. Thus, the Turkish ridicule of Crusaders' weapons seems as an act of arrogance in the narrative reality of both texts.

Furthermore, this image was strengthened by the further description, where Kurbugha wrote the charters to the Caliph, perceived by the authors of both accounts as the Pope of Muslims, and to the Sultan, presented as the King 554 . The chroniclers presented the world of the enemy from their perspective by using their own categories 555 . Therefore, the Caliph is a Pope, and Sultan is a King.

In this shape, the social hierarchy of the Turks was described or rather adapted to the form known to the authors. Worth noting is that the authors show some knowledge about the enemy's political realities; the chroniclers distinguished two centres of the enemy political and secular power; they indicated the Caliph and the Sultan. Returning to the Kurbugha's charters, after saying that many warriors would fight bravely against the Christians, he wanted to send the weapons of the Franks, with whom they wanted to overcome the Muslims. He indicated that he locked up the Christians in the city of Antioch, and that he had in his hands a citadel and the Franks. He would led them into captivity to Khorasan, because they were a threat for the Muslims and wanted to expel them from their lands. Furthermore, Kurbugha said that he would take the city of Antioch, Syria, Romania, Bulgaria and Apulia 556 . It leaves no doubt that Kurbugha's correspondence, which appears on the pages of Tudebode's Historia and Gesta Francorum, belongs to the sphere of literary invention of the authors and fits perfectly in the image of an arrogant enemy who before the battle seems to be completely sure of victory, which in the moralistic tone of the texts, deserves contempt and deserved punishment.

One of the most mysterious conversations on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's

Historia is between Kurbugha and his mother. In the historiography there is a consensus that the Kurbugha's mother is most probably an invention of the chroniclers and N. Hodgson presented that it was a rumour, a camp gossip, which was circulated among the Crusade's participants 557 . However, the literary aspects of the mother of Kurbugha and her function in the accounts' structure should be considered in the broader perspective of the image of women with specific symbolic content adjacent to it, because it is hard to find anything that would confirm that the conversation between Kurbugha and his mother was a camp rumour.

The mother of Kurbugha appears in the narration after the charters sent by her son to the 554 GF,XXI,[7][8][START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF]PT,Encountering Islam...,p. 121. 556 GF,XXI,[7][8][START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF]PT, Caliph and Sultan 558 . At that time she was in Aleppo, but have heard that her son wanted to fight against Christians she came quickly to Kurbugha. Then a dialogue was introduced between the characters. She asks Kurbugha whether it is true that he wants to attack the Franks. He replies that she should know about his actions and that the information that he would like to attack the Christians is true. In this case, she begs him to abandon the fight against the Franks, invoking the name of all the gods, (per omnium Deorum nomina) 559 . She says that despite the strength and bravery of Kurbugha, which is well known to the Christians and other people, he could not fight against the Christians, which has been strengthened in the accounts by the symbolic of lion before which the sheep run away (sicut oves ante leonis furorem fugiunt) 560 .

However, when Kurbugha hears these words of his own mother he give her an insolent response. He names his mother insane and completely crazy and he indicates that he has more emirs than there are Christians. Hearing this, the mother of the Turkish leader says that the Christians are under the protection of God, who fights for them every day and the God is for the Franks like a shepherd who watches over his flock. Furthermore, in her mouth the words of Psalms were put: He 45.6,Malachi 1.11, she says that: From the rising of the sun to its going down shall be your boundaries, and no man shall stand against you 568 . In the speech Kurbugha cannot fight against the Christians and if he starts the battle he will not die in it, but he will finally end his life in the same year, and he will lose many of his warriors, all that he possess and he will flee in disgrace. In short, he will be punished by God as a God's enemy.

Kurbugha, moved by the story of his mother, asks from which source she knows such things about the Christians, and why their God loves them so much. She replies that in their book and in the book of the heathens (in nostra pagina et in gentilium voluminibus) more than a hundred years ago it was discovered that the Christians would attack the Muslims and completely conquer their lands and rule over the pagans 569 . However, she is not sure that it will be happen now or in the future. After this, using the arguments form the domain of astrology, Kurbugha's mother says that she has this knowledge about the Christians through the study and observations of the stars on the sky; she scrutinizes the planets and signs of the zodiac and others oracles.

Hearing this Kurbugha asks his mother about Bohemond and Tancred, who were presented as the gods of Franks (Boamundus et Tancredus Francorum Dii) 570 . In his opinion, they are mortal, and they do not eat two thousand cows and four thousand pigs at a single meal. She replies that this is the truth that they are mortals, but God loves them above all others and gives them courage to fight. She concludes her speech by using the praise worthy of God by using the biblical references,

where God created the heaven, earth and deep sea, whose throne is in heaven from eternity and where His might is to be feared everywhere 571 . This whole combination remains in a symbolic communication -shows the power of God. However, even on these words, based on authority of the biblical discourse, Kurbugha wants to fight against the Christians and refuses any advice of his mother. At the end of the narration, she returns to Aleppo, filled with sadness. She already knows that her son will suffer a defeat from the hands of the Christians, foretelling his great defeat 572 .

The role of Kurbugha's mother seems important in the whole narration. She gives a warning to his son that he cannot fight the Christians despite his strength, because they are under the protection of God and He himself fights on their side, using to this his saints. In the framework of her speech, Kurbugha is doomed to failure; this is an obvious truth that he cannot accept. To convince her son she uses the arguments taken from the biblical tradition and, according to the chroniclers, even from their holy book and all volumes of heathens 573 . Furthermore, she invokes the authority of the book of their own faith 574 .

Moreover, in the face of the refusal she uses the astrology as the argument to convince her son. In the indicated passage, the authors could show some knowledge about the Turkish use of astrology, but the sources of their information seem doubtful. for the Turks' commanders to use astrology before the battle or to have an astrologer on their court, which is confirmed for Radwan of Aleppo 575 . More certainly, however, it appears to be taking into account the Christian tradition about astrology. In the Christian thought based on biblical tradition, the astrology is clearly prohibited. It was said in the Bible that: There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you 576 . Furthermore, God did not create stars to reveal the future, but as a testimony of his power and glory and when people look at the sky, they should contemplate God through the great act of creation 577 . It seems that the authority of Saint Augustine was also important in the perception of astrology in the Christian world. He believed that human destiny is not shaped by lifeless stars, but by God who is a Lord of both stars and humanity and who has given to his faithful everything that they should know about their future;

that Christ will surely return to earth, defeat the Devil, and reign forever 578 .

Going beyond biblical texts it should be indicated that at the beginning of the 12th century when the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia were written, there were not many works, which the authors could read about astrology; unless they had outstanding classical education or an access to Liber Planetis et Mundi Climatibus written at the beginning of 11th century, maybe by Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II from 999 to 1003) 579 . However, it is most likely that they had rather foggy and popular view about the subject of astrology, based on biblical tradition and maybe on the authority of St Augustine, and that was clear for them that astrology was something connected with evil, which could be used to describe the bad character of the enemy. To conclude, the indication in both sources on astrology used by the enemy should be rather considered in the framework of representation of the "otherness" of the Turks, even that it was a practice known in the Turkish society, and astrology was associated with the East, especially with Babylon, and peccancy is a blatant action against God 580 .

In the context of prediction and vision, the mother of Kurbugha plays her role in the narration. Looking for a reference in the biblical discourse familiar to the chroniclers the following warning sent to Pilate by his wife during the process of Jesus Christ should be quoted: Besides, 575 Cf. N. 580 Cf. K. Skottki, op. cit., pp. 264-265. while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream" 581 . Pilat did not listen to his wife and approved the verdict of death to Christ. However, the context of a woman, which gave a warning to her close kin, appears also in other examples of literature, and to emphasize the function of this symbolic matrix that should be invoked other places where it took place. In the Iliad Andromacha warns her husband Hector not to fight with Achilles, because he will die in this struggle 582 . In De vita Caesarum Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus presented the episode about the assassination of Julius Caesar. His wife Calpurnia begs him to stay at home, because she suffers from nightmares at night that he will die. Caesar reluctantly wants to adhere to her requests, but visited by assassins' dispatchers he is convinced to go to the Senate 583 . In the later sources describing the struggles between the Franks and their enemies in the Holy Land the same topos appears in the Walter the Chancellor's Bella Antiochena, where a mentally ill or a moon-struck woman (mulier lunatica) informs the Crusaders about a future defeat in the battle on the Field of Blood 584 . Likewise, in the Ernoul's Chronicle there is an episode where a Muslim enchantress, before the battle of Hattin, prophesies the crushing victory of Saladin 585 . The fact that this narration should be understood in the same way is also indicated by the later functioning of the Kurbuhga's mother's story according to, for instance Orderic Vitalis who, among others, mentions that she was almost a century old and anticipated future events 586 . In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the warning given by women, often to theirs close kin, in the eve of the significant events, has a topical character and it has a prophecy mark; if a character does not take this advice, he will end badly.

Therefore, it seems that the narration of the Kurbugha's mother should be considered in the framework of the indicated literary tradition of the warning made by women, who had the knowledge about the future event, hence this is a literary description, having nothing to do with the reality.

It seems impossible to consider Kurbugha's image in isolation from the greatest event on the pages of both accounts, because the central point of Gesta Francroum and Tudebode's Historia is a decisive battle between the Christians and the Kurbugha's army. However, before it happened, the image of Kurbugha was strengthened by the description about the preparations for the battle from the Crusaders' side. One of the main point of the preparation to the battle was the embassy of the 581 Matt 27.19. 582 Ilias, VI, v. 369-439. 583 De Vita XII Caesarum C.Suetonii Tranquilli, ed. J.C. Rolfe, vol. 1, London 1913[revised: Cambridge 1997] crusading leaders to Kurbugha. They took a war council where they decided to ask the Turks precisely and clearly by the translator, which shows their "otherness" in the sphere of the language, why they in their pride (superbissime) 587 had invaded the Christian land, and why they terrified and slaughtered the servants of God 588 . After this council, in both accounts, there is information that the emissaries were Peter the Hermit and Herluin. Then occurs the repeat of a message, which was now given to the Turks. Peter and Herluin asked why in their audacity (audacter 589 ) and pride (superbissime 590 ) the Turks were in the land of the Christians. The wordplay, which appears in a council of leaders and in a message, had an important moralistic content. Superbissime is a superlativus from the adjective superbus, and means "very proud", "very arrogant" or "very haughty". Audacter is an adverb and in negative sense it means "imprudently" or "audaciously" and it is linked with the trait of audacia, "audacity", "imprudence". In this perspective, the accusation of the enemy of audacia and superbia has a moralistic tone. In the biblical discourse, the pride and audacity are presented as serious defects of character and a sin leading to the fall 591 . The excessive faith in oneself, in own capabilities, is an offense to God and His grace. It is believed that this is the sin that produces all others. In this perspective, the Turks must be condemned and punished on the pages of the accounts written by Christian authors.

Then the emissaries transferred the message to Kurbugha, presented as the prince of the army of the Sultan of Persia and all the others, which shows his strength. Peter and Herluin added an appeal for conversion to Christianity, and said that this land belonged to the Christians, because Saint Peter converted it a long time ago by his preaching. When the Kurbugha heard the message, he was full of a pride (pleni superbia) 592 , which on the field of the narration shows that he missed another chance to change his bad behaviour and recognise that the Crusaders fought for the true God 593 . Moreover, he replied by the fierce words (feroci...sermone), which were put into his mouth by the chroniclers in the reality of their works 594 . He said that the Turks did not want the God and convert to Christianity. Instead of this, he proposed that the Franks could become Turks and renounce their God whom the Christians adore on bended knee, and abandon their laws 595 . In this passage the chroniclers show the determinants of the Christians community: religion and laws. The important thing is that the Christians adore the God in the kneeling position that expresses humility, and which plays a part in opposing them to the pride of enemy. Furthermore, Kurbugha said about the wealth, which he could propose to the Crusaders. He would grant them many castles and cities, so much that none of them would remain a foot soldier. If they did not accept his offer, they would be led away in the chains to Khorasan, and they would be slaves of the Turks and their children forever. After this message, Peter and Herluin came back to the Crusaders' camp and reported what the Turks, very cruel people (gens crudelissima), said to them 596 . In this situation, it was sure that it was a time for a decisive battle with the enemy.

Considering all the signs in the narrations, it can be clearly seen that Kurbugha, who leads a powerful army, must lose the coming clash against the Christians, because of the moralistic perspective of condemnation of the pride. Therefore, it should not be surprising that in the both accounts Kurbugha seeing the Christian army is scared 597 . Kurbugha, even though he was repeatedly warned about his tragic fate, even by his mother, is heading towards his defeat. The authors of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode portray him as full of pride and a powerful ruler, but because of this great pride he loses the battle against the Christians and that is where his role in eyewitnesses' accounts ends. In both narrations, the representation of Kurbugha is significant for the text composition. There are descriptions of behavior in the military camp of the atabeg of Mosul, like talking to soldiers, entrusting commanding to a citadel to one commander, sending letters or talking to a mother arriving from Aleppo. Everything indicates that most of these acts were the literary invention of the authors who wanted to present such and not a different image of the enemy commander. Worth emphasizing is the outstanding significance of audacia and superbia for the course of events in the narration, because such attitudes always meet with the authors' reprimand, direct or indirect, and are the cause of disasters.

Kurbugha plays the key role among Muslim enemy characters in the sources. The capacity of his presentation content is very large (including whole two chapters (XXI and XXII), but also additional content in others, finally ending in the Chapter XXIX), which indicates that it was not just an exotic addition, but an important narrative content, which is also indicated by the composition of the text; showing the events from the Turkish camp and the Crusader camp as well, depicting respectively the incorrect and correct behaviour pattern in the perspective of the Christian authors.

Al-Afdal

596 GF, XXVIII, 5, p. 367; PT, p. 109. 597 GF,XXIX,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF]p. 372;PT,p. 111. According to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, the final stage of the First Crusade was the battle of Ascalon against the forces of the Fatimids. Most likely, the leader of the enemy presented only with a title of the emir of Babylon, was in fact l-Afdal Shahanshah. However, he was not mentioned by name by both Crusades' authors. Al-Afdal was a great Vizier of Egypt and a factional ruler instead of a Fatimid Caliph Ahmad al-Musta'li bi-Allah.

Al-Afdal appears several times on the pages of accounts as admiravisus 598 or amiravisus 599 . Similar terms appear in many places of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierolosymitano Itinere, also in other forms such as ammiraldus, like in a description of the battle where twelve emirs were killed by the Franks 600 . Furthermore, in Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierolosymitano Itinere there are terms such as admiravisus 601 , amiravisus 602 , ammiralius 603 , or in other accounts of the participants of the First Crusade for example: admiratus et princeps -for the name of Kilij Arslan 604 , Antiochiae princeps et admiratus -Yaghi Siyan 605 , admiratus -Malik Ghazi ibn Danishmend 606 , amiraius -al-Afdal 607 . Most probably, it is a manifestation of the Latinization of the Arabic word 'amīr ,)امير( meaning "commander" or "governor" 608 . In Latin, variations of the term admiravisus are most likely associated with the form of participium perfecti passivi of the verb admiror, admirari, admiratus sum ("to wonder", "to admire"). Thus, it can be stated that the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierolosymitano Itinere for naming the Muslim commanders used a Latin form, sounding similar to the Arabic title that was heard by them. Basing on the meaning of the indicated Latin verb, the term of emir was assigned to someone who should be admired, wondered because of its social and political status. Thus, the death of twelve emirs in a battle, should be understood rather in a perspective of a symbolic meaning of a number twelve as a plenitude, fullness 609 , and could be interpreted as an indication of the total victory of Christians over their enemy 610 .

Al-Afdal, before the final battle of the whole expedition, had some relations with the Crusaders. He negotiated with the Franks to create the alliance against the Turks during the siege of Antioch. After one of many struggles around Antioch, the Christians even sent four horses to the 598 GF, XXXIX, 5, p. 485. 599 PT, p. 143. 600 GF, XVIII, 8, p. 284; PT, p. 76. 601 GF, XXXIX, 5, p. 485. 602 PT, p. 143. 603 GF,XXI,5,p. 318;XXIX,[10][11]PT,113. 604 FC,I,XI,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF]p. 192. 605 FC,I,XV,7,p. 220. 606 FC,I,XXXV,2,p. 346. 607 RA,pp. 110,[155][156] Cf. L.-R. Ménager, Amiratus -Άμηρᾶς. L'Émirat et les Origines de l'Amirauté (XIe -XIIIe siècles), Paris 1960, pp. 16-17. 609 D. Forstner, op. cit., pp. 56-57. 610 GF, XVIII, 8, p. 284;PT, p. 76. emir of Babylon loaded by spoils and sent toward the sea to Egypt as a gift 611 . Furthermore, the messengers of the ruler of Egypt observed the Christians victory over the Turks, where the Crusaders chased the Turks until the Iron Bridge and killed many of them. The Turks fell back to their castle, set fire to it and fled. After the battle, the local Syrians and Armenians, knowing that the Turks had been defeated, killed and captured many of them. The chroniclers summarized the narration by the statement that the Crusaders gained a victory by the will of God. Moreover, later they brought one hundred heads of the dead Turks to the city gate. For the messengers of the ruler of Egypt, who stayed in the camp, it was for sure an image of the power of Christians 612 . However, soon after the Fatimids took control over Jerusalem and in effect the agreement between two sides was impossible.

The term of Babylon, used in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia to name Cairo and the whole Egypt, probably derives from one of the district of Cairo, where there was a fortress and the Western merchants had a trade station. Furthermore, the eschatological references to Babylon might play its role in the narrations, because the city of Babylon was probably understood not only as a clear geographical indication on the city of Cairo, but also in the symbolic meaning.

The literary image of Babylon could be an analogy to the Saint Augustine's tradition, according to which it was the city that stood in the opposition to the Holy Jerusalem: Babylon was a symbol of Evil and Antichrist 613 . From this point of view, worth emphasizing is that the opposition Babylon-Jerusalem was also present in the iconographic programme of places related to the propagation of the crusading movement. In Moissac in the Monastery of Saint Peter (l'Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Moissac), the capitals in the Meridionale Gallery have a symbolic programme containing the images of Jerusalem and Babylon, which may evoke the crusading rhetoric, taking into account the dating (around 1110) and the fact that the monastery in Moissac was associated with the activity of Urban II, who visited this place in May 1096 and blessed the monastery buildings and that the encyclical of Pope Sergius IV was to be created in Moissac 614 .

According to the Gesta Francorum and Historia, after the defeat in the battle of Ascalon, the emir of Babylon came to the city of Ascalon, grieving and sorrowing, because of the defeat from the hands of Franks. Al-Afdal's speech seems to play the same role as the one made by Kilij Arslan after the defeat -the speech shows the fullness of the of the Frankish victory confirmed by the 611 GF, XVIII,10,p. 287;PT,p. 77. 612 GF,XVII,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF][7]PT, " 5 (1948), pp. 3-23 and 6 (1950), pp. 3-34. enemy himself. Moreover, the composition of the al-Afdal's speech in some way is exaggerated in terms of the language, introducing the colour of the enemy's speech and giving it a sound of the "other", so different from the economical wording of the narration of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia.

In the speech, al-Afdal presents that such a great army has never been defeated by anyone, neither Christian, nor pagan nation, but now the victory is on the side of a few Christians 615 . Then the content emphasizing the weakness of Christians was strengthened by the words that the emir was defeated by a race of beggars, unarmed and poverty stricken, who have nothing but a sack and a beggar's bag 616 (a gente mendica, inermi et pauperrima, quae non habet nisi caccum et peram) 617 .

It was also demonstrated that the Christians' status as the pilgrims, who had the sacks and bags instead of the weapons, and who were poor, won despite their equipment. Then the emir indicated that the Franks, who used to be pilgrims in earlier times, pursue the Egyptians who, on the other hand, used to give them aid when they were on the pilgrimage before the First Crusade. This image is a reason to be unhappy and suffer a lot, especially that the emir took the army of two hundred thousand warriors, and now they only wanted to escape from the Franks to Babylon. After the speech, the chroniclers summarized that the defeat of their enemy was made by the virtue of God 618 .

The image of al-Afdal is relatively brief, but some specific content was assigned to him.

Firstly, at the beginning, he was considered as a potential ally against the Turks. However, his status changed when he captured the city of Jerusalem and both accounts presented him as the enemy who lost the battle of Ascalon, even though he had a great army.

Ahmad ibn Merwan

On the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, one commander of Kurbugha was presented in a positive manner. When the Crusaders captured the city of Antioch, Kurbugha took control over the citadel of this city, because of the action of Shams ad-Daula 619 . However, the Turkish leader decided to give the fortress to one of his commander described as ammiralius 620 . On the pages of both accounts, this commander is unnamed, but the scholars identified him as Ahmad , 5, p. 318; XXIX, 10-11, pp. 379-381; PT, pp. 90-91, 113. historical person, confirmed by other independent sources, the role played by Ahmea ibn Merwan could be a literary invention of the accounts' authors, because he has a specific function in the text.

From the beginning of the representation in Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's work Ahmad ibn

Merwan is presented as veracious, gentle and peaceful (verax, mitis, pacificus) 622 . His highly positive characteristic is related to his role in the narration. Ahmad informs Kurbugha that if the Turks are defeated in the battle, he, as the commander of the citadel of Antioch, will give it to the Franks. Kurbugha replies that because of the Ahmad's honesty and bravery he agrees on that term 623 . In the both accounts, the role, which is played by Ahmad, creates the structure of the narration of the future decisive battle and has a prophetic mark. After the battle against Kurbugha, seeing that the Franks crushed the Turks, Ahmad surrendered the citadel of Antioch, as he said at the beginning to Kurbugha. This allowed saving unnecessary massacre of citadel defenders, and those who did not want to convert to Christianity were allowed to return to the Muslim territories 624 .

Moreover, soon after the surrender of citadel, Ahmad converts to Christianity with some of his warriors 625 . Knowing this fact, the positive characteristic of Ahmad ibn Merwan on the pages of both accounts could be clearly understood. In the literary reality of the text, it seems obvious that the enemy who converted to Christianity should be a positive figure. Such a narration shows the religious superiority of the Christian faith, and this is a popular topos presented in the chansons de geste, where, as the result of the struggle, proving the true God, the enemy's heroes convert to Christianity, abandoning the false gods 626 . Therefore, the positive image of one of the Kurbugha's commander is rather a literary invention, which shows that the best person from the enemy's army became Christian, and in addition, Ahmad ibn Merwan in the narration plays a role of a harbinger of Kurbugha's failure. In this way, the Ahmad's role is similar to that played by the mother of Kurbugha, hence these two episodes have a prophetic mark.

Other enemy's rulers

On the pages of both accounts also other leaders of the enemy appear, but all of them are unnamed. The authors mention the king of Damascus (rex Damasci), that is about Abu Nasr Shams 621 S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, Cambridge 1951, p. 205; N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 161 GF,XXI,5,p. 318;PT,XXI,5,p. 318;PT,XXIX,11,p. 381;PT,p. 114. 625 GF,XXIX,[10][11]PT,p. 113. 626 N. Daniel, Heroes and Saracens..., pp. 167-173, 211-212; cf. A. Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 456 -464; N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 157. al-Muluk Duqaq 627 , the king of Aleppo (rex Aleph civitatis), who was Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan 628 , the emir of Maraclea (admiralius) -Abu Mohamed Obaid Allah 629 , the emir of Jerusalem (Hierosolymitanus ammiralius) -Soqman ibn Ortoq 630 , the king of Caesarea (rex Cesareae) -Abusalma ibn Moncad 631 , the king of Homs (rex Camelae) -Djenah ad-Daula 632 , the king of Trypolis (rex Tripolis), who was at that time Jalâl al-Mulk 633 . However, these characters do not play an important role in both accounts. They are nameless just like the commanders of the succour that come to Antioch, where no commander of forces from Aleppo and Jerusalem is mentioned by name 634 . Thus, the authors attribute the role of opponents against whom the Franks fight or from whom the Crusaders receive supplies on their way to Jerusalem. Determining a significant part of them by the term of king, suggests that the authors rather did not pay more attention to defining the social hierarchy of the enemy, and simply quoted the Eastern rulers. There is no doubt that the title of rex, should emphasize the political importance of someone described by this term, while the ruler of Egypt on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia is presented with the term of emir similarly to the ruler of Maraclea or Jerusalem, while the ruler of Trypolis is the king.

Therefore, it seems that the titles used by the authors of both accounts are rather imprecise and literary and they did not reflect the political reality of the enemy.

Turkish conduct of war

On the pages of the eyewitnesses' accounts the warfare of the enemy of Franks was presented. The authors provide some information about the weaponry and tactics of the Turks using on the battlefields as well as on the sieges during the First Crusade. The perception of the Turkish conduct of war does not end with the descriptions of military struggles, but also touches the personal emotions and the world of the collective imagination about the "other".

Fear of the Turks

According to the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere the Turks often arouse fear among the Crusaders. For instance, shortly after the expedition to Aregh the Crusade's leaders decided to build a castle on top of Mount Maregart to be safe and free of fear of the Turks (de Turcorum formidine) 635 . The word "formido" -"fearfulness", "fear", "terror", "dread", assigned directly to the Turks is a clear indication on the catalogue of traits of the enemy.

In this passage, the chroniclers perceive the importance of the enemy as someone who is a real danger for the existence of the Christian community. The construction of the castle, which could not only provide defence, but also block the opponent's actions, was an important content to find a way to the pages of accounts. This was a common project of all Crusaders; it was undertaken after the counsel of all leaders of the expedition. That was the first castle (castrum) built in the Syria by the The image of the enemy who arouses the fear among the Franks is supported by the mentions that the Turks make scary noises attacking the crusading forces. In the description of the battle of Dorylaeum, the forces of Bohemond, which were in vanguard, were attacked as the first by the enemy: Tertia vero die irruerunt Turci vehementer super Boemundum et eos, qui cum ipso erant. , 3-4, pp. 197-199. Bohemond, saw the numerous Turks far off in the distance letting off their shrieks and demonic clamour, and so he commanded all the warriors to dismount and to quickly pitch their tents) 640 .

As could be observed, according to the chroniclers, the Turks made scary noises. The presentation of the enemy's sounds in Gesta Francorum was based on three verbs to define the making of sounds; stridere, garrire and clamare, and Tudebode adds another one; dicere 641 .

However, more worth emphasizing is that the Turks speak in their own, incomprehensible to the chroniclers language, which is classified as the diabolicum sonum and daemonica voce (a diabolical or demonic clamor). This is a clear manifestation of "otherness" of the Turks in the sphere of culture, quite similar to the description based on the word barbarus, because they use different, incomprehensible voice instead of human speech. Moreover, the diabolical and demonical source of sounds made by the enemies shows the place of the Turks in the ideological perspective of the authors of both accounts as associated with the evil. Furthermore, in a description of the Turkish ambush on the forces of Bohemond during the siege of Antioch, the enemy attacking grind their teeth and screech and yell loudly 642 . Most likely, the symbolic meaning of the teeth as connected with aggression, wildness and struggle highlights the image of the Turks as the merciless warriors.

However, the base of the representation of the Turkish using scary noises attacking the opponent seems to be a factual observation. Just as the Crusaders, who used battle cries such as March 624 646 . However, the Turkish tradition as the steppe nomads also should be taken into consideration. One of the distinctions of each Turkish tribe was a specific uran, that is a battle cry.

It belonged to each tribe and was passed down from generation to generation. The war cry could be transmitted, because after dividing the tribe their exceptional uran went over to the new political unit, giving the same battle cries of divided tribes, which can be seen on the example of Kipchak, 640 GF (Dass), p. 41. 641 GF, IX, 3-4, pp. 197-199 whose war cry, which was ay-bas ("lunar head"), passed to Kazakhs, Kirgizes, Turkmens, and Uzbeks647 . The Seljuk Turks originated from one branch of the Oghuz Turks648 , whose used the phrase teke ("mount") as their war cry 649 , or according to the legend about the Oghuz Khan from

The Book of Oghuz written in the turn of the 13th or 14th centuries it was kök böri ("grey wolf") 650 .

Therefore, there is a possibility that the Turks in a confrontation with the Crusaders used this kind of war cry. However, as in many cultures in the Middle East and Central-to-South Asia, the practice of zaghareet (ululation), should be also invoked. Generally, it is a long, wavering, high-pitched vocal sound which arises by emitting a high pitched loud voice accompanied with a rapid back and forth movement of the tongue and the palatine uvula. Ululation is using in different circumstances concerning the ritual events such as weddings or funerals, but the ululated exclamations could appear also as a battle cry 651 .

Therefore, difficult is to indicate, what exactly the battle cry was used by the Turks on the battlefield against the Franks, and perhaps all of them were in use, i.e. both tribal call and the phrase Allahu Akbar and the use of ululation. Nevertheless, it seems that the description of the chroniclers could be based as much as possible on the participants' observation and it seems very likely that the description of the demonic sounds in terms of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia is in fact a record of the battle cry of the Turks, which in the opinion of the authors aroused fear among the Franks and evoke unequivocally negative associations with the evil.

What is also worth mentioning, the authors of both accounts mention that the Turks go to the battle enjoying themselves and taking the ropes or chains to fetter the Christians. In the description of the battle against the Turkish succour of Nicaea, the chroniclers highlighted that the enemy went to fight with joy (venientes autem laetantes) 652 . However, this mention should be considered in a broader context. When the siege of the Nicaea began to develop, after the first skirmishes won by the Franks, it turned out that the Turks, who were coming to the rescue of Nicaea had the ropes with them with which they would bind and lead off the Crusaders to their territories 653 . On the one hand, it shows their confidence and belief in victory, built on previous successes against the forces of the so-called People's Crusade 654 . On the other hand, from the perspective of the Franks, that means that the enemy is not humble and in the reality of the narration he must be condemned, because he wants to humiliate the Christians; the Turks want to do the same with the Crusaders which they did to the participants of the Peter the Hermit's expedition. In the battle during the siege of Nicaea, the Turks who came from the mountains with the joy on their faces and ropes in the hands, were destroyed by the Franks, which was emphasized by the chroniclers: Quotquot descenderunt, illic caesis capitibus a manibus nostrorum remanserunt 655 (But all those who came down had their heads cut off by the hands of our men) 656 . Furthermore, the heads of the Turks were hurled into the city to spread fear among the defenders of Nicaea.

The information about the chains in which the Turks wanted to fetter the Christians appears also in the presentation of the Frankish embassy to Kurbugha before the decisive battle of Antioch.

Atabeg of Mosul is described as a full of a pride (pleni superbia) in his response to the Crusaders' ambassadors who were Peter the Hermit and Herluin 657 . Among others, Kurbugha says that if the Christians do not convert to Islam they will be led away in the chains (in vinculis) to the Turkish lands, and they will be slaves of the Turks and their children forever 658 In the historiography, this description is a famous one. In the common opinion, the Turks were praised because of theirs military skills 662 . However, why did the Christian authors write such a note about the enemy? Let us analyse this long passage. Firstly, both chroniclers indicate that no one before dared to describe the Turkish warfare. At the beginning, the chroniclers attributed to the Turks the features such as prudentia ("intelligence", "wisdom"), militia ("military spirit", "courage", "bravery"), and fortitudo ("bodily strength", "courage", "bravery"). In the authors' opinion, the Turks thought that by using their own military tactics, based on bows and arrows, they could frighten the Franks, just as they had terrified others nations, among which were Muslims like Arabs and Saracens, and Christians: Greeks, Armenians and Syrians, but thanks to God the Turks would never be as good as the Franks, because they were pagans 663 .

The chroniclers evoke the story of the origins of the Franks, according to which they were the descendants of Trojans and the Turks had a common origin with them. What is worth emphasizing is that the chroniclers said that the Turks considered only the Franks and themselves as naturally born warriors 664 . Furthermore, the Turks talked among themselves about the story of the same Trojan origin of both peoples (dicunt se esse) 665 . Thus, the authors indicate a certain usurpation of a common origin by the Turks on the pages of accounts, which allows to understand this information as uncertain, which the authors do not want to attribute to the Franks as the source of that mention. According to the authors, the source of the information should be Turkish, but it seems unlikely that the chroniclers would get the information about the Turks telling a story to each other about their Trojan origins, because it is unlikely that the Turks would actually have such beliefs on the subject of their origin, presenting a different perspective of their origin than the Trojan myth 666 . Therefore, the mention should be rather treated as the invention of medieval writers, defining the enemy by using the terms adequate to their own intellectual background.

However, the source of this description is problematic, because the legend of Turkish-Frankish common ancestry described by Fredegar in the 7th century was rather poorly widespread in the beginning of the 12th century 667 . Furthermore, on the other side, it is highly improbable that the Turks knew the myth of the Franks about the Trojan origin 668 . Most likely, the chroniclers wanted to highlight the features of the enemy by evoking a common knowledge, operating on the principle of the myth about the origins of both people and make a perspective for the audience, in which the Turks were closer than it seemed 669 . Such representation of the enemy fulfilled several functions. That could be a good explanation for the question why the Turks fought in such a good manner. From the perspective of accounts, the Turks had a lot in common with the Franks, namely the same Trojan origin, so that should be obvious that they subjugated other nations and they had high skills in combat. Furthermore, this aspect of the image of Turks could be a way to explain the heavy losses suffered by the Franks, ascribed only by those who, due to their origin, could also be naturally good warriors. In the epic perspective, the hero is the greater, the more difficult his opponent is to overcome, hence the passage and the accounts in the whole would be a glorification of the Franks, who could beat such a great multitude of armies consisting of formidable soldiers.

Although the glorification of the Turks, the most important issue in the narration about the praise of the enemy is that they are not like the Franks. The passage suggests also the binary opposition between two branches of the same race, because the Turks despite the characteristics of the warriors did not believe in God, thus the consequence is that they fought on the Devil's side against the true God. The "otherness" of the Turks is highlighted by the indication that they were not the part of the Christianitas. If they accepted the Christian faith, they would be as good as the 666 Cf. K. Franks. However, the whole description is ended by the statement that even if the Turks were good warriors, the Crusaders, who enjoyed the grace of God, would defeat the enemy. Therefore, the Turks are good warriors in the opinion of the chroniclers, but they are not the Franks and they are not as good in the fighting as Christians.

Turkish bow and arrows

The description about the praise of the enemy's military skills seems also important as the report of the Turks military tactic, which could be described as the use of nomadic conduct of war based on archery from the horseback. According to the chroniclers, this tactic terrified many nations against whom the Turks fought. However, the Franks survived this military trial. In the description of the battle of Dorylaeum on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, another aspect of the Turkish conduct of war could be observed, namely, the encircling the opponent.

The Turks attacked the first contingent of Crusaders consisting mostly of Norman forces of Bohemond and Robert of Normandy. The authors of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode mention that: Turci undique iam erant circumcigentes nos dimicando et iaculando ac spiculando et mirabiliter longe lateque sagittando (the Turks came upon us from all side, skirmishing, throwing darts and javelins and shooting arrows from an astonishing range) 670 . In both accounts it was emphasized that the Turks used all kinds of missiles; arrows and javelins, encircling the Franks and attacking from different sides, and at the same time they did not strive for direct melee 671 . In this way, the Turks could inflict serious casualties on the Crusaders, without suffering great losses, which was also presented by the chroniclers. The distance from which the Turks shot the arrows astonished the chroniclers. In the 11th century, the Turks used a composite bow, which had curved or curled arms. This was a classic weapon of the nomads' horse archers. By its small size, but at the same time a great range and power, it was perfect for a horseback use. It allowed the Turks to apply their favourite military tactics, involving lapping and shooting from the distance to the opponent, without engaging in the direct hand-to-hand combat 672 .

The accounts of the eyewitnesses confirm the high status of the bow in the Turkish society.

The chroniclers indicate the burial custom of the Turks in the description of the one of the battles 670 GF, IX,5,PT,p. 52. 671 GF,IX,5,PT,p. 52. 672 The literature about the nomadic warfare is very abundant, so I refer to only a few positions: J. around the city of Antioch. The Turks buried their deads with cloaks, golden bezants, bows, arrows, and others objects unknown by the authors of the accounts 673 . Despite, it is a clear indication on the "otherness" of the enemy, who used different funeral rites, worth emphasizing is that the Turks put in the grave the elements of clothes and gold, which could be interpreted by the Christian chroniclers as the manifestation of their wealth and pride. Moreover, the enemy buried the bodies with the arrows and bows, which manifested the attribute of the Turkish military equipment. The equipment of the grave of the deceased in a bow is a custom widely acknowledged among the cultures of the Great Steppe peoples and those who had close contact with them 674 . To brighten the context of the importance of such a burial along with the bow, it is worth recalling, although from much later times, but accurately reflecting the believes of the nomads, the statement of the Mongolian leader Belgutei, who stated that nothing was more beautiful for a warrior than lying after death with his bow and quiver 675 .

The chroniclers also mention that the Turks made use of bows in killing the unarmed Christian captives by making them the targets for arrows which, as was presented above, was a part of the presentation the enemy as the persecutor of Christians 676 . However, it seems that this symbolic representation on the pages of accounts could be based on a practice known to the Frankish enemy. Namely, the execution by shooting the captive with arrows, noted also in other sources 677 .

The authors of both accounts make use of symbolic meaning to a bow and an arrow in reference to their Turkish enemy. The chroniclers summarize the victory of Crusaders in the battle of Heraclea by the comparison of the enemies' flight to the strongly shot arrow, that flies from the bowstring from the hands of the experienced archer (Tam celeriter Turci fugiebant, quantum sagitta quando dividit se ab ictu cordae arcus cuiusdam prudentissimi viri) 678 . The chroniclers show that the Turks were forced by the Franks to run away as fast as their arrows. In the earlier passages of both accounts the arrows and bows were described as the scariest weapons used by the Turks.

Therefore, this comparison of the Turks to an arrow could be understood as the ridicule of the enemy. On the pages of both accounts the forces of Agulans, which were a part of Kurbugha's army, were presented in the most spectacular way. According to the chroniclers: The Agulans fear neither lance, nor arrow, nor any other weapon, because they and their horses are entirely covered in iron and they themselves carry no weapons into combat other than swords 679 (Et Agulani […], qui neque lanceas neque sagittas neque ulla arma timebant, quia omnes erant undique cooperti ferro et equi eorum; ipsique nolebant in bellum ferre arma, nisi solummodo gladios 680 ). Furthermore, they numbered three thousand, which on the base of biblical symbolic of the number three emphasizes their importance 681 .

The image of Agulans on the one hand had to be admirable, on the other should arouse the fear in the audience of the chroniclers. The presented vision of Agulans bears in mind the descriptions about the clibinarii (mail-clad riders) or cataphracts, who were a military unit of heavy armoured cavalrymen in the Sassanid Persian, Late Roman and Byzantine Empires 682 . According to the authors of the accounts, such military unit was immune to arrows and numerous injuries, thanks to protective armour. What may have been astonishing for the authors, is that also the horses were covered with armour, which in the face of the cost of equipment, had to arouse respect 683 . The mention of the use of only a sword in combat by this unit indicates that the tactics of this heavy cavalry did not consist in charging, but fighting in close combat. There is also a difference in the representation of the Agulans and the Turks, since the latter fought rather from a distance, avoiding hand-to-hand combat and focusing on the mobility. The Turks were almost always presented as the horse archers, so the appearance of this kind of military unit seems to be of a different origin. The Turks were a minority in the regions under the political influences of the Abbasid Caliphate, despite their military skills or political significance. The service of the Turkish mercenaries in the Abbasid Caliphate has been confirmed since almost the beginning of 9th century, but in the Islamic world the Turks were a leading force from 1055 684 . Naturally, the Turks had to use the support of other nations from Caliphate, from whom they could receive military support, and one of such auxiliary troops could have been heavy cavalry, armed on the pattern of the Old Persian clibinarii or cataphracts. Most likely, the Turkish atabeg took such equipped warriors to his campaign or rather 679 GF (Dass), p. 71. Sultan Barkyaruq could send him aid of such military unit. Therefore, this passage could be interpreted not only as not the authors' invention, but also as the observation of the soldier from the battlefield, who saw the forces fighting in this way.

The enemy's wiliness

On the pages of both accounts, in the representation of the enemy a role is played by their use of ambushes toward the Franks. For instance, the forces of Fatimids prepare the ambushes around each fountain, a source of water and vineyards, attacking every Christian, who wanted to drink or eat during the road of crusading army to Jerusalem (Saraceni namque in cunctis fontibus et aquis latentes insidiabantur nostris eosque ubique occidebant et dilaniabant) 685 .

In the description of the battle of Heraclea, the Turks awaited the knights of the Christ (Christi milites). According to the authors, the Turks lay in ambush and waited for the Christians' army (expectans et insidians) 686 , despite their great number (nimia Turcorum) 687 . On the one hand this information shows the bad character of the enemy, who wanted to fight insidiously that is not in the open battle, but he had to use the tricks to gain a victory over Christians. Furthermore, the Turks were great in numbers, so they should attack boldly, because there were no contraindications justifying their conduct. However, the Crusaders attacked the enemy courageously and the Turks were defeated. In contrast to the Gesta Francorum, Peter Tudebode adds a passage that the victory was achieved with the help of God and the forces of the enemy were destroyed by the nod of God (Deo annuente) 688 . This Tudebode's annotation could be interpreted not only as the praise of God, but also as a clear indication on the God's help and approval for the expedition.

However, not all of the Turks' ambushes end well for the Franks. In the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the Turks prepare the ambush for the Crusaders during the siege of Antioch, knowing that Bohemond and Robert of Flanders do not participate in the siege of the city at that time 689 . In the version of Tudebode, both leaders of crusading forces were considered at this time as the bravest men among the Franks 690 . Bohemond and Robert of Flanders enjoyed the fresh glory of victory in the battle against the succour of Antioch, being described by Peter Tudebode as prudentissimos milites (the very wise or skillful men) 691 . In the narration, their absence was the 685 reason for the Turkish attack launched on the Crusaders. In the reality of narration, without help of such great commanders, the Franks must have born heavy losses. Hence in the battle many Christians were killed and among them was a seneschal of Adhémar of Le Puy 692 .

The enemy used the tricks after the defeat at Nicaea. After the speech of Kilij Arslan, the chroniclers show the wiliness of the enemy 693 . Namely, the Turks who fled did not admit their defeat and used a trick to conquer Christian lands. When the Turks came to the castles or the cities in the Christian lands, they told that they crushed the forces of the Crusaders and there was no power in the whole region, which could overcome the Turks. Hearing these words, the Christian inhabitants let the enemy enter the cities and castles. Immediately, the Turks started to sack the churches, homes and other places; they took the spoils consisting of gold, silver and livestock 694 . Furthermore, the Turks took with them Christian children, which is often interpreted as the record of the Turks' custom of kidnapping children who would become warriors, on the pattern of future Janissaries 695 .

Although the Janissaries were a specific military unit established in the 14th century by the Ottomans, the practice of taking the children for a military service was common in the Muslim world before that period; as could be indicated on the exapmle of the Ottoman practice of devshirme (the tribute in blood), having its roots in the well established practice of military slavery 696 . For instance, the Fatimid Caliphate took the young men from Armenians, Copts or even Turkish families, and trained them to be slave-bodyguards or a slave-householders, serving in administration and with military functions. Such slaves were known as "mamlūk" or "ghulam".

Many of them gained high dignities, such as Badr al-Jamali, who was of Armenian descent and whose son, al-Afdal, was the Grand Vizier during the First Crusade. However, it rather seems that in this case, perhaps based on a factual basis, the authors wanted to exaggerate the mercilessness of the enemy, and the label of the children's kidnappers was a part of a broader context of this passage, when they also sacked the homes, churches and all the possessions of the Christian people. This narration could be interpreted that the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account may be understood to some extent as a collection of exempla, which shows the sinful, wicked Turks 692 GF, XIV, 2, p. 255; PT, p. 67. 693 (iniquissimos Turcos) 697 , or the dreadful barbarians (iniquissimi barbari) 698 . The superlative form of iniquus ("unjust", "unfair", "unfavourable" or this is an equivalence iniquus = peccator) presents the moralistic tone of the passage and highlights the negative way of representing the Turks. In this perspective, highly probable is that the authors used the factual substrate in the form of a wellestablished custom in the Muslim world in the form of practice of military slavery to make a narration about taking the Christian children from their families, emphasizing the "otherness" of the enemy. At the beginning of both accounts, the expedition of Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir was presented, which is commonly named the Peasants' or the People's Crusade. The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere were not direct participants of these events, so their testimony comes from outside their own experiences. Most likely, these are the news, stories of other participants that were heard by the authors, and which circulated among the Crusaders as a warning, an example of how not to behave as well as the literary invention, based on the rumours. A moralistic tone of narration can be observed from the first moments of the description. Alexius I advised him that it would be better not to cross the Bosporus without the arrival of other Crusaders' armies. The main reason was the strength of the Turks, whose Peter's army had no chance to defeat. However, the Crusaders started to plunder and loot the imperial capital not sparing the churches from which they stole lead from the roofs and sold it to the Byzantines. In consequence of such behaviour the Emperor ordered to the Crusaders to cross the Bosporus. After this, the participants of the expedition arrived in Nicomedia in Asia Minor, without changing their behaviour. They burned and pillaged the houses and churches on their way to this city. Finally, "the northern Italians" (Lombardi 700 ), "the southern Italians" (Longobardi 701 ) and the Germans (Alamanni 702 ) separated from the Franks, because of their superbia -"haughtiness", "pride", "arrogance": ubi divisi sunt Lombardi et Longobardi et Alamanni a Francis, quia Franci tumebant superbia 703 (the Lombards, the Longobards and the Germans separated from the Franks, because the Franks were bloated with pride) 704 . The superbia was one of the most important sins of the knights in the medieval moralistic and it was condemned in the Bible 705 . Probably, the most influential sentence is that the Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall 706 . It was the reason for the Lucifer's rebellion and fall, who, in a great pride wanted to set his own throne above the stars 707 . The idea of the superbia as a sin in a Western medieval culture comes from two sources: the ancient tradition and the Bible 708 . In the ancient ethic a trait ὕβρις (hybris) was condemned, which signifies an extreme foolish pride of overconfidence. This trait was used to describe someone who challenged the gods, e.g. Odysseus or Oedipus, and he would be punished 709 .

In the Old Testament, a sin is always connected with a rebellion against God and the pride is considered as a trait, which could break the pact between God and Israelites. A trait of superbia gained a grand status in the Christian thought. super-temporal, essential ground of Evil and sin 711 . According to the medieval chronicles, superbia was a reason for the military defeats, the fall of kingdoms and civil wars 712 .

In connection with the description at the beginning of both accounts, where the knights with a pure heart and spirit should take part in the expedition, the image of unbridled and arrogant participants appears, who does not refrain from looting Christians and pillaging the churches in Byzantine Empire. Such behaviour raises moral doubts in the success of the mission to retake the Holy Sepulchre, because even if it is a divine plan against the pagans, the Christians should be pious and blameless by the sins. The belief in the relationship between success in the fight and zeal in the sphere of religious practices was common topos in the Christianitas.

In the Historia Wambae written by Julian of Toledo in about 680 there is a description of the conflict between the king of the Visigoths Wamba (672-680) and the rebellions 713 . When the king heard that his own troops committed adultery, and set fire to houses, he punished them with greater severity than if they had rebelled against him. The monarch justified the decision that his army awaited a trial by battle -iudicium belli, examen pugnae. The king was convinced that if he had not avenged the sins of his warriors, he would suffer defeat. In his opinion, if he saw the wickedness of the people and failed to punish them, he would not avoid the judgment of God, who gave the victory to the just. Wamba in the Julian's chronicle was indeed the rightful and anointed king, established by God, and the enemies raised hands on him. However, the monarch was troubled by the behaviour of the soldiers. The virtuous king or leader was not enough, but the whole army, the people needed to be zealous in the religious practices. By this analogy, the perspective of the behaviour of Crusaders in Constantinople and Asia Minor could be the explanation why the story about the People's Crusade had to end badly.

However, Peter the Hermit stayed in Constantinople and did not take part in these events.

The leader who led to the disaster of the Crusade's army was someone else. The knight named Rainald was elected as a leader of the Lombards, Longobards and Germans 714 . The army under his command went into Asia Minor and occupied the abandoned castle of Xerigordon, where there were no people, but plenty of grain, wine, meat and other things. The Turks heard about the Christians in the castle and they wanted to besiege it. Rainald prepared the ambush for the Turks, but they arrived on the day dedicated to Saint Michael and discovered the Rainald's forces. It seems that the day is not given on the pages of accounts by an accident. Saint Michael is the leader of the all virtues. Furthermore, he is considered as the one who takes the souls to Heaven and weighs their deeds in the balanced scales. Saint Michael is also the guardian of the Church and patron of the Chosen People 715 .

In the face of a symbolic recall of the day of Saint Michael, the Rainald's army was sorely tested in terms of piety and earlier deeds. The trial did not go well, because the Christians were slaughtered and the rest of them fled into the castle. The Turks soon cut off the castle of water sources and thus a disaster of the Christians began. They tried to quench their thirst by drinking their urine, the blood of theirs horses and donkeys, and even the liquid from the belts and rags which was thrown into the cesspits 716 . The description shows what kind of torments the people on the earth can suffer for their sins.

However, despite all the sins the Christians preserve a chance of salvation. The bishops and priests supported the besieged by exhorting them to hold fast by saying: Estote ubique fortes in fide Christi et nolite eos timere, qui vos persequuntur, sicuti Dominus dicit: "Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam vero non possunt occidere" 717 (Be at all times strong in the Christian faith, and fear not those who persecute you, as Lord says: "Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul"). Even if the Christians drink uncleanliness and suffer because of the Turks, the Crusaders should not be afraid of the enemy, because he does not kill the soul and they should be strong in their faith in Christ.

After eight days of the siege Rainald, now on the pages of both accounts presented as a leader only of the Germans (dominus Alamannorum 718 ), made a pact with the Turks and many of his companions went with him to the enemy and became Muslims. The apostasy of the leader and some of his comrades completes the image of sinners who pulled through its behaviour the disaster for the Christians. The apostasy was in itself considered as a greater crime against the faith than the unbelief and paganism, because the apostate knew the true faith and rejected it. Someone who leaves the Church becomes excluded from the whole community and excommunicated. Rainlad was portrayed as the weak leader who was defeated on the battlefield and in the face of risk of the loss of life, he betrayed the Crusaders. In reference to the words made by bishops and priests, Rainald lost not his body, but his soul in contrast to those who remained in the Christian faith.

The other Crusaders did not have an easy fate. Those who were captured alive were divided like sheep between the winners (diviserunt quasi oves 719 ). A part of them became the martyrs in a 715 horrible way as the targets for arrows. This kind of the persecution of Christians brings to mindthe figure of Saint Sebastian, who was martyred during the reign of Emperor Diocletian. The archers shot at him until he was as full of arrows as a hedgehog, but miraculously the arrows did not kill him. A similar martyrdom gained Edmund the Martyr, the king of East Anglia from the 9th century.

The Danes from the Great Heathen army shot him with arrows and then beheaded him, on the order of the famous commanders: Ivar the Boneless and his brother Ubba 720 . This kind of martyrdom death on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia stays in the symbolical reference to the persecution of Christians from the hands of unbelievers and emphasizes the "otherness" of the Turks as the new persecutors of Christians.

The others participants of the Crusade were sold or given like animals on the market square.

They were taken to the place where the Turks lived: to Khorasan, Antioch, Aleppo, and to other places. The chroniclers summarize this part of the narrative with a phrase, nonetheless tinged with hope of salvation: Isti primo felix acceperunt martyrium pro nomine Domini Iesu (Such were the first ones to accept martyrdom in the name of Lord Jesus) 721 . 2.4.5.1.2. The massacre in Civetot -the priest's death on the altar Shortly after the victory over the Christians at Xerigordon, the Turks heard that in the castle of Civetot stayed Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir. A while ago though Peter the Hermit had returned to Constantinople. Finally, the Turks attacked Civetot and killed Walter and his men. After that, they slaughtered a great number of Christians in the castle: Irruentes vero Turci super eos occiderunt multos ex eis; alios invenerunt dormientes, alios iacentes, alios nudos, quos omnes necaverunt 722 (Some they found sleeping, some lying down, others naked, they killed all of them). In the author's opinion, it was a truly merciless act of the enemy, because the Turks could not fight as equals with the innocent, unarmed, sleeping and even naked Christians.

However, the other action seems to be the most important in the whole passage in both sources. Among the salin of innocents, the death of the priest celebrating Mass was given. In the Gesta's version: cum quibus quemdam sacerdotem invenerunt missam celebrantem, quem statim super altare martyrizaverunt 723 (With these people they found a certain priest celebrating Mass, whom they immediately martyred upon the altar). Whereas Peter Tudebode notes: Unum quoque 720 Abbon of Fleury, Vita sancti Aedmundi, PL 139, col. 507-520. 721 presbyterum celebrantem missam super altare invenerunt, cumque statim martyrizaverunt 724 (They also found a one priest celebrating Mass, whom they immediately martyred upon the altar) 725 .

The composition of the narration of the priest's death on the altar in Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere looks very similar. In the indicated narration, the authors used the word with specific symbolical meaning to identify the nature of the death of an anonymous priest. The verb martyrizare -"to make a martyr of", "to kill as a religious martyr", "martyrize" has the same linguistic core as martyr, -is, and it is a clear indication of the martyrdom of the priest who suffered because of his Christian religion 726 .

The description of the priest's death on the altar has a wider religious context, which should be taken into account. In the tradition of the Old Testament the killing of a priest on the altar is a particular motif of religious conflict. In the Second Chronicles, a priest of Baal -Mattan, was killed before his altar 727 . During the religious changes, Josiah, the king of Judah, killed the priests on the altars, which had been built by the kings of Israel to provoke the Lord 728 . The priest Mattathias in the 1st Book of the Maccabees murdered on the altar a certain Jew who wanted to offer a sacrifice according to the royal edict of Seleucid's king 729 . Another example is from the Book of Lamentations, in which there is an indication, that the sacred place like altar or temple should not be a place of the death of priests and prophets 730 . Likewise, in the New Testament, the place between the Temple and the altar was shown by Jesus as the place of the death of Zechariah son of Berachiah 731 . Furthermore, to understand the nature of the description about the priest's martyr death, the symbolism of the altar in Christianity is important. The altar is a place of sacrifice and carries with it the right of asylum 732 . A man with a heart full of anger cannot come to the altar and make a sacrifice, because it is like an act which approaches closer to God 733 . It is a sacred and holy place, because of the presence of God in it 734 734 The altar is also associated with the idea that the very act of sacrifice on the altar transforms acts, goods, people into "something better" (in melius transmutando), cf. in Vincentius' description, which clearly places this event in the sphere of literary topos 741 .

In both examples the authors describing the death of a priest on the altar showed that this was a martyrdom of the God's servant and a crime of tyrants in a sacred place, where the valiant acts made on God's anointed would be punished. For the murderer of the priest, Bolesław the Bold was punished by the deposition from the throne, an exile and death of the successor. Bishop Vincentius summarizes the whole narration by a phrase that the king took the shepherd from the sheepfold and the bridegroom from the bride's womb in that brutal act 742 .

Returning to the passage from the Gesta and Historia. In the opinion of the authors, the martyr's death is the glorification of an anonymous priest. He receives not only the palm of martyrdom, but also he is a sacrifice offered on the altar, who proclaims the promise future of the expedition and divine approval for all of the Crusaders. In the Christian tradition, the place of the martyrs is indicated by the words of Revelation: When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained 743 . In the common opinion, the martyrdom was a great honour and a glorious sacrifice.

In this perspective, the anonymous priest will receive a great privilege: he will be in paradise alongside other martyrs.

The narration of the priest's death on the altar should be considered as the phenomenon of "xenophany". The Turks, as the enemy-infidel, violated and broke the domain of sacrum, so they are a threat for the Christianitas. From this point of view, it is a clear indication of their "otherness" and this rhetoric is a language of exclusion of the Turks from the circle of the civilized world known to the authors. In the indicated passages, the "others" are cruel, merciless and violate the basic principles of the Christian faith. The sacred customs and traditions of the Christian's oikumene are in danger: the infidels could desecrate a sacred place with human blood by killing the priests during the celebration of the Mass. Such a merciless act undoubtedly deserves condemnation.

To develop this line of interpretation and bearing in mind the symbolism of the altar, it should be pointed out that the story emphasizes the "otherness" of the Turks on the basis of the "us (Christians) -them" (infidels) dichotomy. To emphasize the death on the altar as an aspect of the stigmatization of the bestiality and barbarity of the enemy the classical literature should be taken into account as a comparative material, which could indicate the function and symbolic meaning of 741 this act. Assuming that the author of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode could have contact with education at the trivium level, they could have an access to Aeneid of Virgil, which was a highly valuable classical work in the Medieval Ages 744 . In the Virgil's Aeneid Pyrrhus, son of Achilles meets with the condemnation associated with the violation of the sacrum. After the capture of Troy, Pyrrhus slaughters Priam on the altar like a sacrificial animal, and shortly before his death, he must observe how his son Polites is killed. Priam reprimands Pyrrhus for such a disgrace and barbarity.

Moreover, Pyrrhus kills the ruler of Troy in a place protected by the right of asylum 745 .

In the Aeneid this act indicates barbarity in a sense of cruelty, merciless and violation of the cultural norms. A similar function to that in the Aeneid' episode with Pyrrhos and Priam is played by the death on the altar in the rhetoric of the analysed passages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia. The Turks are considered to be "other". They are condemned for their deeds, they do not adhere to generally accepted social norms and they will soon be punished for their cruelty 746 . All the differences in the sphere of the morality and religion in the analysed passages are a clear sign of the perceived "otherness" -an aspect of the phenomenon of "xenophany". Furthermore, in this narration, the authors of Gesta and Historia could recall the oral tradition that may exist among the Crusaders. Maybe the authors listened to it from the participants of the so-called Peasants' Crusade, because the chroniclers could not take part in this event; although it is more likely that the indicated narration was based on the well-established literary tradition, but perhaps the death of the priest on the altar could have been linked to factual events during the massacre of crusading camp.

Battles of Princes' Crusade

Most of the battles described in both accounts take place after the Peasants' Crusade. The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere took part in the so-called Princes' Crusade, so their accounts gain the status of participant observation. 2.4.5.2.1. Battle against the Turkish succour of Nicaea Battle against Kilij Arslan's succour during the siege of Nicaea was the first confrontation for the Franks from the so-called Princes' Crusade with their enemy on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia. However, the authors did not put much attention to this 744 Cf. D. Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages, Princeton 1885 [repr. 1997]. 745 Aeneis, II, Similar image of Saracens' cruelty and atrocity could be found in the chansons de gestes, cf. P. Bancourt, op. cit., pp. 156-195. struggle. The composition of the battle was based on binary opposition between the Christians and the Turks. The forces of Kilij Arslan, who were coming to rescue of Nicaea, took the ropes for the Crusaders whom they wanted to capture after the success in the battle and lead off the Christians to their lands 747 . Furthermore, the Turks went to fight with joy (venientes autem laetantes) 748 . The enemy is presented as overconfident, showing neither humility nor respect for the Christians. From the moralistic perspective, such a behaviour must be condemned. Therefore, the Turks were destroyed by the Franks, which was emphasized by the chroniclers: Quotquot descenderunt, illic caesis capitibus a manibus nostrorum remanserunt 749 (But all those who came down had their heads cut off by the hands of our men) 750 .

The further description mentions the heads of the Turks, which were hurled into the city of Nicaea by Crusaders 751 . In the medieval warfare the psychological techniques of raising threat and terror among opponents was a common tactic and reminded of the consequences of continuing the battle. To help weaken the moral of the city's defenders, attackers could throw the heads or other body parts into the walls, using the siege machines, such as catapults. Therefore, the Crusaders' act could be interpreted as a common military practice, containing a huge dose of humiliation of the enemy, showing the advantage of the attackers, who wanted to spread fear among the defenders.

Furthermore, the decapitation could be considered as an act of vengeance on the enemy. There are some examples from medieval literature, where the cutting off of the head of the enemy is caused by revenge, which the hero performs on his opponent, who previously harmed him or his relatives.

For example, in one of the tales of the Irish mythological cycle, Dengus catches up with Fuanmach and cuts his head, making not only the act of justice but also, or maybe most of all, to his own honour 752 .

After this battle and a few struggles, the Turks from Nicaea's garrison surrendered to the Byzantine Emperor, when Alexius I decided to put ships with well-armed army into a lake surrounding the city and interrupt in this way the chance of defenders to receive supplies. Both chroniclers summarize the siege of Nicaea with a conclusion that many of the expedition's participants received there a martyrdom and now they are happy in Heaven Crusade, where during the siege of Civetot by the Turks, the clergymen supported the besieged, saying that they should be strong in their Christian faith 756 . However, there is a significant difference; as it was shown, in the narrative reality the Peasants' Crusade, due to the committed sins, was defeated by the enemy, while at the Dorylaeum, the action was turned into a successful side for the Crusaders.

The succour of the second Frankish contingent arrived in the crucial moment of the battle and that was decisive in the victory. The forces of Adhémar of Le Puy encircled and attacked the Turks. In consequence, the Turks fled and left the camp to the Crusaders. The chroniclers mention that if the God had not been with the Franks in this battle, none of the Christians would have survived. Therefore, the help of the second contingent was considered as the God's help, who according to the authors did not want the annihilation of the Christians' forces 757 . After the victory great spoils were obtained. Among the loots were even the items that the Christians did not know what they were, which points to certain cultural differences in material culture. The lack of names for these things on the pages of accounts and the problem in determining what exactly fell prey to 754 For a military history of the battle, cf. J. the Crusaders suggests that it could be a general indication on the wealth of spoils and luxury of enemy.

Battle against Kurbugha

The central point of both accounts, which takes up the most space, is the siege of Antioch. A narration about the decisive battle against the Kurbugha's army is the key moment of the Crusade in turn. However, before the battle itself was presented, the image of the enemy was strengthened by the narrations about the preparations for the battle from the Crusaders' side. On the one hand, some prophetic signs of the victory were presented in both accounts such as the presentation of the bad weapons used by Franks, the speech of Kurbugha, the sign of a fire which appeared in the night sky, the description about the Turkish noble commander who would donate the citadel to the Franks if they won over the Muslims in the battle that would come. On the other hand, the authors presented the situation in the Christian camp.

Many of expedition's participants deserted, among whom were indicated by name in the Gesta Francorum William of Grandmesnil, his brother Alberic, Guy Trousseau, and Lambert the Poor 758 . Peter Tudebode adds to this list Ivo of Grandmesnil, William of Bernella, and unknown William, the son of Richard 759 . Furthermore, among the deserters was Stephen Count of Chartres, described as "ignorant", "unskilled" or "unaware" (imprudens; staying in contrast to Bohemond often described as prudens), and who was elected as a main commander of the Crusade, and after desertion he even informed the Byzantine Emperor that the Franks were doomed 760 . The indication by name covered these characters in infamy as well as their whole families with them, because they abandoned their comrades in the face of the enemy. In a society of warriors where honour, loyalty and military skills played an important role, such narrative solutions could have a significant impact on the formation of memory through the moralizing tone. In both accounts they were severely punished. However, they also made other bad things, that is when they came to the port of Saint Symeon, they said to the sailors that the whole expedition was doomed. Hearing this, the sailors were trucked with terror and they ran to the ships and headed for the sea. Then the Turks attacked all of them and killed those that they found and burned the ships 761 . The death of the sailors and deserters in the port of Saint Symeon had a moralistic tone; in the face of the enemy, the Crusaders must stay courageous and faithful believers in God like during the battle of Dorylaeum. If not they 758 GF, XXIII, 2, pp. 332-333; PT, p. 97. 759 PT, p. 97. 760 GF, XXVII, 1, p. 353; cf. PT, p. 104. 761 GF, XXIII, 3, pp. 334-335; PT, pp. 97-98. would be punished by death from the hands of Turks.

The important content in a description of the preparation for the battle at Antioch is the vision of a certain priest; unnamed in Gesta Francorum's account, but in the Tudebode's narration named Stephen 762 . This priest presents the vision which he had seen when he lay face down in the church of Saint Mary. In his vision appeared Saint Peter, Mary and Jesus Christ, who told him that a victory would be given to the Crusaders and in five days Jesus promised the help from the Heaven 763 . However, the expedition's participants should do penance and especially banish the pagan women (paganis mulieribus), as they were the reason for the sin, described by the chroniclers as a great stench (immensus fetor) 764 . Furthermore, according to the vision, the Franks should also make the acts of religious zeal, such as daily singing of the congregati sunt, which, as it was mentioned above, is a song that refers to the biblical Maccabean Revolt and has a strong connection to the war of the Chosen People versus their persecutors 765 . Moreover, on the pages of both accounts another vision was described. This time Saint Andrew appears to a certain pilgrim, who was named Peter in Gesta Francorum or Peter Bartholomew in the Tudebode's Historia 766 . Apostle informs that the Holy Lance is in the church of Saint Peter 767 . However, for the first time the pilgrim did not tell anyone about this vision, but when Saint Andrew appeared to him one more time, he believed in the word of Apostle. The Saint said that in five days the Lord would send a message which would fill them with joy and with cheer.

However, they should stay strong in one faith in a true God and in consequence of this; all their enemies would be defeated.

The number of five, which appeared in both visions, has a specific biblical meaning, which could bring the narration and a message of the chroniclers closer. It signals that there is something extra, this is the sign of grace, the gift, if this five is fulfilled 768 . In the Book of Genesis the patriarchs often have children when they reach a certain age of plus five years. They also die with additional five years 769 . A clear sign of something added is the five loaves of bread for the miraculous feeding of five thousand people 770 . The five is also a number of the books of Moses, five parts of the book of Psalms and it indicates the power of God. This perspective clearly shows that if the Crusaders fulfil the requirements: the faith in a true God, the exile of the Muslims' women and 762 PT, p. 98. 763 GF, XXIV, 3, p. 339; PT, p. 99. 764 GF, XXIV, 2, p. 337; PT, p. 99. 765 Cf. D. Forstner,op. cit.,p. 51. 769 Gen. 5.11;5.15;5.17;5.21;5.23;5.30;5.32. 770 Luke 9.12-16. singing congregati sunt, they will defeat their enemies.

In the Tudebode's account, Saint Andrew and Saint Peter showed the place where a Holy Lance is to Peter Bartholomew. After this, they made a miracle; they said to the pilgrim that he should come back to the Crusaders' forces, but he replied that this was impossible, because of the Turks who would obviously kill him. Hearing that, the Apostles said that the pilgrim should not be afraid and just go to his comrades, so Peter Bartholomew went back to the Frankish army and the Turks, who saw him as well, did not do anything to him 771 . After these two visions, there is a presentation of the Turkish attack from the citadel of Antioch, which is in fact a narration about the hero, named Hugo li Forcenez or Hugo lo Forsenet, who belonged to the army of Godfrey of Monte Scabioso 772 . The Turks stormed the tower, which was defended by three Crusaders 773 . Two of them were wounded, but the third one was fighting for the whole day. Hugo killed two of the Turks and broke three lances in his hands. The information about such a small skirmish, where there were only three Crusaders and some of attackers from two out of whom were killed, suggests the character of the sources as the story of knightly deeds. Most likely, both accounts were prepared for the knights' audience, among which the personal pattern of a great warrior was highly valued.

Before the battle, some prophetic signs reveal the future victory of the Christians over the Kurbugha's army. As it was mentioned above, the first one was the behaviour of the Turkish commander of Antioch's citadel appointed by Kurbugha, and the second one was the speech of the mother of enemy's leader. Another sign is a fire, which appeared in the night sky before the battle.

The Turks from a citadel of Antioch attacked the Crusaders every day and night. The situation did not improve even after the Bohemond burned two thousand churches and houses around the area of Yaghi Siyan's palace in Antioch. Furthermore, the forces of Kurbugha encamped in a valley near the citadel. The chroniclers present the dramatic situation of the Franks, who besieged and were besieged, who suffered from the hands of the enemy and because of a great famine. At this moment of the narration, a fire appeared in the sky, coming from the West and it fell upon the army of the Turks: Nocte quippe superveniente ignis de caelo apparuit ab occidente veniens et appropinquans cecidit intra Turcorum exercitus 774 . This event greatly amazed both the Turks and the Franks. In the morning the Turks, who were frightened and scared of the fire, fled from their positions 775 .

Worth mentioning is that this mark was also noted by Raymond of Aguilers 776 . In historiography it is assumed that it was probably a meteor or a shooting star 777 . However, attention should be paid to the narrative role of this passage in Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia.

Perhaps the biblical perspective can be a helpful analogy in understanding the sign of ignis de caelo (the fire from the sky). It appears in the 2 Kgs 1.1-19, where Azahiah, king of Judah, tired of illness sent messengers to Ekron to find out from Beelzebub whether he would recover. However, his messengers were detained by Elijah, who reminded that God was in Israel and Azahiah would be punished by death for looking for help in a different god. The king sent soldiers to Elijah, but he, proving that he was a messenger of God, sent fire on the Ahaziah's soldiers twice: Si homo Dei sum, descendat ignis de caelo, et devoret te, et quinquaginta tuos. Descendit itaque ignis de caelo, et devoravit eum, et quinquaginta qui erant cum eo (If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men) 778 . At the end Ahaziah died in his bed, being punished for his sin. In this perspective, the fire from the sky appears as a sign of God's punishment and a confirmation of Elijah's divine mission. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them) 779 . This example clearly indicates that the evil army will be destroyed by fire from Heaven. Such an image could be easily adapted to the literary vision of cultural conflict, between the army of God and their enemy. Therefore, the fire from the sky in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia brings to mind the God's presence and aid to the Crusaders, showing that they are under the God's protection and their religious enemy will be punished. Thus, the ignis de caelo in both narration plays its narration role of a prophetic mark sent by God, showing the future victory of the Crusaders over their enemy. Furthermore, worth emphasizing is that the fire come from the West, just like the Franks, and logically it falls down in the East, in the camp of the Turks, which could also be considered as a promise sign.

However, according to the chroniclers, the situation in the Crusaders' camp was dramatic, 777 Cf. GF, note 26, p. 350. 778 2 Kgs 1.10; 1.12. also because of a great famine; the Franks ate the flesh of horses and donkeys, trees and leaves of figs or vines, and all the food was extremely expensive 780 . In such a situation, the authors write about the discovering of the Holy Lance in the church of Saint Peter, which was indicated by Peter Bartholomew. That was the crucial event for the morale of the whole army. Peter Tudebode even writes that the other Christians in a city of Antioch; Syrians, Greeks and Armenians sang Kyrie eleison and said in Greek: Kalo Francia fundari Christo exsi 781 . Despite their poor condition, the army of the Franks was endowed with an artefact that testified about the veracity of the vision. The change in the morale of Christians in the narrative framework of both accounts could be clearly observed.

At this point it should be indicated, that the embassy of Peter the Hermit and Herluin to Kurbugha, mentioned above, was presented by the authors from the position of strength, and not from the perspective of the poor beggar who asks for mercy 782 . T. Asbridge, basing on the later Latin as well as Arab and Armenian souces, argues that the Crusaders' situation described in the Gesta Francorum departed from the factual state of affairs, according to which the Franks ask for mercy and safety passage to their lands, because of their tragic situation and power of the Kurbugha's army 783 . However, in the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa written around 1113-1140, after the mention which was taken into account by T. Asbridge, that the Crusaders asked Kurbugha for return to their homelands in exchange for abandoning the city of Antioch, there is also another information 784 . Namely, Matthew of Edessa writes that the God, seeing the great suffering of the Franks, had mercy on them, sending a vision in which the place where the relic of the Holy Lance was located. After that, the morale of the Crusaders rose on the wave of religious fervour and according to Matthew of Edessa, they were delighted when a messenger from Kurbugha arrived, demanding a battle. Bohemond and other leaders of the expedition accepted the proposal of the enemy and they set the date of the battle for the next day 785 . Thus the testimony of Matthew of Edessa is maintained in the narrative framework, which appears also in Gesta Francorum and 784 Matthew of Edessa, Extraits de la Chronique de Matthieu d'Édesse,RHC Arm. 1,II,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF]p. 41. 785 Ibid., II, 6, pp. 41-42. after Peter the Hermit and Herluin came back to the Crusaders' camp from Kurbugha, the Christians started to prepare for the final battle by three days of fasting and going in procession. Everyone confessed their sins, took part into masses and received the Holy Communion under two forms: the Body and Blood of Christ, outlining spiritual preparations for the upcoming clash 786 .

The chroniclers mention that the Crusaders divided their army into six battle lines. In the first one, there were Hugh, brother of king of France, and Robert of Flanders. In the second one there was Duke Godfrey. In the third Robert of Normandy. In the fourth Adhémar of Le Puy with the Holy Lance and with warriors of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who remained in a city to protect the army from the attacks of the Turks in the citadel of Antioch. In the fifth one there was Tancred and, according to Peter Tudebode, Gaston of Béarn with the forces from Poitou 787 . In the sixth one there was Bohemond 788 .

According to both accounts, the Crusaders' army had a strong religious support. The bishops, priests, clerks and monks, dressed in the holy vestments, led them out with crosses and prayed for them to God for the protection from all evil during the battle. Furthermore, the rest of the expedition's participants stood on the walls with the holy crosses in their hands and gave blessing to the warriors and made the sign of the Cross. In this case, the biblical discourse should be invoked.

Namely, the Israelites after escaping from Egypt, camped in Rephidim, where they were attacked by the Amalek. Moses watched the battle from above, holding up his raised hands. Thanks to his prayer, the Israelites were victorious 789 . Similarly, in one of the battles against the Philistines, the prayers of Samuel were the reason for the Israelites' victory 790 participate in a campaign against the enemy 792 . Furthermore, in the description of the siege of Ma'arrat an-Numan on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the priests and clerks from the Christian army prayed to and begged God for the protection during the assault using the siege tower 793 . These analogies show the military action as the deed of the whole Franks community into two sphere: in one, the warriors are preparing for a fight, in a second the clergy and civilians are praying for the success and God's protection.

According to both accounts, at the beginning of the battle of Antioch, the Franks started to leave the city. Kurbugha saw the lines of the Crusaders and thought that it would be easier to destroy the whole army of the Franks when they all came out from Antioch, because he could attack them with all his power 794 . However, when the Christians came outside the city, Kurbugha was scared seeing this great army 795 . Then he instructed one of his commanders, that he should at once retreat if he saw a fire lit in front of the army, which would be a sign that the Turks lost the battle 796 .

After that, Kurbugha started to turn back to the mountain, and the Franks followed him. The chroniclers note that when the fight began, the Turks divided into two parts; one went toward the sea, and second stayed at a place, starting to surround the Franks. When the Crusaders saw it, they reacted immediately; they create the seventh battle line from the forces of Duke Godfrey and Robert Count of Normandy, appointed Rainald as a leader and attacked the Turkish battle line which was coming from the sea 797 . During the struggle, the Turks killed many Franks with arrows. In the second battle arena, the Turks encircled the Franks and attacked them with arrows and javelins.

According to the Gesta Francorum in this crucial moment of battle, the God sent help, which he had promised to his believers in the vision:

Exibant quoque de montaneis innumerabiles exercitus, habentes equos albos, quorum vexilla omnia erant alba. Videntes itaque nostri hunc exercitum, ignorabant penitus quid hoc esset et qui essent; donec cognoverunt esse adiutorium Christi, cuius ductores fuerunt sancti, Georgius, Mercurius et Demetrius. Hec uerba credenda sunt, quia plures ex nostris viderunt 798 (And then there was seen, coming from the mountain, an immense army, mounted on white horses, and their banners were also white. When our men saw this army, they did not recognize it, for they did not know whose men these were. Then they understood that this was he very help sent by Christ; and the leaders were Saint George, Saint Mercurius, and Saint Demetrius. This testimony is the truth, 792 BA, II, 10, 8, p. 100. 793 because many of our men saw it) 799 .

The significant detail that distinguishes this narration of Peter Tudebode from the Gesta Francorum is the introduction of the figure of Stephen who received a vision in which the link between religious practices and success in fight against the infidels is emphasized. Furthermore, the commanders of the white horsemen in the Tudebode's Historia were Saint George, Saint Demetrius, but also Saint Theodore (Quorum deductores fuerunt sanctus Georgius et beatus Demetrius et beatus Theodorus -The leaders of this heavenly host were Saint George, the Blessed Demetrius, and the Blessed Theodore), not Mercurius, as in the case of Gesta Francorum 800 . However, all of them belong to one group of holy martyrs and warriors.

The symbolic content associated with the white warriors was important for the chroniclers, which could strengthen morale of the Crusaders and convince them that God was on their side.

Probably some doubts existed about the veracity of the intervention of a holy army, because both authors emphasized that this testimony is the truth, because many Franks saw it (Hec uerba credenda sunt, quia plures ex nostris viderunt) 801 . In the Gesta Francorum and in Peter Tudebode's Historia the appealing to witnesses has the dimension of collective responsibility and it evokes the collective ideas that would be difficult to deny and undermine. Furthermore, the witnesses had a strong socio-cultural responsibility as the participants of the events and usually the chroniclers and their audience trusted in their relations.

The intervention of the white warriors, mounted on white horses on the pages of both accounts probably has a source in the Bible 802 . In the Book of Revelation, the white warrior appears as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and it has a symbolic meaning of the victory of the words of Christ, therefore the Gospel 803 . The 2 Maccabees 11.8 presents a similar figure dressed in white, but there is no mention of a banner or a white horse. The symbolism of the white colour of the holy warriors should be underlined. The white in Christian thought is associated with purity, innocence, or renewal of moral life. The garments of this colour are made up of angels, Jesus Christ, apostles, and saints, especially martyrs, in Heaven 804 . Furthermore, it means that the riders have an emblem of celestial triumph and justice: a white colour. The white banners and horses also demonstrate the purity of the celestial army, which commanders were the military saints, the holy 799 GF (Dass), p. 86. 800 Bailleul in a fiery speech referred to the slogans of fighting the enemies of God and argued that he bestowed his followers care. Soon a white rider appeared on the battlefield: apparuit quidam eques, splendidus in armis, equo albo insidens, album vexillum in summitate hastilis alligatum ferens et desuper splendidam crucem 809 (there appeared a certain knight, magnificient in his armor, mounted on a white horse and carrying a white standard with a splendid cross on it tied to the tip of his lance) 810 . He encouraged the Norman knights to fight and hit himself on the enemy at the strongest point of their combat lines. At that sight, the Christians began to cry and thank God and Saint George, the patron saint of knights, whom they identified with a white warrior. The battle ended with the great victory of the Normans, who killed 35,000 Muslims. In thanks, a messenger with rich gifts to the Pope was sent as the vicar of God on Earth 811 .

In the Malaterra's narration, the small forces of Christians crushed much larger units of the enemy with divine protection, expressed in the form of a white rider. He inspired the Norman 805 E. Lapina, Warfare and the Miraculous..., pp. 54, 75-96. 806 Cf. Isa 6.3; Jer 7.4; cf. D. Forstner, op. cit., pp. 49-50. 807 Malaterra, pp. iv-xiv. 808 Cf. H. Taviani-Carozzi, La terreur du monde: Robert Guiscard et la conquête normande en Italie: mythe et histoire, Paris 1996, pp. 375-376; about Malaterra, II, 33, pp. 43-44. knights and launched an attack on the enemy's strongest force. He appeared almost at the beginning of the battle after the speech in which count Roussel de Bailleul pointed to the divine care surrounding his followers. Muslims were portrayed as a rebellious people against God: Gens ista Deo rebellis est 812 . They are therefore the opposite of the believers in Christ and are therefore defeated.

However, as was pointed out by E. Lapina, the source of such description could be transmitted to Latin Europe form the East, because similar descriptions, containing the intervention of the Saint-Warriors on the battlefield, are relatively popular in the Byzantine literature and art 813 .

For instance, on the psalter of Basil II, the Emperor is presented as surrounded by Saint George, Saint Theodore, Saint Demetrius, Saint Mercurius and Saint Procopius 814 . Except for the last Saint in that list, all the heroes from Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia appear. Furthermore, in the Leo the Deacon's account about the battle against the Rus' in 971 at Dorostolon, a horseman dressed in white who attacks the Byzantine's enemy appears. After the battle the rumour was spread among the Byzantine's soldiers that it was Saint Theodore, to whom Emperor John had prayed before the battle for protection 815 .

It seems that the holy interventions of the military-saints were transmitted to other sources from the 12th century. In the Gesta principum Polonorum of Gallus Anonymous the narration which is similar to the description from the Gesta Francorum and Historia of Tudebode appears. In the Gallus' work, the white rider, as in the abovementioned descriptions, appears in a critical moment. Pomeranians, because of some traitors, have already entered the ramparts of the gord and are only waiting for dawn to kill the Christians living in this place. Seeing this, God sends his knight dressed in white; Saint Adalbert (Wojciech), who in his heroic act alarms the crew of the gord. Pomeranians, who were the pagans, are beaten up and Christians are saved. It should be pointed out that although Saint Adalbert (Wojciech) was not a warrior, he was in a symbolic contact with the saints patrons of the Crusaders, because similarly to them, he was a martyr, and in the opinion of Gallus, he was even an eminent martyr (preciosus martir), which underlines his importance 816 . In the descriptions of Gallus' Gesta principum Polonorum, Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the victory in the fight against the pagans is reflected in a symbolic place and time; in the Gallus' account it is the eve of the dedication of the church in Gniezno, which the 812 Malaterra, II, 33, p. 44. 813 E. Lapina, Warfare and the Miraculous..., pp. 54-74. 814 Ch. Walter, The Thracian Horseman: Ancestor of the Warrior Saints?, "Byzantinische Forschungen" 14 (1989), p.

663. 815 In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the literary device of the warriors-saints, dressed in white has a topical character. White horseman could bring the victory to the Christians even in the most critical situations, especially if they were zealous in the faith and religious practices. The topos of white horsemen performs three critical functions in the crusading rhetoric; it points out the divine approval enjoyed by those on whose side the celestial army appears; it highlights the righteousness, the innocence or the purity of the expedition to Jerusalem, which is related to the white colour of the robes, horses, banners and armour of the knights sent by God; in addition, in the outlined perspective, the division into Christians and their enemy is clearly defined, based on the binary opposition Christiani -pagani.

In both accounts, from the moment of holy intervention, the victory shimmered over to the Crusaders. Seeing the defeat, the Turks attacking from the sea set fire to the grass and started to flee. At this signal, the rest of the Turkish forces snatched up their valuable things and fled from the battlefield. Then, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois and Robert of Flanders, protected by the sign of the Cross, attacked the Turks who rode out by the riverbanks. Seeing this, the rest of Crusaders also attacked this enemy's unit. At this moment of the narration, a clear distinction between the Christians and their enemies was made. The Persians and the Turks 826 , or the Turks and other pagans 827 exclamaverunt; "shouted", "cry aloud", when the Franks invoked the true and living God and started a fight with these lines of the Turks in the name of Christ and the Holy Sepulchre 828 . In this perspective of the chroniclers, the victory of Christians was certain, and according to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, with God's help the Crusaders crushed their enemies. The Franks did not want to plunder the goods, but to kill the enemy and they had long been chasing and killing the Turks, and after that, they gained many spoils 829 . Furthermore, a local community of Syrians and Armenians, when they heard about the defeat of the Turks, started to kill them, wherever they found them 830 .

After the battle the Kurbugha's commander, who was guarding the citadel, surrendered and quickly took the banners of Christian's leaders. In the perspective of the narration, the unnamed Turkish emir knows that the Christians will defeat Kurbugha, because he informed him before the order that he will surrender to the Franks if the atabeg of Mosul loses the battle. In the narrative perspective of both accounts, it creates the box structure, which begins from the speech of the commander with Kurbugha and it has its end in the surrender of a citadel and soon afterward, the baptism of the Turkish commander and some of his men. Christianization in the accounts of the Crusades has its own specific character. This was not an expedition, which has a goal in a conversion of the Turks to the Christian faith. However, the baptism of the Turks appeared on the pages of the crusading accounts, but it is an effect of a God intervention, of a miracle, which is a decisive victory in a dramatic situation. In this perspective, the enemy recognizes the strength of true God, and the truth of Jesus' words, which could be symbolised by the topos of white riders, as the celestial force which testifies about the victory of Christ.

The siege of Ma'arat an-Numan

The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere describe also the military campaign before reaching Jerusalem, in which the image of the enemy was emphasized and the literary framework of the battles' presentation could be observed. The city of Ma'arat an-Numan was described as Marra and presented as a place of great strength 831 . At the beginning, the 827 PT, p. 112. 828 GF, XXIX, 7, p. 377; PT, p. 112. 829 It seems that the spoils of the war was a really important content for the chroniclers and the repetition of the spoils taken by the Crusaders after each victorious battle has a topical character. The authors often enumerate that the Franks took the spoils of gold, silver, weapons and all kind of animals. Probably, that was a literary measure to highlight the enemy's luxury and wealth; cf. W.G. Christians suffer the defeat against the Turks from Ma'arrat an-Numan. The Franks under the command Raymond Pilet attacked this city, but the enemy fought against the forces of Christians with ferocity for all day. Moreover, the Crusaders could not find the water to drink, so the thirst became a huge problem. However, the Syrians and poor pilgrims began to flee, and when the Turks saw that, they attacked them and the massacre began, but as the chroniclers said many participants of the expedition gave their souls up to God, so in their opinion they became the martyrs. In this narration Peter Tudebode mentions that in a battle near Ma'arat an-Numan Arnaldus Tudebode was killed 832 . According to both chroniclers, the main reason for the defeat from the hands of the Turks were the sins of Christians, but they did not record what the sins expressis verbis were 833 .

The next struggle at Ma'arat an-Numan started when Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Bohemond attacked the city, but unsuccessfully, because the Crusaders did not have the siege weapons, except few ladders. After that, Raymond ordered to build a siege tower and attack the city walls. One of the distinguished warrior who participated in the first attack by using this kind of siege weapon was Evrard the Hunter, who loudly blew his horn (tubam fortiter sonans) 834 .

However, the first attack was ineffective, because the defenders made a catapult or other weapon, which hurled stones at the siege tower, and killed almost all of the attaking Crusaders.

Furthermore, they used a Greek fire to burn a weapon of Christians. For the Franks the situation was dramatic, but the chroniclers gave a reason why the Crusaders were not defeated; it was God who would not let the siege tower be destroyed 835 . Further events in both accounts led to the moralistic phrase at the end of the siege that God exalted the Christians and cast down the pagans (christianitatem exaltaret ac paganismum deponeret) 836 . After God saved the siege tower from the fire, William of Montpellier, an another one-episode hero of Crusaders, with many others warriors who were at the platform of a siege tower, attacked the enemies with rocks who stood on the city wall and killed many of them. Furthermore, the Crusaders attacked the Turks from the city wall by using lances and spears in a melee combat and the whole struggle lasted until the evening 837 . During this assault, the priests and clerks from the Christian army, staying behind the siege tower, prayed to and begged God for protection. The function of this symbolic content, as was mentioned above, shows that the prayer to God in the face of enemy could reach the God's protection and victory.

Further description shows the next hero, who was a harbinger of victory, namely Golfier of Daturre, who was the first on the wall of Ma'arat an-Numan. As a consequence of the continuous Christian attack, the defenders began to give way and, despite their great fierce, the Crusaders broke into the city. Bohemond, through the translator, told the leaders of the enemy that they could find refuge in a palace near gate and that would save them from the massacre. However, their fate was different; Bohemond took all their valuable things from them, some of them were killed, some had been sent to Antioch to be sold as slaves. When the Crusaders entered the city, they slaughtered the inhabitants and according to the both accounts: no corner of the city was free of Saracens cadavers, and one could not walk about in the streets of the city without stepping upon Saracen corpses (Nullus angulus civitatis deerat vacuus Saracenorum cadaveribus, vixque poterat aliquis per vias ire civitatis nisi calcando super Saracenorum cadavera) 838 .

The siege of Jerusalem

The narration about the siege of Jerusalem started from the struggle between the Franks and two hundreds Arabs. Raymond Pilet and Raymond of Taurina were in the head of the Christian knights. As the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode note, the Franks defeated the enemy, killed many of them and took thirty horses, because they had a help from God (Deo adiuvante) 839 . After this short mention, the siege of Jerusalem began and the Crusaders started to assault the walls of the city, but without any sign of success. The Franks could not overcome the defenders and soon, the Christians began to suffer from lack of water and food. They had to take water from the distance of six miles and they could not buy bread for a period of ten days.

The rescue was in the port of Japha, where there was a Genoese fleet. A hundred soldiers from the army of Raymond of Saint-Gilles were chosen to protect the ships and men from the port.

After that thirty of them separated and attacked seven hundred warriors of the enemy. Despite the brave attack, the Christians were surrounded and defeated by the enemy. Among the fallen was Achard of Montmerle 840 . However, in both accounts a hero appears, that is Raymond Pilet. A messenger came to him and asked for a rescue by saying that the other Franks are fighting with the enemy and they will die, because of the strength of enemy 841 . Hearing this news, Raymond Pilet rapidly came to the battlefield and attacked the enemy. The description of the battle is presented in the perspective of binary opposition, indicated as the struggle between miles Christi 842 or 838 GF (Dass), p. unbelievers (increduli) 846 . Peter Tudebode for the first time described the Franks as the Jerosolimitanos milites -the Jerusalem knights or rather the knights who went to Jerusalem. The term Jerosolimitanus after the First Crusade was a prestigious title of someone who participated in the expedition to Holy Sepulchre. This nickname was referred to, among others, Robert II of Flanders, who was known as Robert of Jerusalem (Robertus Hierosolimitanus) 847 . Returning to the battle, according to the accounts, the Franks invoking the name of Christ and Holy Sepulchre (which was added by Tudebode), attacked the enemy so fiercely, that every knight struck down his adversary. In the face of such a strong charge the Turks fled. The Crusaders killed many of them and pursued them for four miles, which suggested the symbolic meaning of number four, which means that the Franks victory was complete 848 . However, this battle was only a small success in the narrations in the face of thirst and famine. Furthermore, the enemy of the Franks prepared the ambushes around each fountain, a source of water and vineyards and attacked every Christian, who wanted to drink or eat. They also hid the animals into caverns, caves and mountains 849 . Therefore, the suffering of the Crusaders during the fighting against their enemy is emphasized.

In this place, the account of Peter Tudebode is much different from the version of Gesta Francorum. In the Tudebode's Historia the leaders of the Crusade in the face of all the misfortune took a counsel in which they decided to make a procession around the city of Jerusalem from the church of Saint Marie at Syon to the church of the first martyr Saint Stephen. The priests walked barefoot, which was emphasized as a sign of humility, dressed in the liturgical vestments and with crosses in their hands. They prayed and sang the Psalms in the intention of the deliberation of the Holy Sepulchre and Jerusalem from the pagan race (a paganorum gente deliberet) 850 .

The response of the defenders of city to these events in the Peter's narration is presented in the perspective of the "otherness" in the religious sphere and counteracting toward the attitudes of the Crusaders. Firstly, the Muslims made a similar procession on the walls of the city with the standard of Mohammed and with a piece of cloth of him. Secondly, when the Christians reached the church of Saint Stephen during the procession, the garrison of the city started to laugh, yell at the horns, throwing insults and performed all acts of mockery (clamabant, ululabant cum bucinis et omne genus derisionis quodcumque reperire poterant faciebant) 851 . Furthermore, they made a cross from the wood and in the sight of the Franks, they beat upon the cross with sticks and shattered it against the walls, saying to the Crusaders: Frango agip salip (Franci, est bona crux?), which means

Franks, is this a good cross? 852 . The image of the "other" was highlighted by the act of desecration of the cross, as the sign of the spiritual dimension of the war between the Christians and their enemies; and by the words in the Arabic language, adopted to the Latin alphabet, which highly indicated on the "otherness" of the defenders of Jerusalem in the linguistic sphere, especially that the words were blasphemous from the Tudebode's perspective.

On this view, seeing the humiliation of the cross and blasphemy, using the vocabulary of Tudebode, the Franks, with the pain in their hearts, walked in the procession to the church in Mount of Olives 853 . This place was significant for the whole Christianity, where the Ascension took place.

According to Tudebode, in this place Arnulf of Chocques preached a sermon to the Crusaders in which he told that God sent His mercy to men who followed him even to his grave 854 . The garrison of Jerusalem wanted to threaten the Christians by running between the Holy Sepulchre and Temple of Solomon, but the Franks continued their procession and reached other holy places like the Monastery of Blessed Mary in Josaphat, and finally they returned to Mount of Olives. At the end of the narration, Peter Tudebode informs that he was a participant of this procession and he is an eyewitness of this event 855 .

Tudebode's description of the procession around the walls of Jerusalem is much richer than the versions known from other eyewitnesses' accounts. The multitude of details given by the author, a way of narration and his own mention suggests that he really took part in the mentioned procession. Most likely, Tudebode, as a clerk from Civray, presents the liturgical aspects of military campaign of besieging the Jerusalem, because for him it was an important content. Through this description he could enrich the whole narration by his own memories, evoking the authority of personal participation. The procession, from his point of view, was the way to reverse any failures into the success by emphasizing the zeal in religious practices, which would be rewarded by God's protection over the Franks during the assault. Furthermore, he described the defenders of the city as the spiritual enemy, who desecrated the holy cross and performed many blasphemous acts. In that way, the author considers the siege of Jerusalem as another example of the war against the enemy in the two dimensions; earthly, represented by besiege and military aspects as well as spiritual, indicated by the procession around the city wall. Returning to the siege of Jerusalem. After the procession, only briefly mentioned by Gesta Francorum 856 , the Crusaders prepared the besieging machines and planned that they would attack the city wall from all sides 857 . According to Peter Tudebode, there was a certain event, in which the local communities played a role of the counterespionage. The defenders of Jerusalem sent one of them to spy on the building of the besieging machines. However, Syrians and Greeks from the Crusaders' camp recognized that he was a Saracen, and bring him to the Franks. This passage suggested that the Franks had troubles to distinguish the foe in the face of the local communities.

Probably, the language or especially a personal appearance of Syrians, Greeks and Armenians was not so different to distinguish a foe at first glance. The Franks asked a spy for a reason why he came to their camp and after that they fired him from one of the machines. In such a way, the enemy died in a cruel death by dismembering 858 .

After this mention, on July 15 the Crusaders made a general assault and took the city. The first on the wall was a knight named Letold of Tournai. Only the commander of the garrison, who was in the Tower of David, and some people chosen to slavery alive from the massacre of the Jerusalem. The chroniclers describe that the Franks killed almost the whole population of the enemy, both men and women, and after that they ordered the citizens who survived the massacre to carry the corpses of the dead out of the city and make a mountain of them as high as houses 859 . This short mention provides information that some of the inhabitants of the city were spared, perhaps that were the above-mentioned people chosen to slavery. The chroniclers' mention about the massacre of Jerusalem seems to be useful to understand the perspective of the authors and their intellectual background 862 . In the Tudebode's Historia and Gesta Francorum the enemy from Jerusalem is presented as the race of pagans (gens paganorum), who desecrated the Holy Sepulchre, the Holy Cross, who killed the Christians, both Eastern and Western; and this race of pagans was an obstacle on the pilgrimage to the holy places of Jerusalem.

The extermination of the population of Jerusalem looks similar to the other descriptions on the pages of both accounts, describing the massacres in Antioch, Albara and Ma'arat an-Numan. As it was presented above, in the biblical discourse there is no place to coexistence and to create the community with the pagans 863 , and where murdering of all the population of hostile cities was clearly expressed during the conquering the Canaan 864 . Furthermore, the perspective of Saint Augustine could be indicated as the possible source of inspiration of the authors of the accounts.

According to the Saint Augustine's thought, the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere could consider the enemy as the representatives of the civitas Diaboli, which is the enemy in the spiritual dimension. This view is strengthened by the terms used by the chroniclers to describe the enemy, as the race of pagans, non-believers or more clearly the supporters of the Satan 865 . Nevertheless, the perspective of the authors of both accounts is visible; there is no possibility to create a common society with the enemy, until he is converted to Christianity, and because of the enemy behaviour toward the Christians, the massacre of the population of Jerusalem is justified. of Peter the Hermit, who stayed in Jerusalem. According to both accounts, he ordered and encouraged the Greek and Latin priests to make a procession from Holy Sepulchre to the Temple and pray to God for the Frankish victory 867 . Therefore, the priests and clerks dressed in the sacred vestments led a procession, celebrated the masses and prayed to God to defend His believers.

Furthermore, the Crusaders took on the battlefield the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, who said that everyone who looked for plunder before the end of battle would be excommunicated 868 . After these spiritual preparations for the confrontation against the enemy a description of the battle appears; the Crusaders, as the consequence of their religious zeal, enjoy the God's protection and they go to the battle in the name of Jesus Christ 869 .

The authors of both accounts pay much attention on the battlefield formation of the Frankish forces. The chroniclers present the catalogue of the crusading heroes, indicate the leadership of Godfrey, his brother Eustace of Boulogne, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, Tancred and Gaston of Béarn, who have the command over each group of Christian warriors. Moreover, both accounts mention that the leaders ordered that the foot soldiers and the archers should go in the front of the army 870 . This description suggests the authors' participation in this event or at least that they were knowledgeable of warfare.

The enemy of the Franks was presented in a different way. Namely, the warriors of Fatimids had the vessels, hanging from their necks from which they could drink when they pursued the Franks after the victory 871 . This representation of the enemy, in the perspective of the other examples on the pages of both accounts, seems to have topical character; in the description of the battles of Dorylaeum and against Kurbugha, the enemy took the ropes and chains to enslave the Franks. Therefore, it seems that the aim of all representation of the enemy of that kind was to emphasize their pride: the enemy is overconfident of the victory over the Christians, before the battle was fought. By juxtaposing the behaviour of the Turks and Fatimids with the Christians in the eve of the indicated battles described on the pages of both accounts, the clear opposition of humility/pride could be distinguished. In the moralistic perspective of the narrative reality of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the prideful behaviour of the enemy meets with condemnation. Therefore, the result of the battle for the recipient of the message is already known before a further description of the clash occurs.

In the version of the Gesta Francorum the three events of the battle were shown. Firstly, the count of Normandy attacks the forces of emir who has a standard with a golden apple covered by 867 GF,XXXIX,[START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF]PT,XXXIX,12,p. 493;PT,p. 146. 869 GF,XXXIX,14,PT,p. 146. 870 GF,XXXIX,12,PT,p. 146. 871 GF,XXXIX,14,PT,p. 146. silver on the top. In this struggle, the emir is killed and his banner taken. Secondly, Robert of Flanders attacks the forces of enemy. Thirdly, Tancred attacks the tents of the Fatimids from the middle 872 . According to the Tudebode's Historia, only Robert of Flanders and Tancred attack the enemy 873 . However, the effect was the same; in the consequence of such a strong Frankish charge the enemy fled from the battlefield, and lost many of warriors in the pursuit of Franks.

Both chroniclers highlighted that God was with the Christians and that was the reason for the victory. The enemy of God (inimici Dei) could not even see Christi milites with open eyes, they could not stand up the Franks and the power of God terrified them 874 . The enemy was so terrified that the Fatimids' warriors climbed on the trees to hide before the Crusaders, but they were killed with arrows and in other ways, that they fell on the earth. According to the Tudebode's Historia, they fell down from the trees like birds (more avium ex arboribus precipitabant) 875 . The chroniclers also inform that the Christians beheaded their enemies like an animal in the meat-market (sicut aliquis detruncat animalia ad macellum) 876 . These comparisons of the Fatimids' soldiers to the animals, the birds and slaughter animals, are a clear indication on their weakness in the presented event, which highlighted the size of the Frankish victory 877 .

According to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, after the battle the emir came to the city of Ascalon. In his mouth the chroniclers put on a speech in which the emir grieves and sorrows, because of heavy defeat from the Franks. He says that such a great army, consisting of so many soldiers from many nations, has never been defeated by anyone, neither Christian, nor pagan nation, but now the victory is on the side of a few Christians 878 . Then the emir claims that he was defeated by a race of beggars, unarmed and poverty stricken, who have nothing but a sack and a beggar's bag 879 (a gente mendica, inermi et pauperrima, quae non habet nisi caccum et peram) 880 .

In this passage, the status of Crusaders as the pilgrims was demonstrated: they have sacks and bags instead of the weapons, they are poor. Moreover, the emir indicates that the Franks, the pilgrims in earlier times, pursuing the Egyptian nation, who rather used to give them alms when they were on the pilgrimage than fled from the battlefield because of them 881 . A whole emir's speech seems to be an emphasis on the defeat of the Fatimids and the victory of the Christians over their enemy, who admits himself to be defeated while simultaneously praising the Franks.

On the base of the battles' descriptions in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the clear structure could be described. Almost all of the battles were created in a specific literary framework of sin and suffering, redemption and victory over the enemy. In this scheme (sinredemption -victory), the battles begin from the sufferings of the Franks, because this is a punishment for their sins, and it is a test of their faith. After that the Crusaders gain the redemption through the zeal of religious practices. Finally, the Christians achieve the victory over the enemy by the grace of God. This is the literary framework of presentation the battles of Dorylaeum and against the Kurbugha's army, the sieges of Ma'arat an-Numan and Jerusalem. The scheme of presentation of the battle of Ascalon slightly differs, because there is no indication of the sufferings and sins of the Franks, but after the prayers and processions in Jerusalem ordered by Peter the Hermit, the Christians achieve a victory over the Fatimids, thus this is a scheme redemption (gained by the religious practices) -victory. However, as the example of the so-called Peasants' Crusade shows, there is a possibility of disturbances of such a literary framework of battles' presentation, when the participants of the expedition do not gain redemption, because of their behaviour in Constantinople, pride and apostasy of Rainald and his companions. Therefore, in that case the structure could be described as sin and suffering -a lack of redemption -defeat. Besides, the battle against the succour of Nicaea led by Kilij Arslan does not seem to have such a structure.

Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that although in reality it was not a small skirmish, but a great battle, the authors did not devote a lot of space on the pages of their accounts to describe it, and in the case of short descriptions it is rather difficult to look for a broader narrative composition, such as in the case of battle of Heraclea.

The important content in the way of presentation of the battles in both accounts is a moralistic tone. The final and successful clashes against the enemy are presented in a binary opposition "us -them", where the pride of the Muslim's opponent is condemned and presented on the background of the Christian humility. Furthermore, the descriptions about the enemy's pride behaviour in the eve of the battles announces the promise future for the Christians. A remarkable example is the battle of Antioch against Kurbugha, where a whole set of prophetic signs appears, which, despite the description of the misfortunes and calamities in the Christian camp, the recipient of the message can predict the fate of the enemy who will be defeated in the upcoming battle. Worth noting is that in the literary reality of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the Crusaders speak in a message to Kurbugha from the position of strength. Descriptions of the battles on the pages of both accounts are one of the most important distinctions of the enemy's "otherness".

Representation of the world of the enemy

The First Crusade for many of its participants was an experience in which they could familiarize to the completely new geographical and cultural boundaries. Throughout the description of the enemy's world; the territories that the enemy lives in, the lands he comes from, the cities in which he lives, his faith and beliefs, the authors could indicate the place of the Turks, the Arabs and others in their ethnocentric perception of the world.

Terra Sarracenorum

In the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere the lands of the enemy are described several times as the terra Sarracenorum 882 . For instance, Raymond of Saint-Gilles led the Christian army into the interior of terra Sarracenorum 883 . After building the castle during the siege of Antioch, the Crusaders started to get provisions, because, as the chroniclers said, in the land of Christians (in terra Christianorum) there was nothing to eat. Owing to this situation the Franks went into the land of Saracens (in Sarracenorum namque terra) to gain the provisions 884 . Omitting the basic meaning of this passage, in which the Christians' army needed to eat and accumulate the supplies, the clear distinction between Christians and their enemy was made by the chroniclers.

The land under the power of Christians should be considered in a socio-political, but also in a symbolic meaning 885 . In consequence, this land of Christians consists of the surroundings of Antioch and cities occupied in Cilicia. However, in the broader socio-cultural context this phrase was in use where the authors show the Christian oikumene, the place where the Christianity is a common religion, where the authorities are Christians. From this point of view, the land of Christians was there, where the Christian participants of the Crusade were. The phrase of the land of Christians almost immediately finds its opposite in the lands of Saracens, which provides a claim that the bipolar opposition is a direct indication on the "otherness" of the enemy. The opposition to the category of terra Christianorum was the land of Saracens, that are the territories, which there was a domain of the enemy, and where the Crusaders could not go without a strong military expedition. The leaders took counsel how to protect the Christian army and gather the provisions 882 Cf. GF, XIII, 2, p. 249; XXXI, 1, pp. 392; PT, p. 65. 883 GF, XXXI, 1, p. 392. 884 GF, XIII, 2, p. 249; PT, p. 65. 885 Cf. N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., pp. 137-138; who claims that the term terra Sarracenorum was an ethnic frontier not a political one, because before the arrival of the First Crusade, all these lands were ruled by the Turks, but to demonstrate such perspective he uses an example from the earlier source with a conclusion that: although in this instance it is possible that he [the pilgrim Richard of St Vanne -T.P.] was describing a political frontier as well as an ethnic one; cf. ibid., note 156, p. 138.

from the hostile territory 886 . This "land of Saracens" could be considered as the unknown, unfamiliar place of danger, where the Franks could encounter sudden death from the hands of the enemy, and about which very little information was possessed.

It is the Taurus and Antitaurus mountain range. In the narrative reality, the mountains on the road of the Crusaders were high and precipitous, so the authors described these obstacles referring to the vocabulary connected with the evil forces. Therefore, the Christians climbed on the diabolical mountain range (in diabolicam montanam) 892 and they left the execrable mountain (de exsecrata montana) 893 . The horses fell down, pulling others behind and the warriors were dying and suffered much. Such perspective of the presentation of the land could be interpreted in the framework of the topos of a terrible place -locus terribilis 894 . The indication that the Crusaders entered into the diabolical mountain range (in diabolical montanam) shows the view of wild, untouched nature, belonging to the sphere of power of evil forces. To reach the city of Antioch, the Crusaders had to travel through the areas of the "nature" or even the "wilderness" (locum intemptatum).

Furthermore, the description of crossing the mountain range, which is awe-inspiring, resembles the ritual of passage, a visit to a world uninhabited by man that is anekumene. In the literary perspective of both accounts as belonging to the genre of gesta it should be mentioned that the katabasis motif was popular in the epic literature 895 . The heroes of this measure as Hercules, Odysseus in the 11th Book of the Odyssey, and Aeneas in the 5th Book of Aeneid, visit the underworld, while the heroes of the Arturhian Circle like Gawain confront the unfriendly places such as the island of flowers at Colurmein, where he almost dies 896 . Crossing the boundaries of the world inhabited by humans or the unfriendly, wild places, was a test of the attitudes and values represented by the heroes. Therefore, the use of locus terribilis in the chroniclers' perspective is an example of the shaping a negative representation of the enemy, as someone who is associated with the sphere of wild nature, which in this case is the diabolical mountain range. Moreover, it seems that this description of the passage of the Franks is a part of an epic narration, where the heroes pass a test of their values and strength.

Central points -caput totius Romaniae and caput totius Syriae

On the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, two cities under the control of the enemy were presented as the capitals of whole geographical regions. Firstly, the military struggle of the so-called Princes' Crusade against the enemy took place at Nicaea, which by the eyewitnesses' authors was considered as a capital of the whole Romania (caput totius Romaniae) 897 .

Secondly, Antioch was described by the chroniclers as the royal city (regalis civitas) and the capital of the whole Syria (caput totius Syriae) 898 .

Both cities were great at that time, having their strong place in the history of Christianity. the conquest of the central point was an important event for which huge resources could be sacrificed. It should be noted that the siege of Nicaea was the first serious encounter against the enemy and the siege of Antioch, which lasted from 21 October 1097 to 2 June 1098, on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia was the most important event of the whole expedition to Jerusalem, regarding the duration and the place in both accounts devoted to this struggle. Thus, the terms used by the chroniclers emphasized the importance of Nicaea and Antioch which were perceived/considered as the key places of the regions of Asia Mino (Romania) and Syria. Hence, for the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia the capturing of these places was also important in the literary strategy of the presentation of occurring events.

Khorasan

The chroniclers describe the geographical boundaries of the enemy. According to Gesta heartlands was a common practice among the Eastern writers, for instance invoking The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, known to the Latin world, because of its translation from the 9th century 908 . Therefore, the textual inspiration for using the term Corosan cannot be completely ruled out, especially pointing to possible evangelical inspirations.

On the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the Khorasan was a place where the Turks could take the captives to be their slaves. When the siege of Nicaea began to develop, the Franks heard that the Turkish warriors from the succour of Kilij Arslan took the ropes with which they would bind and lead off the Christians to Khorasan 909 . Likewise, Kurbugha gave a response to

Peter the Hermit and Herluin before the final battle at Antioch, that if the Christians did not accept his offer and convert to his faith, they would be led away in the chains to Khorasan, and they would be slaves of the Turks and their children forever 910 . The idea that Khorasan is understood as the homeland of the Turks and the place where they could take the Christians and no one would come back from there appears in the descriptions of a second generation of the First Crusade's historians, where Khorasan is presented as the distant, almost cursed land of the heathens 911 .

However, on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the territories of Khorasan are also a place where the Turks fled after the defeats, as it was presented in the narration about the battle in which Robert, a close kin of Bohemond and his constable, distinguished himself 912 . Furthermore, the authors describe that after the Franks' victories over the enemy and capturing the city of Antioch, the son of Yaghi Siyan says to Kurbugha that the Franks are a threat to an existence for an entire race of the Turks, and the Christians could expel the Turks from the Asia Minor (Romania), Syria and even Khorasan 913 . This information is mentioned also by Kurbugha who makes fun of the weapons of the Franks which are a cheap sword covered with rust, a hideous or loathsome bow and a useless spear 914 . On this sight he laughs and says to other Turks that these are the weapons of Christians with which they want to conquer Asia, expel the Turks from the Khorasan, obliterate their name beyond the rivers of the Amazons, and capture Romania and Antioch 915 .

In this short passage there is particular symbolism, which should be taken into account. According to the chroniclers, the Turks lived in Khorasan which had a contact with the river of the Amazons 916 . In the work of Pomponius Mela, it was pointed out that the Turks lived next to the Amazons, which seemed to be the closest content to the description of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, however, it is doubtful that the authors would have access to this work 917 . It could be assumed that it was a kind of popular knowledge that the Amazons lived very far and the use of their symbolism would give a certain value to the description of a given place. It suggested the fantastic description of the "other", who lived in the non-known lands, in the sphere of anekumene. This symbolic strengthened the representation of the "other", because the female warriors in narrative patterns was located in the sphere of wildness: cruel and unbridled nature.

Amazons broke the established social order: war and struggle are the domain of men. Moreover, in the ancient tradition, only women from barbaric lands could stand against the inviolable order, traditions and customs, with a very strong emphasis on the "otherness" 918 . In the indicated framework, the chroniclers showed the image of the "other", who lived in the land of Khorasan, which is in their perspective a distant place close to the legendary Amazons with its symbolic baggage. Pilet came to a castle named Talamania or Thelemanit (Tell Mannas), which was inhabited by Syrians, who immediately surrendered to him. During the rest, Raymond heard from the messengers that there was a castle of the enemy very close to his position, and it was full of all goods and, according to a Tudebode's version, of race of pagans 919 . Hearing this news, Raymond along with his men, all described as the knights-pilgrims of Christ (Christi milites peregrini), attacked this castle and after short besiege captured it 920 . Then, on the pages of the accounts the idea of the conversion was presented which was very similar to that known from the Carolingian period, for instance from the Christianization of Saxons; namely the choice between accepting Christianity and death 921 warriors of Raymond Pilet killed everybody who did not make a conversion to the Christian faith, but they let live others, who became Christians. Basing on this short mention, it could be observed that the idea of Christianization during the Crusade in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia was based on the military strength of Frankish warriors, who could impose a new faith under the threat of death on the local communities. However, it must be said, that in fact, the idea of Christianization was not the main subject of interest on the pages of both sources and did not attract much attention. The expedition to Jerusalem had not been presented in the framework of conversion of the other peoples. S. Loutchitskaya pointed out that in the accounts describing the First Crusade, the conversion of Muslims to Christianity was considered not as a result of reflection or missionary activity, but rather as a fruit of a miracle, a divine intervention, but as it was described above, the great success in the battle should be added 922 . From this perspective, the spiritual superiority of Christianity over Islam was shown.

In both accounts, the foundation of the Albara's bishopric was recorded. It was the first example of the Latin Church's structure in the Northern Syria. The narration of the conquest of Albara begins after the death of Adhémar, the bishop of Le Puy on August 1, 1098 because of the plague in the Antioch 923 . After this event, approximately on September 25, 1098 924 , Raymond of Saint-Gilles led the Christian army into the interior of terra Sarracenorum 925 . He came to the city of Albara and quickly captured it. Raymond of Saint-Gilles ordered to kill all the Muslim inhabitants of the city, both men and women, without looking at their social status or their age (omnes Saracenos et Saracenas, maiores et minores) 926 . After this, he took counsel with the wisest of his men and appointed a bishop for this city, for the restoration the faith in Christ in this place. It was also highlighted that the new bishop would take the house of the devil and consecrate it as the temple of the living and true God and oratories of the saints 927 (qui illam ad Christi cultum fideliter revocaret et de domo diabolica templum Deo vivo et vero et oracula Sanctorum consecraret) 928 .

In the version of Peter Tudebode, Raymond conducted the new bishop to Antioch for consecration, and the bishop took the place in the council in place of deceased Adhémar 929 . Both the Gesta Francorum's and the Tudebode's Historia's narrations present the clash of spiritual powers in the earthly dimension, and a struggle of the knights of Christ and the enemies of God and Holy 922 S. Loutchitskaya, L'idée de conversion...., pp. 39-53. 923 Christianity. It seems that the crucial idea of this perspective derived from the rhetorical question posed in the 2 Cor 6.15: And what agreement is there between Christ and the Evil One? or what part has one who has faith with one who has not? From this perspective, the mutual coexistence would be impossible, because there is no possibility to create a community with pagans, the devil's henchmen. That was the reason, which could be taken from the authority of the Bible, why Raymond of Saint-Gilles had killed all of inhabitants of the city before the foundation of bishopric.

The place where the bishopric was to be established needed to be purified 930 , especially because the Muslims had domus diaboli 931 (the house of Devil) in the city, which could be identified with a mosque. The image of the Devil's house could be a reference to Revelation 2.9, where the Devil's house lies in a broader context of the forces hostile to God and humanity 932 .

Before the appointed of the bishop, Albara was presented on the pages of both accounts as the antisacrum, where practices unrelated to the Christian faith were taking place and the oikumene's border, dominated by the forces of evil and chaos, based on the binary opposition terra Christiana -terra Sarracenorum. After the conquer, Albara, to be a part of Christianity, needed to subjugate the antisacral power. It was highlighted by the wordplay where the place of veneration of devil is described as a house (domus), whereas the place of God's veneration is described as a temple (templum) and the place of saints' veneration as an oracle (oraculum) 933 . Hence, it is possible to draw another clear opposition between the sacrum dimension belonging to Christians, and the profanum dimension adherenting to the Muslims. Furthermore, the places of veneration of the saints, such as the temple of God, are also important in the narration. Christianity's saints, unknown to their enemies, are the identity mark of the faith -Christianity reaches as far as their worship 934 .

In the view of the chroniclers, the founding of the bishopric in Albara was done after the suppression of spiritual powers, in accordance with the two-step model of missionary activity established in the antiquity 935 . The first phase was the abrenuntiatio diaboli that is a renouncing of 930 The idea of needing for purification from the Muslim presence was a topos in the Pope Urban's call in Clermont, cf.: RM, I, 1- the Devil, the act of overthrowing the power of the Devil. The second phase was the confessio fidei -the reception and the confession of the new faith. This two-stage process was manifested both in the individual preparation of baptismal catechumens and as well as in the dimension of whole communities. In the dimension of social life in the Gesta Francorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, the abrenuntiatio diaboli was expressed above all through the act of replacing the place of devil's worship with a temple of God and oratories of the saints (de domo diabolica Deo vivo et vero et oracula sanctorum) 936 .

The social distinction of a new bishop was highlighted by a way of his election 937 . Count

Raymond took counsel with the wisest of his men and through this, he appointed the new bishop. It was presented that the count of Toulouse, having taken appropriate advice, had the power to make a bishop in the East as that was the only way to convert the city of Albara to the Christian faith.

However, as Raymond killed all the Muslims of Albara, there were no people who could be Christian in the city anymore. Although this is an argument based on the supposition, there were two possibilities to make a solution for this problem. Firstly, the Count of Toulouse killed all the Muslims in the city but the local may could have also consisted of Christians, maybe Orthodox or Jacobites. Secondly, the Crusaders who stayed with the new bishop may have settled Albara 938 .

Either way, the chroniclers did not pay much attention to this conundrum; apparently, for the authors it was not so important to indicate who would constitute the Christian community in Albara.

At the end, the confessio fidei is presented in the institutional perspective that is when the bishop was elected, the faith in Christ was restored and from this point of view, Albara began to be a part of

Christianitas.

In the Gesta Francorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere a belief was expressed that the place of worship of the Muslim God is an instrument of demonic power. Therefore, the replacement of the house of devil with a temple of God in the framework of the abrenuntiatio diaboli also had a theological dimension of confrontation in the sphere of the sacrum, between

Christians and the forces of the Devil represented by "Saracens" from Albara. From this perspective, the new bishop of Albara appears as a tamer of the anti-sacral forces, indispensable to establish the Church in the city. The analysed narration presented the point of view of Peter Tudebode and of the Gesta Francorum about the foundation of bishopric in Albara, described as the aspect of the confrontation versus the "other" in the sphere of the sacrum.

936 PT, p. 117; cf. GF, XXXI, 1, pp. 392-393. 937 GF, XXXI, 1, pp. 393; PT, p. 117. 938 Cf. S. Runciman, A History..., vol. 1, p. 257; based on the account of Raymond of Aguilers, the author claims that after killing some of the Muslims from Albara, and selling some of them as slaves in Antioch, the city was repopulated by the Christians. However, the last statement is not supported by any sources and this is only a supposition.

Religion of the enemy

As it was indicated above, the eyewitnesses' participants of the First Crusade provide some information about the faith of the enemy. The shaping of the description of the religion of the enemy consists of a relatively small number of descriptions. The authors mention that the enemy has the sacred places of their religion. On the pages of both accounts the term of Machumaria 939 or Machomaria appears, which is translated into a mosque 940 . During the siege of Antioch, the Crusaders built the castle at the place where a mosque stayed before. Furthermore, the Christian authors mentioned that at the Machumaria there was the place where the Turks buried the dead corpses of their warriors after the defeat along with weapons and other temporal goods 941 . When the Christians heard that the Turks buried the bodies of the dead with the bezants and clothes, they came in haste to the mosque. They dug up the corpses, destroyed the graves and dragged the dead bodies from their tombs. All the corpses were tossed into a pit. The heads of the Turks were cut off and carried to the tents of the Christians 942 . The defenders of Antioch at this sight only could lament, weep and shriek. What is worth emphasizing, the narration of the Christian authors has a postitive tone, showing that the Franks broke the enemy morally, using their attachment to the burial and by the desecration of their holy place they showed their strength and mercilessness.

Returning to the place of enemy's worshipping, the authors described the Muslims' temples also as diabolicum atrium (a diabolical hall) 943 or as domus diabolica (a house of devil) in the narration about the capturing of the city of Albara 944 . Therefore, it can be seen that the wordplay used by the authors points to two basic aspects of the enemy place of worship. The first one is identifying the temples of the enemy with the place of worship of Mohammed, and the second one involves referring to the Devil 945 .

In the narration about the Kurbugha's mother, the authors mentioned the holy book of the enemy's religion and the volumes of the heathens (in nostra pagina et in gentilium voluminubus), which she invokes to use the authority of the sacred texts to convince her son 946 . Perhaps the authors had some knowledge about the nature of Islam, and the invoked book (pagina) was the Quran or other sacred text of Islam. However, there is also a possibility that it was the sign of the Frankish imaginary, where they considered the faith of the enemy through their own categories; the Muslim rites were symmetrical to the Christian ones, therefore, the faith needs to have its sacred books 947 .

The chroniclers also show that the enemy has its own Pope, who was described as the Caliph, their Pope (Calipha, illorum Apostolico) 948 . The image of the Caliph as important political and spiritual power was strengthened by the description, in which in the eve of the battle of Antioch, Kurbugha wrote the charters to the leaders of the Turks, among whom the Caliph was also mentioned 949 . It seems that the chroniclers considered the Caliph as a spiritual leader of the Turks, their own Pope, which suggests that the image of world of "other" is a reflection of the Christian world 950 . Therefore, the binary opposition appears, basing on the division between the world of Christians as the domain under the spiritual control of the Pope in Rome and the world of enemy, which is under the control of Caliph. indicating that the author perceives Mohammed as one of the gods; Mohammed appears alongside other gods (aliis diis). This is, therefore, significantly different from the formulas and passages of the enemy's religion known from the Gesta Franocrum. Worth emphasizing is this rather distinct difference in the perception of the specificity of the religion of the enemy by the accounts so close to each other. Nevertheless, it should not be questioned that Mohammed plays a key role in presenting the enemy's faith, and even the term used in both accounts to describe the temples refers to the Prophet of Islam.

In the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia the representation of the enemy's faith was based on the accusations of idolatry (but understood as the worshiping of false deities, because of the lack of the mention the cult of idols in these sources), and polytheism 961 . On the pages of both accounts the enemy leaders in their speeches turn to many gods, showing the conviction of the faith of the enemy in the existence of many gods 962 . In the Christendom, the belief that Muslims were idolaters was not new in the time of the First Crusade, but it was a pre-existing model of Islam's representation 963 . Such attitudes toward Islam, the accusation of the idolatry and polytheism of the enemy, were emphasized by Peter Tudebode in his narration about the martyrdom of Rainald polytheistic religion appears; according to both accounts, it is the faith in many gods, none of which is the true God. Therefore, the Rainald's question posed to Yaghi Siyan, in which he rhetorically asks how he could live among the Turks without sinning seems to be strong indication that the enemy has the false faith 967 .

The Rainald's martyrdom plays its role of the accusing Muslim of idolatry. The religion of the enemy of the Christians was presented as the faith in Mahomet itself (Malphumet), who was considered as a God, and as the faith in others gods, not mentioned by name. Therefore, according to the Tudebode's mention, the religion of the enemy has a character of polytheism. Moreover, the religion of the enemy was presented as the domain of the temporal goods 968 . The proposal of Yaghi

Siyan could be interpreted as the confrontation of the spiritual powers of Christianity and Islam, because the offer of Yaghi Siyan had both -sacrum and profanum dimension -the change of faith and reward of temporal goods the religion. Furthermore, the act of Yaghi Siyan is considered in the framework of Christians' martyrdom and the ruler of Antioch is clearly presented as the persecutor of the Christians. It seems that in the Tudebode's account the representation of the religious sphere of the enemy clearly emphasizes his "otherness" 969 .

The enemy was also presented as someone who ridicules the Christian faith, parodying it and presenting it in a distorting mirror. For instance, in the description of the siege of Jerusalem, the response of the defenders of city to the procession undertaken by the Crusaders was to make a similar procession on the walls of the city with the standard of Mohammed and with a piece of cloth of him. Furthermore, when the Christians reached the church of Saint Stephen during the procession, they started to laugh, yell at the horns, throw insults and performed all acts of mockery (clamabant, ululabant cum bucinis et omne genus derisionis quodcumque reperire poterant faciebant) 970 . The members of Jerusalem's garrison even made a cross from wood and in the sight of the Franks, they beat upon the cross with sticks and shattered it against the walls, saying to the Crusaders: Frango agip salip, which means Franks, is this a good cross? (Franci, est bona crux?) 971 . Such a confrontational behaviour of the enemy in the Tudebode's account, definitely shapes the image of the enemy as someone who undermines the religious foundations of Christianity and blasphemes against the Frankish faith. It seems that strengthening the image of "other" in such a way serves to justify committing cruel deeds to the enemy who compels such blasphemous acts.

As it can be observed, the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano 967 PT, p. their mentions, an image concerning the collective ideas about the faith of the enemy can be built, reflecting also the aims of such representation. Firstly, it should be emphasized that the enemy's faith was a distorted image of the Christian faith; the enemy had the temples, the burial places of the dead and rituals binding, the sacred books. Secondly, the religion of the enemy was the religion of temporal goods, and the worshiping of false deities; in the eyes of Tudebod the god was Mohammed himself. Therefore, the authors of both accounts reach for various arguments in order to discredit the enemy's faith in the face of their recipients, on this basis they can both indicate the superiority of their own religion and system of values, and justify the deeds of the Crusaders, clearly indicating the religious difference of the enemy with which they were faced during the expedition to Jerusalem.

Conclusion

The Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere were written by authors who participated in the First Crusade and who on the pages of theirs works presented not only their own experiences and points of view, but also their intellectual background.

Due to the fact that the first manuscript of the Gesta Francorum was written around 1099-1101, and the version that survived to our time around 1104, we are dealing with a work whose scale exceeded the letters written by the Crusaders from the expedition and which was the first to combine into a longer narrative sequence numerous literary threads, creating a coherent holistic story. Peter

Tudebode, a priest of Civray located close to Poitiers, was an author of Historia de Hierosolymitano

Itinere written about 1101-1104, and he would be one of the first, and the first known by name, who decided to rework, correct or add some elements to Gesta Francorum, probably on the earlier manuscript than we knew, maintaining the original shape of the narration. The points established by the analysis of the sources' language, composition, use of rhythmic cursus and sequential structure of narration and content, suggest that both accounts have much in common with the epic as a literary genre suitable for the presentation of heroic deeds of the participants of the First Crusade.

The authors of both accounts addressed their works rather to the feudal audience of knights and not very tasteful recipients from clergy than to the educated in sophisticated ancient Latin men such as Baldric of Dol or Guibert of Nogent, who expressed their contempt for the literary values of Gesta Francorum.

In this literary framework the image of the "other", the enemy-infidel was created. Based on the analysis, it should be noted, that the author's intellectual background based primarily on the categories known from or formed on the Bible, but also on the stereotypical catalogue of traits deeply ingrained in the mentality and expressing collective imagery, experiences and attitudes of the whole community. Hence, this creation is not merely a thought of one person, but rather a reflection of the views, emotions, observations, opinions and imagination of the whole socio-cultural community, functioning in the specific intellectual and political context of which the authors were representatives. The symbolic content used in the creation of the image of the enemy was understandable to this community and it played its role of representation in the framework of biblical discourse of the main antagonist against whom such a great expedition was undertaken. It seems clear that without this intellectual climate of representation of enemy-infidel and the Pope's propaganda, which probably functioned shortly before the First Crusade and found its way to reach a wider audience, among others, through these two accounts, it would not be possible to attract so many people with the idea of the Crusade.

The experience of "otherness" on the pages of both accounts took the form of a phenomenon of "xenophany". The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere presented various forms of manifestation of "otherness" in the linguistic, religious, cultural, political or military sphere. The chroniclers used a wide range of literary devices to indicate the "otherness" of the enemy on the pages of their works. They presented the enemy as barbarians, enemy of God and holy Christianity, excommunicated race, pagans, unbelievers or servants of the Devil. On the pages of the accounts, these labels create the binary opposition between such defined enemy and the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem described, among others, as the army or knights of God and Christians. Furthermore, the enemy has a false religion, which is presented in some way as mirrored to Christianity; the Turks have their own pope, temples, holy books, but they believe in false gods, use astrology and bury their deads with temporal goods as weapons and golden coins. In the presentation of the enemy's religion an important role is taken by Mohammed, who in the Tudebode's account is considered as god of the enemy, but this content is not present in Gesta Francorum. Furthermore, the enemy is considered as the persecutor of Christians, as the one who kills people of Christ even innocents such a priest celebrating a Mass; the enemy even burns the Christian churches, plunders their goods, takes their children and makes many blasphemous acts, such as desacrating the cross. Moreover, the religion of the enemy is presented as a domain of temporal goods and luxury in opposition to Christian humility, and according to Tudebode, there is no way for the Franks to live among the Turks without sinning as was presented in the case of martyrdom of Rainald. Therefore, both authors show that the enemy is considered as excluded from the same community with the Christians. In that case, all sexual activities between Christians and Muslims are forbidden, because, with paraphrasing the chroniclers' words, it causes the stench which rises to the Heaven, according to one vision described on the pages of Gesta Francorum and

Tudebode's Historia.

The "otherness" of the enemy is also marked in basic issues such as names; for instance the names of the enemy's leaders were adapted for a Latin reader or listener from its original forms and were described as Solimanus, Cassianus or Corbaran; but also through the indication of the image of the world of the enemy, who came from distant place -Khorasan. The territories of the enemy are presented in the literary framework of the locus terribilis from the ethnocentric perspective of the chroniclers. Hence, the reference to the Amazons on the pages of both works appears, which clearly shows the imaginary vision of the enemy's world.

In most cases, the presentation of the battles on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia is built based on the literary framework of the sins of the Franks, as a cause of failure and misfortune, the redemption through the religious practices and victory over the enemy due the help of God. In that way, the conviction and belief in the relationship between success in the battle and the zeal of religious practices are clearly presented. If the Crusaders do not last in the faith and perform the religious practices, they can meet with defeat from the hands of the enemy, a clear example of what can be the disaster of the so-called Peasants' Crusade. To sharpen the image of the enemy army's power, the authors use several literary devices, such as the enumeration of the hostile nations and huge number of troops. It seems that the names of the hostile nations provide some symbolic content, as in the case of the term Saracens, which invokes a symbolical meaning in the framework of biblical discourse, which shows that the Christians are better than their enemy, or can reflect the political reality of the Middle East at the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century, where the Turks were actually ethnic minority. Furthermore, the enemy uses his specific military tactic; the Turks are skilful at using the bows and they try to encircle their opponent; Agulans are heavy armoured cavalry using only swords. All of them make a war cry, that is a lot of noise and scream, which for the chroniclers was similar to the diabolic sounds. Moreover, the enemy is wily, because he prepares the ambushes on the Franks. Furthermore, because of their military strength, the Turks can arouse fear among the Christians.

The enemy on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia was presented through the multitude of literary measures. According to both accounts, the Muslim enemy is described in the binary opposition, which shows his place in the socio-cultural context of the Christian world as "other", who constitute a threat to the existence of the Christian community and only Christianization could make him a part of the world common to the eyewitnesses' authors.

Despite that, there are differences between both texts or additional content as in the case of Rainald Porchet in the Tudebode's narration, it should be stated that on the basis of the presented analysis, the role of the enemy in both texts is very similar. In fact, difficult is to find such the difference as was made by K. Skottki, considering that Muslims play a marginal role in the Gesta Francorum, while in the Tudebode's Historia they are an important component of the strategy of the text in order to establish the fallen Crusaders as martyrs or potential saints 972 . 972 Cf. K. Skottki, op. cit., pp. 255-276. proposed an edition that would include all the manuscripts, also with the fragmentary accounts, based on which he tried to reconstruct the archetype 975 . However, the work of J. France is unpublished, so in the current state of historiography, the Hills' edition is the most popular 976 .

III. The image of the

Within the tradition of the manuscripts, two of the six manuscripts of group A date back to the 12th century: the above-mentioned manuscript on which the modern edition was based and another France's remarks, it should be taken into account that Raymond of Aguilers used the Gesta Francorum 980 . In this case, the logical consequence of this point of view is that the terminus post quem is around 1099-1101, when the Gesta Francorum was written, allowing Raymond to have access to it. However, C. Klein presented a different perspective, namely that the author of Gesta

Francorum and Peter Tudebode used the Historia Francorum in their own work 981 . Nevertheless, it seems that there is a clear connection between the Tudebode's Historia, who most likely used Raymond's account (or the notes of Pons of Balazun) in preparing the description of the passage of Provencal's forces through the territory of Sclavonia, and some other narrations 982 . Therefore, Raymond's account is very early work; due to the fact that it is featured in Tudebode's narration, the Historia Francorum must have been finished around 1102. However, the modern editors of Raymond's account suggested that the direct relationship between these three works is rather unlikely, and instead a lost common chronicle for the first sources of the First Crusade 983 existed. In this case, the lost chronicle seems less likely, because the domain of vision of Hills is an attempt to explain all the similarities between the texts through the existence of a common and official source.

Moreover, Raymond of Aguilers was an eyewitness of Crusade's eventsand thus he could have used the camp gossips, rumours and others oral sources and there was no need to createa new historiographic creation 984 .

Furthermore, it seems very likely that one of the earliest writers who used the Historia Francorum in their own work was Fulcher of Chartres 985 . To restrict the date of origin of the account of Raymond the questions should be posed: how early did Fulcher of Chartres start writing and how late did he start to write? Generally, it should be mentioned that his work could be divided into three parts, the first of which ended probably at the XXXVI chapter of Book II 986 . He could not start his work on the first part of his account in Edessa foe a simple reason: he did not access the Historia Francorum there/ Hence, the period of his stay in Jerusalem should be taken into account.

For the first time, Fulcher of Chartres visited Jerusalem in December 1099, when he was a member of the retinue of Baldwin I, Count of Edessa, who together with Bohemond went to the Holy City to complete his pilgrims vows and spent the Christmas there. However, the stay of Fulcher in Jerusalem ended in January 1100, so it is unlikely that he started writing in this period. The next stay, this time permanent, began in November 1100, when Baldwin I became the king of Jerusalem.

In the face of these events, the date November 1100 should be considered as the terminus post quem of the beginning of Fulcher's writing with the use of Raymond's account. In conclusion, it should be said that the date of origin of the Historia Francorum is very early. In the context of a comparative analysis of the relationships with the others sources and supplemented by the political events which author did not mention in the account, the most likely date of composition of the work is from the period of December 1099 until the summer of 1101.

However, the Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers certainly existed before 1105.

Authorship of the Historia Francorum

At the beginning of the Historia Francorum, the authors of this account presented Therefore, on one hand, the chaplain's position was not so high enough to be placed very high on the list of witnesses, and on the other hand it was still found among the witnesses and in the Count's charter. Thus, if Raymond of Aguilers indeed prepared this document, it means that at least until 1103 he was present in the Middle East.

Raymond of Aguilers dedicated his account to the Bishop of Viviers;in the period of 1096 until 1119, so in the period of the creation of the work, this position was occupied by Leodegarius 1015 . The place is also connected with the region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, which was under political influence of County of Toulouse. Therefore, to summarize, Raymond and Pons were participants of the First Crusade and they represented the Provencal community and mostly the region of Auvergne. Thus, their account, despite some influence of Gesta Francorum, is an independent source written from the perspective of a different community than Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia.

Language of the source and intellectual background of its authors

By considering the stylistic level, the way of formulating phrases and the intertextual references of Raymond of Aguilers, his intellectual background could be shown, including the education that he received and the audience for whom he created the Historia Francorum. Firstly, the language and grammatical structure of his work is rather simple and he did not use the Latin known from the classical writers. Likewise, in the case of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account, the structure of the narration of the Historia Francorum could be described as a sequential, because the sentences in most cases are linked with the previous sentence with the words such as igitur, itaque, tandem, nam, autem, etc. Furthermore, in Raymond's account the preposition ex was replaced by de and etate instead of more classical status, and natham in place of matta, which suggest the vernacular influences 1016 .

The language of the account reveals the education appropriate for a clergyman. Raymond profusely uses the language, highly influenced by the borrowings from the Bible, namely from the Psalms, the Gospels, the Book of Revelation and especially from the Books of the Maccabees, which could be described as a most suitable inspiration because of the content; the holy war 1017 .

Furthermore, he uses also the Apocrypha, the hagiography, the prayers and breviary, and phrases from the liturgy. The biblical quotations amount to over one hundred, with a definite predominance of the quotations from the Old Testament. As the Canon in the Cathedral of Saint Mary of Le Puyen-Velay, Raymond should have had access to the Cathedral library, the content of which is known through a surviving catalogue at the end of the 12th century manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 7581 1018 . The content of Le Puy's library seems to be rich in texts used to teach the Trivium and Quadrivium, among whom were the classical works of Donatus, Priscian, Fulgentius, Boethius, Augustine, Bede, Isidore, or even Cato, Virgil and Cicero 1019 . In this perspective, the presence of the references to the classical authors, such as 4th Catiline 1020 , does not have to be surprising, although there is also a possibility that it was not a direct borrowing but an effect of the author's knowledge in works of Ambrose 1021 . Furthermore, the author shows knowledge of poetry which could be confirmed by the use of theword Eia, which is common in poesy and sequences 1022 .

The Historia Francorum belongs to the literary genre of historia, and similarly to the case of Tudebode (being closely related to the gesta), it is the description of the heroic deeds of the Franks.

However, it should be noted that the notion of "Franks" in the perspective of the sources of the First

Crusade includes almost all of the Christian participants of the expedition to Jerusalem and it was not an ethnic term. In this extensive concept of Franks, they were people from the Northern France as well as from the Southern France. However, before the First Crusade, there was a clear distinction and even opposition between as a society using the vulgar Latin close to the vernacular language, where the content was transmitted orally, in the form of recitation or singing, in a manner known from the study of oral epic 1044 .

On the basis of this small presentation of Raymond of Aguilers' usage of rhythmic prose, it could be noted that the author could have had knowledge about this literary device. The use of the rhythmic devices like cursus, even in the form of cursus trispondianicus, which was quite modern in his times, shows that the author of the Historia Francorum was not an unskilled writer. He operated in a tradition of rhythmic prose dated back to the 4th century, which could be closer to his potential audience than classical Latin inspired by Cicero. On the pages of Raymond's work, the expedition to Jerusalem is shown in the perspective of a clear division into paganimitas and christianitas, the triumph of regnum christianorum over the regnum paganorum. In this context, the enemy is clearly defined: through the victory of the Crusaders, that enemy was removed from the holy place for the Christians, where now the Franks can perform their religious acts. For the chronicler, the capture of Jerusalem is an extremely happy event. According to the author of the Historia Francorum, on that day the Crusaders perform the religious practices, praying to God at the Holy Sepulchre, and even Adhémar, who died after the capture of Antioch, was seen among the living, revealing to the recipients the mystical experience of communing with the dead Crusaders 1057 . Therefore, it seems that in Raymond's account, animportant role is played by posing the enemy in the structure of the binary opposition, where the goal of the Franks is to destroy of paganimitas and to exalt Christianity.

Persecutors of Christians

On the pages of his account, Raymond presents the image of the enemy as a persecutor of both Eastern and Western Christians. The term persecutor (oppressor), was used to describe the enemy during the siege of Antioch 1058 . In Raymond's version of the so-called Peasants' Crusade, the extermination of Peter the Hermit's people was presented with the use of the word decollare -"to take off from the neck", "decapitate", "behead". This word is connected with a specific symbolic content of decapitation in Christianity, carrying a great importance as it is connected with a martyr's death from the hands of persecutors 1059 . This kind of death invokes many examples of martyrdom such as the decapitation of John the Baptist by order of Herod the Great, who could be considered the prototypical evil ruler 1060 . Furthermore, the grandson of King Herod, Herod Agrippa I had St James the Greater executed by the sword 1061 ; this death was a common motif in the iconography, as In this perspective, the chronicler presents the Turks as the persecutors of Christians, placing them within the limits of the Christian perception of the world as a significant threat for whole community, and referring to the martyrs.

Furthermore, the author of the Historia Francorum presents the Turks as the persecutors of Christians. Firstly, Raymond briefly describes the treatment of young Armenians and Greeks as house servants (pro penuria domesticorum), which took place after the Turks captured Antioch in 1084 1065 . It should be noted that the chronicler also pointed to an attempt to strengthen the bond between the conquerors and the conquered: the Turks were to give the Greeks and Armenians wives (et uxores eis dederant) 1066 . Nevertheless, it seems that the attempts to appease the local Christians were unsuccessful, since they were willing to flee to the Crusaders with their horses and weapons as soon as possible, probably because they did not want to be the mentioned servants of the Turks 1067 . These Syrians, through their persecutors, were forced to leave their fatherland (conpellerentur patriam) and to abandon the Christian law or rather the way of life, described by the term lex (christiana desere legem) 1073 . Raymond further presents the image of persecuted Christians, emphasizing the ruthlessness and cruelty of the Turks toward the Syrians. Chronicler points out that if some of Syrians by God's grace choose to resist and do not abandon their faith and homeland, they would be forced to give their beautiful children (pulchros parvulos suos) away, to be circumcised or ad turcandum, that is have them raised in a Turkish way, making them into Turks 1074 .

The phrase ad turcandum was interpreted by, among others, the publishers of Raymond's work as a trained in the Quran, but it seems to be a simplified interpretation 1075 . It seems that the word which literally describes the making someone into a Turk means a lot more than just their conversion to the Muslim faith. According to the Du Cange's dictionary, the verb turcare means Turcum facere "to make a Turk" 1076 . In this sense, the phrase ad turcandum seems to signify that the Syrians' children would become a part of a new community. This community of the Turks is based on religion, but the use of the word lex has a broader meaning and involves the way of life, principles of moral life, etc. In this context, the Syrian children became Turks through changing their own religion and community.

Furthermore, the author of the account presents the image of the destroyed Syrian family life because according to his words, the Turks snatched the children from the mother's arms, killed father and ruined the parents (rapiebantur a sinibus matrum, interfecto patre et illusa parente) 1077 .

The practice of picking up children by the Turks appears on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account, although in Raymond's the Historia Francorum it receives far more emotional overtones 1078 . Nevertheless, it can be seen that this content seems to be so important in the creation of the image of an enemy that the chroniclers considered it appropriate to copy and even to expand it. Most likely the factual substrate for the literary description existed because in the circle of Islamic culture such practice was well known and used for instance to recall the practice of māmluk or ghilman. However, similar to Gesta Francorum and Historia of Peter Tudebode, Raymond of Aguilers could exaggerate the image of the ruthless enemy who kidnaps Christian children.

Furthermore, the whole passage is placed in a broader context where the Turks also plunder houses, churches and all the belongings of the Syrians.

Author of the Historia Francorum then indicates that the Syrians fell into such evil (malicia) that they began to damage the Christian faith. Namely, they would overthrow the churches (ecclesias Dei everterent), destroy images of saints and other sacred images (sanctorum eius vel imagines delerent), and those which they could not destroy by delay (per moram), they just plucked out the eyes from the images and shot those with arrows (oculos eorum eruebant et sagittabant) 1079 .

Moreover, they damaged all the altars and placed the mosques (mahumaria) on the site of the churches 1080 . Raymond also notes that if a Christian wanted to have an image of God or of a saint in their own home, they would be forced to pay a special tax or they would see how it trampled and crushed in filth 1081 . Very likely is that in this case Raymond recorded the practice of tax or tribute named jizya, which is a per capita yearly tax posed on the non-Muslims (dhimmī), who resided in the lands under the control of Islam 1082 . Therefore, it would be a record of social relations actually taking place in the Middle East. Furthermore, in the author's opinion, this tax is a visible sign of subordination of the Christian population to Muslim conquerors and the way in which the Syrians are persecuted for their faith.

Raymond ends the description of the change of mode of life by Syrians who converted to

Islam by a mention which in his own opinion is disagreeable. Namely, the Syrians placed youths in brothels and exchanged their sisters for wine or for more things described by the term nequam ("wretched", "worthless", "bad"), which signify all the evil deeds that a man can commit. On this sight, the mothers of these youths could not intervene because they were afraid to cry in public over Raymond presents the image of the persecution of Syrians by the Turks in two-dimensional perspective. On the one hand, Syrians are people oppressed and persecuted by Turks who took their children, destroyed their families, ordered them to renounce the Syrian community and abandon their homeland and Christian faith. Moreover, the Turks led to that the Syrians became so bad, that they also began to demolish the churches and destroy all Christian sanctities and build the mosques in their place; and in the way of life, they devoted themselves to debauchery. In the perspective of Raymond, this is a description of a specific world, the world turned upside down because many elements that according to chronicler should exist in the Christian society have been disturbed.

Therefore, the Turks are persecutors of the Syrians who suffered a lot from their hands. On the other hand, Raymond writes that the Syrians are themselves guilty of their fate because they surely plotted against the Christian faith; if it was not so, then God would not have punished them.

Chronicler points out that God once tested the Franks and somehow they did not change the way the Syrians did. Hence, Raymond produces a rather ambivalent image of the Syrians in this narration whereas the Turks are also treated as those who punish Christians for their sins.

Animalisation of the enemy

In Raymond's account, the Turks were described as stupid, thoughtless or brutish animals (bruta animalia) 1087 . It seems that this is a very strong invective thrown against the enemy who has not only been compared to an animal, but their characteristics have been indicated (i.e. stupidity).

According to W. Besnardeau the animalisation of the "other" is a common literary measure in the chansons de geste of the 12th century. He distinguished a wide range of various means to ascribe the features of animals to the "other", through wordplay, comparisons and metaphors. it was quite common to assign animal features such as making noises, aggressiveness or even hairiness to the enemy 1088 . However, on the pages of the accounts describing the First Crusade, the context of potential Christianization of the enemy should be taken into account because in the theological discourse it is impossible to assume the conversion of animals. However, it seems that the literary label of presenting the enemy as an animal could have functionioned without much theological thought. In this perspective, the descriptions of the conversion to Christianity of some of Turks appears on the pages of Raymond's work 1089 alongside the comparison of enemy to animals 1090 .

Raymond of Aguilers in a broader perspective presents the Turks as the part of binary opposition where the participants of the First Crusade are described as a human race (hominum genus), which confirms his ethnocentric view of the world where Turks in the context of persecution of Christians were excluded from the community of human beings 1091 . Animalisation of the enemy serves to depreciate the enemy 1092 . This literary measure functions as the invective against the Turks. Stripping the enemy's humanity from dignity has a clear purpose in Raymond's narration: Turks were not to be treated as a part of humanity, they belonged to sphere of nature, and they were animals.

A New Race in the thought of Crusaders' enemy

In Raymond of Aguilers' description of the battle of Ascalon, the author emphasizes the rumour spreading among the Crusaders about the Egyptian ruler's intentions regarding the fate of the Franks if they were to lose the battle. According to the chronicler, the enemy's leader wanted to kill all of the Franks at the age of twenty and above and to capture the rest all of them along with their women. Moreover, Raymond describes that the enemy wanted to breed a new race, because he planned on giving wives from his own race (de sua gente) to the young Franks; the Frankish women would in turn be given to the young people from his kingdom 1093 . In this way, the ruler of enemy could have warlike families (bellicosas familias) from the Frankish race (de genere Francorum) 1094 . As K. Skottki noted, in this story the idea of "turkization" (Idee des "Turkisierens") appears, presented as a kind of threat similar to the case of Syrians; the difference here is that it refers directly to the Franks 1095 . Raymond's description seems to be a deformed image of the practice of military slavery, mamlūk or ghulam 1096 . However, it should be noted that in this example the goal is to breed a certain type of warrior race. It is clear that in description of the rumour, Raymond shows the imaginary perspective of the Frankish perception of the enemy. The anthropological dimension came to the fore, since the possible blood relationships that were outlined show their formation as something unnatural which belongs to the sphere of "otherness"; they would have arisen under the top-down order of the ruler of Egypt, who, after defeating the Franks, would join in a sort of order with men and women of two different races 1104 . In other sexual references on the pages of Raymond of Aguilers' work, the mention of the female pagan dancers (saltatrices paganorum) among the Franks after the capture of Antioch should be invoked as it was also presented in a negative way by the author 1105 . Raymond also mentions the adultery in the crusading camp during the siege of Antioch. However, he does not refer to the sexual intercourse of the Crusaders with women of a different race, although this sin would have been washed away if the Franks were to marry 1106 . Nevertheless, in the abovementioned example, there was no clear indication that those would be Muslim women; therefore, it seems that Raymond wants to emphasize the sins of the Franks, not the sexual activities they engaged in with the enemy's women 1107 .

Raymond's representation also shows that in the author's literary vision, the enemy of the Crusaders appreciates the military strength of the Franks. In the narration, the ruler of enemy even wants to absorb the power of the race of Franks for his own needs. The desire to create warlike families by associating relationships with the Frankish women and men in this passage could be considered to be the praise of the Crusaders' military skills. Therefore, it is a peculiar glorification of the Franks, and at the same time, the enemy's condemnation for their plans toward the Christians.

Catalogue of enemy's nations

On the pages of Raymond's account, the enemy of the Crusaders was described through several types of terms. The author uses the terms describing the political and cultural affiliation of the enemy such as the Turks (Turci) or even more precisely the Turks from Nicaea (Turci…de 1102 A.W.W. Dale, op. cit., pp. 320, 338-339;D.M. Freidenreich, op. cit., pp. 83-98. 1103 Cf. II.2.3.5. Pagans and unbelievers. 1104 Cf. R. Bartlett, Medieval and Modern Concepts of Race..., pp. 39-56. 1105 RA, p. 66; as was pointed out by P. Sénac, the Muslim women usually play the role of concubines, prostitutes or dancers in the Christian literature of the Middle Ages, cf. Idem, op. cit., p. 93. 1106 However, the only difference is the use of a conjunction et, without some significant distinguishing feature, because in the indicated cases the Arabs even fight in the same way that the Turks.

Furthermore, there in one mention the Arabs were enumerated in one phrase next to the Saracens (in Sarracenos et Arabes illius regionis) 1117 , which brings no clear explanation for the ethnic distinction between Arabs, Turks and Saracens. Nevertheless, the mere use of these concepts indicates a certain distinction, at least in the literary sense. It also should be pointed out that indicates that he had had an army which was had never been defeated by the Franks and also by the Turks 1119 . Furthermore, the author mentions that the Arab shepherds (pastores Arabum) graze sheep and other animals between Ascalon and Jerusalem 1120 .

However, as a determinant of distinctiveness between the Turks and the Arabs in Raymond's the Historia Francorum, the cultural and perhaps religious diversity should be taken into account rather than the ethnic differences. On the pages of Raymond's account, a description illustrates negotiations between the ruler of Egypt, the Crusaders and the Turks. According to Raymond, the Turks offered tribute to the ruler of Egypt, the acceptance of the Egyptian coin for their own, and that if Egypt would be their ally against the Franks, the Turks would worship a certain someone from family of Mohammed (qui est de genere Mahumet), whose ruler of Egypt worshiped himself 1121 . Raymond shows at least a vague knowledge of religious divisions within Islam, most likely recalling the character of Ali ibn Abi Talib 1122 . Raymond's brief reference provokes the interpretation that he knew somehow about the religious differences between the Turks and the rulers of Egypt, and in the author's opinion, these differences concerned the worshiping of someone who is a relative of Mohammed, that is, the division into Sunni and Shia. However, Raymond

shows that this his knowledge is not because he does not even know the name of this person; he only used a phrase qui est de genere Mahumet (a someone from family of Mohammed or a kinsman of Mohammed) 1123 . Nevertheless, it can be seen that Raymond has provided some information on the pages of his account showing that Crusaders knew about some religious differences within Islam, probably to a small degree, and which may be a matter of political negotiations used against the Franks by the Turks and ruler of Egypt 1124 . Furthermore, it could be observed that the author was aware of the political relations between Fatimids and Seljuks, although it is difficult to answer the question about the sources of his knowledge 1125 . The most probable cause is that Raymond knew the religious division of Egypt and the Turks into Shiites and Sunnis from the expedition itself, because Crusades, vol. 2, Cambridge 1952, pp. 60-64;66-67. 1129 Y. Lev, Army, Regime, and Society in Fatimid Egypt, 358-487/968-1094, "International Journal of Middle East Studies" 19/3 (1987), pp. 337-365.

The term of Maurus was in use from ancient times (Strabo's Μαῦροι; Tacitus' Mauri) and was given to the population of Mauritania, which was the historical and geographic land, now spanning over the western part of Algeria and northern Morocco. In the Middle Ages, the word Moorish was referring to all Muslims living in both Andalusia and the northern areas of Africa originating from Arabs and Berbers. The Moors were also considered to be an enemy of Christianity because along with the Saracens they sacked the city of Rome in 846, pillaging the Basilica of Saint Peter 1130 . The Maurus term existed in classical Latin and it is closely related to another meaning, namely to the adjective maurus (-a, -um), plur. mauri (-orum) -black. The root has remained for example in the Spanish language, where the term of moreno has a pejorative meaning and it signifies a man with a dark skin complexion or one who is over-tanned; moreover in German language there is the pejorative word der Mohr, a negro, from which the derivation was formed for the negative word of this same meaning in Polish language: murzyn 1131 . The term of Maurus appears also in the letter of Daimbert of Pisa, Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Saint-Gilles to the Pope,

where a mention appears that in the battle of Ascalon the Franks killed more than hundred thousands of Moors (plus quam C milia Maurorum) 1132 .

The indicated semantic context outlines the perspective of Raymond who, perhaps wanting to distinguish the inhabitants of Tripoli, did not describe them through a general term, which he had used to name the enemy; instead, he reached for a word that he most probably associated with the Iberian Peninsula. It seems that on the one hand it could be a display of the author 's erudition by enriching the catalogue of hostile nations against whom the Franks fought during the Crusade. On the other hand, Raymond may be pointing to a peculiar unity of the enemy, which could be understood as a fight against the same religious enemy both in the Iberian Peninsula and Middle East 1133 . Such a perspective could be a reference to the papal discourse, presented clearly in the Therefore, the presence of the Moors on the pages of Raymond of Aguilers' work should not be surprising. Chronicler most probably possessed knowledge about the Iberian Peninsula and the fact that the Muslims living there were described as the Moors. However, it is possible that the author, based on the meaning that existed in Latin, wanted to convey information about the racial diversity of the enemy, which would emphasize his "otherness". This term does not appear more on the pages of Raymond's account; it is therefore unique and assigned to one particular enemy: the citizens of Tripoli.

Apart from above mentioned names, Raymond describes the enemy using the terms hostis, inimicus and paganus. It seems that the term hostis, which simply means "enemy" or "foreigner", "stranger", appears on the pages of the Historia Francorum mostly as a technical term. For instance, the author writes that the Crusaders attacked the Tripoli's forces so fiercely that they were approaching rather as friends than enemies (amicos non hostes) 1137 . According to Raymond, the Eastern Christians surrendered the lands and castles to the Franks because they wanted to escape from the enemy's bondage (ab hostibus corripi) 1138 . On the pages of Historia Francorum this is a general term used to name the enemy without specific distinctiveness. This very word is used to describe the garrison of Antioch (hostes de civitate) 1139 as well as the forces of Kurbugha 1140 and the troops of Fatimids 1141 .

The context of use of the word inimicus seems to go beyond the general term. Through its particular usage. inimicus refers to the biblical discourse of religious conflict, where this term is used to describe the enemies of God. For instance, Raymond of Aguilers, at the end of his narration about the battle against the first succour of Antioch, led by Radwan of Aleppo, writes that the God, who is according to the Psalm 23.8 strong and mighty in battle, protected the sons (protexit filios) and overthrew the enemies (prostravit inimicos) 1142 . Furthermore, in the vision of the priest named

Stephen, in the eve of the battle against Kurbugha, Jesus ordered Stephen to tell to Bishop of Le Puy that he should command the Christian army. Moreover, the Franks' war cry should be the words of the prayer from the Breviary: Congregati sunt inimici nostri et gloriantur in virtute sua contere fortitudinem illorum domine et disperge illos ut cognoscant quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi tu Deus noster 1143 (Our enemies are gathered together and boast of their might; crush their might, Oh Lord! and rout them so that they shall know you, our God, alone battles with us) 1144 . In the description of the siege of Jerusalem, Raymond mentions that God will judge His enemies (facere iudicium de inimicis suis) who have wrongly received him, desecrated the holy places of torment and burial and who are now working hard to exclude Christians from the great benefits of the sanctuary of God 1145 .

Similarly, the term of paganus seems to be associated with the sphere of religious conflict.

In the vision of priest Stephen during the siege of Antioch, Jesus asks why, if Franks are Christians, they are afraid of such enormity of pagan armies (paganorum multitudinem) 1146 . Furthermore, Raymond writes about the vision of Peter Bartholomew, in which Saint Andrew says that the area of the Crusaders' fight against the enemy is not the land of the pagans, but is under jurisdence of Saint Peter (terra iuris Beati Petri...non paganorum) 1147 . One of the commanders of Kurbugha says before the battle of Antioch that the Franks could be destroyed if the whole race of pagan (omnis gens paganorum) was to attack them immediately 1148 . Moreover, as it was mentioned above, Raymond considers the whole expedition to Jerusalem in the context of war between Christianitatis and Paganimitatis 1149 . that the Franks would not be able to look for relics outside of their own lands 1163 .

On the pages of his account, Raymond presents that all the blasphemies of enemy were punished by the Franks. According to the biblical perspective, the penalty for the sin of blasphemy was death, which was expressed in the Book of Leviticus 1164 . The accusation of the enemy for blasphemous acts was a strong propaganda argument for a Crusaders' vengeance and it can be seen that Raymond paid attention to that by indicating that such acts were punished by the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem 1165 . Therefore, it seems that the label of blasphemy in Raymond's audience could justify the actions taken against the enemy through highlighting the religious differences between the Christians and the enemy; it is further supported by the fact that the enemy does not hesitate to make blasphemous acts against God.

Presentation of the military struggles against the enemy

As in other accounts about the First Crusade, the Historia Francourm of Raymond of Aguilers is also a text in which the descriptions of the military struggle appear. It is worth emphasizing that in the account of the chaplain of Count of Toulouse, there are also descriptions of clashes against the Crusaders' enemies, not described by other eyewitnesses.

Raymond's biblical perspective of war against the enemy

The question should be posed about the sources of inspiration that Raymond of Aguilers used to create his descriptions of the military struggle against the Turks. From a literary perspective, were his depictions of events referring to certain narrative patterns? The description of one of the first clashes already indicates certain categories that the author used. In the narration about the battle of Dorylaeum, Raymond mentions that a miracle occurred. Namely, during the battle two horsemen gleamingly armed (duo equites armis coruscis) appeared, and rode in front of the Christian lines 1166 . The Turks quickly recognized that they could not fight against these two warriors in any way because no Turkish weapon could hurt these equestrians 1167 . Raymond says that personally, he did not see what happened but the apostates gave him the information about the miracle 1168 . However, it seems that Raymond needed proof other than the relation of the apostates, which could be considered insufficient among his audience. The final confirmation of the miracle is a further description. Raymond adds another element authenticating the mention by confirmation from first-hand source, which is an observation of his own and many others Crusaders 1169 . The author says that for two days of march after the battle the Franks saw dead Turkish warriors with their dead horses on their way 1170 .

As it was presented above, the intervention of horsemen dressed in white is a common topos, which existed in the sources, describing the struggle versus the unbelievers 1171 . That was an aspect of faith: a war against the enemy of God was a divine plan and those who were zealous in faith could count on the support and protection of God, who helps in the fight of his faithful 1172 . In other sorces, where the holy intervention of horsemen appears, the white warriors were identified with the patrons of knighthood such as St George, St Theodore or St Demetrius 1173 . However, in Raymond's case, there is no direct indication who these two warriors were. Furthermore, this is the mention that these were equestrians in shining or glowing armor (equites armis coruscis), not dressed in white such in other accounts 1174 . Raymond's mention also stands out among other eyewitness accounts given its context of use. Only the chaplain of Count of Toulouse writes that a holy intervention took place in the battle of Dorylaeum, whereas the authors of Gesta Francorum, Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere or the chroniclers associated with the Gesta tradition, such as Robert the Monk, describe the battle against Kurbugha through this literary device 1175 . In the search of the inspiration of Raymond's creation the Bible should be taken into account, and especially the passage from 2 Maccabees 11.8, where a horseman who was dressed in white and brandished weapons of gold appeared to Maccabeus and his soldiers, 1176 . The arguments for such an inspiration of Raymond are connected with his education. Despite the indicated differences in relation to other accounts, the function of intervention of two equestrians in Raymond's narration seems identical: it strengthens the message about God's protection over the Crusaders who fight for the right purpose against the enemy-infidel and because of their religious zeal the Christians are rewarded with help sent by God. This holy intervention can be interpreted as a specific manifestation of propaganda, which for Raymond's audience would strengthen their indicated beliefs that the expedition to Jerusalem is under God's protection and God defends the participants of Crusade as the purpose of the Crusade is right.Raymond's perspective of the consideration of war against enemy in the categories of biblical discourse could be clearly observe in the description of the battle of Count of Flanders and Bohemond against the Turks and the Arabs during the siege of Antioch 1177 . Raymond invokes the Maccabean war to say that the Christian army had beaten much greater forces of their foes such as the Israelites. In his narration, the Maccabees with three thousand men crushed an army of forty-eight thousands of Seleucids, but the Franks with only four hundred knights set to fight more than sixty thousand enemies 1178 . Although Raymond's comparison seems to be a glorification of the deeds of Franks over the Maccabees, the author then explains that he did not want to disregard the deeds of Israelites or praise the bravery of Franks. His aim was to present that the Crusaders as well as Maccabees are under God's protection, who, bestowed Franks even with greater grace by granting them such a great victory, which is in comparison greater than Maccabees' war against Seleucids 1179 . It seems that Raymond could also have been attempting to demonstrate the character of the holy war in the biblical context of the Books of Maccabees in the vision of Peter Bartholomew. Author of Historia Francorum writes that the victory over the enemy is the most important and prevails over the desire for gold or silver spoils 1180 . Therefore, Raymond expressis verbis presents the Crusaders in the biblical perspective as the successors of the Maccabees 1181 . The Franks in their deeds refer to the Maccabees, because of the war against infields who desecrated the sacrum as well as the Seleucids in the Bible. Thus, the author of Historia Francorum uses the literary and ideological frameworks of religious conflict inspired by the biblical discourse. The Books of the Maccabees plays a significant role in the entire identified that such biblical point of presentation of event was going to easily find its audience.

Huge number of the enemy forces

Almost every description of the Frankish struggle against their adversaries on the pages of Raymond's account contains the presentation of the huge number of the enemy forces. According to Historia Francorum, during the battle of Dorylaeum, the Crusaders faced the Turkish army calculated by Raymond to have amounted to one hundred fifty thousand warriors 1184 . Importantly, the interpretation of the number of fifteen is far from being explicable by a symbolic significance and it is rather difficult to interpret this number in the framework of its symbolical meaning as a harmony between the two Testaments 1185 . J. Flori suggested that such numbers could be a confirmation of the realistic informative intention of the chroniclers 1186 . However, the other options could be considered. The number fifteen often appears in the Raymond's Historia Francorum. This is not only the case of Turkish army at the Dorylaeum, but also Isnard (or Isoard) led a hundred and fifty men to attack the enemy forces, and the number of dead bodies of the Turks in the same struggle was estimated on fifteen thousand 1187 . Fifteen Frankish knights died in another battle near Antioch 1188 , and during the discussion before the siege of Jerusalem the number of knights in the army was estimated at fifteen thousand 1189 . Furthermore, the number of fifteen appears in other places: Bohemond was chosen as a main leader during the siege of Antioch for a fifteen days 1190 , a handsome youth from a Peter Desiderius' vision was of about fifteen 1191 , and the ruler of Tripoli offered, among other things, fifteen thousands of golden coins as a tribute for Crusaders 1192 .

Therefore, it can be seen that this number appears relatively often in the text. Perhaps it plays the function of organizing the message, but it could also be a simple message to the audience of Raymond that fifteen in the vast majority of its uses means "plenty".

Paying attention to the huge number of enemy troops also appears in further descriptions. At the beginning of the siege of Antioch, Raymond focuses on the description of fortification of the city which was very well protected by towers, strong walls and breastworks and enjoyed an excellent natural location, facilitating defence 1193 . Furthermore, Antioch had a well-prepared garrison which numbered two thousand of the best knights (optimi milites), four or five thousand of common knights (militum gregariorum) and more than ten thousand infantry (peditum) 1194 .

Raymond's description of enemy forces in Antioch was based on the conventional scheme of presentation of army as milites and pedites 1195 . The term miles in a 12th century sense did not always signify a fully armed, mounted knight who was a member of a firmly fixed social class recognized as noble. And so, in Raymond's case there were other men who fought on horseback who were occasionally indicated by rather rarely terms of milites gregarii (the common knights) or milites plebeii (the ordinary knights) 1196 . To understand the term milites plebeii an analogy could be made to the Iberian Peninsula where the form of military aid was organized into two types of troops: the peons (infantry) and the caballeros villanos, mounted warriors fighting on horseback, but not necessarily belonging to a strictly defined social class 1197 . Whereas the term of pedites described unmounted troops, men who fight without using of military horse, and at the same time, it meant professional infantrymen as well as anyone who was capable of fighting, including even those with meagre equipment and lack of military experience 1198 . Therefore, it could be said that this passage of Historia Francorum clearly shows that Raymond of Aguilers presents the enemy used the categories which were known in his own socio-cultural context and rather did not reflect the structure of military matters of the Islamic world 1199 .

The huge number of enemy forces alone is also an important matter: due to the added words, especially a word only, the translation of J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill creates a false image of Raymond's narration because according to them, the chronicler's phrasing indicates that the number of enemies appeared to have been weak 1200 . However, the case is opposite. In fact, the author wrote that the forces of enemy, such as the fortification of Antioch, were very strong. There were more than seventeen thousand soldiers of enemy in the city with two thousand of best knights and in sum six or seven thousand of mounted warriors 1201 . According to Raymond, the Franks numbered one hundred thousand; therefore, a ratio of attackers to defenders was 100:17. However, bearing in mind the symbolic use of numbers in many cases of Raymond's narration these pieces of information should be considered with a dose of caution and it should be concluded that the Crusaders' opponents possessed great strength.

In the battle against the succour of Antioch led by Radwan of Aleppo, Raymond writes that after the battle the deserters from the enemy army informed that the Franks killed not less than twenty-eight thousand enemies 1202 . This mention could be compared with the small forces of the Crusaders according to Raymond. Author of Historia Francorum mentions that God multiplied the forces of Christians from seven hundred knights to more than two thousand, which is a clear sign of divine help granted to the Franks 1203 . The number used in the presentation of the number of enemy losses does not seem to be a symbolic; however, it is also very doubtful that this would be the real number of Turks' victims during the battle.

In the presentation of one of the battles against the Antioch's garrison, the author states that the Turks organized an ambush against the Frankish army. When Robert of Flanders and Bohemond returned with a strong army from the port of St Symeon, the forces of the garrison of Antioch attacked and defeated the Crusaders, killing almost three hundred men and massacring the fugitives 1204 . Seeing this great success of his troops, Yaghi Siyan, the ruler of Antioch, ordered his army to attack the Franks 1205 . According to Raymond, the Turkish attack was impetuous and they almost destroyed the Christian forces 1206 . However, at this critical moment, Raymond reminds the reader that his work is a narration of heroeic deeds. A Provencal knight name Isoard (or Isnard) of construct a castle in front of the bridge discovered a mountain, which served as a cemetery of Saracens (sepultura Saracenorum), where the Turks buried their dead 1211 . However, the poor people (pauperes), excited by the sight of spoils, desecrated and robbed all the tombs of their enemies 1212 .

Unlike Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode, Raymond does not mention the rich burials of the Turks 1213 . Instead, Raymond provides a description that the tombs of the Turks were robbed, leaving the implication that there was something there to loot. The author emphasizes the use of this event in order to describe the success of Christians. Chronicler estimates the scale of victory based on the number of dead corpses, which amounted to fifteen thousand, but as the author mentions, he does not count those who were buried in Antioch and drowned in the river 1214 . The numbers indicated by Raymond seem improbable, according even to his own mention that the garrison of Antioch held more than seventeen thousand men. Hence, in a one battle against the garrison of Antioch the Crusaders could not have killed almost all enemy forces. It seems therefore appropriate to look at this mention from the perspective of its function in the literary representation of the enemy. The number of fallen warriors among the enemy was enormous, especially in reference to the hero of the battle, Isoard (or Isnard) who led hundred and fifty infantrymen to battle. The number of the enemy on the one hand emphasizes the strength expressed by using a large number of their dead, ten times greater than the strength of the Isoard's forces, and on the other, it underlines the great deed of the Frankish knight who attacked and defeated far more numerous enemy.

However, in the further description of the struggle of Antioch, Raymond presents another victory over the Turks. In the newly built castle, sixty Crusaders defended against seven thousand Turks 1215 . Chronicler emphasizes the courage of the knights who defended the bridge on which they were cut off and could not return to the castle 1216 . Raymond clearly indicates that the Frankish knights were in a critical situation, under constant attack of the enemy. However, these Crusaders managed to break into a house where they found shelter, and the sounds of the battle alarmed other Franks who moved to help them. The Turks rushed to flee at the sight of the Frankish support and began to retreat. Despite the quick retreat, their entire rear guard was destroyed 1217 . In this description of the struggle on the pages of Historia Francorum, Raymond demonstrates the brave deeds of Frankish knights on the background of the huge amount of enemy's forces. The author summarizes this narration: Libet itaque attendere quanto pauciores numero fuimus tanto forciores nos Dei gratia fecit (Thus it pleases me to note that, although we were fewer in numbers, God's grace made us much stronger than the enemy) 1218 .

Reference to that perspective also appears in other descriptions. For instance, Raymond presents a comparably battle between the Turks, who numbered one hundred and fifty warriors, and Godfrey of Bouillon and his twelve knights 1219 . Godfrey and his small company were victorious, killing thirty Turks, took the same number into slavery, and the rest of enemies were hunted down and drowned in nearby swamps and rivers 1220 . After such a success, Godfrey returned to Antioch and his captives were humiliated by the fact that they had to keep the heads of fallen comrades in their hands 1221 .Kurbugha's army was presented in a vision of Peter Bartholomew as a multitude of pagans (paganorum multitudinem) 1222 . Similarly, the army of Fatymids at the battle of Ascalon was presented as countless multitude of pagans (cum innumerabili paganorum multitudine) 1223 .

Furthermore, on the way to Jerusalem the Crusaders found a strongly fortified place, identified with Ḥoṣn al-Akrād (Krak des Chevaliers) 1224 . The Franks decided to capture this fortress because the defenders neither showed any intentions to nor wanted to surrender the castle. According to Raymod, the garrison of the enemy consisted of thirty thousand men 1225 . During the siege of Arqah, according to the author of Historia Francorum, the Crusaders had heard of a countless of Turkish troops (gentes sine numero) send by the Caliph of Baghdad that were going to fight against the Christian forces 1226 . In the presentation of the battle of the city of Tripoli, the chronicler mentions that the Tripolitans were confident because of their huge numbers (in multitudine tumultus sui confisi) 1227 .

In another description from Raymond's account, not far from Ramla, Galdemar found forces containing four hundred Arabs and two hundred Turks, which in the description of Raymond seems to represent the Fatimid forces in which the Turks could have been mercenaries 1228 . Galdemar had twenty knights and fifty infantrymen 1229 . In a successful attack, the enemy of Franks were able to kill four knights and Achard of Montmerle, a noble young man and well known knight (nobilis iuvenis et miles inclitus), and kill all archers, but with heavy casualties 1230 . As the chronicler points out, despite the losses suffered, neither the enemy's attack nor the strength of the Crusaders ceased, but Franks were even exalted by the chronicler's statement that they were the real God's knighthood (immo Dei militum) 1231 . As the battle raged on, some of Crusaders noticed another Christian army on the horizon. Raymond Pilet together with his group of fifty knights charged so mightily that the enemies thought he had much more numerous forces 1232 . The enemy was defeated, two hundred of enemy warriors were killed, and Crusaders took huge amount of loot 1233 .

Moreover, the author describes the Fatimids' garrison of Jerusalem as consisting of sixty thousand warriors, plus a non-specified number of women and children (lx milia hominum belligeraterorum errant infra civitatem, exceptis parvulis et mulieribus de quibus non erat numerus) 1234 . Raymond writes literally that his aim is to make a comparison between the huge number of enemy forces and the army of Crusaders which consisted of not more than twelve thousand men, along with many disabled and poor people and no more than twelve to thirteen hundred knights 1235 . Through the use of this literary device, the chronicler could present that all the efforts undertaken in God's name would end successfully.

It could be observed that Raymond's presentation of the number of enemy faced the Crusaders has the topical character, similar to the Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia or the epistolary sources. In almost all descriptions of the struggles against the Turks, the forces of Fatimids or any Frankish opponents, the number of enemies is highlighted in comparison to a small number of Christian warriors. It seems that the main objective of such literary framework was to emphasize the narrative background of the great deeds of Franks, who were fighting against such strong enemy who outnumbered the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem. Moreover, this literary measure shows that although the enemy is huge in number, the Franks have God's protection and because of that they can prevail.

On the pages of Raymond's Historia Francorum a particular image of the leaders of the enemy was presented.

Kilij Arslan

In the description of the battle of Dorylaeum, the leader of enemy was indicated by name.

Similarly to other chroniclers, Raymond has written this name as Solimannus and this was Kilij Arslan, Seljuk Sultan of Rûm (1092-1107) 1236 . As was mentioned above, the form of name Solimannus was adapted into Latin from the Turkish word Süleyman or Arabic Sulaymān. However, as in the case of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, Raymond who certainly knew the Vulgate's form of the record of that name as Salomon does not use the biblical reference to that famous king of Israel.

On the pages of Raymond's account, Kilij Arslan is presented on a much smaller scale than in Gesta Fracorum and Tudebode's Historia because the chaplain of Count of Toulouse does not mention his father, known from these accounts as Suleyman the Old (Solimannus vetus) 1237 . In Raymond's narration, Kilij Arslan appears as an example of enemy leader against whom God decided to show His greatness through the Franks. According to the author, at the beginning of battle at Dorylaeum the Turkish leader, before the arrival of the second army of Crusaders, took many prisoners and tents from Bohemond's camp 1238 . However, when the Christian forces won the battle because of the succour of the second contingent, Kilij Arslan by God's virtus ("power", "strength" or "virtue") was forced to abandon all that he took before and flee from the battlefield 1239 .

It seems that Raymond wants to express in that short passage that the God Himself defeated the enemy and the Franks are only a tool in His hands. Thus, there are two stages of Kilij Arslan's presentation on the battlefield. Firstly, he gains spoils of war and secondly, because of the action of God, he loses everything and flees. After that battle, he disappears from the pages of Raymond's account. 2.2.3.2. Yaghi Siyan 1236 RA, p. 45;cf. A. Beihammer, op. cit., p. 67. 1237Cf. Chapter II.2.4.3.1. Kilij Arslan. 1238 RA, p. 45; about the battle of Dorylaeum cf. J. France, Victory in the East..., pp. 171-187;T. Asbridge, The First Crusade..., pp. 134-138. 1239 RA, p. 45;cf. RA (Hill&Hill), p. 28.

Francorum. His name was written as Gitcianus or Gracianus 1240 . These descriptions differ from the form known from Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, where Yaghi Siyan appears as Cassianus 1241 . Perhaps, the form of the name of Antioch's ruler, Gitcianus or Gracianus, is a distorted form of the Turkish name Yağısıyan, which was adapted into Latin, and the difference in the record may result from another language background between Raymond and other chroniclers.

Raymond of Aguilers presents Yaghi Siyan by using the term the leader of the city (civitatis rector) 1242 . The specific term for naming the ruler of the city: rector, is rather rare for naming the enemy's commanders as it is used only in reference to Yaghi Siyan. This term appears in classical literature: for instance, the form of rector et gubernator civitatis is present in Cicero's De re publica 1243 , and was also used by Tacitus to describe the commanders of an army 1244 . This title appears also in Italy, where in the second half of the 12th century some of the cities decided to be ruled by a single executive official, and a dominus civitatis is present in Siena and a rector civitatis in Verona and in Bologna 1245 . Moreover, a civitatis rector appears in the Bible, in the Book of Ecclesiasticus is written that as the governor is, so will be the inhabitants of his city (qualis rector est civitatis tales et inhabitants) 1246 . However, from the eyewitness authors only Raymond uses the title of civitatis rector, which suggested different cultural background and the title indicates aspecific form of rulership associated with the power over the city commune.

Commander of Antioch is presented as a severe ruler. For example, he orders to his soldiers to attack Frankish forces and win or die, closing the city gates behind them 1247 . That was a reason of the great defeat of Antioch's garrison 1248 . Chronicler mentions that after the capture of the city of Antioch, Yaghi Siyan was attempting to flee from one of the city gates but was caught by the Armenian peasants who decapitated him, taking his head to the Franks 1249 . At the end of the narration, Raymond writes that in his opinion, there was a divine will in this act because Yaghi Siyan earlier himself decapitated many Armenians and now he was decapitated by them 1250 . In information about the ruler of Antioch is provided. Therefore, it could be observed that his image on the pages of Historia Francorum is rather short and not detailed, even in comparison to the description known from Gesta Francorum, while Yaghi Siyan's role was expanded in the Tudebode's Historia. Nevertheless, it seems that more attention should be paid on the Mirdalim's literary role in Raymond's narration. Mirdalim appears on the pages of Historia Francorum in a dialogue between him and Kurbugha, who is surprised that the Crusaders had already marched to the battle and summoned Mirdalim 1269 . In Raymond's version, Mirdalim comes from Antioch and there is no information that he was posed by Kurbugha as the commander of the citadel of Antioch or that he converted to Christianity after the Frankish victory. It rather seems that he was a fictional person or unknown to us from other sources and simply plays his role in the narration. It is likely that his name was coined form the Old French term amiral (which derives from Arabic 'amīr) as was suggested by J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill 1270 . Perhaps, it was a distorted form of name Miralem, coined from Arabic 'amīr and combined with alīm meaning "knowing", "learned". However, it is also possible that Mirdalim is a distorted form of the Turkish name or a loose reference used to show the "otherness" of this character.

Mirdalim was described in a positive manner as nobilem et nobis notum per miliciam suam (nobleman known to us because of his courage) 1271 . Mirdalim's role was exposed in a fictitious dialogue, which Raymond put in the mouth of Kurbugha and his comrade. Atabeg of Mosul asked Mirdalim what was happening and why Mirdalim had said that the Christians were so few and would not fight against Kurbugha. Mirdalim replied that he had not said anything like this, although he suggested that he would observe the Crusader army and would tell Kurbugha if the atabeg could easily defeat the Franks. Mirdalim said that the Franks would sooner die than escape, and that they could be destroyed if the whole race of pagan (omnis gens paganorum) had moved against them, without giving them time to develop their battle ranks and leave the city 1272 . However, Kurbugha formed his army and permitted the Crusaders to march out of Antioch, even though he had already been advised to attack immediately and, according to Mirdalim's advice, he could have easily blocked the army of Franks 1273 . Therefore, Kurbugha did not listen to the advice of Mirdalim. The fictitiousness of dialogue seems obvious because the chronicler could not have witnessed this situation. It is also difficult to find any witnesses to this dialogue among its informants. Furthermore, in reality the Turkish commander would not have used the word pagans to name his comrades, as Mirdalim did on the pages of Raymond's work 1274 . It seems that the character of plays his role in Raymond's narration. Unfortunately, it is difficult to indicate who Mirdalim would really be and who was the real character who served as the prototype of Raymond's Mirdalim; probably it was not Wahab ibn Mahmud, and hence Mirdalim will remain rather anonymous.

Kurbugha

The most important enemy on the pages of Historia Francorum is without any doubts Kurbugha, the atabeg of Mosul ( 1096 The Approach of Kurbugha's army was emphasized by the narration about the first victim of the Turkish forces; Roger of Barneville, miles clarissimus et carissimus (a most illustrious and beloved knight), who was captured and beheaded 1281 . Decapitation of the Frankish warrior points to the "otherness" of the enemy and his role as a persecutor of Christians in Raymond's account, in which reference is made to the long tradition of persecuting Christians and cutting off their heads. christianorum) 1284 . However, Kurbugha, described as superbus ("haughty"), says that even though he is illegitimate (iure iniuria), he still wants to take Antioch and he sent the messenger away 1285 .

Furthermore, Kurbugha was presented as someone who neglects the military matters at the most important moment. At the very beginning of the description of the battle of Antioch, he was particularly surprised that the Crusaders had already marched to battle. According to Raymond, in the time of Frankish approach, Kurbugha was playing chess in his tent 1286 . He was troubled (turbatus animo) by this move of Christians and he summoned Mirdalim, asking for an advice which he disregarded anyway 1287 . However, Kurbugha formed his army and allowed the Crusaders to march out of Antioch, even though Mirdalim advised to attack immediately 1288 .

According to Raymond, at the sight of Crusaders, Kurbugha offered the Christians that five or ten Turks would fight against the same number of Franks, and the result of this clash would decide which army should leave in peace 1289 . The emphasis on settling the dispute through a duel was expressed in the Kurbugha's words that everyone will fight pro suo iure 1290 . Therefore, it can be assumed that the narration of a duel as a means of resolving disputes refers to the trial by ordeal (iudicium pugnae). This form of dispute resolution was widespread in particular among the Germanic peoples, as was reported by Publius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-c. 120 AD) in Germania 1291 .

Then, with the expansion of these peoples the trial by duel spread in the territories of the former Roman Empire 1292 . However, it should be emphasized that the duel, which was to settle the dispute has much deeper roots than just the Germanic substrate, because in the Iliad there is a duel between The proposal of a duel of selected people, five or ten for each side, indicates the content and values of the knights' audience of Raymond's account. Instead of allowing for losses because of an open battle, a decisive duel of knights was proposed who would thus be able to decide on the fate of all their comrades and, in the case of victory, cover themselves with glory. Nevertheless, both sides should have accept the offer according to its principle. However, in the description of Raymond, Kurbugha first refuses the offer made by Crusaders and then they refuse an offer of Turkish leader, which shows that it was difficult to come to an understanding also in this field between both sides. It could be observed that Kurbugha on the pages of Historia Francorum stands in contrast to the Crusader's leaders. On the background of the representation of the enemy leader, Raymond illustrates the situation in the camp of Franks. At the very beginning, it is shown that the Franks could act responsibly. The forces were divided to simultaneously face Kurbugha and the garrison from the Antiochean citadel. When the day of the battle came, all of Crusaders performed pious acts such as receiving the sacrament, surrendering to the will of God, and being ready even for their demise if God so wanted 1303 . What is worth emphasizing, the Crusaders proclaimed that they were ready to die in honour or grace of the Roman Church and the Frankish race (ad decus Romane ecclesiae et genti Francorum) 1304 . That statement indicates that Raymond considers the military deeds on the expedition to Jerusalem as something that happens for the glory of the whole Church and the Franks and this is a part of the collective memory. In the opinion of the chronicler, undoubtedly the fight in the name of God with such powerful enemy of faith is an act worthy of commemoration and worthy of such lofty words that will praise the name of not only the militant Franks, but also the whole Roman Church.

In this example, it can be observed what kind of society was the audience of Raymond's work that is a society of warriors for whom, along with pious acts of faith and zealous fulfilment of religious practices, extremely important elements of everyday life are war deeds and heroic achievements. This message strengthens, accurately depicting the setting of Crusaders' forces and indicating the individual leaders of a given formation on the battlefield. These leaders of the First Crusade play the most important role: Bohemond, Adhémar, Hugo the Great, Robert of Flanders, Tancred, Robert of Normandy and Godfrey of Bouillon 1305 . Raymond also presents the mental change that took place among the Christians and the religious practices, which prepared the Franks for the upcoming battle 1306 . Furthermore, the Franks found the Holy Lance in the Cathedral of St.

Peter, which was thought to have been used to pierce the side of Christ's chest 1307 . On the pages of Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum, the Franks are well prepared for the battle of Antioch in two-dimensional perspective of both sacrum, because of their zeal in religious practices and display of humility, and of profanum, that is sphere of warfare, because they are under good commandership and eager to fight in the battle. The behaviour of Kurbugha stands in contrast to this: he is haughty and not prepared for the battle which is indicated by the descriptions that he is troubled when the Crusader forces are approaching, he neglects the enemy by playing chess and does not take advantage of the chance to destroy the Christian army, even though Mirdalim advised it to him. The comparison between the leader of enemy and the Franks, presented in Raymond's account, definitely stands in favour of the Franks. Author writes his work knowing the outcome of the clash of Antioch against Kurbugha and therefore he could have used some literary presentation to show the image of enemy's main military commander. On the pages of Raymond's account, Kurbugha is a negative figure and his presentation does not inspire respect to him as a great 1304 RA, p. 79. 1305RA, p. 79. 1306RA, pp. 79-80. 1307 About the Holy Lance cf. S. Runciman, The Holy Lance Found at Antioch, "Analecta Bollandiana" 68 (1950) Therefore, the author uses this term rather freely, with reference to the city of Cairo or to the territory under the authority of its ruler.

On the pages of Raymond's account, the Franks negotiated with the Muslims and the exchange of the envoys with the Fatimids' is one example of that 1319 . According to the author, the emissaries of the Egyptian ruler saw the great military success of the Franks over the forces led by

Radwan of Aleppo, considered by Raymond as a miracle 1320 . Seeing the Frankish victory, the Fatimids' emissaries promised friendship and good treatment of the pilgrims, but first of all they reported kindness acts of their ruler to Egyptian Christians and the Crusaders 1321 . Furthermore, the Franks negotiated their passage through the territories of Syria and Palestine with the rulers of Shaizar or Tripoli 1322 . However, when it came to recognizing someone as an enemy, religious differences again came to the fore. Raymond writes that the ruler of Egypt was not determined as to whom to choose the alliance with the Franks against the Turks or with the Turks against the Franks 1323 . Raymond of Aguilers presents the Turkish offer for the ruler of Egypt, which contains the tribute, the acceptance of the Fatimids' coin, and worshiping a certain someone from family of Muhammad (qui est de genere Mahumet) 1324 . The author describes that the Franks negotiated with the Fatimids', and they proposed that if the ruler of Egypt would return Jerusalem and its belongings (Iherusalem, cum pertinenciis suis), they would return to him all his former cities captured by the Turks and that the Franks would divide all other Turkish cities which could be captured with the Fatimids' support 1325 . However, the ruler of Egypt proposed something else, namely that the Franks could visit the holy city without weapons and in groups of one or two hundred 1326 . After that, the negotiations collapsed and it was sure that the Franks had to capture his castles 1332 . However, the knights from Christian army were so impressed by the wealth of the city of Tripoli, that they persuaded Raymond of Saint-Gilles to laid siege of Arqah, because in their opinion that could be a reason to threaten the ruler of Tripoli to give them gold and silver 1333 .

Because of the siege, the ruler offered fifteen thousands of golden coins, animals such as horses and leaders. This narration indicates that Raymond, on the one hand, states that Muslim rulers assured the Crusaders of their friendship, and on the other, in their relations with their fellow believers, they despised the Franks. However, the king of Acre would not say such things as in the letter directly to the Crusaders, thus he is presented as two-faced man.

Enemy's conduct of war

Although Raymond's the Historia Francorum seems to be contested by military historians as the reliable source of Crusaders and Turkish warfare in contrast to Gesta Francorum, it should be noted that the chaplain of Count of Toulouse describes the enemy's conduct of war 1347 .

field. Over the course of the descriptions of the battles fought by the Crusaders against the Turks, Raymond presents the military tactic of the enemy within the framework of something that is not very close to his socio-cultural context and the way of fighting that is preferred by his own community, with a certain dose of exotic elements. According to the chronicler, even if the Turks were often dispersed and routed they could resume the fight because they were not armoured with heavy weapons and they had very fast (velocissimos equos habebant) 1348 and very light horses (levissime equos Turcorum) 1349 . These horses are described on the pages of Raymond's account by the term of farius or farius equus, which derives from the Arabic word faras and it is presented in the Byzantine's sources as φάρας 1350 . Therefore, in the case of Raymond it was a Latinization of that word, which was probably heard by the author during the expedition. Perhaps the term faras/farius describes the Arabian horse, but it could be also the Turkoman horse, which was an Oriental horse breed from the steppes of Central Asia. Both breeds may have had a common ancestor and although the Turkoman horse is bigger than Arabian horse 1351 , both breeds look very similar and have excellent speed and stamina. Hence, it is possible that the Turks used them both in their struggles against the Crusaders, who in turn did not notice much of a difference 1352 . Because of their mobility, the Arabian horses were highly esteemed by the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), who mentioned that the tactics of rapid fire and flight were also caused by the fact that these horses were very valuable and the Arabs did not want to lose them 1353 . Anna Komnene informs that for the needs of the Byzantine army, the envoys of Emperor Alexius I bought well-bred horses from Damascus, Edessa and Arabia, which proves the good reputation of the local breeds of horses in the 12th century 1354 .

Author of Historia Francorum uses the term farius four times to describe the horses of the enemy. First, the term appears as the spoil of war of the Franks when they defeat the Turks in the Latinitatis, vol. 3, 415c. 1351 On average the Turkoman horses are weighing from 360 to 400 kg, while Arabian horses from 315 to 360 kg, in comparison the weight of the warhorses of the Crusaders are estimated at range from 545 to 590 kg; cf. A. Hyland, The Medieval warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades, Stroud 1994, pp. 114-115. 1352 Cf. A. Hyland, op. cit., pp. 19-20, 106-123;about battle where Isoard of Ganges distinguished himself 1355 . Second, Raymond mentions that the Crusaders went to the cities of Shaizar and Homs to buy these horses (ut equos farios ibi mercarentur) 1356 . Third, Raymond of Saint-Gilles boasts of the spoils, among which are these horses 1357 . Fourth, Count of Toulouse gave five thousand solids and two Arabian horses (duos farios) for Tancred's services 1358 . As could be observed, the author express that the mounts of enemy carried high value among the Crusaders and enjoyed huge esteem. These horses could be a very valuable spoil of war or a remarkable gift. Furthermore, the Franks did not hesitate to spend their money to buy the Arabian horses in the Syrian cities as well as the Byzantines.

Therefore, by using such wonderful horses, the enemy of Crusaders preferred to fight at a distance, with firing arrows at the forces of their opponents 1359 . As Raymond mentions, even when outnumbered, the Turks often wanted to encircle their opponent 1360 . Hence, the Franks could have incurred losses without even engaging in melee combat. Moreover, the Turks used the arrows not only to fight against their adversaries on the battlefield, but also to destroy the holy images of Syrians, which seems to be a rhetorical figure highlighting the role of the bow in the Turkish society 1361 . Fighting from horseback was also a deadly tactic during the pursuit or flight, or against the Frankish horses. Raymond mentions that Adhémar of Le Puy and Count of Toulouse lost all of their mounts because of the Turkish arrows 1362 .

However, when the Crusaders finally made a battle contact with the Turks, they could massacre them, even when previously they would be under constant attack of enemy who used bows and threw stones. For instance, as a result of a melee fight in one of the struggles during the siege of Antioch, the Turks suffered heavy losses and their entire rear guard was destroyed despite their quick retreat 1363 . Raymond emphasizes that the Turks were unfamiliar in the use of spears and swords (Turci nam lanceis vel gladiis bellum conferre parati) 1364 and they were unaccustomed with using of the sword (Turci vero insoliti agree bellum gladiis) 1365 . Therefore, when the enemy realized that the fight against Count of Flanders was to be with the use of swords rather than arrows, they started to flee (ut videre quod non iam sagittis eminus sed cominus gladiis res gerenda foret, in fugam versi sunt) 1366 . Furthermore, Raymond describes the battle against Kurbugha, which has a status of the eyewitness account because of the author' participation in it, where even the Turkish arrows cannot kill the Franks. Chronicler informs that the Crusaders who were in the Adhémar's contingent were attacked by the Turks, but even though they greatly outnumbered the Franks, they did not do any harm. The Turks did not hurt anyone or even shoot arrows at the Crusaders.

Raymond explains that this was probably due to the Holy Lance which he himself held in his hands in the battle 1367 . Author of the the Historia Francorum also disagreed with the rumour that Heraclius, the standard-bearer of the Bishop of Le Puy, was wounded in this battle. Instead of this, Raymond writes that Heraclius passed his banner to someone else and, in addition, he was away from the ranks in which the chronicler was 1368 . Therefore, the Turkish arrows killed no one from the Adhémar's contingent, but it was because of the protection of Holy Lance so this is rather a literary invention than the battle's reality. Worth mentioning is that a whole passage about Heraclius seems

to be an answer to the description from the Gesta Francorum, showing that from the earliest years there was a debate about the events of the expedition to Jerusalem 1369 . In this case, Raymond seems indignant with regard to attributing death to soldiers from his contingent because on the one hand it may have been untrue, and on the other, it may have not been desirable in the narration, which held no one of the Provencals had died by the virtue of the Holy Lance 1370 .

However, the enemy was capable of inflicting heavy losses to the Crusaders. This occurs, for example, in the description of the battle against the first succour of Antioch led by Radwan of Aleppo 1371 . According to Raymond, the Franks enjoyed excellent terrain layout at the battlefield because the marsh and the river protected them; therefore the Turks could not encircle them 1372 .

Furthermore, the Crusaders received the protection of six valleys by which their forces could take position to the battle 1373 . In the brief description, the Franks attack the enemy, who run to and fro, shoot their arrows and fleee from the battlefield (Turci autem discurrere, sagittare, tamen 2.2.4.2. Military tactic of enemy: art of defence Although the emphasis of the representation of enemy's warfare in Raymond's account is rather focused on the battles in the open field, the author mentions the art of defending the fortified positions. The Turks from Nicaea are shown as the defenders of a great city which has strong walls and a good localisation 1387 . Similar presentation appears in the case of Antioch, described as very well fortified city with towers, strong walls and breastworks, situated in an excellent natural location, facilitating defence 1388 . The author also mentions the citadel of the city of Antioch, named by the Greek term Colax 1389 . Furthermore, the city held a well-prepared garrison which Raymond describes in detail. He informs that Antioch housed two thousand of the best knights (optimi milites), four or five thousand of common knights (militum gregariorum) and more than ten thousand infantry (peditum) 1390 . However, the ratio of the Franks to defenders was 100:17, while in the presentation of the city of Jerusalem the garrison consisted of sixty thousand warriors (besides women and children), which in comparison to the number of Crusaders, given that around thirteen thousand men werr able to fight, gives the ratio of 60:13 to the disadvantage of the Franks 1391 .

Therefore, according to Raymond, the cities of Antioch and Jerusalem were well-prepared for the siege in terms of the number of defenders, and the number of warriors in the holy city was greater than the number of attackers. In other descriptions, Harim was presented by Raymond as strongly fortified place (munitissum castrum) 1392 , similar to the city of Arqah, described as a strongly defended castle, one unconquerable by human force (castellum Archados munitissimum et inexpugnabile viribus humanis) 1393 , where Pons of Balazun (Balazuc) was killed 1394 .

What is worth emphasizing, the co-author of the Historia Francorum was killed during the siege by a rock hurled from petraria (catapult) during this siege 1395 . However, as could be assumed, he was not the only victim of the military machines of the enemy. The enemy used not only arrows but also balistaria (ballistae) in the siege of Nicaea 1396 or petraria (catapults) during the siege of Furthermore, Raymond mentions that in the forces of Jerusalem's garrison two women wanted to destroy one of the catapults by attempting enchantments (fascinare vellent) 1399 . They were described as mulieres carminantes, which was usually translated as witches. Raymond writes that one of the stones from the same catapult that the women wanted to cast a spell on killed both witches, as well as three nearby little girls, and in this way, the spell was broken. Although this event may be far from the truth, it seems that the chronicler decided to pass it on for a specific purpose. The indicated passage shows that Raymond not only believed in witchcraft and regarded it as something extremely disgraceful according to his faith; it also indicates that the chronicler, in order to present the enemy, did not hesitate to associate them with behaviours that depart from the social norms adopted in the world known to him. For those women who tried to fight against the catapult of the Franks in their unique way, the role of Amazons was assigned, which implies behaviours that do not match the status of a woman in the Frankish oikumene 1400 . According to that point of view, women should not fight and especially not cast spells. The matter is solved by a catapult missile which restores social order and destroys the spell over the catapult. However, this brief mention should be considered in the category of the world seen upside down; in the enemy army, there were women who fought with the Franks, and this in the terms of the chronicler was not acceptable and it demonstrates the "otherness" of the enemy.

Enemy's ambushes

On the pages of Raymond's account, the Turks often prepared the ambushes to overcome the Christians. For instance, they planned to destroy the Frankish forces during the siege of Nicaea to God, who is the subject and He literally sent Count of Toulouse to destroy the enemy (Deus...comitem cum suis inmisit) 1403 . Furthermore, God gave the protection to the Frankish army, which is indicated by God discovering the trickery of the Turks. In the representation of the enemy, Raymond described them through the term impious ("wicked", "ungodly", "not pious"), because they wanted to win not by their bravery and power, but through a trick 1404 .

The author of the Historia Francorum writes that in one of the battles during the siege of Antioch, Bohemond scattered and routed the enemy's ambush (hostium insidiae) 1405 . In another description about the siege of Antioch, Raymond mentions that the Crusaders brought supplies from the port of St Symeon and to their camp by sea,. However, it was not a safe route and required a reliable escort. The Turks, described in terms of impunity in their wickedness (Turci autem sceleris impunitate), decided to organize an ambush for the Frankish army 1406 . It happened when Count of Toulouse and Bohemond returned with a strong army from the port. The description of the struggle is very short, but it shows the defeat of the Crusaders in a blunt manner. Franks lost and started to withdraw. The Turks scooped up huge loot, killed almost three hundred men and massacred the fugitives, which was emphasized by the chronicler with an eloquent comparison that the Franks were massacred and beat on a manner of cattle in the mountains (more pecudum per montes et abrupta queque trucidaremur et collideremur) 1407 . Furthermore, during the narration about the siege of Jerusalem, Raymond mentions that the enemy prepared ambushes (insidias) for the unarmed people from the Crusader army, killing and capturing many of them, and even led away their cattle and flocks 1408 .

However, the Franks were also capable of ambushing for the enemy. The Crusaders marched on their way to Jerusalem through the cities of Gibellum, Tripoli, Tyre and Acre 1409 . At that time, the army of Turks and Arabs followed the Crusaders, attacking and robbing the poor people who stayed behind the main army because of their weakness (Turci et Arabes exercitum sequebantur et paupers qui pro debilitate sua longe post exercitum remanebant interficiebant et spoliabant) 1410 . After two such ambushes, Count of Toulouse decided to intervene. Raymond of Saint-Gilles prepared an ambush (insidia) for the enemy who was waiting for easy spoils. As soon as the enemy was seen, the Franks rushed to attack and defeated the enemy, taking all the horses, which the chronicler emphasizes 1411 . This brief mention indicates that the enemy would not hesitate to kill and rob the poor Christians 1412 . Therefore, in this case the enemy is shown as an attacker on the innocents, who cannot protect themselves, which is in no way the praise of their military deeds. As could be observed, the ambushes of enemy had the topical character, similarly to chansons de geste, which should not come as a surprise, because it is a description of military confrontation, and ambushes are a permanent element of war 1413 . However, worth paying attention to is the symbolic dimension, because such conduct of the enemy in the Historia Francorum emphasized their insidiousness and wickedness.

Spoils of war

In reference to the enemy's conduct of war, the descriptions of taken spoils seem important 1414 . In Raymond of Aguilers' account almost all struggles that end successfully for the Franks were an occasion to obtain huge amount of spoils presents; the Turks too were looking for the spoils of war. For instance, Kilij Arslan at the beginning of the battle of Dorylaeum, before the arrival of the second army of Crusaders, took many prisoners, horses and weapons from Bohemond's camp, but later he had to abandon all that he took 1415 .

During the siege of Antioch, the garrison successfully attacked the Franks and obtained such spoils that at the sight of them, Yaghi Siyan sent his army to attack the Crusaders another time 1416 .

However, the spoils were the reason of pride of the enemy (superbia hostium) 1417 , and in another battle the Franks gained the spoils of the Turks, which were huge and many knights captured valuable Arabian horses 1418 . In reference to this same battle, Raymond mentions that on the next day the Franks discovered a cemetery of Saracens (sepultura Saracenorum) 1419 . However, the poor people (pauperes) desecrated and robbed all the tombs of their enemies. Raymond does not mention the rich burials of the Turks, as was presented by Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode, but he makes the suggestion that there was something to loot 1420 . Nevertheless, the author of the Historia thousand, and mentions that he does not count those who were buried in Antioch and drowned in the river 1421 . In comparison to the authors of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode, the lack of condemnation of the enemy's corpse may be astonishing, although it has been said that the poor people (pauperes) are responsible for this. A clear distinction amongst milites and pedites, the armoured participant of the First Crusade and pauperes in Raymond's narration seems to bear a social mark 1422 . However, their action was not clearly condemned, which also says a lot about Raymond's representation of the enemy; he should not be treated like someone from the Christian community. The enemy's bodies only serve to estimate the degree of the victory, and then they are thrown into the river, so that the stench does not interfere with the castle's construction 1423 .

In another description concerning the battle against the first succour of Antioch, the Franks took the spoils, captives and stuck enemy's heads on pile. Then, they showed this to the garrison of Harim 1424 . Upon the sight of the disaster, the garrison burned Harim and took to flight 1425 . According to Raymond, such a harsh action against the defeated enemy became the starting point for consideration between the Crusaders. They concluded that it was God's order because the Turks formerly captured the banner of the Blessed Mary and disgraced it; therefore, the sight of lifeless heads of their succour will be a good solution to prevent further scoffing from the Antioch's garrison 1426 . Raymond's description can be treated as a kind of justification for such severe behaviour towards the enemy, but he also explains that the Turks acted unworthily and the behaviour of the Franks was the answer. Furthermore, it was a part of God's plan, who wanted to end the scoffing of Crusaders. Thus, in Raymond's ethnocentric perspective the Turks themselves were guilty.

which included tents, lots of gold and silver, countless amounts of grain, cattle and camels, which seems worth emphasizing by the author, given the situation of the Franks who have suffered from famine for several days prior to the decisive battle 1429 . Furthermore, at the sight of the victory of the Franks, some of the troops from the Antioch citadel decided to surrender in exchange for guarantees of saving their lives, and the rest of the forces fled 1430 .

Raymond of Aguilers writes that the Crusaders commanded by Count of Toulouse captured the city of Ma'arrat an-Numan, and the hero who first stood on the walls was Geoffroy of Lastours (Golferius de Turribus) 1431 . Raymond then reports on the slaughter of the inhabitants of the plundered city. At the beginning, those who escaped tried to hide in the nearby caves, but the Crusaders, in the search of spoils, drove them from the hiding places with smoke 1432 . However, the spoils were disappointing and the conquerors were looking for more, this time in the city itself.

They tried to lead the citizens through the streets so that they would show the place of hiding the treasures, but when the people of Ma'arrat an-Numan were brought to the local wells, they chose death by jumping into the depths. As the chronicler describes it was the reason why all the inhabitants of the city were killed 1433 . Furthermore, the expedition of Count of Toulouse to the into the enemy's territory was described as successful because Raymond of Saint-Gilles captured numerous castles, killed many enemies and took many spoils 1434 . On the way to Jerusalem, Count of Toulouse also attacked a strongly fortified place, identified with Ḥoṣn al-Akrād (Krak des Chevaliers), where many poor Crusaders went to plunder enormous amounts of spoils in the neighbourhood, including cattle, sheep and horses, and then the poor Franks left the battlefield to bring the spoils to the camp, ten miles away 1435 . Furthermore, the narration about the battle of Ascalon contains a description of the spoils being taken; as a result the Franks took remarkable amount of costly goods, weapons and tents from the camp of Fatimids 1436 .

It seems that Raymond's presentation of taking the spoils does not simply indicate that the enemy and the Franks in consequence of the battles were able to obtain a lot of wealth. It can be observed that the literary emphasis is put on the presentation of spoils taken from the enemy.

Therefore, the adversaries of the Crusaders are described as the rich and wealthy people from which the Franks were able to get huge amount of treasures, including the goods very desirable to the 2.2.4.5. Post pigeon's letter

One of the curiosities present on the pages of Raymond's account is the description containing information that in the political realities of the Middle East the enemy of the Franks used post pigeons for communication. For Crusaders it was most probably a novelty in the field of transmission of information, and this represents a cultural difference, exposed by the chronicler 1437 .

The incident took place when the Crusaders moved towards Jerusalem and agreed on the conditions for their free passage with the ruler of Acre. King of Acre, as was described by

Raymond, for the fear of the siege of Franks, committed himself to live in friendship with the Crusaders 1438 . Franks established a camp and when they performed the usual activities associated with it, a hawk soaring over the army dropped a lethally wounded pigeon. Bishop of Apt (episcopus Attensis) took the wounded bird, with which he found a letter from the ruler of Acre to the ruler of Caesarea 1439 . Unfortunately, Raymond does not write the name of Bishop of Apt, thus this person is not identified. Perhaps it was Isoard, who was to be on the episcopal see around 1095-1099, but there is no contemporary evidence for his existence because he did not appear in the cartulary of the church of Apt and Denis de Saint-Marthe 1440 . Nonetheless, in the papal bull of 11 May, 1154 of Pope Anastasius IV, information appears that on the day of 5 August, 1096 Urban II consecrated the church of Abbey of Saint-Eusèbe de Saignon in the diocese of Apt, which could be an indication that the Bishop of that place departed for the Crusade 1441 .

Returning to the letter, according to Raymond, it included a number of invectives that were directed against the Franks. The manner in which the chaplain of Count of Toulouse learned the content of the message is not known. Probably it happened through a translator who knew the Arabic language, who at that time was necessary for the crusading army as they negotiated with Egypt, Tripolis or other cities in Syria and Palestine. It seems, therefore, that the content of the letter may not necessarily be the invention of the author of the Historia Francorum, although the complete exclusion of his own interpolations also seems impossible. The Franks, according to the letter, were described as a foolish and headstrong race without a rule (Gens stulta atque contentiosa, sine regimine) 1442 . Perhaps in that description the chronicler saw an example of the world upside down, where "others" tried to associate Franks with features, which according to the author, they certainly did not have. The main content of the letter was that the other Muslim rulers would harm the Franks during their march. However, catching the pigeon with the message was interpreted by the chronicler in such a way that it is a visible sign of divine protection over the Franks, which prevented the pigeon from reaching the recipient and which allowed the enemy's secrets to fall into the hands of the Crusaders 1443 . This allowed Franks to move without fear in the enemy's lands because they marched in the right order to remain safe.

This short narration shows that Raymond, also in an incident with a pigeon found in the Franks' camp along with the message from the enemy, saw the divine protection over the Crusaders who, because of God's aid, knew the enemy's plans. Information about the postal pigeon is also a peculiarity of the enemy who uses things most probably unknown to the Franks. Furthermore, there are invectives directed against the Crusaders in the letter, which are a kind of a reversal of the category, for surely the chronicler did not think that the Franks were foolish, headstrong and without a rule.

Literary framework of the battles in the Historia Francorum

As the eyewitness of the First Crusade, Raymond of Aguilers presents many battles against the enemy on the pages of his work. From the literary perspective, it is worth to pose the question about the literary framework of Raymond's description of the battles. Is it possible to indicate specific literary devices and narrative axes used by the author to present the image of the enemy? 2.2.5.1. Poetic Justice Raymond's account uses a literary device basing on an ironic twist of fate related to the enemy's own action 1444 . The first encounter with the enemy was presented in this fashion. It took place at Nicaea, but the description is rather laconic. One of the most important event of this siege is the Turkish trickery used by them to destroy the Franks. As was mentioned above, the ambush reveals the wickedness of the enemy because they use trickery in combat 1445 . Nevertheless, according to the Turkish plan, the enemy divided their forces and one contingent would enter by a south gate to Nicaea and would go out of another gate; in this way, they could surprise the Franks and easily overcome them. However, a whole plan ends badly for the Turks because God turned the plans of the enemy upside down (Sed qui consilium impiorum subvertere solet Deus) 1446 . In consequence, the garrison of Nicaea was defeated by the troops of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and other Crusaders, and the trickery of the Turks was condemned 1447 .

Then, Raymond of Aguilers mentions the Provencal's assault in the eve of the capture of Nicaea. After five weeks, through God's will, the forces of Provencals attacked the walls of the city and seriously threatened one tower. Only the coming of the night prevented the capture of the city 1448 . Despite these efforts, Nicaea was captured by the Emperor's troops in the next morning, which brings to mind the conviction that Raymond liked to express the disappointment due to the arrangements of the Alexius with the Turks, because in his opinion the forces of Franks would soon capture the city 1449 .The battle of Dorylaeum against Kilij Arslan was illustrated by Raymond in a similar fashion. In the Historia Franocrum, the battle is described quite laconically: the Crusaders were divided into two armies; one led by Bohemond, second by Raymond of Saint-Gilles. When the enemy attacked, Bohemond sent for help. Then, when the second army arrived, the Turks fled from the battlefield and Christians started to plunder their camp 1450 . However, the literary framework of the battle's description seems clear. Raymond presents the defeat of Kilij Arslan in two stages and as an example of God's greatness, which was revealed through the Franks. According to Raymond, at the beginning of battle, the Turkish leader successfully attacked the forces of Bohemond and took many spoils: captives and tents from the Frankish camp 1451 . However, hearing that other Christian contingent was approaching, Kilij Arslan along with his warriors, through God's virtus "power", "strength" or "virtue" (per Dei virtutem), were forced to abandon everything they obtained before 1452 . Furthermore, Raymond emphasizes the God's protection over the Franks in the battle of Dorylaeum by the description of the miracle (miraculum), that is the intervention of two horsemen gleamingly armed (duo equites armis coruscis) who appeared on the battlefield and who for two days were killing the retreating Turks 1453 .

Furthermore, Raymond presents the narration about the battle which ended in a heavy defeat of Bohemond and Robert of Flanders because of the attack of Antioch's garrison. The Genoese sailors, who came to port of St Symeon, took part in this catastrophe and they were still frightened about the result of battle. However, according to Raymond: But, as if strengthened by the sight of the great number of dead, they began to praise God, who is accustomed to chastening and cheering His children. So, by God's decree it happened that the Turks, who killed the food porters along the coast and river banks and left them to the beasts and birds, in turn made food in that place for the same beasts and birds 1454 (Hi autem videntes tantam multitudinem quasi de quadam multitudine convalescentes, Deus magnificare ceperunt. Qui filios suos corrigere, et letificare consuevit. Sit itaque Dei dispositione actum est, ut qui victualium conductores in littore et ripis fluminis peremptos feris et volucribus dederant, in locis eisdem feris et volucribus victualia fierent) 1455 .

Raymond expresses God's protection over His children, which is manifested by the comparison to food for beasts and birds, most likely inspired by the Book of Jeremiah 1456 . On the pages of Historia Francorum, God punishes the Turks with a specific ironic twist; firstly, they were the ones who made Christians food for birds and wild beasts, but after the Franks' victory in the battle, the Turks too were condemned to being food for birds and beasts. Therefore, the Christians ceased to be victims, and their enemies took their place, and so the Turks were condemned for their crimes. The main character of the narration is God who punishes the Turks and defends the Christians and the Genoese sailors praise him, seeing so many dead enemies.

Likewise, the poetic justice appears in the description of the Yahgi Siyan's death. Chronicler mentions that once the Franks breached the city walls, the ruler of Antioch was fleeing through one of the gates but the Armenian peasants captured and decapitated him. Raymond informs that they showed the head of Yaghi Siyan to the Franks. At the end of the narration, the chronicler writes that in his opinion, there was a divine intervention in this act because Yaghi Siyan beheaded many Armenians (Quod ineffabili Dei dispositione actum credo, ut qui multis eiusdem generis homines decollari fecerat, ab eisdem capite truncaretur) 1457 . Noteworthy is that Raymond does not mention the prize money that the killers of Yaghi Siyan were to receive from the Franks according to other accounts, emphasizing the punishment that reached the ruler of Antioch for his deeds 1458 .

Battle against the Tripolitans also seems to refer to the narrative framework of poetic justice.

On the pages of Raymond's account, the qâdî of Tripoli, Fakhr al-Mulk, in the face of disputes in the Christian camp and the failure of the siege of Arqah, turned into an enemy. Muslim ruler rejected the Franks' proposal to pay them tribute. Furthermore, in haughty words he challenged them to fight the battle, which was presented as a kind of test of the military skills of the Franks 1459 . According to Raymond, the Crusaders reacted to these words by joining forces and making a kind of examination of conscience, where they stated that they were led to such situation by the discord in their ranks. They acknowledged God was dishonoured and the enemy scorned the Franks themselves (Blasphematur Deus, et nos contempnimur). It was decided that with the chosen infantrymen and knights they would fight against the ruler of Tripoli 1460 .

The battle took place near the wall of the aqueduct leading to the city, where the Muslim army took a convenient position to defend 1461 . Raymond writes that the area and the size of its troops favoured the enemy. At this sight, the Franks began to pray to God and prepare for battle.

The author describes the Crusaders' attack on enemy forces as a religious procession (more processionis) 1462 . However, the indicated procession still had no peaceful intentions because, according to Raymond, God paralyzed the enemy with fear and almost no one escaped from the battlefield, all enemies dying in the face of the Franks 1463 . Raymond expresses his personal emotions, saying that it was pleasant to see the headless bodies of the enemy, both the powerful and the poor, who were brought to Tripoli through the whirling waters of the aqueduct (In fact it was a delightful sight; Erat quidem ad videndum satis delectabile) 1464 . Furthermore, the aqueduct itself was to be clogged with bodies of the dead 1465 . Chronicler estimates the losses of the Crusaders at only one or two men, while there were seven hundred dead on the enemy side 1466 .

After the battle, the Crusaders returned to their camp (still in Arqah), and the leaders of expedition turned to the rest of the Crusaders saying that the ruler of Tripoli had challenged them and had a chance to see the Frankish military skills. It was proposed that the next day the Crusaders should approach the city and let the ruler of Tripoli test the Frankish knights in another battle 1467 .

admitted his failure.

Condemnation of the superbia and audacia of the enemy

The monastic exegetes interpreted the famous passage from the Bible about David's victory over the Goliath as a warning against the pride and exhortation to humility, showing that someone who is arrogant would be condemned 1469 . The trait of humility was assigned to David while his adversary was considered to be the allegory of pride 1470 . It seems that in many descriptions of battles Raymond ascribes the role of David to the Franks, who punish the superbia ("pride", "haughtiness") and audacia (in classical Latin: audatia, -ae "audacity", "arrogance", "boldness"in bad sense) of their enemies. The source of pride of the enemy was often their own success in the fight against the Franks. For instance, unlike Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, Raymond mentions the so-called Peasants' Crusade that occurred after the capture of Nicaea 1471 . Furthermore, he emphasizes different content than the earlier accounts. In Raymond's presentation, Alexius I was guilty of the misfortunes of Peter the Hermit's expedition because the months before the expedition in which Raymond participated, Alexius ordered to this mass of unarmed people to cross the Bosporus; they were not prepared to fight and did not know the area 1472 . In these circumstances

Raymond points out that the Emperor in fact "exhibits", "exposes" or "puts" (exposuit) Christians to the Turks 1473 . On the sight of this mass of unwarlike people, the enemy from Nicaea attacked without any fear attacked and killed sixty thousand of them. However, the narration of the massacre of Peter the Hermit's people seems to play another role. The Turks, because of their victory, grew in arrogance and pride (audacia and superbia) 1474 . The traits mentioned by author are associated with the medieval moralistic devices and as the sins are the reasons of their failures. Therefore, the moralistic undertone of the narration condemned the enemy of the Franks in the eve of the military confrontation in the city of Nicaea.

martyr's death from the hands of persecutors. In this perspective, the chronicler presents the Turks as the persecutors of Christians, placing them within the limits of the Christian perception of the world as a significant threat to whole community, and referring to the period of the martyrs.

It should also be indicated that in Raymond's work, only a few men from the Peasants'

Crusade escaped from the death from the hands of enemy and found rescue in an unnamed fortress 1476 . Author mentions that the enemy killed sixty thousand Christians. For a long time, many historians emphasized the inaccuracy of the numbers used by medieval chroniclers, particularly in the presentation of size of the army or the number of dead. However, a discourse more suitable for the authors of medieval sources was more symbolic, epic and rooted in their socio-cultural background, their basis of education being the Bible. For those reasons an accurate specification of exact numbers was not of paramount importance. Such an approach, to be admissible, must had to based on facts and not on subjective impressions. To consider Raymond's mention of about sixty thousand of dead men, the broader context should be taken into account.

Raymond of Aguilers uses the number of sixty thousand which seems rather unclear, but in the Latin chronicles of the First Crusade the numbers formed from the "basic" number such as 2 (2, 20, 200, 2000, 20,000, 200,000), 3 (3, 30, 300, 3000, 30,000, etc.) or 4 (4, 40, 400, 4,000, 40,000, etc.) are in common use 1477 . Therefore, it is possible to claim that the number of 6 should be considered in that case. The Bible inspired most of the numbers used by medieval authors, which was a base of their education. In the biblical discourse, 6 is a number of incompleteness, imperfection and also a number of the enemy of God, from which the number 666 from Revelation should be invoked 1478 . Most likely, Raymond used the symbolical meaning of number 6 based on tradition suitable for his education. By mentioning that the sixty thousand people from the expedition of Peter the Hermit, he probably wanted to emphasize that that event was imperfect. Normandy to destroy the Turkish forces. In a short passage, Raymond writes that they overcame Turks because of God's admonition (Deo profecti) and put them to death in the river, which could also be interpreted as a confirmation of the victor's faith 1480 . Raymond's wordplay in describing another battle is worth emphasizing. When Count of Flanders, Bohemond, destroys the forces of Turks and Arabs, the author uses the trait of virtus, to present the Franks 1481 , while audacia is assigned to the enemy 1482 . In this perspective, Raymond creates a binary opposition virtus/audacia.

In this way, Chronicler presents the traits from stereotypical catalogue of features assigned to the Franks and their enemies, with a simple division into what is good and "ours" and what is wrong and belongs to "other".

Furthermore, after the Franks' defeat in the battle against the Antioch's garrison, seeing the great victory, Yaghi Siyan sent his army to attack the Franks once again, ordering them to win or die 1483 . However, in a struggle against the Antioch's garrison, Isoard of Gagnes attacks the enemy with small contingent of infantrymen 1484 , and Raymond presents the Franks as a group that is going to shatter the superbia hostium (the pride of enemy) 1485 . Similarly, the battle against Kurbugha's army is presented in reference to the condemnation of pride. Because of the Turkish initial attack in which Roger of Barneville was killed, sadness and fear (dolor et timor) engulfed the Franks and many of them sought escape 1486 . Furthermore, the Turks started to attack the positions of Crusaders.

According to Raymond, one day they attacked the Franks so fiercely, that only the power of God (sola Dei virtus) protected them and stopped the enemy forces which for unknown reason panicked and started to run away 1487 . After that, the Crusaders began counterattacking and the Turkish army returned to the camp the same day, escaping from the Franks. As Raymond points out, it happened again because of the strength of God himself 1488 . Further, the author describes the enemy's significant advantage over the Frankish forces at that time. It is indicated that the Franks were accompanied by fear (timor Francorum), while their enemies were bold (hostium audacia) 1489 .

One of the cities captured by the forces of Crusaders in Raymond's account is Ma'arrat an-Numan (Marra) 1490 . The city is described as wealthy and populated (ditissimam civitatem et populosam) 1491 . At the beginning of the narration about the siege of Ma'arrat an-Numan, the Crusaders suffer heavy losses from the inhabitants of this city, who even desecrate crosses fixed on the city walls to provoke the Franks 1492 . Because of the victory over the Crusaders, the citizens of Ma'arrat an-Numan grow proud or haughty (superbia) 1493 , and arrogant (audacia Sarracenorum) 1494 .

In Raymond's account, a description appears of the capture of a strongly fortified place (Ḥoṣn al-Akrād/Krak des Chevaliers) on the way of Crusaders to Jerusalem 1495 . The enemy is defined at the very beginning of the narration as haughty peasants (rustici...superbi), which on the one hand indicates the low social status of the enemy in the opinion of the author of the Historia Francorum. However, on the other hand, it is an invective thrown towards the enemy, who not only is wicked and wants to fight the Franks, but is also haughty, for which he must be punished 1496 .

According to Raymond, there were thirty thousand enemies in that place 1497 . At the beginning, the defenders of the castle attacked the foragers of the crusading army who were unarmed and killed some of them, also taking loot and escaping with it to the castle. Crusaders stood under the castle, waiting for the peasants to fight, but they did not come. In the face of such enemy, the Franks decided to begin an assault from three sides 1498 . Raymond informs that nearly a hundred of the enemy people were killed in the castle gate or out of fear, or trampled by their comrades when the Franks attacked shouting Deus adiuva 1499 . However, as Count of Toulouse pushed for the fight, many poor Crusaders took to plunder enormous amounts of spoils in the neighbourhood and even left the battlefield to bring the spoils to the camp, which was ten miles away 1500 . Further description shows that the lust for spoils ends badly for the Franks because Count of Toulouse, along with his soldiers, got into big trouble, and the author wrote that the life of the Count was never more threatened than during that skirmish 1501 . When the Crusaders were occupied by plundering and lost their discipline, the enemy decided to take advantage of this opportunity, and after regrouping, he attacked the Franks. Because of the battle in a difficult mountainous terrain, the Crusaders eventually managed to escape the danger, yet many of them died. Raymond of Saint-Gilles was upset and accused the knights who left the place of battle on the council, where it was ultimately established that the siege would be continued 1502 . However, according to the author of Historia position so much that they did not even bury their fallen ones, and the Crusaders found the castle empty and devoid of spoils 1503 .

In this narration, Raymond shows that God ensures that the Crusaders succeed in combat when they are unable to defeat the enemy because of their own sins. It is also worth noting that the enemy, described as the haughty peasants (rustici...superbi), should not pose a great threat to the Franks, despite their huge number. Defenders of the castle actually only attack and kill defenceless foragers at the beginning, but they do not get into open battle. When the Crusaders assault the gate with God's name on their lips, it also seems that the enemies have no chance against such powerful forces. However, when there is sin among the Franks, the battle begins to take a different shape and even Count of Toulouse is in heavy danger. The enemy in the context of the description of the siege was presented on the one hand as haughty, for which he had to be punished, and on the other hand as a kind of device that punishes the Crusaders for their own sin of lust for spoils 1504 .

Furthermore, at the beginning of the narration about the battle of Ascalon, the Franks heard the rumour that the enemy leader, the king of Babylon (rex Babyloniorum) was heading toward

Jerusalem with a great army 1505 . As was presented above, the ruler of Egypt is portrayed as a haughty ruler and blasphemer who unnaturally wants to create a new race from the Franks and his own subjects 1506 . Furthermore, he is a tyrant who grew in his pride by saying that after the capture of Jerusalem he would defeat Bohemond, conquer the city of Antioch and many other cities including Damascus 1507 . For his haughty words and acts, he was condemned to the heavy defeat from the hands of Franks at the battle of Ascalon.

Sin, redemption and victory

In reference to the biblical discourse, Raymond presents that God rewarded the Crusaders with victories also punished their sins with defeats from the hands of the enemy 1508 . It seems that Raymond, although the audience of his work seems to have also consisted of laymen, does not hesitate to condemn the traits associated with the stereotypical noblemen in the clerical critiques of that period, such as pride, anger or arrogance 1509 . At the beginning of the siege of Antioch, Raymond

shows a binary opposition of res publica/res privata, describing the loosening of discipline and lust for temporal wealth among the Crusaders 1510 . The Franks, when the castles and territories began to surrender became enamoured of wealth, often left the main forces stationed in Antioch. Even those who stayed in the camp fell in love with earthly goods, which in the words of the author was expressed in the fact that they were wasting a lot of wine and food, eating only the best parts, despising the simple meals 1511 . After that, Raymond mentions that the Turks killed mostly unarmed foragers and started to attack Christian's forces around Antioch 1512 .

In the description of the victorious battle against the Aleppo's succour, the chronicler indicates boldness (audacia) of crusading army, which sang war songs joyously and went to battle as if it were a game (pro ludo) 1513 . From the perspective of moralistic tone that mention seems to cause some confusion because in the eve of the battle and even after fulfilment of pious religious practices the knights behave in a way inappropriate to the behaviour of the true Christian knight.

Most likely this is a kind of relativism of perception: this situation should be understood differently in the case of the boldness of the knights than in relation to the Turks. The Franks are not measured by Raymond in the same manner that the Turks are. That is why the trait of audacia, which is an ambiguous term in Latin ("audacity", "boldness"), could be understood as a good trait in relation to

Franks and a bad one in the Turkish context. However, it cannot be ruled out that in some way Raymond simply wanted to draw attention to the behaviour of self-confident knights before the battle or point out that not all behaviours were good in the eyes of a clergyman.

During the siege of Antioch, in another battle against the Turks, Robert of Flanders and Bohemond, who returned with a strong army from the port of St Symeon, were attacked and defeated. Crusaders suffered heavy loss and the Turks took many spoils, killing almost three hundred warriors 1514 . After the Franks' defeat, Raymond turns to God, asking why it happened that the Christian troops, commanded by the two greatest warriors in Robert and Bohemond were crushed, evoking the Psalm that God helps his warriors 1515 . In this mention, the author claims that the reason of Christians' defeat was the audacia ("pride", "boldness" in a negative sense) of some of the Crusaders (quorundam nostrorum audaciam), which only emphasizes the moralistic tone of 1510 RA, pp. 48-49. 1511 RA, p. 49; The Hills' translation in this case distorts Raymond's message, because author at the beginning of the one sentence wrote only Dumque ("while", "whilst", "at the time that", "during the time in which", cf. RA, p. 49) which was translated into In these good times (RA (Hill&Hill), p. 31). An adding a positive overtone to Raymond's words was unnecessary, especially because he presents moral debauchery in a definitely wrong tone and he condemns res privata, which dominated the res publica. The opposite observation would assume that Raymond recognizes that Crusader acts are good, i.e. wasting of food and loving of material goods. However, bearing in mind the moralistic tone of the narration, that interpretation should be rejected. inutiles) 1527 . Crusaders were punished by the enemy who appears as a kind of God's tool which punishes the Franks for their bad deeds.

Although the death of an individual figure, namely of Anselm of Ribemont, an author of two letters from the East, glorifies them due to their deeds and piety. According to Raymond, Anselm went to a heavenly home prepared for him by God, which highlights the belief that the death during the Crusade leads to Heaven 1528 . Furthermore, Pons of Balazuc, the co-author of materials for the Historia Francorum was also among the dead 1529 . Nevertheless, these figures diverge from the holistic image of Franks during the siege of Arqah, showing that the Crusaders were punished and did not capture the city. Instead of this, the narration of the challenge of the qâdî of Tripoli appears, who after the defeat of his forces promised to send great gifts and to release all Christian prisoners if the Franks would abandon the siege of Arqah 1530 .

However, in the majority of battle descriptions, Raymond presents the model of sinredemption -victory similarly to the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia. For instance, in the eve of the battle against the succour of Antioch under command of Radwan of Aleppo, Raymond notes some natural events which took place during the siege of Antioch. These events became a reason for the author to write about religious practices, which in fact are related to the image of the enemy. However, it is not only a simple opposition between Christians/non-Christians, but it also has a broader sense. Firstly, Raymond writes that the great earth tremor took place (terraemotus factus est magnus) 1531 . Secondly, the Crusaders could admire a miraculous sign in the sky (signum in caelo satis mirabile) 1532 , and according to chronicler: a red sky in the north made it appear as if the sun rose on a new day (caelum rubicundum a septetrione fuit ut quasi suborta aurora diem deferre videretur) 1533 . Most likely, through this narration, Raymond of Aguilers refers to the Breviary and Gospel of St Matthew, from which he could have even taken a whole passage 1534 . However, the description of the events was the first part of a narration. Raymond later states that in this way God scourged his army (exercitum suum Deus flagellaverit) to show them the light which arose in the darkness in order to recall many people from luxury and plunder (a luxuria vel rapina revocarentur) 1535 .

By describing the natural events, Raymond presented the moralistic and eschatological perspective of his narration in the eve of the battle. He claims that these signs were sent by God and the crusading army needed to be purifies because of their bad deeds; many of Franks plunged into luxury and plundering, and apparently they forgot the purpose of the expedition, and by committing these sins, they were moving away from God. This is why God decided to intervene. Raymond refers to the biblical passages to reinforce his claim; God shows his power and scourges the Christians by the earthquake and a miraculous sign on the sky, interpreted as a light in the darkness.

Further, Raymond describes the steps which have been taken to get out of that bad situation.

In the foreground Papal legate -Adhémar of Le Puy appears, a person closely associated with Raymond of Aguilers, and without a doubt a positive figure in the Historia Francorum 1536 . Adhémar prepares recommendations for performing religious practices. Raymond divided addressees of his orders into two groups: the lay people and the clergy 1537 . Thus, the Papal legate orders to the participants of the expedition to fast three days and pray, give alms and make the processions; and to the priests to celebrate masses and to the clerics to repeat Psalms 1538 . Such an example of religious zeal on the pages of Raymond's work was rewarded because God delayed the punishment of the Crusaders to not to increase the pride of the enemy (superbia adversariorum) should they prevail over the Christians 1539 .

At the beginning of narration, after a short presentation of the enemy and Franks' war council, Raymond included a small invocation to the people who have attempted to disparage the crusading army; in the author's opinion, they would begin penance immediately when they heard about God's mercy to the Franks 1540 . Raymond presents the battle in a category of God's approval for the expedition, which is manifested through miracles. Firstly, God multiplies the forces of Christians from seven hundred knights to more than two thousand 1541 . Secondly, God grants excellent terrain of the battlefield to Crusaders; they are protected by the river and the marsh, therefore the Turks are unable to encircle them. According to Raymond, the Crusaders attacked the enemy, who quickly fled from the battlefield losing not less than twenty-eight thousand warriors; however, the Franks also suffered heavy losses 1542 . Raymond ends his narration by claiming that God, who is according to the Psalm 23.8 strong and mighty in battle, protected his sons (protexit filios) and overthrew the enemies (prostravit inimicos) 1543 . Furthermore, the Franks chased the Turks almost ten miles to Harim, where the defenders seeing the triumphant forces of Franks holding the assaults, the Crusader troops did not manage to conquer the city and the great famine appeared.

Here Raymond points out that God did not leave His people and sent again the vision to Peter Bartholomew 1556 . On the pages of Raymond's account the Apostles, Saints Andrew and Peter say to Peter Bartholomew, in a moralistic tone, that the Crusaders could not be too sure of victory because through their deeds they offended God who, after all, gave them the Holy Lance and a great victory against Kurbugha. Apostles stress that without the help of God, one hundred thousand enemies could have easily defeated the Franks. Saints Peter and Andrew admonish the sin of murder, plunder and theft as well as the lack of justice in the ranks of the Crusaders (rapinae, et furta, nulla iusticia, et plurima adulteria) 1557 . When discussing adultery, although it would be pleasing to God if the Franks were married (cum Deo placitum sit si uxores vos omnes ducatis), Raymond probably meant to express not the sexual activities with the Muslims, but the adultery in the Crusader camp 1558 . In the issue of justice, God through the messengers orders that all goods that belong to the enemy should become common property 1559 . God announces that if the Crusaders were to fulfil the indicated demands, He would give them what they need. However, Saint Peter and Saint Andrew say that God would give Ma'arrat an-Numan to the Crusaders because of His mercy and not because of their acts (pro misericordia sua et non pro benefactis vestris) 1560 . After receiving the vision of Peter Bartholomew, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, together with the Bishops of Orange and Albara called the Crusaders to offer themselves to God with fervent prayers 1561 . After these preparations, the Crusaders under the command of Count of Toulouse attacked and captured the city of Ma'arrat an-Numan, massacring all inhabitants of the conquered city 1562 .

The literary framework of the presentation of battles can also be found in the most important battle of the whole expedition to Jerusalem. Looking at Raymond's, account, it seems that a special section was devoted to the description of the battle against Kurbugha. Chaplain of Count of Toulouse writes that three days after the Crusaders captured Antioch, they found themselves in a double siege. They failed to capture the citadel of Antioch and the Turkish army under the command of Kurbugha came to the city 1563 . Raymond states that after the death of the first victim of the Turkish army, Roger of Barneville, who was beheaded by the enemy 1564 , sadness and fear (dolor et timor) engulfed the Franks and many of them sought escape 1565 . Perhaps, the head of Roger was planted on a spear and brought back to the Turkish camp to serve as a trophy whose sight galvanized the troops of Kurbugha as much as it discouraged the Franks 1566 . Furthermore, according to Raymond, one day the Turks attacked the Franks so fiercely that only the power of God (sola Dei virtus) protected the Crusaders and stopped the enemy forces, which for unknown reason panicked and started to run away 1567 . After that, the Crusaders began counterattacking and the Turkish army returned to the camp the same day, escaping from the Franks. Further, the author describes the enemy's significant advantage over the Frankish forces at that time. It was advisable that Franks were accompanied by fear (timor Francorum), while their enemies were bold (hostium audacia) 1568 . Raymond presents the situation as extremely difficult; in addition, many Crusaders fluttered with ropes from the walls and escaped. Even some people spread a rumour in Antioch that the Crusaders were waiting for mass decapitation from the hands of enemy, and to make matters worse those who said that soon escaped 1569 .

Nevertheless, Raymond ends the narration with some hope and a clear declaration; the author reminds the readers, as if admonishing his audience, that God's mercy (divina clementia) always accompanied the Crusaders, also in times of weakness, adversity and troubles 1570 . Moreover, this divine mercy corrects the dissolute sons, and also comforts those consumed by sadness 1571 . Recalling God's mercy as both comfort and admonition in such difficult times seems to have a moralistic meaning. In the face of a great threat embodied by Kurbugha's arrival, who closed the Crusaders in a siege, in Raymond's opinion the Franks were to entrust their lives to God, who always supports the Christian army 1572 . This can be understood as a kind of test of the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem: they have to endure the nuisance in order to overcome it with the help of God 1573 . In the narration about the arrival of Kurbugha and his army, the idea of God's presence and God's protection over the Christians seems to be extremely important. God takes part in the battles, which Raymond presents expressis verbis, and it is only by the virtue of God's power that the Franks survive the first encounter with such a strong enemy.

The description of the Crusaders' preparations for the final battle can also be found in Raymond's. In this perspective one of the most known episodes of the First Crusade occurs: the discovery of the Holy Lance in the Cathedral of St Peter which was thought to have pierced the side of Christ 1574 . The Muslim enemy in this narration is rather a background, and remains quite far away. The narration is devoted to the mystical experiences of a Provencal peasant, Peter Bartholomew, and a priest, Stephen, to whom the holy figures appeared, informing them of the place where the Holy Lance was 1575 . Nevertheless, there are few mentions of the enemy in the face of such an important event for the Christian community as well as for the chronicler himself:

Raymond proudly reported that he himself took the Holy Lance in his hand and kissed it 1576 .

The next description, which can be referred to the representation of the enemy, is associated with the vision of the priest named Stephen. While he was crying and waiting for the death of his own and his friends from the hands of the Turks, Christ appeared to him 1577 . Christ asked who the leader of the Franks was, and Stephen pointed to the Bishop of Le Puy as the most valued. Hearing that, Jesus ordered Stephen to tell the Bishop that Ademar should take command the Christian army, and let the Franks' war cry be the words of the prayer from the Breviary: Our enemies are gathered together and boast of their might; crush their might, Oh Lord! And rout them so that they shall know you, our God, alone battles with us 1578 (Congregati sunt inimici nostri et gloriantur in virtute sua contere fortitudinem illorum domine et disperge illos ut cognoscant quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi tu Deus noster) 1579 . This passage recalling the same song that also appears in the Gesta Francorum and Tudeobde's Historia not only indicates the very high probability of mentioning the singing of congregati sunt, but also the universality of the opinion in the Crusaders' community that God is fighting on their side, invoking the categories based on the authority of the Bible and the fight of the chosen people against their opponents 1580 .

In the vision, Christ said to Stephen that for the next five days his compassion would be with the Crusaders 1581 , and because of that, many knights in the face of great hunger, putting their faith in Christ, did not kill their horses 1582 . Next day after the vision, a priest came to the commanders and spoke to them about Christ's words. In this description, the number of five days that appears in

Stephen's vision, through which the Crusaders were still to hold despite the bad situation, raises the question of a symbolic dimension. In the Book of Judith, during the siege of Bethulia, the defenders of the city, being besieged by overwhelming enemy forces, go to the elders and Ozias and lament.

Ozias says to them: Aequo animo estote, fratres, et hos quinque dies expectemus a Domino misericordiam (Take heart, brothers! Let us hold out five days more. By then the Lord our God will take pity on us, for he will not desert us altogether) 1583 . Despite the lack of faith in the victory, which manifested itself in the promise that if God did not come to the defenders' help within five days, Ozias would surrender the city to the Assyrians, the enemy was defeated thanks to Judith who planned the trick and killed Holofernes. Furthermore, the song from the Breviary should be invoked: Nolite timere: quinta enim die veniet ad vos Dominus noster (Fear not: for on the fifth day, our Lord will come to you) 1584 . Therefore, it seems that Raymond invokes of the number five in

Stephen's vision a reference to the symbolic meaning of that number in the context of God's salvation for His followers.

In the face of the upcoming battle, the Crusaders chose Bohemond as their leader for fifteen days. Raymond, previously saying that Adhémar was elected in the vision, hurries with an explanation that it happened because Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Adhémar were sick and Stephen of Blois, who was chosen during the common council as a leader of expedition, deserted 1585 . Then, Raymond refers to the idea of believing in success in combat, which is dependent on zeal in performing religious practices. The chronicler again recalls the vision of Peter Bartholomew, in which St Andrew gave instructions as to the pious behaviour in the face of confrontation with the enemy. According to St Andrew, everyone should turn away from sin and back to God, offer five alms because of the five wounds of Jesus Christ, and if he is unable to do so, he should repeat five times the prayer of Pater Noster 1586 . The number of five should be considered in a symbolic biblical context. It signals that it is something additional; it is a mark of grace, a gift if it occurs five times.

When the Crusaders fulfil these five actions, God's grace will be offered to them. In Peter's instructions, the war cry of Franks should be God aid us (Deus adiuva) and as chronicler reported, indeed, God would help them 1587 . St Andrew also says that if someone is not sure and has doubts, then others should let him go to the Turks, where he will be witness how their God (Deus illorum) protects him 1588 . According to Raymond, St Andrew adds that anyone who will not want to fight will 1583 Jdt 7.23. 1584 Breviarium Romanum, p. 125. 1585 RA, p. 77; J.A. Brundage, An Errant Crusader: Stephen of Blois, "Traditio" 16 (1960), pp. 380-395. 1586RA, p. 77. 1587RA, p. 78. 1588 RA, p. 78. be placed in one line with Judas, the traitor who sold Christ 1589 . Therefore, the author indicates that those who refuse to fight against the Turks or desert will be considered traitors who have betrayed Christ himself, and not just the comrades of this joint venture. In this way, Raymond does not avoid serious acts of condemnation of deserters who left the Crusaders at such an important moment. It must have made a great impression on his audience, and some of the characters who were known by their names and who left the expedition probably became disgraced people in their communities; this was the case for Stephen of Blois.

Raymond, therefore, indicates that the battle wouls not only take place in the earthly dimension, the Franks against the Turks, but the author considers the coming battle as a struggle of sacral forces, where the true God appears on the Christian side and their God (Deus illorum) on the enemy side 1590 . From the context of the description, it is clear that anyone who escapes to the Turks will find himself to be their God (Deus illorum), that is, the battle would end with the victory of the Franks, which is a certain prophetic sign in Raymond's chronicle 1591 . The visions of Peter Bartholomew and Stephen the priest are in a sense prophetic 1592 . They do not foretell the future events, but rather indicate the path towards the victory of Christians in the face of the enemy.

People who were chosen or inspired by God usually proclaim visions . The descriptions are very mystical and lofty because it was recognized that the vision of such relationship arises after direct contact with God. Therefore, it had as great a value for believers as it did for Raymond.

Author of the Historia Francorum writes that St Andrew stated that in the upcoming battle, all the dead participants of the expedition to Jerusalem would fight side by side with the Crusaders.

The information is so accurate that living Crusaders are supposed to defeat the 1/10 enemy forces, while the indicated support will defeat the remaining 9/10 of the Turkish forces 1593 . Uniting of all Crusaders on the battlefield is a testimony to the exceptional sense of solidarity and uniqueness that unites all Crusaders, both living and dead, into an inseparable bond that allows them to be victorious over death. It is therefore a manifestation of an eschatological vision; the re-incarnation of divinity into earthly events was repeated, marked in this case by the miraculous return of the Franks who died during the expedition to life 1594 . Raymond sums up the Apostle's statement, saying that Christ promised that he would raise the Christian kingdom and destroy and tread underfoot the kingdom of the pagans (elevaret regnum christianorum, deiecto et conculcato paganorum regno) 1595 . What is worth emphasizing, Raymond writes that in the upcoming battle, the Crusaders should firstly destroy the enemy and do not pay attention to silver and golden spoils 1596 . It seems that the author recalls the known behaviour on the battlefield, which existed also in the biblical context of 1st Book of Maccabees, where Juda says to his soldiers that first they must crash the army of Gorgias and after that they can take the spoils 1597 . The victory itself is therefore the most important, and then are the spoils.

As presented above, in the description of the battle, Kurbugha is described as a haughty person who is not a good commander because the approach of the Franks surprises him; he also neglects the enemy by playing chess, and he does not react correctly by not attacking immediately as Mirdalim advises him to do 1598 . On the background of such an outlined enemy, Raymond illustrates the situation in the camp of Franks. At the very beginning, it is shown that the Franks act responsibly; forces are divided to simultaneously face Kurbugha and the garrison from the citadel of Antioch. When the day of the battle comes, all of Crusaders perform pious acts such as receiving the sacrament, surrendering to the will of God, and being ready even to die, if God so desires 1599 .

What is worth emphasizing, they also proclaim that they are ready to die in honour or grace of the Roman Church and the Frankish race (ad decus Romane ecclesiae et genti Francorum) 1600 . It indicates that Raymond considers the military deeds on the expedition to Jerusalem as something that happens for the glory of the whole Church and the Franks and this is part of the collective memory. In the opinion of the chronicler, undoubtedly the fight in the name of God with such a numerous enemy of faith is an act worthy of commemoration and worthy of such lofty words that will praise the name of not only the militant Franks, but also the whole Roman Church. In this example, it can be observed what kind of society was the audience of Raymond's work; a society of warriors for whom, along with pious acts of faith and zealous fulfilment of religious practices, extremely important elements of everyday life are war deeds and heroic achievements. This message strengthens, accurately depicting the setting of the Crusader forces and indicating the individual leaders of a given formation on the battlefield, where Bohemond, among the Christians 1602 . This content, which is very important from the point of view of the narrative because it is a clear contrast to Kurbugha's behaviour, begins with the invocation of the biblical authority, drawing the words from the Psalm: O quam beata gens cuius est Dominus eius! O quam beatus populus quem Deus elegit! (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord: the people whom he hath chosen for his inheritance) 1603 . Such strong symbolic appeal is strengthened not only by Raymond's workshop based primarily on the Bible; above all it indicates that something extremely important happened and it happened because of God. As the chronicler points out, in the Frankish army "sadness" or "sloth" (tristicia) were replaced by "eagerness" or "ardour" (alacritas) 1604 . Referring to the Christian discourse of sins based on the considerations of e.g. Pope Gregory the Great and St Augustine, the sin of tristitia (tristicia in Raymond's version) was one of the greatest chief passions in Christianity 1605 . The indicated sin appeared because of the adverse events that affected the Frankish army; the siege by the great army of Turks, famine and desertion: everything happened within the area of human affairs, remaining in the earthly dimension.

However, the sin of tristitia among the Franks was replaced by alacritas. This positive feature appears when God shows his favour to the Crusaders, sending the visions, telling the Franks how to confront the enemy, giving them support in the form of reinforcements of the dead Crusaders and granting them the Holy Lance as a relic.

In his narration, Raymond writes that just a few days earlier in Antioch, the Franks begged God for help and they were crying and beating their chests, they went barefoot through the city.

Author of the Historia Francorum claims that in the Frankish camp was so many sadness that the people even if they were a family, father and son, brother and brother, did not even exchange glances as they passed the streets of the city. However, now the spirit of Franks was lifted, which could be seen as they rushed to the battle 1606 . The pious activities in the face of death indicated by chronicler aimed at providing God's help against the disruption of social relations, in which even the closest family members would not notice each other on the streets of Antioch; this strengthens the message about the misfortunes of the Franks in the face of the seemingly approaching destruction.

Raymond shows other practices in the eve of facing the enemy in decisive battle, which clearly indicates his education and showcases the perspective he took on presenting the battles. The author reports that when the Crusaders left Antioch, they moved in the pattern of a procession of clergy (sicut in processionibus) for the battle 1607 , which is also a theme invoked later in the battle against the Tripolitans (more processionis) 1608 . The act of procession embodied participation in liturgical supplication, usually reserved for clergy, which bound the Crusaders together in the face of their religious enemy 1609 . In the battle of Antioch, according to Raymond, the priests and the monks in white stoles walked in front of the ranks of the army and they chanted and prayed for God's help and for protection of the saints, even though the Turks were throwing projectiles at them 1610 .

According to Raymond, at the sight of Crusaders, Kurbugha offered the Christians that five or ten Turks could fight against the same number of Franks, and the result of this clash would decide which army should leave in peace. However, the Franks refused, saying that they had already proposed it, and now they wanted to let everyone fight for their rights (pro suo iure) 1611 .

Therefore, the battle began with attacks of the Turks on the infantry of the Franks, although as chronicler reports, the Turks could not defeat the Franks in the melee and they began to set fire to the surrounding bushes 1612 . Raymond interweaves the descriptions of battle struggles with the activities performed by the priests. He first outlined the departure from the city as a procession, and then he mentions that the priests were clad in liturgical vestments on the walls of Antioch and they invoked God to defend his people and by making the Franks victorious bear witness to the covenant which God made holy with His blood (atque testamentum quod sanguine suo sancivit in hoc bello per victoriam Francorum testificaretur) 1613 . Recalling the covenant of God with his people, in addition to being in blood, shows the importance of the event presented by Raymond.

The chronicler sees the Frankish victory as a kind of implementation of the covenant with God, who protects his people. Priests were on the walls praying for victory, while strengthening the image of the religious face of the fight in Raymond's perspective; it is a struggle in which mortals are aided by divine and supernatural forces -by God and an army composed of Crusaders who had previously been killed, and which God promised to send as aid.

divine rain (imbrem divinum) that fell on the Franks during the battle 1615 . Worth noting is that imber divinus also appears in the works of Saint Augustine, both in his sermons 1616 and commentaries on the Psalms 1617 . Although in this case it is difficult to make a clear reference to Augustine, but it can be seen that in the chronicler's cultural context, the rain could be considered a manifestation of divine protection. According to Raymond, the raindrops brought grace and strength (gratia...et fortitudine) to the Crusaders, thanks to which they moved on to the enemy, feeling as if they were being nurtured in a royal manner (in deliciis regiis) 1618 . Furthermore, this rain also influenced the Frankish horses, which, as the author points out, had not eaten anything for eight days except the bark and leaves of trees, and after that rain they found strength for the entire battle 1619 . It seems that the most possible inspiration for Raymond's vision has its roots in the Bible. Both in the New Testament and in the Old Testament there are examples indicating that the rain is identified not only with destructive force, but is also as a symbol of God's mercy for his people; rain brings yields, respite from drought 1620 . Moreover, like manna from heaven, it is an open act of God's support granted to his followers in difficult times 1621 . The divine protection over the Franks was highlighted by Raymond through the phrase that God increased the number of Crusader troops (multiplicavit adeo Deus exercitum nostrum), and then the Franks became more numerous than their enemy 1622 .

Next, the author presents a description of the main clash, which turned out to be surprisingly easy for the Crusaders, which, as Raymond points out, was obviously due to the cause and action of God. It turned out that the Turks, at the sight of the battle formation of the Franks, escaped from the battlefield, and the Christians chased them until the sunset on their horses, which despite the fact that they have not eaten well for many days, now had no problem to catch up with the fast Turkish horses 1623 . In addition, the Crusaders were not greedy and did not seek spoils, but they wanted to achieve the victory over the enemy, which also remains in connection with the vision in which St iudicium de inimicis suis)who desecrated the holy places of torment and burial and who were making efforts to exclude Christians from the great benefits of the sanctuary of 1632 .

As was reported by Raymond, Crusaders enthusiastically addressed the proposed solutions and, in the face of the final battle versus the enemy, ordered that on the sixth day of the week clergy with crosses and relics of saints was to lead the procession in which the Crusaders went barefoot asking God for support in the upcoming clash. In the narration, it brought the intended effect because Raymond says that God was on the side of the Franks again 1633 . Chronicler clearly stresses that although he had to omit the description of many events, one cannot avoid one, namely the reaction of the garrison of Jerusalem to the religious practices performed by the Crusaders. The Jerusalem's garrison had to go along the walls, poking fun at Franks walking in the procession in a various ways: they set up on the walls many crosses on yoked gibbets (multas cruces super muros ponebant in patibulis) and they blasphemed these crosses with scourging and making the vulgar acts (afficientes eas cum verberibus atque contumeliis) 1634 . The boundary of the religious conflict, and the division between Christians and Muslims was also emphasized by the further phrase that appears in the text of Raymond: Operabantur isti pro Deo spontanei opera ad capiendum, operabantur illi pro legibus Mahummet inviti opera ad resistendum (They [Christians] besieged the city willingly for the Lord, and they [Muslims] resisted reluctantly for Mohammed's laws) 1635 . It is clear that in this rhetorical figure, Raymond emphasizes that Christians are fighting for God, while the enemy is fighting in support of the laws of Mohammed. However, the author points out that the Franks are fighting willingly, by their own will, while the garrison of Jerusalem is reluctant to fight.

In this comparison, Raymond exalts the Franks at the expense of their enemies, while pointing to the values of the attackers and the defenders, clearly favouring one group at the expense of the other. Raymond takes away the enemy's goal of combat because he considers their fight for the laws of Mohammed to be reluctant.

However, in the description of struggles during the siege of Jerusalem, there are certain phrases of praise of the enemy who sits behind strong city walls and is trained in combat. Although they are recalled only to indicate that the Franks' deeds were significant, and in critical moments, the Crusaders could always count on God's help. In the face of several failures, according to Raymond who bases his claims on the biblical authority of Psalm 29.12, God was able to change melancholy of the Franks to gladness (luctum in gaudium), which resulted in the success of the final assault 1636 .

Battle of Ascalon is the last battle presented on the pages of Raymond of Aguilers' account 1637 . After this presentation of the pride of the enemy, the author of Historia Francorum describes the Crusaders starting the battle after confessing their sins and fulfilling pious religious practices such as the barefoot processions of the clergy and the noblemen to the Holy Sepulchre 1638 . Moreover, according to the chronicler, the Crusaders were convinced that their enemy was more timid than a deer and more harmless than a sheep (cervis timidores et ovibus innocentiores) 1639 . The comparison of the enemy to wild animals in the face of an approaching battle is an obvious invective of their military skills, which is done through the comparison to a deer, as the personification of a hunted animal, and a sheep, which in Medieval symbolism embodies a harmless animal. This assurance of the weakness of the enemy gave birth to the belief that God was among the Franks, as in other struggles with the enemy and because of the blasphemies committed earlier, which is a reference to the Egyptian ruler, God would, on his own initiative, punish the enemy of Christians even if the Frankish case was weak 1640 . In Raymond's opinion, the Crusaders considered themselves to be God's helpers, and God was their protector. The Franks, described as forces of God (exercitum Dei) believe in the rightness of their cause and divine support, while their enemy places hope in his number and strength 1641 .

Raymond presents the main attack of the Franks in the battle in the category of a miracle.

Author of the Historia Francorum believes that God once again increased the size of the Frankish army to such an extent that it seemed equal in number to the enemy's army 1642 . It can be observed that the chronicler often uses that phrase, clearly making the audience understand that God intervened on the Crusaders' side in a literal sense: God enlarges the army of the Franks during the battle of Ascalon (Multiplicavit Deum exercitum suum) 1643 . Raymond uses fictitious deliberations which he puts in the mouths of the enemy warriors: seeing the slaughter of their army, they were to say that they had to flee from the battlefield because the Franks who were exhausted, hungry and thirsty defeated them. Moreover, the defeated warriors of the rulers of Egypt wondered what would have happened if they faced a rested opponent. Raymond once again praises the fighting skills of the Franks, as if uttered by the enemy, which thereby confirms the enemy's inferiority on the pages of the account. Another aspect of this representation should be noted. Namely, the glorification of the combat power of the Crusaders can be an attempt to face the sense of wonder, which could arised after astnonishing victories in the face of the great enemy forces. Hence this strong belief in God's support, an ascribing to God the success of the expedition 1644 . Epistolary In a short description, Raymond writes about a rather small skirmish between the Turks, who numbered one hundred and fifty warriors, and Duke Godfrey and his twelve knights 1648 . As soon as the duke saw the enemy, he prayed and attacked. The Turks realized that the Crusaders were so determined that even in the face of a much larger enemy force they preferred to die in battle rather than run away. The Turks decided to divide their forces; some of them dismounted so that those who fought on horseback would be sure that their companions would not leave them 1649 . Then, in a long battle, Godfrey and his knights were victorious, killing thirty Turks, taking the same number into slavery. The rest of the enemies were hunted down and drowned in nearby swamps and rivers 1650 . Having succeeded in that skirmish, Godfrey returned to Antioch and his captives were humiliated by the fact that they had to hold the heads of fallen comrades in their hands 1651 .

In the description of the battle, very direct symbolism is used to refer to Jesus Christ and his disciples 1652 . Godfrey was identified by the author of the Historia Francorum as a vicar of God (vicarium Dei), and his knights in the number of twelve became apostles in Raymond's description (xii. apostolorum) 1653 . In this outlined perspective, Godfrey and his knights appear as the followers of Christ and his Apostles, which is clearly a reference to the postulate pose during the preaching of the expedition to Jerusalem, where the imitation of Christ has been so strongly expressed. Godfrey and the twelve knights are, therefore, a kind of transparent example of fulfilling Crusader vows in the opinion of a chronicler.

From the other side, the term of the vicar of God (vicarius Dei) referred to the specific context. According to Ernst Kantorowicz, the titles and the metaphors linked to Deus are very widespread in the Middle Ages because the idea of the ruler as a simile or an executive of God was supported by the Bible and the cult of ruler taken from Antiquity 1654 . E. Kantorowicz pointed out that the language of christological exemplarism was used to proclaim the king a typus Christi, which covered two aspects of the royal office: ontological and functional, reflected in the titles such as "Image of Christ" or "Vicar of Christ". These titles linked the ruler to Christ as a gemina persona paralleling the two natures of the human-divine prototype of all earthly kingship. However, even the purely potential relationship of the king with the two natures of Christ was forfeited when the high-mediaeval designations of "rex imago Christi" and "rex vicarius Christi" became evanescent and gave way to those of "rex imago Dei" and "rex vicarius Dei" 1655 . It is worth mentioning is that during the Carolingian period the term vicarius Dei prevailed, while the vicarius Christi began to dominate in the Ottonian and early Salian period, but still it was used at the imperial courts. However, the title has become a prerogative of Papacy, and Popes for instance were named as vicarius Christi or vicarius filii dei 1656 . Therefore, a reference to the political theology context gives a certain image of the strength of Raymond's words, which underline the importance and significance of Godfrey, who was described as a vicar of God.

The use of the twelve Apostles' symbolic in relation to the knights who do not convert anyone and fight against the religious enemy with sword may be surprising for the Raymond's audience, especially in the context of the apostolic mission and conversion of particular people (e.g. Saints Cyril and Methodius known as Apostles of the Slavs or Saint Otto of Bamberg -an Apostle of Pomerania) 1657 . One should take into account the specificity of the events described in the work: military confrontation against religious enemy, which is a threat to the community and who can only be stopped with God's help. Thus, the evocation of the symbolism of the Apostles strengthens Raymond's message and glorifies Godfrey's knights, placing them among the people who have 1653RA, p. 93. 1654E. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies. A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton 1957[repr. 2016], p.

89. 1655 Ibid., p. 89. 1656Cf. Constitutum Constantini, ed. H. Fuhrmann, Hannover 1968. 1657 Cf. J. Strzelczyk, Apostołowie Europy, Poznań 1997 [repr. 2010].

extended the limits of Christianity.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that in this rather short passage Raymond underlined the glory which was gained by Godfrey and his knights, who were shown as followers of Christ and Apostles through specific symbolic connections. The hero of the narration was, interestingly, not the Count of Toulouse, but Godfrey of Bouillon, already designated by Raymond of Aguilers the title of the vicar of God, which may suggest that it is a certain reference to later events when Godfrey was elected as a first Latin ruler of the sacred city of Jerusalem. Moreover, the context in which the indicated symbolic content was used is important: the fight against the enemies, who in addition were humiliated by defeat from the hands of such small number of Christians, and by being forced to carry the heads of their dead comrades. That shows that even small passages in the Raymond's work could be a part of the image of the "other".

Image of the massacres of the enemy

The pages of Raymond's account contain the descriptions of the massacres of the inhabitants of conquered cities. In several cases, the Crusaders annihilated the whole populations of these places. According to Raymond, after many months of difficult siege, the Franks captured Antioch.

The surprise attack at night was successful, and in the morning, Crusaders' banners hung over the city. The distinguished hero was Fulger, a knight and the brother of Budellus of Chartres, who was the first to stand on the walls of Antioch 1658 . Author puts his attention to the description of the massacre that took place after the Crusaders entered to the city through the gate. They killed everyone that they met, and they made such a frightening cry that the whole city was in turmoil, and women and children were crying 1659 . Then Raymond turns his attention to divine participation in this grand event. According to the chronicler, when the banners of the Crusaders fluttered over the city, some of the Turks began to run through the gates, while others jumped from the walls. Some of the Turks wanted to flee from the city using the mountainous terrain, but during the crossing through the crags, they crossed their path with the Frankish troops. The Turks were forced to flee and they fled so quickly that they all fell down the rocky cliffs 1663 . At this sight, Raymond concludes that the death of the Turkish warriors was an agreeable, pleasant one, but he also informs that the Crusaders lamented because of loss of more than three hundred horses which died along with the Turks 1664 . Such statement clearly shows the state of mind of Raymond, who even considers the Turks as inferior, probably in terms of usefulness for the crusading army, to their horses, over which he and other Franks are lamented. It can be said without exaggeration that it was a clear declaration of hatred on the pages of Raymond's account. These Turkish warriors did not deserve any respect from the author of the Historia Francorum because, according to his narration, the Turks were treated as worth less than their mounts and their deaths are rather presented mockingly, especially that they fled in contrast to the great deed of the Franks who engaged in combat and triumphed .

Looking for the broader comparative context of pleasant spectaculum the the scene known from Ebbo's Vita Sancti Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis comes to mind as it describes the Christianization mission to the Pomeranians led by Bishop Otto of Bamberg in the in the twenties of the 12th century 1665 . In this source the term iocundum spectaculum was used to describe the idols' annihilation in the greatly admired pagan temple in Chocków (Gützkow in Meklemburg). The idols were mutilated; their arms, legs and noses were cut off, their eyes were pierced, and they were burned and thrown from the bridge 1666 . Certainly for Ebbo and those involved in the introduction of Christianity in Pomerania, the destruction of the pagan idols, considered as an act of faith of the abrenuntiatio diaboli of the local community, had to be considered extremely pleasant.

Furthermore, in the 1st Letter of Anselm of Ribemont there is a description of laetum spectaculum: Comes autem S. Aegidii cum aliquibus Francorum impetum faciens in eos, innumeros illorum occidit, ceteri omnes confusi fugati sunt. Nostri autem cum victoria regressi et multa capita palis et hastis infixa portantes, XVII Kalendas Iunii laetum in populo Dei spectaculum rediderunt 1667 (The count of Saint-Gilles attacked them with some Franks, killing huge numbers and putting the rest to an uncontrolled flight. Our men returned victorious, carrying many heads impaled on their pikes and spears, and on the seventeenth day before the kalends of June they offered a joyous spectacle to the people of God) 1668 . It seems that the common point of the indicated pleasant spectacles is therefore the exaltation of Christians over their enemies -the pagan idols or the Turkish warriors.

In the description of the capture of the city of Albara, Raymond writes that the Crusaders under the command of Raymond of Saint-Gilles slaughtered thousands of enemies and many thousands more were made into slaves to be sold in Antioch; they also freed those who surrendered before the fall of the city (multa milia Sarracenorum ibi interfecit, multaque milia ad Antiochiam reducti venundati sunt) 1669 . In the description of the capture of the city of Ma'arrat an-Numan, Raymond mentions the massacre of all inhabitants of the conquered city because they did not want to show the places where the treasures were hidden 1670 .

Chronicler shows no contraindications to the bad treatment of the enemy by the Franks, always justifying even the wildest actions of Crusaders. For instance, Raymond refers to the siege of Ma'arrat an-Nu'man by invoking the act of cannibalism among the Crusaders 1671 . According to the author, the Franks, because of great famine, were forced to eat the bodies of their enemies which had been pitched into the swamps two or more weeks before. Such action disgusted both the Franks and the enemy. As a result, many of Crusaders who participated in this action without any hope of reinforcements turned back from their route 1672 . However, according to Raymond, the enemy spread the rumours about such an inhuman act of Franks and they reacted by saying that: Et quis poterit sustinere hanc gentem quae tam obstinata atque crudelis est, ut per annum non poterit revocari ab obsidione Antiochiae, fame, vel gladio, vel aliquibus periculis, et nunc carnibus humanis vescitur?

(And who can resist this race which is both determined and merciless, unmoved by hunger, sword, or other perils for one year at Antioch, and now feasts on human flesh?) 1673 .

Author of Historia Francorum points out that the behaviour of the Crusaders became the cause of the enemy's worries who were pondering how they were to fight againt someone who was so strong and so cruel. However, it should be pointed out that most likely, Raymond did not know the enemy's opinion of the Franks. Therefore, it seems that the aim of the chronicler was not to describe the inhuman behaviour of the Crusaders by assigning to them the known topos of "otherness", that is the label of cannibalism 1674 . Instead of this, Raymond tried to justify this act by claiming that the enemy, after this act of cannibalism committed by the Franks, started to be afraid of confrontation with the Crusaders because the latter would not refrain from eating corpses to survive. The stories of Crusaders' cannibalism during the siege of Antioch were justified in later sources such as Guibert of Nogent's Gesta Dei per Francos or Chanson d'Antioche, emphasizing the role of Tafurs, i.e. Christian zealots following an oath of strict poverty, as possible perpetrators of this act 1675 . However, Raymond's justification of cannibalism is different, and it was probably an attempt to deal with unflattering opinions about this well-known situation, stating that the "other" should be terrified in the face of such an act. From all of Raymond's descriptions the enemy defeat as a result of assault, the slaughter and overtaking of the enemy fortifications, none can match the description of the conquest and slaughter of Jerusalem. This subject, which is evocative and nowadays causes vivid emotional reactions, should definitely be examined. Why and for what purpose the author made such a description?

Raymond describes what happened after the fall of the city and its towers in the category of a miracle (mirabilia) 1676 . Comparing this with earlier descriptions, it can be observed that Raymond quite often reached for similar expressions, describing the death of the enemy as spectaculum iocundum (a pleasant sight) when he mentions the deaths of Turkish warriors after they fell from the rocks 1677 . Chronicler presents his ethnocentric perspective and directs his message to a welldefined group of recipients. The slaughter of the enemy in Jerusalem, which was the final destination of the expedition, is the culmination of a long journey full of hardships and challenges.

Therefore, it is considered as a miracle, a marvellous deed and as a significant military achievement. For this reason, Raymond does not spare the descriptions of the slaughter. According to the author of Historia Francorum, some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were graciously beheaded (levius erat obtruncabatur), others pierced by arrows, or tortured for a long time, and burnt to death in burning flames, so in effect the stacks of heads, hands and feet lay in houses and streets 1678 . Such descriptions enrich the image of the humiliation of the enemy, which shifted the role of the previous persecutor, making them into a victim. Moreover, it is a message to a heavily militarized society. Therefore, the description of death practices did not have to cause negative emotions for the author's audience. Furthermore, Raymond refers to the image taken from the Book of Revelation, believing 1675 Cf. L. Sumberg, The "Tafurs" and the First Crusade, "Medieval Studies" 21 (1959), pp. 224-246; M. Janet, Les scenes de cannibalisme aux abords d'Antioche dans les récits de la croisade: des chroniques à la chanson de croisade, "Bien dire et bien aprandre" 22 (2004), pp. 179-191;J. Rubenstein, Cannibals and Crusades, "French Historical Studies" 31 (2008), pp. 525-552;S.B. Edgington, 'Pagans' and'Others''..., p. 45. 1676 RA, p. 150. 1677 RA, p. 65;cf. P. Buc, Martyrdom in the West..., p. 46. 1678 RA, p. 150. that without any doubt it was right that in the Temple of Solomon and the portico, where for many years the enemies had committed blasphemy, the Crusaders waded in blood that reached their knees and the bridles of horses. Therefore, the Temple received the blood of blasphemers as if it were its satisfaction 1679 . The words taken from the Bible strengthen the message of slaughter, considered by the chronicler a good thing although a question about the truth of the passage should be also taken into account because such huge amounts of blood seem to be a literary hyperbole to show the author's erudition and emphasize its message. There are many reasons for that in Raymond's perspective the conquest and slaughter of Jerusalem was a peculiar act of revenge on the unbelievers who in his opinion committed many wicked acts, and because of that chronicler considered the city's slaughter as something marvellous, a miracle, but also as an act that was morally correct 1680 .

The extent to which Raymond's description is binary and ethnocentric confirms his further words when he praises God for performing such a wonderful deed, and he considered the day on which Jerusalem was captured as the end of all paganism, the affirmation of Christianity, and the renewal of faith (tocius paganitatis exinanicio, christianitatis confirmatio, et fidei nostrae renovatio) 1681 . Through the victory of the Crusaders, the enemy, paganitatis, was removed from the holy place of the Christians, and through the blood that was shed, the Franks took revenge for the blasphemies committed by the enemy in the holy place. For the chronicler, the capture of Jerusalem was an extremely fortunate event. According to the author of the Historia Francorum, religious practices were also performed on that day, prayers to God were performed at the Holy Sepulchre, and among the living Christians Adhémar was also present, thus revealing to the recipients the mystical experience of communing with the dead Crusaders 1682 .

In the context of purifying the Temple, the study of Katherine A. Smith should be mentioned. She shows the parallel between the capturing of Jerusalem and the evangelical story of Christ's cleansing of the Temple 1683 , which was used by later historians of the First Crusade to justify the massacre of the city as an act of purification 1684 . K.A. Smith claims that the chroniclers were far from the simply borrowing the Gospels' passages; they were relying on the existing exegetical tradition, interpreting the Frankish ruthless activity after capturing the city of Jerusalem as a reference to the Jesus' Temple cleansing. According to the established Christian thought, the referring to the discourses of avarice and idolatry. Therefore, the later generation of the First Crusade's historians sought more evangelical explanations of the massacre in Jerusalem 1685 while Raymond recalled an apocalyptic image of blood to the horses knees and bridles, and pointing to the bloodshed of blasphemers in the place of Temple, which by the author was considered a just event (Iusto nimirum iudicio) 1686 .

Furthermore, it seems that the answer to the question about the purposes of narration of the slaughter is that for the author of the Historia Francorum, the Fatimids' defenders of Jerusalem were perceived in bipolar terms as the enemy of faith who had to be destroyed and the revenge had to be taken on them for their acts of blasphemy and crimes. Chronicler recognizes the slaughter of the city and its specific purification of the infidels as morally righteous, as the passage of the Temple shows. For Raymond, the capturing the city, which was the destination of the expedition, was a happy day of glory for, as he himself described, the sons of the apostles (apostolorum filii) who thus fulfilled their goals 1687 . Thus, Raymond's description of the massacre in Jerusalem clearly uses the language of hatred against a religious enemy and reveals the perspective of the Christian author, which is extremely bipolar. The enemy is presented in a clearly wrong context and Raymond has no nice words for him; as a religious enemy, he must be condemned, and in chronicler ' view, the conquest of Jerusalem has a final dimension: the destruction of all paganism and the exaltation of Christianity.

Such portrayal of extermination of all the inhabitants that the Crusaders could find in the captured cities probably refers to the biblical tradition. In the Book of Deuteronomy, in the attack on the city, the attacker could make an offer of peace, but if the defenders refused, in the case of victory, all of the men were to be killed and what remained of the city was to be plundered 1688 . Also during the conquest of Canaan, God ordered the Israelites to exterminate all the other population 1689 .

Furthermore, the massacre of the captured fortified place, not only in the Middle Ages, seems to be appropriate in the perspective of the rules governing war because the use of resources, people, war equipment or time as a result of the siege was a risk and often entailed. The defenders could reach an agreement with the besiegers and spare the city under certain conditions, which most often resulted in the protection of the garrison's life, as was in the case of the siege of Nicaea. The garrison could also take a risk and decide to defend which could ended tragically when the attackers succeeded. Namely, the defenders who exposed the attackers to the loss of resources would be 1685 About the theological refinement, cf. J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea..., pp. 135-152. 1686RA, p. 150. 1687RA, p. 151. 1688Deut. 20.10-14. 1689 Deut. 2.34;3.3-6;Josh 6.21;10.20;10.28;10.30;10.32-40;11.8;11.11-12;11.14. In this way, Raymond reveals that he was familiarized with the division into Sunni and Shia within Islam. Nevertheless, the author of Historia Francorum did not show the detailed description of the two Islamic rites, only mentioning the phrase qui est de genere Mahumet (a someone from family of Mohammed or a kinsman of Mohammed) 1695 . Therefore, in Raymond's description the world of the enemy is divided on the religious background and on this field differences are present between the Seljuks and the Fratimids .

Author of the Historia Francorum mentions that the enemy has its own temples. In the description of the Antioch's siege, Raymond indicates mosques, described by the word bafumaria (ubi duae erant bafumariae) 1696 . This term is derived from Baphomet, which probably was an Occitan version of Mahomet and could be a sign of vernacular language of Raymond of Aguilers 1697 . The error of the copyist cannot be ruled out because it is the only passage in the account, where this form of transcription appears. This is also worth to notice that in this form of transcription Baphomet became common in later chansons de geste as a name of idol-worship attributed to Muslims 1698 . However, in the case of the Historia Francorum this is not so obvious, because the argument comes from a later tradition. Furthermore, in that case it is worth noting that the form of Baphometh appears in the Second Letter of Anselm of Ribemont, another participant of the First Crusade, though this message originates from the northern France, not necessarily confirming the Occitanian origin of the term 1699 . However, the identification of the temple of Muslims with their Prophet also has a place in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia as Machumaria 1700 . Probably, the Latin writers considered the place of Muslim worship as a place of veneration of their god or Prophet so they named the temple after him as bafumaria or Machumaria. The term of the enemy's temple associated with Mohammed also appears in one of the visions of Peter Bartholomew which he discussed with Adhémar and Raymond of Saint-Gilles.

In this vision, the temple was built by the Saracens (Saraceni) in front of the northern gate and it was described by a term of maumariam 1701 . Raymond uses this term also in the description of the persecution of the Syrians who fell into such evil that they destroyed the churches and the altars, and instead of this they built the mosques (mahumaria) 1702 . Raymond describes the temples of enemy by the terms, which are clear reference to the figure of Mohammed. Therefore, it is an author's indication, just by name, of the infidelity of Muslims who in their temples worship the god who is untrue (not the Christian God). In this short passage, the author of the account points to the religious "otherness" of the enemy. This bipolar opposition could be also observed in another mention. Raymond emphasizes the religious difference between the Crusaders and their enemy through the wordplay used in the description of the battle of Ascalon where the army of God (exercitum Dei) attacked the camp of Fatimids' forces described as a camp of Mohammed (castra Mahummeth) 1703 . This wordplay clearly shows who, in the author's opinion, was on the side of God, and who the enemy was.

On the pages of Historia Francorum, the chaplain of Count of Toulouse mentions other religious sites of the enemy. The author writes about sepulcrorum casalia, located near the two mosques around the city of Antioch, where the enemy buried their dead 1704 . Similarly to the word bafumaria, the term casalia points to Raymond's vernacular language because it certainly was not a word taken from classical Latin. Further, Raymond mentions that the Franks discovered a mountain which served as a cemetery of Saracens (sepultura Saracenorum) during the work related to the construction of castle during the Antioch's siege 1705 . Raymond's account contains a clear presentation of the enemy deity. Author of the Historia Francorum uses the term of their God (deus illorum) in the vision of Peter Bartholomew in the eve of battle against Kurbugha's army, in which Saint Andrew appears, giving the instructions as to the pious behaviour in the upcoming clash with the enemy 1706 . Furthermore, the phrase of God of the Turks (deus Turcorum) is also used 1707 . Therefore, Raymond's representation is clearly bipolar, whereby the enemy has their own god.

Furthermore, this is an indication on the idolatry, in sense of worshipping of the false god.

However, there is no sign in Raymond's use of the terms deus illorum and deus Turcorum of the label of polytheism. Author mentions the god of enemy in singular form (deus). Thus, the emphasis in Raymond's rhetoric of "otherness" is rather placed on the world upside down: the religion of the enemy is mirrored to that of Franks. Therefore, the Turks had their god, pope, temples and cemeteries, but those were not, in the author's ethnocentric perspective, the Roman Pope, the true God and the Christian holy places.

Christianisation was described in the perspective of a miracle, showing the superiority of Christian God over the God of Islam 1708 . For instance, after the battle against Kilij Arslan, as the result of the Frankish victory and the miracle of holy intervention of two horsemen gleamingly armed (duo equites armis coruscis), the Turks converted to Christianity. The apostates even informed the author of the Historia Francorum about the truth of this holy intervention 1709 . Furthermore, Raymond reports that after the reunification of the Frankish forces in the face of a threat from the Pope of Turks, when the Crusaders discovered the remarkable amount of loot that got into their hands and the extent of power they gained, several Muslims decided to convert to Christianity. Chronicler writes that the reasons for the conversion were fear and zeal for our law (timore et zelo nostrae legis) 1710 . Because of the many successes of the Frankish army, fear seems to be the obvious reason, whereas the zeal for laws seems to have a deeper connotation. The phrase nostrae legis could be translated not only as our law, but also as our principle, rule, mode, manner; in this perspective, the term zelo nostrae legis could signify zeal for the mode (or manner, way) of our life, which could be classified as a way of manifestation of the "otherness" of the different group, who intended to adopt "our" mode of life, abandoning their own. The idea of lex serves as the basis of social order, specific to a particular society and as such the term lex, could be the determinants of the clear division between the Christians and their enemy. In this context, this division appears in the presentation of the fight against the Jerusalem's garrison, where Raymond writes that: Operabantur isti pro Deo spontanei opera ad capiendum, operabantur illi pro legibus Mahummet inviti opera ad resistendum (They [Christians] besieged the city willingly for the Lord, and they [Muslims] resisted reluctantly for Mohammed's laws) 1711 . Therefore, the phrase lex has a broader anthropological basis because it invokes identity issues, showing that the Christians are different and, in chronicler's opinion, better than the defenders of Mohammed's laws.

Moreover, Raymond writes that some of the Saracens...anathematized Muhammed and all of his progeny (aliqui Sarracenorum...anatematizantes Mahummet et progeniem eius omnen) 1712 .

The word of anatematizantes no doubt is related to the category of anathema (Greek: ανάθημα), which means a curse, exclusion from the community. Therefore, those Muslims who took the baptism decided to anathematize not just Mohammed, but also all of his progeniem, that is progeny, descent, lineage, race or family. The expression of Mohammed and all of his progeny, descendants, family or race, suggests that Raymond could have perceived Muslims as a community whose ancestor, the binder, is Mohammed, and then from his descendants, as the chronicler himself conveyed, the Popes of Turks were derived 1713 . According to Raymond's narration, the baptized could renounce Mohammed's descendants in the religious dimension, but it is also possible that the author was concerned with social ties and group perceptions, because the Crusaders, whom Raymond sees as sons of God, stood in a binary opposition to the Muslims presented as the descendants of Mohammed.

In the last description associated with the battle of Ascalon, the author of the Historia Francorum presents an idea of Raymond of Saint-Gilles to send a baptized Turk by the name of Bohemond to the garrison of Ascalon with a request for their capitulation 1714 . Considering so few words of praise for the enemy on the pages of his work, it is somewhat ironic that Raymond's last passage was devoted to the former enemy, who after his conversion to Christianity received the name after the great Crusader and joined the Franks with his wife and arms. He was most likely to have been baptized in Antioch because, as was emphasized by chronicler, Bohemond received him at the baptismal font 1715 . Raymond of Aguilers describes Bohemond, who was of Turkish origin, as a multilingual, clever, shrewd and very loyal to the Franks (pluribus edoctus linguis, ingeniosus multum, et calidus et nobis fidelissimus) 1716 . The praise of a certain Turk indicates that once he abandons Islam, he is perceived by Raymond as a positive figure. A similar description can be found in Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia, where there an almost identical claim is made: if, the Turks were Christians they would be as strong as the Franks 1717 . Furthermore, this line of presenting the conversion appears in the Conquête de Jerusalem, where a brave Muslim warrior named Cornumarant, who, if he were to believe in the Christian God, would find nobody equal to him in terms of strength 1718 . However, what is worth emphasizing is the fact that baptism and renunciation of Islam were prerequisites for the overall positive perception of any Turk on the pages of Raymond's account.

of the Turks appears in the description of Peter Bartholomew's vision, where Saint Andrew, among other things, speaks about the apostates. According to Raymond, Peter Bartholomew claimed that Apostle informed him about the fate of Christians who were liberated after the victorious battle and who had previously converted to Islam (qui ambulaverunt in corrozanam ut deum Turcorum adorarent) 1719 . Saint Andrew, in relation to these apostates, recommends that they should be regarded as Turks and not the Franks anymore. He orders two or three of the apostates to be sent to prison to point him to the others who abandoned Christianity 1720 . The act of apostasy was considered, according to Christian thought, to be much worse than following a pagan faith because a man who abandoned Christianity did so consciously and denied the true God, despite the knowledge of his grace 1721 . Moreover, in the description of Raymond, the Apostle said that the apostates should be treated as Turks (sicut Turcos), thus they were even excluded from the community by name 1722 .

They became "Turks" and were no longer referred to as "Franks" or through other "familiar" name.

Franks were also instructed to find other apostates to cleanse the Christian ranks of the people who abandoned the faith in Jesus Christ. It seems that this description could stay in reference to the Prologue of Raymond's account, where he writes that the readers should avoid the counsel and fellowship of the apostates (Sed qui apostasiam eorum viderit, verba et consortia eorum fugiat) 1723 .

The brief mention in the vision of Peter Bartholomew shows that some of the Franks converted to Islam during the Crusade due to the failures of the crusading forces. Chronicler also demonstrates his attitudes towards acts of apostasy by saying that those who have left Christianity will be completely excluded from the community not only in the religious dimension, but also in anthropological perspective, because they will not be considered Franks anymore.

Khorasan

Similar to the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, Raymond's account uses the term Khorasan (Corozan 1724 , Corrozan 1725 ) 1726 . The term indicates the common experiences of the Frist Crusade of the all eyewitness authors. Firstly, the term in the form Corozain is presented in the bad context in the Gospels, which was the shared education base for the chroniclers 1727 . Furthermore, in the biblical perspective that name was reminiscent of the Antichrist, the unbelievers and clearly pointed to the Turkish "otherness". Secondly, it could be a reference to the geographical region of Khwarazm, located in western Central Asia, and for centuries identified by Eastern Christian authors as the homeland of the Turks 1728 .

On the pages of Raymond's work, Radwan of Aleppo approached the Franks with the great army from Khorasan (de Corozana) 1729 . Furthermore, in Peter Bartholomew's vision, Saint Andrew describes the conversion of Christians to Islam by the phrase: qui ambulaverunt in corrozanam ut deum Turcorum adorarent (who have followed to Khorasan in order to worship a God of Turks) 1730 .

J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill suggest that in this passage Raymond uses the term of corrozana to represent the paganism 1731 . However, it seems that in this narration it is also the geographical indication on Khorasan, because the apostates went to a place where the Turks lived and worshipped their god.

Nonetheless, the image of Khorasan does not play a big role in Raymond's account and in comparison to other eyewitnesses' accounts is rarely used.

The term hispania

Another term, used more frequently than Khorasan, appears on the pages of Raymond of Aguilers' account. Author of the Historia Francorum uses the term hispania four times in his work to describe a territory which belonged to Muslims and was close to Antioch 1732 . Other accounts of eyewitnesses spoke rather of terra Sarracenorum 1733 , which could be considered as a land under control of enemy and a binary opposition to terra Christianorum. The editors of Raymond's work indicated that the word hispania could have been derived from the vernacular form of paienie or pagienie, which were distorted during the prescriptions 1734 . However, it is quite dubious to claim that the word with a different core (hispania) comes from a completely different word (paienie or pagienie). Another proposal assumes that Raymond thought about Isfahan, but this is only a supposition, assuming that author knew the geography of the East and former Iran perfectly well while nothing in his account proves this point 1735 . Some of historians see a parallel between the fight on East and West in the word hispania 1736 . As was indicated above, in the case of using the term Maurus appearing in the Historia Francorum, the papal discourse of Urban II could be present on the pages of Raymond's work in the ideological sphere without making a clear distinction between the fight against the Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula and the Near East 1737 . To enrich this last line of interpretation, it could be said that Raymond's perspective should be rather considered in literary and symbolic terms than placed in a realistic dimension. When the author mentioned hispania as a region of Northern Syria and surroundings of Antioch, he probably did not think about the region of Spain nor about any other in a geographical sense. It seems conclusive that the author of Historia Francorum knew what the Iberian Peninsula was (even to a small extent) because he was a chaplain of Raymond of Saint-Gilles who was fighting against the Muslims in that region 1738 . Thus, it is possible to assume that when using the term hispania, Raymond meant the land that belonged to the enemy or rather was the area in which war was waged against the infidels, but without any specific and precise indication 1739 . Generally, those were the lands of enemy which were invaded by Bohemond and Robert of Flanders. To describe this territory, Raymond used a word which he knew and which could be used refer to the area of fighting against the Muslims, and was known to his audience that mostly consisted of Provencals. Perhaps, the author extended the meaning of this term to the reality of representation of the enemy during the First Crusade to make a parallel of fighting on the Iberian Peninsula. Therefore, it seems that in Raymond's account, the term hispania describes the lands of Muslim enemy in a general sense, and it is not derived from the words paienie or pagienie, but directly from the Latin term hispania.

others into slaves to be sold in Antioch, while also freeing those who surrendered before the fall of the city of Albara 1741 . Thus, in the author's description the population of the city is divided into three parts; those who were killed, those who were to be sold into slavery and those who surrendered before the the city was captured. This description is an introduction to a further narration. Raymond of Saint-Gilles, after taking counsel, selected a priest as Bishop of the city: the role was given to Peter of Narbonne, one of his chaplains. As the author of Historia Francorum emphasizes, the people, which could be understood as all of the Franks in Albara, demanded an election (populus multum instaret ut electo fieret) 1742 Raymond's description, in comparison to Gesta Francorum and the work of Tudebode, seems more schematic and is not characterized by a large amount of symbolism associated with the process of abrenuntatio diaboli. It puts forward a much simpler message: Raymond of Saint-Gilles conquered the city, killed many citizens of Albara, turned many of them into slaves, whom he wanted to sell, and some saved from death. Therefore, the enemy in this Raymond's narration is not demonized as in the other eyewitnesses' accounts. However, it seems clear that the Albara's case became so important that it was included in the Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia and Raymond's account.

Conclusion

The overview of shaping the image of the enemy-infidel according to Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem led to the examination of different scenarios and various mechanisms of representation of the Muslim enemy which could be described as the rhetoric of "otherness" regarding the intellectual background of Raymond of Aguilers (and Pons of Balazuc) and his particular message, which was addressed to a specific audience. This socio-cultural approach not 1741 RA, p. 91. 1742 RA, pp. 91-92. 1743 RA, p. 92. 1744 RA, p. 92; cf. T. Asbride, The Principality of Antioch and the Jabal as-Summāq, in: The First Crusade: Origins and Impact, ed. J. Phillips, Manchester 1997, pp. 146-147, 150. only provided information regarding the way the enemy was represented, but also posed a question about the organization of the information regarding the group recognized in a given socio-cultural context as "other" in the framework of the phenomenon of "xenophany". This approach was determined by the source, in which the enemy is perceived in a very negative way; it is no exaggeration to stated that the analysis is focused on the Raymond's tendency to emphasize the negative aspects of the enemy in his representations thereof.

It should be highlighted that Raymond' work is a very early account of the First Crusade, Therefore, the image of the "other" is inscribed in the social expectations of specific recipients and could not be a complete novelty; it had to be based on pre-existing patterns that, after appropriate adaptation and alteration, showed the significance of the expedition to Jerusalem. In Raymond's perspective, the First Crusade is the confrontation of paganimitatis and Christianitatis.

In this fight, the Franks can count on divine protection after the redemption of their sins, which is expressed through various divine interventions. For instance, in the struggles of the Crusaders the messengers of God appear, such as two white knights in the battle of Dorylaeum or in the form of the charge of dead Crusaders at the battle of Antioch, or even God's personal intervention through His own virtus fighting the enemy. Therefore, the campaign against the enemy is perceived by Raymond in two dimensions: earthly and divine.

The enemy was distinguished through the consistently repeated characteristics: the pride (superbia) and boldness in a negative sense (audacia). The Turks were even described to as the brutish animals. Raymond's account accuses the Turks of committing blasphemy and idolatry and the tyranny of Turks is also often mentioned. The enemy is often animalized. A statement is also made about the unlawful control over the lands that belong to Saint Peter, which is a sign of a Papal discourse in Raymond's Historia Francorum. Furthermore, almost all of the enemy leaders in Raymond's account are presented in the negative light, such as Kurbugha, because he disregards the advice of his emir and turns out to be ultimately a weak commander of the army, playing chess before the battle instead of focusing on the task at hand. Moreover, the enemy cruelly persecutes

Christians. Author emphasizes this aspect in the description of the fate of the Syrians, to whom the Turks did a lot of damage by destroying their families and taking the children by making them into members of their own community, and introducing a tax for being a Christian. Furthermore, the Turks were able to bring the Syrians to such a great evil that they began to destroy the churches and other Christian sanctities.

Raymond provides information about a specific way of fighting of the enemy in battle, different from the traditional combat preferred by the Crusades. The method consisted mainly of encircling the enemy and the use of horse archers instead of direct hand-to-hand combat, which the author recognizes as a sign of weak military capabilities of the enemies who cannot use spears and sword well enough. Author of the Historia Francorum categorizes it as a manifestation of the cowardice of the enemy, who had even had his own custom of escaping from the battlefield.

However, the chronicler admires the horses used by the Turks and points out many on cultural differences in the enemy's conduct of war, such as the use of postal pigeons. In Raymond's opinion, the enemy himself appreciated the fighting skills of the Franks and they felt fear in front of Crusaders. According to the narration about the battle of Ascalon, the enemy leader even wanted to create a new race based on the Frankish blood to receive belligerent families.

The descriptions of all battles are accompanied by literary tools, such as the topoi of overwhelmingly numerous enemy troops or the poetic justice, which means that the enemy is usually be punished by losing in the battle because of their sins and cruel deeds, which is a way to justify the acts of Franks, considered often as an act of vengeance. Moreover, many of the battles are presented in the specific literary framework of sin -redemption -victory. Nevertheless, this structure does not appear in the depiction of all battles: for instance, the battle of Godfrey of Bouillon and his twelve knights is described in different terms with the use of the comparison to the Apostles.

A huge role in the presentation of struggles is played by Raymond's belief in the relationship between zeal in fulfilling religious practices and the success in fighting against enemy. The great success in battle against enemy is always preceded by the pious acts of the Crusaders, who pray or celebrate the procession, which gives them the divine approval and in consequence the victory.

However, worth noting is that the enemy on the pages of Historia Francorum also appears as a tool for punishing sins, which penalizes the sinful Franks or also Syrians who themselves were guilty of their wicked fate because they had plotted against Christianity. Many victories against the enemy are seen in terms of a miracle. It was God, who through the hands of the Franks won such significant victories, and without His help, the enemy would have easily defeated the Crusaders. Furthermore, the role of the enemy in the description of battles comes down to the role of the background on which the heroes of the Crusade stand out. Nevertheless it is a role as significant as military confrontation was important throughout the whole epic narration of the expedition to

Jerusalem. The representation of the enemy plays its role in a specific narrative context; the enemy of the Franks, therefore, may be both those who punish for the sins of the Crusaders, as well as those who must be defeated as a result of their pride and arrogance; they can both be excellent archers and mounted warriors, and be afraid of the Franks, also lacking the skills to use sword or spear. In this way, the representation of the enemy depends on the situation, and Raymond used various literary devices that gave him such a constructed image of the "other" to present the expedition to Jerusalem. Kostick, op. cit., p. 218; N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 198. Firstly, on the diploma issued by Baldwin I in 1108 a reference to Fulcherius Clericus appears, who could have been the King's chaplain 1793 . Secondly, on the charter of Arnulf of Chocques, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem (1099, 1112-1118), dated 1112 among other witnesses there is a Fulcherus, Montis Oliveti, priores (and then there is a number of names), which was often presented as an evidence that Fulcher from the diploma was the Prior of the Mount Olives 1794 . However, it seems that this case is problematic. On this charter priores is in a plural form, which is especially surprising that further, there is a different witness described as Reinerius, prior de S. Habraham, already in a singular form of word prior 1795 . Therefore, either there is a mistake in the lesson in the source edition or there were few priors, one of which was certain Fulcher, perhaps Fulcher of Chartres. Thirdly, the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana could have also been the witness on a charter of Warmund, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated 1123, where a certain Fulcherius appears, but the indication is short and it is a debatable issue; it is difficult to claim for sure that the document is certified by Fulcher of Chartres 1796 . Nonetheless, it should be assumed that Fulcher, as a former royal chaplain, could have played a role in the political life of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, especially since he wrote a work known to his contemporaries. As a chaplain he served Baldwin I, maybe even to the death of the monarch in 1118, but probably to 1115, when he said that he entered into the Temple for fifteen years, which could indicate the period of time during which he had the permission to enter this site 1797 . Furthermore, Fulcher was not a chaplain of Baldwin II and probably the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana stayed in the Jerusalem or in close to the city 1798 . Maybe he was rewarded for his service and even became a canon of the Church of Holy Sepulchre 1799 .

However, data on Fulcher's life before the events related to the First Crusade is rather vague.

It is known that he came from Chartres, an important city in North-Central France located 78 km southwest of Paris. Fulcher reflects his regional identity in the description of an ambush prepared by the Turks at the north of Beirut in the fall of 1100 on the retinue of Baldwin I, who was going to

Franci Occidentales) 1801 . During the enumeration of so many Christian nations which participated in the expedition to Jerusalem he also mentiones that he does not understand the Briton and the German languages 1802 . As his origin points out and the references that he gave himself, Fulcher identified himself with the Western Franks and most likely he used the language of North-Frenchlangue d'oïl.

Fulcher was a participant of the First Crusade but actually he did not take part in the main events of the expedition because in October 1097 he left the main forces and joined Baldwin of Boulogne in his campaign which lead to the creation of the first Latin Principality in the East.

Baldwin himself became the Count of Edessa 1803 . Therefore, the status of Fulcher's work as an eyewitness account in the description of the capturing of Antioch and Jerusalem is uncertain. Thus, in the Book I, a great dependence of the author on other sources describing the Crusade is visible, which also influences the language used by Fulcher. Because of its composition, Fulcher's account seems to be something similar to hypomnema (ὑπόμνημα) 1836 .In his work, Fulcher draws particular attention to the suffering of Christians. This is especially evident when comparing passages which he undoubtedly borrowed from other authors. For instance, Fulcher in reference to Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers informs about the Crusaders, who during the siege of a certain city, after twenty days, started to eat the flesh from the buttocks of the enemy described as Saracens 1837 . The reason for that was great starvation among the Frankish camp. The Crusaders started to cook the pieces of human flesh but they devoured it before it was roasted because of their great hunger. However, the sense of the description is different to Raymond's narration, where in this way the Crusaders could be doing so to terrify the enemy 1838 . Instead of this, Fulcher notes that the Frankish cannibalism is an evidence that the besiegers were harmed more than the besieged 1839 . which he indicated the reasons for opening the Council. Urban II points out on the necessity of reform in the Church. He called for spiritual correction of the clergy, who should be prudent, farseeing, modest, learned, peacemaking, truth-seeking, pious, just, equitable, and pure (prudentem, provisorem, modestum, edoctum, pacificum, scrutatorem, pium, iustum, aequum, mundum) 1846 . Then, he raised the subject of the Church's sovereignty. Urban II declared that the simony could not take place and the Church had to be free from the secular power. Furthermore, he reminded the present about the Truce of God and said that all attacks on the monks, priests, nuns, pilgrims and merchants had to be stopped and all thieves, robbers and house smokers were to be banished from the Church and excommunicated 1847 . The papal decrees were settled at the end of the Council because the discussion probably took place for several days when finally the clergy and aristocracy (clerus and populus) approved it by acclamation 1848 . However, Fulcher mentions that was not the end of the Pope's action because after the first speech, Urban II preached another sermon, in which he gave not less tribulation…but greater or worse (non minus tribulationis…sed et maius aut pessimum) 1849 . According to Fulcher, Urban II referred to the previous decrees by mentioning that when the people of the Church promised to keep peace among themselves, an urgent task is waiting for them, because the Christians in the East needed their help 1850 . The Eastern Christians are described as confrantribus vestris (yours brethren), which shows the believe in a community of the Faith of all Christians on the pages of Fulcher's work. Necessity of aiding the brethren in the East was presented as a main reason for undertaking Byzantine-Papal relations and the correspondence between Alexius I and the Pope, which cannot be found in other sources of the participants of the First Crusade.

The enemy was presented as a threat for Christian community because the Turks already conquered many territories of the Byzantine Empire, arriving in conquests up to the Mediterranean.

If the enemy was not to be stopped, they were likely to conquer even more Christian areas 1854 . However, in a short presentation of the enemy in Urban II's sermon, the main role is played by the description of the suffering of Christians in the East. In their conquest, the Turks defeated the Christians in seven battles, which is most likely a symbolic number and it provides an understanding of the fullness of enemy's victory 1855 . Furthermore, during their conquest the Turks killed or captured many Christians (multos occidendo vel captivando), they destroyed churches and devastated the kingdom of God (ecclesias subvertendo, regnum Dei vastando) 1856 . Although Fulcher does not deign his readers with too suggestive and detailed descriptions, he turns to the topic commonly used in crusading rhetoric, that is, the enemy who commits acts against God by destroying churches, killing the Christians, and conquering their lands 1857 . In tUrban II's sermon on the pages of the Historia Hierosolymitana this representation was an introduction to the Pope's statement that the expedition to the rescue the Eastern Christians is God's work and God exhorts the participants as heralds of Christ (Christi praecones) 1858 and Christ himself commands it (Christus autem imperat) 1859 . The devastation of the churches and death of many of Christians because of the Turks are also the reasons which could be understood in the terms of just war, legitimizing the violence act against the enemy, committed in self-defence of Christians. Fulcher also mentions that men of all ranks could participate in the Crusade, both knights and infantrymen, as well as rich or poor 1860 . The main aim of these people was the extermination of the Turks and an removing them from the Christian lands, described as our lands (regionibus nostrorum) 1861 . The Pope granted the forgiveness of sins to the participants of the expedition, but limited it to those who were to die during the expedition on the land or sea, both when marching and in combat 1862 . At the end of the sermon of Urban II, Fulcher indicates that the Pope did mark the change in the status of the Eastern Christians in the service of the Church. In Fulcher's account, Urban II's sermon in Clermont contains the phrase quapropter treviam, sic vulgariter dictam (wherefore the truce commonly so-called), thus the case of Truce and Peace of God should be taken into account 1869 . The oldest reference to this idea comes from the document of Guy II (975-996), Bishop of Le Puy, in which he seeks to secure the goods of the Church against the secular knights who have violated the Church property by all means necessary, including the use of the armed force available to the Bishop if required, 1870 . However, this is not an idea of universal peace, but only of protection of the goods of the Church. The idea of the Peace of God was introduced by the Synod of Charroux in 989, where Gunbald (from 989), Archbishop of Bordeaux, with bishops of his diocese offered protection to certain categories of weaker or defenceless people: clerics, priests, women, children, old people, peasants, merchants and travellers; and facilities such as churches, monasteries, but also mills, houses, etc. 1871 . The aforementioned Guy, Bishop of Le Puy, introduced the Peace of God in 990 at the Synod of Le Puy, and in a short time, the practice spread through the others synods, such as the Synod of Anse in 994 or of Poitiers in 1010, enjoying the aid of Cluny Abbey 1872 .

The Truce of God was established in 1027 at the synod in Toluges in Roussillon, set the time frame for a ruthless ceasefire from Wednesday evening to Monday morning, later also during the entire period of Advent and Lent, and condemned wrong wars, pointing to the superiority of those taken for a good reason. Most likely, the Reconquista was the main reason for the introduction of this idea to the Catalan and Occitan region. The aim of it was to limit the private wars and to remind the knights of the Christian norms, as they were to use their military skills not against the other Christians but to wage war against the Muslims, which was considered as a just deed 1873 . Later, the idea of Truce of God was transmitted to other regions of the Christian world, throughout the Council of Arles (1037-1041) and Narbonne (1054), where the sanctions for shedding Christian blood and all offenses against Christians were indicated 1874 .

In the perspective of Peace and Truce of God, Urban's sermon could be understood as a further development of these ideas. Furthermore, Fulcher's version of Urban II's sermon suggests the Cluniac influences on the crusading thought. Although the current tendency in historiography is to focus rather on relativizing or pointing to the indirect role of Cluny Abbey in the ideology of the Crusade, it seems that at least one of the eyewitness participants explicitly appealed to the idea of Peace of God being so close to the religious congregation of Cluny 1875 . It is worth emphasizing that , before he became the Pope, Urban II was a Cluniac monk and during his tour in 1095 he visited many Cluniac monasteries; from Moissac, one of these monasteries, a false crusading encyclical of Pope Sergius IV (1009-1012) came, calling to annihilate the enemy of God who destroyed the Holy Sepulchre 1876 . During the abbacy of Saint Odilo (994-1049), Cluny Abbey took active part in the movement of the Peace and Truce of God, one of the aims of which was to direct the aggression of knights against non-Christians 1877 . As was mentioned above, according to Fulcher, Urban II delivered a sermon in Clermont related to the Church reforms proposed; among those reforms, the Truce of God was of huge importance. In this context, the Pope's crusading speech begins from the claim that if the faithful pledged to maintain peace and stop mutual fratricidal fights they should bring aid to the Eastern Christians 1878 . On this basis it can be pointed out that keeping Truce of God within Christianitas is the first condition for undertaking an expedition against the enemies of the Christian community. This idea was repeated by Fulcher on the further pages of his work: capite autem sic laeso, etiam membris marcescentibus dolore concepto quia in partibus omnibus Europae pax, bonitas, fides, in ecclesiis et extra, tam a maioribus quam minoribus viriliter subigebantur, necesse erat ut, malis tantimodis dimissis, monitione a papa Urbano sic exorsa, contra paganos saltem certamina inter se dudum consueta distenderent (Moreover when the head was sick in this way, the members were enfeebled with pain because in all parts of Europe, peace, virtue, and faith were brutally trampled upon by stronger men and lesser, inside the church and out. It was necessary to put an end to all these evils and, in accordance with the plan initiated by Pope Urban, to turn against the pagans the fighting, which up to now customarily went among the Christians) 1879 .

It is worth noting that Fulcher sees a connection between bringing peace to the Christian Raymond also presents a different perspective, starting from the departure of the army of Provencals. In his vision, the expedition to Jerusalem and the war against the enemy is presented as a binary opposition between Christianitas, represented by the exercitum Dei (army of God), and paganimitas as the basic point of Crusade 1884 . There is no mention of the Truce of God and the decrees of the Council at Clermont. It seems, therefore, that in comparison to other eyewitnesses of the First Crusade, Fulcher's narration is closest to the papal discourse, which may suggest several things. Firstly, Fulcher could have listened to the papal speech in the Council at Clermont, or he could have been in possession of the best source of information on the subject, either his own notes or an eyewitness account of someone well informed about the events in Clermont. On this basis, after many years he was able to create a description of Urban II's sermon, unlike other chroniclers who did not. Secondly, as he later points out in his Prologue in which he rejectsthe description of the Crusade in the perspective of the biblical Maccabees, the account is closer to the papal discourse:it could also be a conscious choice based on the proposed content 1885 . Urban's sermon of Clermont and the Church reform programme proposed there, along with the idea of Truce of God could be seen by Fulcher as the right choice to present an expedition in the framework of this movement, which aimed to bring peace in the 1881 FC, I, V, 10, p. 152. 1882 Cf. J. Ziese, Wibert von Ravenna. Der Gegenpapst Clemens III (1084-1100) Christian world and to unify the knights against the enemies of the Church. Thirdly, he belongs to a different community than Raymond of Aguilers, Peter Tudebode and the author (or authors) of Gesta Francorum; in his case, the papal discourse could be much more important. However, it is unlikely that Fulcher's higher social status or him holding higher place in the Church hierarchy were relevant factors here. Later, Fulcher became the chaplain to the King of Jerusalem and perhaps the Prior of Mount Olive, but Raymond of Aguilers, who did not even refer to the sermon in Clermont, was the canon of Cathedral of Le Puy and the chaplain of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. Namely, Aoxianus from all his previous records now becomes Cassianus 1888 , and the term of Chorasan appears, instead of Persia as his own term of the Turkish origin 1889 . Furthermore, the content of the struggle of the city of Antioch against the enemy is properly repeated, so the reader once again reads about the same events, but more accurately and in a different form of wording.

Furthermore, interest in the subject of papal schism appears at the beginning of the Historia Hierosolymitana. Fulcher describes the Anti-pope Clemens III as the devil (diabolus) 1890 , who was 1886 FC, I, XXII, 7, p. 254. 1887 FC, I, XXIV, 1-14, pp. 258-264; cf. XVI. Epistula Boemundi, Raimundi comitis unlawfully established by the Emperor as the Pope of Rome while Urban II was elected by the cardinals 1891 . Actually, Fulcher devotes a whole detailed chapter to the papal schism, which seems surprising in the comparison to the brief mentions concerning the events of the First Crusade. It seems that Fulcher on the pages of his work wanted to emphasize the papacy as the political power that leads the Christianity.

Peasants' Crusade

Another part of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana where the enemy was described was the so-called Peasants' or People's Crusade, which was led by Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir, or in version of Fulcher: the Penniless (Sine Pecunia) 1892 . Fulcher of Chartres did not participate in this part of forces going to Jerusalem, so this is a testimony which surely comes from other participants or sources. Fulcher's first mention of this event was short. He only says that Walter, who in the chronicler's opinion was a very good knight (miles…peroptimus), was killed by the Turks with many of his companions between Nicomedia and Nicaea 1893 . This is a mention that will precedes the events to come; Fulcher states this when describing the various troops of Christians going to the Crusade. Then, the author returns to a further description of the Peasants' Crusade.

Fulcher describes the crossing of the crusading forces to Asia Minor during which in Nicomedia owned by the Turks the participants of the expedition could see: how many severed heads and how many bones of the slain we found lying in the fields near the sea around Nicomedia! In that year the Turks annihilated our people who were ignorant of the arrow and new to its use (O quot capita caesa et ossa occisorum ultra Nicomediam prope mare illud in campis iacentium tunc invenimus! Quos ipso anno ignaros et usui sagittario modernos Turci peremerant) 1894 . Chronicler points out that because of this view, the Crusaders shed many tears, which was actually a summary of the whole mention of the People's Crusade. Fulcher did not pay too much attention to the event mentioned. Very brief information indicates that he preferred to omit this content in contrast to the detailed descriptions of Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode, and even brief reference of Raymond of Aguilers. The events of the Peasants' Crusade in the Historia Hierosolymitana did not become the canvas for sketching the narration, which could have been used as a device to moralize and condemn features such as audacia or superbia as it was presented in Gesta Francorum. Even Fulcher's use of words such as perimo, ere, emi, emptum (kill, slay, destroy, annihilate) did not 1891 FC, I, V, 2-3, pp. 146-147. 1892 FC, I, VI, 7, p. 159;cf. J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders..., p. 224. 1893FC, I, VI, 7, p. 159. 1894 FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 80;FC, I, IX, 4, p. 180. suggest any symbolic content associated with persecutions of Christians or martyr's death. Instead of this, Fulcher only informs that many dead bodies of participants of the People's Crusade were around Nicomedia, which brings to mind the disasterous failure of this expedition. Furthermore, it shows that the author of Historia Hierosolymitana, in contrast to other eyewitnesses, presents the Crusaders shedding tears, thus producing very emotional overtones. This content sounds familiar to Tudebode's mention of the fear of decapitation from the Turkish hands, indicating that some of the authors of the First Crusade accounts were transmitting personal attitudes toward the death during the expedition, not necessarily emphasizing the glory of martyr's death 1895 .

Describing the enemy

Throughout the pages of Historia Hierosolymitana, Fulcher presents a particular image of the enemy using several terms to define the adversary of the Crusaders, which shows the content transmitted from other accounts as well as the author's own invention.

Enemy as pagans, barbarians, unbelievers

According to Fulcher, in Urban II' sermon preached at Clermont, the Pope sayid that the enemy, more precisely the Turks who invaded the Byzantine Empire had to be exterminated 1896 . To highlight the evil character of the Turks, they were described as the wretched race (genus nequam) 1897 . A similar term appears in the description of Bohemond's defeat from the hand of the Danishmend. When the Prince of Antioch with a small contingent approached to Melitene, the Turks, described as gens illa nefaria (those wicked people) attacked from ambush and killed most of the Frankish forces, taking Bohemond into captivity 1898 . Moreover, Fulcher describes the joy of local Christians in the perspective of the return of the Holy Land to its original and rightful owners, instead of being held by the wicked people (quos Christianismum, a nefandis tamdiu pessumdatum, in honorem debitum et pristinum relevare sentiebant) 1899 . Fulcher emphasizes the image of the "other" referring to the terms, describing the society of enemy in evil terms: the words nequam and nefarius are uniquely bad. Moreover, according to the author of Historia Hierosolymitana, the Pope in his sermon says that the Turks are a race so despicable, degenerate, and enslaved by demons usque Nicomediam urbem sibi subiugarant) 1913 . This sentence indicates that Fulcher was quite familiar with the history of the appearance of Seljuk Turks on the political scene of Near East. He knew the time of their invasion well and knew that they had crossed the Euphrates River from the territories of Persia that is from the Baghdad's Caliphate and invaded the Byzantine territories. In this description, the Turks are associated with Persia; they are described as those who came from Persia, which is a clear geographical indication. Associating the Turks with Persia is a common label in the Fulcher's work; it is the place of their origin and it is there that the Turks flee to after their failures (usque Persidam) 1914 .

Fulcher presents the enemy as the pagans of Persian origin (the Turks, those pagan Persians; Turcis, scilicet paganis Persicis) 1915 . In Urban II's sermon on the pages of the Historia Hierosolymitana the Turks are defined as the Turks, a Persian people (Turci, gens Persica) 1916 . The use of archaic, ancient names in relation to other peoples was not an unusual practice in medieval writing. It does not necessarily mean Byzantine influences, where it was a very common practice, but it can testify to the erudition of the author, who in this way gave some proof of his own education 1917 . The term Persia also appears in the second Letter of Anselm of Ribemont, where a mention is made of the king of Persians and the law of Persians 1918 . Likewise, the Persian king is mentioned in the Letter of the Crusade's leaders 1919 . Interestingly, unlike other authors of the First Crusade's accounts, the term Chorasan/Corosan does not appear in the Fulcher' Historia Hierosolymitana besides the Letter to Pope Urban II, which, however, clearly was not written by Fulcher and was included into his own work. Instead of Chorasan, Fulcher uses the word of Persia as his own term of the Turkish origin 1920 . Fulcher's presentation of the Turk's political society also refers to the symbolic meaning of Persia in the biblical perspective; most likely it was the author's aim to name Kurbugha as the satrapa (satrap) 1921 . However, the main leader of the Turks is described as the King or even the Emperor of Persia 1922 .

Fulcher identifies the Turks with a race of Persian origin, which probably should be understood due to their geographical location. Perhaps, basing on the author's classical education, it could also be an attempt to point to the opposition of Rome -Persia. In the search for the opposition indication that there were Turks, Arabs and Ethiopians 1934 . Such way of representation indicates that in the case of these two terms a distinction could be present between the Turks and the Arabs. This may be a sign of knowledge about the political reality within Islam. Perhaps Fulcher, having spent several years in the Holy Land, was well aware that the Turks were an ethnic minority in the Middle East, and that the Crusaders did not only meet the Turks 1935 , especially, that the Turks were clearly identified as people from Persia, and there is no such reference made about the Arabs. According to Fulcher, the enemy has an idol of the name of Mohammed in Jerusalem. There is no doubt that the Bible contains a prohibition of idolatry because this concept opposes the fundamental commandment of the Decalogue, expressed in the Book of Exodus throgh You must have no other gods before me 1938 . However, the Old Testament does not know the term idolatry, which appears in the New Testament 1939 . The authors of the Old Testament, instead of mentioning idolatry, used the phrase referring to the idea: to bow or worship idols 1940 , to follow the idols 1941 , or even to prostitute with the idols 1942 . Idolatry was repeatedly condemned in the Bible 1943 . However, the Muslim doctrine on idolatry is also clear; it is shirk (širk), the sin of the deification or worship of anyone or anything besides Allah. Thus, it can be clearly seen that Fulcher's description could not have real foundations and belonged to a group of collective ideas about the perception of the "other" 1944 . It seems that the statue of Mohammed in Jerusalem existed only in the mystical sphere of the Crusader eschatology which wanted to experience the fall of false religion during the liberation of Holy City from the impurity of pagans 1945 . However, it should also be noted that the idol did not have to be a statue, and Kaaba in Mecca, the holiest site in Islam, could be interpreted by a Christian author as an idol cult. Fulcher's knowledge of this should be called into question, especially since he was describing Jerusalem without reference to Mecca, and there is no sign that he would refer directly to Kaaba as an idol cult 1946 .

The representation of the enemy as the idolatrous "other" is one of the elements used to justify and glorify the actions of the Franks. Fulcher of Chartres clearly shows the distinction between Christians and Muslims in the religious sphere. According to the author, the enemy preferred to pray in the Temple of the Lord, where they would not allow any Christians.

Remembering the significance of this temple for the Christians, Fulcher refers to the programme of reconquering the Holy Sepulchre from the hands of unbelievers who, as Fulcher points out, have made Christians unable to pray in this holy sanctuary 1947 . Therefore, the enemy was shown as an obstacle in performing pious religious practices.

Furthermore, the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana says that the prayers of enemy were wasted because of idolatry. The aimlessness of prayer is a serious argument addressed to the recipients of the work; it shows that the enemy's religion is false because it cannot bear any fruit in the perspective of the formula do ut des, in which the act of prayer or almsgiving would be rewarded by divine recompense 1948 . According to the beliefs, prayer has the power to influence reality through words addressed to God, in a form of a request, thanks, tribute, etc. Fulcher, therefore, denies the enemy's contact with God. In contrast, the Franks, as those who are constantly supported by divine providence, constitute the second element of the binary opposition. The accusation of idolatry, which according to Christian tradition is essentially worship of demons, places the enemy in the sphere of powers of evil 1949 . Importantly, the attribution of idolatry to the enemy indicates Fulcher's focus on it, as is shown in the description of the capture of Jerusalem. being constantly soaked; the lack of strong sun did not let them dry. As the author emphasizes, he himself saw that this was the reason for many deaths in the Christian camp, as many people died. both men and women 1959 . The journey of Baldwin and Bohemond to Jerusalem took place at the turn of November/December 1099. Therefore, such descriptions of heavy rains and cold should not come as a surprise because those were the atmospheric conditions corresponding to what the weather was actually like in Syria and Palestine at that time. To highlight the image of misfortunes, Fulcher mentions that many Christians were killed or captured by enemies who were lurking around, so it was difficult for Crusaders to scavenge for food 1960 . Fulcher's description of the pilgrimage, mentions only two moments in which the fate of Christians improved. For the first time, when they were travelling through cultivated fields of sugar cane, which aroused interest of the author, who uses its specific name: cannamelles (honey-cane), because of the taste of honey 1961 . This discovery, as the author states, did not help much. For the second time, the author says that only twice during the whole journey the pilgrims were able to acquire bread and grain paying very high prices for it in Tripoli and Caesarea 1962 . After so many misfortunes, the pilgrims finally arrived at the Holy City.

For Fulcher, the description of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the forces of Baldwin and Bohemond became a substitute for the journey of the Crusaders from Antioch to Jerusalem.

Therefore, the author emphasized all the difficulties that the travellers had to endure, indicating their importance. The lands inhabited by Muslims were therefore presented as a dreadful place where Christians could not buy food because the local people did not intend to sell anything to them. Moreover, the enemy attacked the people who were looking for food, the whole image being complemented by bad weather conditions. Therefore, the interior lands of the Saracens could be ascribed the topos of locus terribilis in the literary framework.

Presentation of the military struggles against the enemy

Similarly to Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia and Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers, Fulcher of Chartres' account contains the descriptions about the military actions taken against the enemy. However, a significant part of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana was described based on the representation of the enemy's conduct of war known from other accounts but the author added some of his own observations. narrative texts will not bring any observations regarding the meaning of the title princeps, apart from the obvious statement of its ambiguity. This title was used to describe the prominent members from aristocracy in Medieval Poland or to name the rulers of Pomerania, Ireland or Wales 1969 . In the understanding of the meaning of this term, Fulcher himself comes to aid because he indicates that the principes of the Turks were called emirs (principes Turcorum…quos admiratos nominabant), which shows the synonymic understanding of these titles by the author himself 1970 . By using the title admiratus et princeps, Fulcher names the leader of enemy on the pages of Historia Hierosolymitana, showing that on one hand the writer must have found the word in Latin which is rather ambiguous than the precise title of the Turkish ruler. On the other hand, Fulcher uses the term known from other eyewitnesses' accounts, which is the Latin form of an Arabic word. The ambiguity of the title is confirmed further when Fulcher states that along with Soliman, many of others admirati vel principes (emirs and princes) were present 1971 . In the first redaction of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana the seven names of these Turkish commanders appear, namely: Admircaradigum, Miriathos, Comardigum, Amircai (or Amirchai), Lachin (or Jachim), Bordagis (or Bordalis), Caradigum 1972 . However, the author omitted five of them later and left only Amircaradigum and Miriathos 1973 . Bartolf of Nangis mentioned Amilchara et Digon, et Miriathos, et Chonardigon 1974 . Nevertheless, these names seem obscure and distorted. It is hard to associate them with the real historical figures from that time. Amircaradigum could be identified as Amir Koradja or Karaja, who was the governor of the city of Homs in 1104 and Miriathos could be referring to Amir Atsiz who may have held Palestine in the years 1071-1079 1975 . The prefix -Comar can be understood as a distorted form of the popular name in the Muslim world -Omar. There are also suggestions that the name Comardigum actually is Khumartakin, Amircai is Amirak, which means a small Emir, and maybe this is a reference to Amirak al-Djandar. The name Lachin is a form of Ladjin, which means a hawk, and Bordagis is Baldadji or Boldadji 1976 . However, due to the difficulty in identifying these names, which also turned out to be not worth further attention to Fulcher since he omitted it in subsequent editions of his text, attention should only be paid to the symbolic function of these names in the narration. It seems that the most important part of the passage with the list of enemy was used to emphasize the military strength of the enemy, which in this case manifests itself on the list of enemy commanders as the pattern of the epic catalogues known from the antiquity, invoking Iliad of Virgil's Aeneid 1977 . This line of interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the next sentence describes the numbers of the Turkish forces 1978 . Both the record of the names and their potential pronunciation suggest their foreign origin. It is most likely, therefore, that at first, Fulcher did not want to record the names of historical figures, but he wanted to emphasize the image of the enemy who is strong in numbers. At the same time his bizarre-sounding names are the axis of the binary opposition of "us -them".

Yaghi Siyan and Shams ad-Daula

For other eyewitnesses, the arration of the siege of Antioch was the most important part of the works because it was the longest event of the entire expedition to Jerusalem. important to emphasize that Fulcher, even knowing the content of other works, presented the content he knew instead. Yaghi Siyan was described by the same title as was Kilij Arslan on the pages of Fulcher's account, that is prince and emir (princeps et admiratus) 1981 .The name appears for the second time when Fulcher describes the death of Yaghi Siyan. When the city of Antioch was captured by the Franks, Yaghi Siyan was attempting to flee when an Armenian peasant beheaded him and brought his head to the Crusaders 1982 . Therefore, the description of the death of the ruler of Antioch ends his small role in whole narration. Moreover, his son does not appear again besides some of Fulcher's manuscripts in the catalogue of the enemy emirs during the battle against Kurbugha 1983 . It is therefore difficult, based on such a scarce basis, to clearly determine the evaluation of the representation of the indicated figures in Fulcher's account. It seems, however, that by invoking Mohammed in their appeal for help, the author wanted to emphasize religious differences of the enemy. Furthermore, taking into account the descriptions of the siege of Antioch, where Yaghi Siyan was a commander of the enemy's forces responsible for the deaths of many Crusaders, it is difficult to consider him a positive figure in the narration. Fulcher, his name was Soltan which is a reference to the Arab word sulṭān and a clear example of adaptation of this word to the Latin syntax; this title was adopted as a name by Fulcher. In the period of the First Crusade, Barkyaruq ibn Malikshah (1092-1105) was the Sultan of the Seljuk Empire 1985 . Perhaps Fulcher had some information about this ruler who could have been recognized as the main leader of the enemy world due to his strength and the size of his territories. The use of an imperial title seems to indicate that compared to earlier rulers, such as Yaghi Siyan or Kilij Arslan, Barkyaruq could have therefore seemed powerful enough to be considered worthy of the imperial title. Among the Western recipients of his work, it was well known and associated with powerful political strength. It seems that it was possible for Fulcher to present the hierarchy of the enemy through the analogy to the titles relevant to the Latin world.

According to Fulcher's account, which is quite different from the version given by other writers, Yaghi Siyan appeals for help to Sultan Barkyaruq. In the short passage about Yaghi Siyan's appeal for help, Fulcher invokes the figure of Mohammed for the first time on the pages of his account, describing him as the protector of enemies (Mahumet advocatum eorum) 1986 . It is difficult to draw any far-reaching conclusions from this extremely short and concise mention, except that of Seljuk. Author probably assumed that in his group of recipients, the name Mohammed would trigger the right reaction, the members of potential audience would associate it with the appropriate semantic field and Fulcher would write nothing more, considering it sufficiently transparent. Moreover, Fulcher mentions that the political figure who decided to send an army against the Franks was Soltan, scilicet rex Persarum, i.e. Barkyaruq. Once again, his name was described as Soltan, but now he was presented as the king of the Persians, which signifies that the author of Historia Hierosolymiatana categorized him as the main political figure of the enemies' political world 1987 . Fulcher, by using these specific terms, demonstrates the political power of Barkyaruq, showing the supremacy of the Seljuk's Sultan in the Turkish world.

Kurbugha

Barkyaruq decides to send one of his men against the Franks. The name of this commander was written as Corbagath, and he held the title of dux et satrapa (the duke and satrap) 1988 . There is no doubt that Corbagath is another version of the Turkish name of atabeg of Mosul. In Fulcher's narration, there is a clear contrast between the titles of Barkyaruq and Kurbugha, which indicates the superiority of the former. The term dux in classical Latin means a leader, commander, conductor, and it was commonly used by ancient authors as a name for the Germanic tribal chiefs 1989 . In addition, the king (rex) was to be born while the commander (dux) could be chosen. In the Latin world in the first centuries of the Middle Ages it was assumed that the ruler was referred to as rex, while different chieftains who were subordinated to him or lesser kings were described as dux. For instance, Charles Martel was described as dux and Pepin the Short before dethroning the last of the Merovingian and his own royal coronation was also referred to as dux 1990 . In the period of Carolingian Empire, the title was attributed to the leaders of non-Frankish tribes, such as Alemans (Thitobaldus dux Alamannos) 1991 , Bawars (Odilon dux Baioariorum) 1992 or Aquitans (Eudo dux Aquitanorum) 1993 . The dux title was transformed into the title of hereditary tribal rulers and later territorial rulers 1994 . In this sense it functioned in the 11th and 12th centuries, the examples are quite numerous; for instance, Wilhelm the Conqueror was dux Normanniae 1995 , and the same title was ascribed to his son, Henry I Beauclerc 1996 . In the majority of the known cases, the term dux meant someone standing lower than rex in the social hierarchy, and this is reflected in Fulcher's narration where Barkyaruq, as the king of the Persians, is clearly more important than Kurbugha.

Furthermore, the atabeg of Mosul was sent by Barkyaruq, which indicates the social and political status of Kurbugha as one of the commanders subordinated to the main leader, i.e. Seljuk's Sultan.

Fulcher uses the term satrapa (satrap) to describe Kurbugha 1997 . The word satrapa in Lating is derived from Greek σατράπης, which was borrowed from Old Iranian and means the protector of the province. However, the meaning of this term goes beyond the aforementioned ancient historical setting. Nevertheless, contrary to later opinions, satrapa did not always bear the mark of despotism or carry bad connotations. For instance, in the Constitutum Constantini, it was used three times and referred to people who had similar role in the administration of the Roman Empire as well as the optimates and the members of the senate. Therefore, the term of satrapa receives neutral or even positive meaning 1998 . Although the term was even adapted oto Christian cultural circle, as in the case of the Agilolfingian dynasty of Bavaria at the time of Tassilo III or hagiography, it seems that Fulcher did not refer to this tradition 1999 . It is most likely that Fulcher knew the term from the tradition of classical literature and the Bible where it is a relatively common word 2000 . Bearing in mind the context of Fulcher's use of this word, it seems most appropriate that he used the term of satrapa to designate a character which he identified with Persia in a geographical and political sense. In this perspective, the king of Persians has his subordinate commanders who, in the biblical and classic models, bear such titles. In conclusion, it should be noted that in the narration of Fulcher, the titles of Kurbugha and Barkyaruq point to the social hierarchy of the enemy seen through the eyes of a Frankish observer. Fulcher used the titles known in his intellectual background, using words which in their appropriate literary tradition clearly referred to Persia.

Author of the Historia Hierosolymitana devotes a few words to describe Kurbugha in the narration of the battle of Antioch. In the opinion of the writer: Fugit Corbagath cervo velocius, qui tam feris dictis et minis Francos iam persaepe occiderat. Sed cur fugit qui habebat tantam gentem et equis bene munitam? Quoniam contra Deum bellare nitebatur, cuius pompam Dominus a longe prospiciens omnino cassavit et virtutem 2001 (Kurbugha fled, swift as a deer, he who had so often slain the Franks with ferocious words and threats. But why did he flee, he who had such a large army so well provided with horsemen? Because he dared to contend against God, the Lord perceiving Kurbugha's pomp from afar utterly destroyed his power) 2002 .

A comparison of Kurbugha to deer is used as an example of animalisation of the enemy, and it also refers to the broader symbolic meaning 2003 . At the beginning of the 12th century, the hunt for deer was considered to be an activity which did not bring much glory because the animal was considered fearful and cowardly; it escaped from the dogs and it was easy to kill. Even its flesh was considered bland and unhealthy and did not find its place on patricians' tables. The situation started to change from the 13th century. Henceforth, the deer has been considered a noble animal and was classified as a big game (animalia superiora). Hunting for deer was a domain of kings, as detailed in the authors of hunting treatises, such as William Twiti, Gaston Phébus or Gace de la Buigne.

Furthermore, in the Latin cultural circle the cowardly soldiers who fled from the battlefield were called deer (cervi) 2004 . Furthermore, a comparative material of the battle's description could be invoked. In the Chronicon written in 1012-1018 by Thietmar, the Bishop of Merseburg, the author also uses the motif of deer. Thietmar describes that the Slavs destroyed the monastery of Saint Laurentius in the city of Kalbe and chased the Saxon soldiers who, according to the chronicler, were to flee like swift deer (sicuti fugaces cervos) 2005 . It happened because, according to the chronicler's words, For our sins gave us fear and courage to them (nostra etenim facinora nobis formidinem et his suggerebant validam mentem) 2006 . It can be observed that on the one hand the deer motif was used by Thietmar to emphasize the dimension of escaping from the opponents, and on the other, people who are unworthy, guilty of previously committed sins escape like the deer. Most likely Fulcher refers to this tradition of the representation of someone as a coward who flees swiftly. In this sense, the author ridiculed Kurbugha on the pages of his work. This seems all the more evident because Fulcher earlier points out that Kurbugha did a lot of harm to the Franks and killed many of them and then he was forced to flee from the battlefield. Furthermore, Fulcher presents that Kurbugha was destroyed by God who punished him Because he dared to contend against God 2007 . In this perspective, the Crusade appears as an undertaking whose visible successes are presented to refute the beliefs of their enemies, emphasizing the truth of Christianity and showing the divine approval for the expedition to who neglects the Franks by playing the chess2009 , and seeing the Franks approaching the battle, he is mistaken in his prior judgment and is late to propose settlement to the Crusaders, which they had previously sought2010 .

Thus, the image of Kurbugha, according to Fulcher, presents him as an unsuccessful commander, ridiculed by the chronicler through the comparison to an animal; although Kurbugha had powerful forces, he lost the final battle against the Franks. However, the Frankish success was a great merit of God who punished Kurbugha for his pride and fight against Christians.

2.4.1.5. Amirdalis and Malik-Ghazi ibn Danishmend Fulcher's account also involve the enemy characters who play small, episodic roles. For instance, a certain Turkish nobleman Amirdalis appears in the description of the battle of Antioch against Kurbugha2011 . In the first redaction of Fulcher's work, the names of more than thirty emirs serving in the army of Kurbuga were mentioned. One of them was named Amir Dalis2012 , but the form of his name has changed to the form Amirdalis2013 . Most probably the chronicler intended both forms of the name to refer to the same person. It can be observed that the name of Amirdalis differs from Raymond of Aguilers' version Mirdalim. Fulcher notes the name in a fuller form with addition of prefix -Amir instead of Raymond's -Mir. However, the linguistic convergence is significant and it seems that this was only another form of the same name adapted to Latin. This suggests that either the authors both referred to the same character and wrote his name in a different form, or Fulcher used the text of Historia Francorum but made a minor modification to its content2014 .

Referring to the outlined problem, worth noting is that the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana was not present during the siege of Antioch as he was in Edessa at that time.

Fulcher's perspective, different from the other chroniclers, lacks personal involvement and the perception of the importance of events for the outcome of the entire Crusade is evident in the description of the fights between the Antioch garrison and the Franks, which spanned from October 1097 to June 1098. While Gesta Francorum, Peter Tudebode and Raymond of Aguilers devoted a lot of space to the events taking place during the siege, Fulcher summarizes them in a short sentence: Multoliens invasiones et proelia invicem Turci et Franci egerunt: vincebant et vincebantur; nostri tamen saepius quam illi triumphabant2015 (The Turks and Franks alternately staged many attacks and counterattacks. They conquered and were conquered. We, however, won more often than they) 2016 .

In this context, attention should be paid to the possibility of Fulcher using other sources to describe the First Crusade. Presentation of Amirdalis is kept in a similar positive tone to the Historia Francorum; for instance, Fulcher describes him as a positive character and depicts him as miles probissimus (the most excellent knight) 2017 . Fulcher, like Raymond, indicates Amirdalis' ethnicity as a Turk and refers to his relationship with Antioch, saying that Amirdalis was familiar with the city and the Franks (In Antiochia enim conversatus fuerat, in qua esse Francorum sic didicerat) 2018 . Furthermore, seeing the Frankish forces, Amirdalis hastens to Kurbugha to warn him about the Crusaders approaching for the battle while the of the Turkish army keeps playing chess 2019 . Nevertheless, in Fulcher's narration, because of the game of chess, Amirdalis is pressing charges against Kurbugha.This part of Historia Hierosolymitana does also feature an unclear situation: Amirdalis saw the Frankish troops coming out of Antioch with their banners and he knew that the battle would occur soon (mox fore proelium ratus est) and then he went to Kurbugha to inform him. However, when Kurbugha asked Amirdalis whether the Franks set out to fight a battle (Veniuntne ad bellum?), he replied that he did not know yet (Adhuc ignoro) 2020 . The situation is therefore puzzling because Amirdalis denies his own knowledge. Most likely, the confusion in Fulcher's narration resulted from an attempt to combine elements known from the dialogue in Historia Francorum, where Kurbugha first accuses Mirdalim of informing him that the Franks will not fight because of the strength of the Muslim forces; then Mirdalim replies that he had not said anything like that and he was going to scout the enemy; and finally, Mirdalim gives advice to Kurbugha as to how the Crusaders can be defeated. While creating his narration, Fulcher most probably did not fully understand this sequence of events. In addition, in Fulcher's version, Amirdalis does not give advice to Kurbugha but he himself, when he sees the army of the Franks, asks his superior what he thinks. The conversation between Muslims in Historia Hierosolymitana ends with the final exchange of views and Kurbugha considers sending a message to the Franks but Amirdalis informs him that it is too late.

In the description of the battle, Amirdalis also informs Kurbugha about the banner of the mighty Pope (signum magni Papae) 2021 , which was an opportunity for Fulcher to introduce hexameter 2022 . It seems that Fulcher wanted to highlight the role of the papacy in the First Crusade through this mention because he was only historian to mention this banner, at the same time being the only one of the expedition's historians to not take part in the battle 2023 . In this particular case, Amirdalis is only a literary tool used by the author to indicate the presence of the Pope's banner on the battlefield. However, it seems that this was only a literary invention of Fulcher, written from the enemy's perspective. Finally, in the narration of the battle of Antioch, Amirdalis, knowing that the clash against the Franks is lost wonders whether to escape, but stays on the battlefield and encourages others to fight. Fulcher beautified this part of story through the use of hexameter, which seems to be almost forcefully added to improve the narration's literary devices 2024 .

Except for some additional content, a clear relationship between Fulcher's work and conduct of war. For the Franks, the encounter with the Turkish way of fighting was the first serious confrontation with the military capabilities of peoples associated with the steppe culture since the Conceivably, the author refers to the idea that the forces of Franks consisted of cavalry, infantry and many unarmed pilgrims, both men and women and thus they could have encounted problems with the army of enemy consisting of light mounted archers who used their mobility to attack the flanks and rear forces of their opponents 2033 . These Turkish horse archers could simply launch many volleys towards less mobile Franks who probably were often without any protective armour, and who probably suffered huge losses without even confronting the Turks. Notably, however, the troops of the so-called Peasants' Crusade were military-wise not the foe that the Turks ever encounteredagain.

The author of Historia Hierosolymitana constantly repeats the information about the Turkish warfare describing that they arrive to the battle at Nicaea as mounted archers, as was their custom (mos eorum enim est talibus uti armis) 2034 . This clearly differed from the Frankish way of conduct in war because Fulcher points out that the Crusaders had both infantry and cavalry 2035 . Moreover, the Turks made noises in battle (Turci autem ululatibus concrepantes) 2036 . The words used in this description are ululatus, us that is howling, wailing, shrieking, which could be interpreted as a clear sign of the practice of ululation mentioned above, and concrepo, are, pui, pitum, i.e. to rattle, creak, grate, sound, resound 2037 . It seems that the author's goal was to strengthen the overtone of the message. The Turks made a terrifying sound as they moved into battle, hailing arrows at the Crusaders 2038 . In the description of the battle of Antioch, Fulcher also mentions that the forces of Kurbugha were darting out and shooting arrows the Franks, as was their custom (Turci […] ut mos eorum est, prosilire et sagittas coeperunt iacere) 2039 . In both descriptions, the Crusaders managed to defeat their enemy armed in bows, although during the charge they could be attacked by the Turks from a distance and would suffer heavy casualties before they were be able to face the enemy in melee combat. However, despite their weapons and tactics, the Turks were not invincible.

In the description of the battle of Baldwin I against the forces of Dukaq of Damascus, Fulcher mentions that near the city of Palmyra four hundred warriors attacked the Christian forces when they were on their way back to Antioch and Edessa. Fulcher mentions that the enemy was unable to use bows and arrows because of rain. He says that on those lands the people use glue (cum glutine) in making the bows 2040 . Most likely, this mention refers to the composite bow used by the Turks, which is also confirmed by the descriptions of other participants of the Crusade. The composite bow was a delicate weapon, consisting of three basic layers; a flexible wooden stave, to which a thin layer of horn or bone is glued on one side, while sinew is glued on to the other 2041 .

Although the Turks wanted to attack the tired Crusaders, they could not do it without their weapons. This observation indicates that the enemy tactics, often praised by the eyewitness of the First Crusade, also had its disadvantages. In order to use the bow built with the use of glue, good weather without rainfall was needed, because the rain could neutralize the main weapon of the enemy.

Albert of Aachen also gives that information, but it is absent in the accounts of the others eyewitnesses of the First Crusade 2042 . This suggests that it is possible that this disadvantage in the enemy's tactics was noticed somewhat later. It seems that Fulcher writes about the Turks warfare with respect, but emphasizing how different their way of fighting was to that known in his own society.

Because of the Turks' mobility, they had superior reconnaissance which allowed them to surprise their opponents. Therefore, it is quite apparent that one of the main aspects of the enemy's tactics in Fulcher's work are the ambushes laid for the Franks. The Turks were preparing to ambush the Christians in proximity of Dorylaeum, knowing their route and trying to use the knowledge of the local topography based on the mobility of horse archers 2043 . During the description of the siege of Antioch, Fulcher invokes the battle of Harim and emphasizes that the Turks: those who prepared the traps for the Franks, were overcome by the traps (qui Francis insidias paraverant, ab insidiantibus similiter superati sunt) 2044 . The information that the Turks prepared the ambushes for the Franks was repeated a few times, even in a very short mention stating that in the ambushes, the Turks often killed many of Crusaders during the siege of Antioch2045 . Fulcher's account contains a description of Bohemond being taken into captivity by Malik-Ghazi ibn Danishmend2046 . Bohemond approached Melitene with a small contingent, but the Turks ambushed them and killed most of the Frankish forces, taking Bohemond into captivity2047 . The use of ambushes by the enemy in Fulcher's account was referred to as something evil, which is why often narrations of ambushes formed the basis for creating a description of the damning act of the enemy and directing invectives towards him. The Turks have been repeatedly condemned for this way of fighting by the author who probably considered them unworthy of facing the Christian knights in open combat; the Turks were punished many times for their ambushes.

In the narration of the expedition of Baldwin to Edessa, Fulcher confirms once again that the Turks they prepared ambushes on the Frankish forces when they had the opportunity to do so. During Baldwin's stay in Turbessel, which was captured by his forces in the winter 1097, he was asked by the ruler of Edessa to help against the Turks. This ruler was named Thoros, a son of Hethum, and he was of Armenian origin but of Greek Orthodox faith. He held a Byzantine title of curopalates (κουροπαλάτης) and was a commander in the service of Philaretos Brachamios. Tutush, emir of Damascus, installed Thoros as a governor of Edessa around 10942048 . According to Fulcher, Thoros had neither son nor daughter and he proposed to Baldwin that after Thoros' death, Baldwin would inherit the rule over Edessa and all other territories. It seems that Thoros was hoping to gain valuable warriors with Baldwin's forces, which the writer points out, indicating that the Franks would defend the Thoros' territories against the Turks2049 .Baldwin accepted the Thoros' offer and proceed to cross the Euphrates with small forces to get to Edessa. Fulcher informs that the territory through which the Frankish forces traversed contained plenty of fortified Saracens outposts (Saracenorum castra) 2050 . In this case, the term Saracens appears for the first time in the Fulcher's work. It can be noticed that it acts as a synonym for the Turks and does not bring with it any diversification of terminology. Thoros clearly asked for help against the Turks, against whom he was unable defend himself (Turcis se defendere nequibat) 2051 . Then, there information about the Saracenorum castra appears and the term Saracens does not play any role in further description: that is all related to the use of that term. Then, the author does not indicate the expressis verbis of the Turks, but uses the pronouns qui (in Samosate oppido forti habitabant) 2052 (but in some manuscripts this passage was Turci qui 2053 ) and illi 2054 . According to the factual substrate, however, it should be assumed that the passage is about the Turks because Balduk was the emir of Samosata at that time 2055 . In addition, Fulcher presents a strategy of the enemy in a manner characteristic to the representation of the Turks; they fight as horse archers 2056 . The author also presents castra Armenorum, whose inhabitants welcomed Baldwin's army cheerfully because they had heard that the Crusaders came to defend and free them from the Turkish yoke (a Turcis eos defensuros, sub quorum iugo tamdiu depressi fuerant) 2057 . It can be observed that the author sees the difference between the places ruled by the enemy and the Armenians, who for him are brethren in the same faith 2058 . It is difficult therefore, to claim that in this case the term Saracens means something more than a synonym for the Turks with whom Baldwin I fights, and the fortified outposts of Saracens (Saracenorum castra) most likely are the places under the rule of the Turks 2059 .

The Turkish ambush ended badly for the Turks because a certain Armenian warned the forces of Baldwin. Furthermore, this local man sheltered the Crusaders in his castle where they were allowed to hide from the enemy for two days. However, on the third day, the Turks came out of hiding and a clash with the Franks took place, turning out to be victorious for the Christians.

Interestingly, the author informs that although the Turks fired arrows, none of them injured the Frankish knights. Instead, one of the Crusaders pierced a Turk with a lance and took his horse 2060 . Fulcher, therefore, confirms the observations of other participants of the Crusade that the Turks were preparing ambushes against the Christians 2061 .Based on such description of enemy warfare, it could be pointed out that firstly, Fulcher repeated the earlier description of the Turks as the people skilled with bow. Representation of the Fulcher seems similar to Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia because he puts emphasis on the noise made by the enemy, which is absent in Raymond's the Historia Francorum. However, the Fulcher's account coincides with the observations of other eyewitness participants of the First Crusade. Therefore, the description of the enemy's warfare in Meanwhile, Fulcher presents an image of atrocities committed by the enemy on Crusaders. Albert of Aachen, a later chronicler who did not take part in the First Crusade, also recorded the iron hooks and ropes with which the bodies of fallen Christian warriors were drawn 2064 . Therefore, it is a possibility that this information about the behaviour of enemy was transmitted among the Crusaders, but maybe after the creation of the Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's work and Raymond's Historia Francorum, or it came from other source of information. Perhaps, the rumour about the France and Germany and both were associated with the Duke Godfrey and Baldwin I. Fulcher was a 2062 FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 82; FC, I, X, 7, p. 187. 2063 Cf. GF, VIII, 3, pp. 181-182;PT, p. 49. 2064 AA, II, 34, p. 325;AA (Edgington), II, 34, pp. 118-120. intellectual background; the oral sources transmitted among the Crusaders from the Northern part of France, Germany or Lotharingia. That would explain the presence of an episode only in these two accounts, as opposed to Gesta Francorum, Tudebode and Raymond of Aguilers, who do not take it into their relations, but they even proposed a completely different image: the Franks were not frightened by the enemy, and they were the ones to commit cruel acts to terrify the Turks. It should therefore be emphasized that Fulcher, even when he had access to other sources such as Gesta

Literary scheme of battles' presentation

In almost all of the battles and struggles presented by Fulcher, the literary scheme known from other eyewitnesses' accounts appears. In the narration about the battle of Dorylaeum, it was reported to the Crusaders that the Turks were preparing the ambush for Christians 2073 . However, Fulcher mentions that the forces of Franks made good preparations for the battle, such as sending scouts forward, issuing guards of the camp, preparing the troops in the right order; the banners flew in the wind 2074 . Afterwards, Fulcher informs that he did not know why the forces of Christians were divided and why Duke Godfrey, Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Hugh of Vermandois had been absent for two days. This mention could indicate that the author of Historia Hierosolymitana did not have 2071FC, I, X, 10, p. 188. 2072R.C. Small, op. cit., pp. 111-112. 2073FC, I, XI, 1, pp. 189-190. 2074 FC, I, XI, 2, pp. 190-191. access to important information available to people closely associated with the leaders of the Crusade. For Fulcher, that absence was a reason of a great slaughter among the Christian forces and the second army received the appeal for aid late 2075 . Then, the Turks almost defeated the Christian army and entered their camp snatching the goods of Crusaders and killing many other people.

Fulcher presents the image of a disaster of Christians by making a comparison of the Franks to sheep in a fold, trembling and frightened, surrounded on all sides by enemies (oves clausae ovili trepidi et pavefacti ab hostibus undique circumvallabamur) 2076 .

According to Fulcher, the Crusaders realised that it was clear that the defeat from the hands of the Turks happened because of the sins of luxuria and avaritia and other iniquitas 2077 . This perspective is close to medieval moralist perspective presented also on the pages of works by other eyewitnesses who saw misfortunes because of committed sins. Therefore, the Turks were playing the role of tool of punishment for the sins of Christians. However, after that Fulcher presents the confession and plead for God's mercy by the Crusaders, who according to his relation were even running to the priests to confess their sins 2078 . Then, when the Franks confessed, God brought victory to the Franks who defeated the Turks and killed many of them. Fulcher refers to the idea expressed in Psalm 147.10-11 that God does not give the victory to the pomp of nobility nor brilliance in arms but to those who have a pure heart and are fortified by divine strength (quia nec nobilitatis pompae nec armis lucidis triumphare favet, sed menti purae et virtutibus divinis munitae in necessitate pie subvenit) 2079 . Furthermore, Fulcher mentions a great miracle performed by God after the battle; the divine power forced the Turks to flee, and so they kept fleeing for three days by the virtue of God 's power 2080 . Similar information could be found in Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum, where this same miracle appears, although with the exception that it was not God who forced the Turks to flee but the two white horsemen 2081 . Moreover, the difference is that Raymond presents his source of information, which are the Turkish apostates, while Fulcher is pleased only to mention this situation in his narration. There are two possibilities from which the description of the miracle was found on Fulcher's work; he did rewrite and remodel a bit of Raymond's description or he had access to a similar source, which could be an oral rumour circulated among the Crusaders. However, Raymond was more sceptical and he needed another element to authenticate the account because that was not his own observation or first-hand relation. Perhaps this description of God's miracle was circulating in Fulcher's social background, i.e. the contingent of Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois.

Fulcher presents the siege of Antioch in a similar way. However, he did not personally take part in the fights at Antioch so his narration is not the nature of the eyewitness' account. His record was based on other sources, both written and oral. In this way, the episode of the siege and conquest of Antioch is largely based on collective memory and the intellectual background of Fulcher. Lack of personal participation in this event is also explained by a relatively inaccurate description of the siege, which appears to be a summary based on other written sources. In the descriptions of the other participants of the First Crusade, the siege of Antioch was the most important event whose description took a significant amount of space on the pages of the works. However, that was not the case for Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana.

For instance, in reference to papal discourse of the bad fate of the Eastern Christians, Fulcher lamented over all the Greeks, Syrians and Armenians who were killed by the Turks in the city. The Turks hurled the heads of those people over the walls to terrify the Crusaders 2082 .

According to Fulcher, the Turks hated having any Christians inside the walls of Antioch because they could be a threat for Turkish rule and they could help the Franks to take control over the city 2083 . The author therefore presents a vision of the persecution of Christians and the Turkish oppression over them. These short mentions of the siege are aimed at describing the increasingly worsening conditions in the camp of the Crusaders who began to starve and many of whom died in the fight against the Turks. Furthermore, many of Crusaders deserted from the Christian camp, and among them was Count of Blois Stephen 2084 . In fact, Fulcher sums up the whole struggle against the Turks during the siege of Antioch very briefly and vividly: the Turks and Franks alternately staged many attacks and counterattacks. They conquered and were conquered. We, however, won more often than they (multotiens invasiones et proelia invicem Turci et Franci egerunt: vincebant et vincebantur; nostri tamen saepius quam illi triumphabant) 2085 . Fulcher's insight leads to the conclusion that all this happened because of sins, in this case the sins of luxury and avarice and pride and plunder (luxuria quam avaritia sive superbia vel rapina) 2086 . Therefore, the misfortunes are considered to be the God-inspired punishments sent to discipline the Crusaders 2087 .

Then, in order to be able to achieve victory over the enemy and purify themselves of sins, the Franks banished all women, both married and unmarried, because they were to be the cause of the uncleanness of a particularly unpleasant God 2088 . It seems that Fulcher's vision was based on the description which could be found in the Gesta Francorum, where it was said that the pagan women were the cause of great sin and before the battle the Franks should expel them 2089 . However, Fulcher assigns sin to all women, no matter if married or not, without indicating their religion. Thus, a different perspective can be observed: Fulcher sees sin in all sexual relations, which is a change of sense in comparison to what is conveyed by the Gesta Francorum. Probably this is the result of ecclesiastical discourse, represented at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries by e.g. Bishop Ivo of Chartres of St Anslem of Bec, where sexual desire was condemned as a force destructive for personal salvation and even the sexual activities inside the marriage which were not engaged in for procreation but for pleasure should be condemned 2090 .

The sexuality sphere plays an important role in the Fulcher's presentation of the sins committed by the Crusaders, which are the cause of the bad situation of the Franks. Namely, he once more presented the vision of adultery or sexual promiscuity among the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem: nam cum civitatem ingressi fuissent, confestim cum feminis exlegibus commiscuerunt se ex eis plures 2091 (for when they had entered the city many of them had at once commingled with unlawful women) 2092 . Fulcher indicates a similar reason related to sexual sphere of the behaviour of Franks as the very reason for the misfortunes of the Franks earlier, although there he addresses the married and unmarried women who were expelled 2093 . The presentation of this situation is similar to the accounts of other eyewitnesses of the First Crusade. In the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia there is a mention of the pagan women (paganis mulieribus) who were to be expelled because they were the cause of great sin 2094 , and Raymond of Aguilers who spoke about the female pagan dancers (saltatrices paganorum) among the Franks after the capture of Antioch 2095 . Notably, in his relatively short description of the struggle under Antioch, Fulcher conjures up sexual relations with women twice. For the first time, when he refers to all women regardless of religion and for the second time, when he refers to women who follow a religion other than Christianity, because the expression cum feminis exlegibus evokes the meaning of women of different lex (law and custom), which could be understood as of different religion. It can be observed that eyewitnesses of the First Crusade considered the sexual relations with the women of different religion sinful 2096 . Fulcher condemns the behaviour of the Crusaders by saying that their punishment was doubled because of their sins (quia propter peccata sua poena est eis duplicata) 2097 .

Author also mentions that the Crusaders suffered hunger and other inconveniences for the love of God, and according to the chronicler, who used the authority of Psalms, the Franks were cleansed like gold 2098 . At the same time in paragraph 16 of Chapter XV, Fulcher writes about the earthquake but also about a sign on the sky which was seen by many of Crusaders. This sign was remarkable, because it had the shape of a cross, it was whitish or luminous and was moving toward the East (signum in modum crucis figuratum, colore laburnum, versus Orientem recto incedens tramite) 2099 . It seems that this passage is a reference to the event mentioned by Raymond of Aguilers 2100 . Author of Historia Francorum presented the natural event, parhaps the auroral display, in the moralistic and eschatological perspective in the eve of the great battle of Antioch 2101 .

Raymond, referring to the Breviary and Gospel of St Matthew, presented the sign as the message from God before the military struggle against the enemy, conveying that the Franks were to be purified because of their sins of luxury and plunder 2102 . It is likely that Fulcher transferred this passage into his own account because also the context of use is similar; the army of Crusaders took steps to cleanse itself from sins before the battle. However, in Fulcher's version the sign on the sky became a white cross. In the Christian culture, the most popular presentation associated with the appearance of a luminous cross in the sky is linked with Constantine the Great. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, before the decisive Battle of the Milvian Bridge against the pagan Emperor Maxentius, Constantine was to see a luminous cross with the words in hoc signo vinces, which was a clear signal of his victory if he placed the sign of the cross on the shields and banners of his troops. The sign of the cross in the sky meant divine approval of Constantine's actions 2103 . This sign of cross with the motto was then adapted to Christian culture and appeared, among others, in an iconographic programme on the coins of Byzantine emperors 2104 . Therefore, it seems clear that Fulcher used the earlier description of Raymond of Aguilers, enriching it with the content known in Christian culture: the symbol of a whitish cross appearing in the sky that announces victory in a clash with an unfaithful enemy and is a sign of God's approval. Importantly, the sign was heading towards the East, which is the place from which, in the Franks' perspective, the Crusaders set out.

However, despite the initial misfortunes, great famine and many desertions, Fulcher mentions two visions, which changed the bad situation of the Franks. These visions appeared to one cleric and one of the Franks whose brother was killed. The description of the first vision is probably based on the vision of priest from Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum, where a priest named Stephen provides information about his dream, in which the Franks were victorious 2105 . The second vision was that of a certain Crusader. His brother was killed during the expedition, but he appeared in a vision to inform that all participants of the expedition to Jerusalem who died would fight against the Turks in the upcoming battle. This narration seems similar to Raymond's description of St Andrew's message, in which the Apostle claimed that in the battle against Kurbugha all the dead soldiers would fight side by side with the living Crusaders 2106 . Therefore, it seems almost certain that both visions are shortened borrowings from other sources.

The function of these visions in the narrative seems clear, for it indicates that God, again, despite the sins of the Franks, took the Crusaders under his protection, and they repaid him by performing pious religious practices before the battle; for three days they prayed and fasted 2107 .

Therefore, the Turks were used as a background. They were a logical addition to the whole symbolic game; it was against the Turks who would experience the wrath of the Crusaders, cleansed from the sins. It is clear that Fulcher, referring to the descriptions from other accounts, wrote a story about Antioch in a prophetic perspective. Fulcher's audience can easily predict the outcome of the clash with the Turks, and at the same time the recipient does know the reason for the previous failures of the Franks. This perspective is highlighted by the author in the passage: licet Deus, qui cuncta creat, creata moderat, moderata sustentat, virtute gubernat, possit quaecunque vult vel destruere vel reparare, sentio, quod verbere Christianorum adnuit paganos ita subrui, qui tot temporibus cuncta quae Dei sunt, permittente ipso et promerente populo, viliter pessundederunt. Christianos quidem ab ipsis Turcis permittit occidi ad salvationis augmentum, Turcos autem ad animarum suarum detrimentum, quorum quosdam iam saluti praedestinatos placuit Deo tunc a sacerdotibus baptizari 2108 (Although God, who creates all, orders all that He has created and sustains what he has ordered, governs with vigour and is able to destroy or repair whatever He wishes, I feel that at the cost of suffering to the Christians He wills that the pagans shall be destroyed, they who have so many times foully trod underfoot all which belongs to God although with His permission and as the people deserved. In truth He has permitted the Christians to be slain 2105 Cf. GF, XXIV, 2, p. 337;RA, p. 73. 2106 Cf. RA, p. 78;cf. Ch. Auffarth, "Ritter" und "Arme" auf dem Ersten Kreuzzug..., pp. 48-50;J. France, Two Types of Vision on the First Crusade..., pp. 1-20. 2107FC, I, XX, 3, p. 247. 2108 FC, I, XVI, 5, p. 227. for the augmentation of their salvation, the Turks, however, for the damnation of their souls. But those of the Turks predestined to salvation it pleased God to have baptized by our priests) 2109 .

Worthy of distinction here is the ethnocentric perspective of Fulcher. According to the author, God allowed Christians to be killed so that salvation would be given to them. However, on the other hand the Turks were threatened with condemnation, because they killed Christians.

Therefore, the eschatological dimension of Fulcher's description indicates that Christians could count on salvation while their enemy could not because the Turks did not represent the Christian faith. It is the Christian faith that is indicated as the determinant of the possibility of achieving salvation. Fulcher clearly states that if the Turks were to be baptized, they souls could be saved. The idea of converting the Turks appears, which is not related to the divine miracle or success on the battlefield as in other accounts of the participants of the First Crusade. Fulcher simply expresses the possibility of converting the Turks to Christianity, indicating the eschatological significance of such actions for themselves.

At the beginning of the narration about the capture of Antioch, Fulcher states that it fell into the hands of the Franks because God listened to all prayers of his believers and ended the sufferings of Christians. Therefore, it is a clear sign of interpretation of the siege of Antioch by Fulcher in the category of divine providence. Furthermore, Fulcher presents the conquest of Antioch in two dimensions: in the category of a God's miracle and the condemnation of the Turkish stereotypical trait: treachery 2110 . Fulcher refers to that Turkish trait a few times, invoking the ambushes for the Franks. During the capture of Antioch, Fulcher states that God punished the Turkish treachery (Turcorum fraudem) 2111 . That is also expressed in a different mention when Fulcher briefly presents the battle of Harim, emphasizing that the Turks: those who prepared the traps for the Franks, were overcame by the traps (qui Francis insidias paraverant, ab insidiantibus similiter superati sunt) 2112 . Therefore, a similar way of applying so-called poetic justice frequently present in Raymond's work, can be observed: for the evil done to Christians, the enemy is be punished by God in the same way.

As for the surrender of Antioch, the city was captured because of God's intervention.

According to Fulcher, God appeared to a certain Turk in his dream and ordered them to give the city of Antioch to Crusaders 2113 . The story of Turk's dream is not found in other chroniclers of the participants of the First Crusade. Thus, it could be an original vision of Fulcher; it is also possible that it was circulated in the Crusader circle which found it textual shape in his work; this would be 2109 FC (Ryan&Fink), p.96. 2110 Cf. P. Bancourt, op. cit., pp. 281-289;A. Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 251-263. 2111FC, I, XVII, 1, p. 231. 2112FC, I, XV, 9, p. 220. 2113 FC, I, XVII, 2, p. 231. supported by the fact that later, a similar story appears in Gesta Tancredi of Radulf of Caen 2114 . However, it is puzzling that Fulcher did not use other accounts of the events known to him, such as Gesta Francorum or Raymond of Aguilers' work. Instead of this, Fulcher of Chartres decided to create a completely new symbolic matrix: a dream, sent by God to a certain Turk, which carries different content. Fulcher probably took the inspiration that could have influenced the construction of the description from the 1st Book of Samuel, where God for three times repeats his call to the Prophet Samuel until finally Eli believes that God was speaking to Samuel 2115 . Fulcher's description encompasses three visions which create a chain of meaning of the whole narration. Just as in the first Book of Samuel, three visions were needed for the Turk to finally believe in the divine words.

At the beginning, this Turk from Antioch kept his visions in secret 2116 . The second time, he decided to consult them with his lay superior, the ruler of Antioch who found this certain Turk a fool who believed in the ghosts 2117 . However, after this, when the Turk still remained silent, God appeared for the third time and finally convinced the Turk to act and to give the city of Antioch to Crusaders 2118 .

He made an agreement with Bohemond, gave him his son as a hostage, and when the day came he helped the Franks to get onto Antioch's walls. This way the Crusaders captured the city, killed many of the Turks, some of whom had flee to a citadel 2119 , and Yaghi Siyan was beheaded by an Armenian peasant, who brought his head to the Franks 2120 . Therefore, the Turk is presented as a chosen one of God and thus the carrier of God's will.

In the narration about the battle of Antioch, Fulcher indicates why Kurbugha was defeated.

The atabeg of Mosul, according to the author of Historia Hierosolymitana, held enormous military power, which was described in detail earlier on the pages of Fulcher's account. However, in the opinion of the author, Kurbugha dares to fight against God in which it is evident that, like other eyewitnesses, Fulcher considered the struggle of the Turks with the Franks in divine terms: a war against Christians is a fight against God himself, as Kurbugha had just learned. The Turkish commander was also so proud (cuius pompam) that God decided to punish him severely 2121 . The word pompa, ae refers to the bad meaning of the words "splendour", "ostentation", or "pomp". The whole passage seems to be a reference to a presentation of the struggle between the weak and strong where the one who is powerful falls under the blows of the weaker, and the greater their strength is, the harder is the fall. In this perspective, it seems that the basic symbolic matrix can be the biblical description from the first Book of Samuel and the duel between David and Goliath 2122 . Nevertheless, this is such a common way of presenting a victory that it is difficult to indicate the possible inspirations for the author.

Although this is not as clearly demonstrated as in other accounts, the recipient has the impression that Kurbugha is going to lose the upcoming battle. Fulcher again presents the description of the battle of Antioch in a very brief manner. According to Fulcher, the Crusaders defeated the Turks and the Franks pursued the withdrawing enemies. Fulcher regrets that the Franks did not have too many horses and many of them were hungry and weak so they did not capture as many enemies as they should have 2123 . Fulcher describes the wealth that the Crusaders found in the enemy camp, which also indicates a common reference to the image of the wealthy enemy from whom the Franks can get huge war spoils 2124 . In the presentation of the image of the enemy, it is worth paying attention to the description in which for the third time Fulcher evokes the behaviour of Crusaders towards Muslim women. According to the author, the Franks found the women in the camp of the enemy, but they did not any evil to them besides killing them by driving spears into their bellies (Mulieribus in tentoriis eorum inventis, nihil aliud mali eis Franci fecerunt, excepto quod lanceas suas in ventres earum infixerunt) 2125 . In reference to the author's previous descriptions, it can be noticed that such behaviour of the Franks was clearly shown as good: the Crusaders did engage in sexual activity with the women of another religion, but they killed them instead. Therefore, this is another reference to the prohibition of sexual relations between Christians and followers of other religions, which was an important content for Fulcher 2126 .

Similarly to the description of the punishment of the enemy for their sins, the battle of Ascalon was presented. In terms of the slaughter of the enemy after the Frankish victory inthe battle, some content was transmitted from other sources. Fulcher refers to the description taken from Gesta Francorum, where the warriors of the enemy who climbed the trees after escaping from the battlefield, but the Franks shot them down to the ground with bows 2127 . Furthermore, author of Historia Hierosolymitana describes a fictional speech which he attributed to the Babylonians (Babylonii), in which they said: Let us go and capture Jerusalem with the Franks enclosed therein.

After slaying them all let us tear down that Sepulchre so dear to them, and cast the stones of the 2122 1 Sm 17.17-54. 2123FC, I, XXIII, 3, p. 256. 2124FC, I, XXIII, 3, p. 256. 2125 FC, I, XXIII, 5, p. 257;cf. Y. Friedman, Peacemaking: perceptions and practices Brundage, Prostitution and Miscegeneation..., pp. 57-65. 2127 FC, I, XXXI, 8, p. 315;cf. GF, XXXIX, 13, pp. 494-495. the city\ but they did not stay long and left Antioch to besiege the city from outside 2140 . Thus, another author of the Crusade participants points to a huge number of enemy warriors who came to Antioch. Although the number seems disproportionate and difficult to estimate in the light of the factual information about the size of the Turkish army, the Turks most likely outnumbered the the Frankish army.

Similarly, in the description of the battle of Ascalon, the strength of the enemy was emphasized by its huge size, even being referred to innumerable (populus innumerus) 2141 . This same role is played by the comparison of the enemy who was going to battle to a deer which spreads its antlers on two sides (tamquam cervus ramos cornuum praetendens, cuneo suo anteriori facto bifurco) 2142 . The peculiar point of the comparison is not the deer itself but its antlers: the enemy stretches its antlers' ends in two divergent directions, spread with the intention of capturing most of the Frankish troops to close them in the lap. Fulcher recalls the symbolism of a deer, having a spread antlers, which refers to the tactic of encircling or bracketing used by the Muslim forces. The literary comparison is made in an effort to visualize the enemy's tactics and not to ridicule them 2143 .

Then, Fulcher describes that to counteract this tactic, Duke Godfrey went back with his knights and rescued the rear line 2144 .

The great number of the enemy forces was also a reason of their pride. According to Fulcher, the Turks refused the Christian's offer of a trial by duel because they trusted in their great numbers and in the strength of their army. Author of the Historia Hierosolymitana invokes the trial by duel of selected people, five, ten, twenty or even hundred from each side, as a means of resolution of the problem of rulership over Antioch 2145 . This narration of the possibility of a duel has it end in Fulcher's account. In the description of the battle of Antioch, which was actually a repeated version of the Raymond of Aguilers' account, the advancing Christian forces from Antioch were being watched by a certain Turkish nobleman Amirdalis (in Raymond's account Mirdalim), who was surprised by this fact and spoke to Kurbugha about Christian preparations for battle. Kurbugha sent ambassadors to the Franks and proposed trial by duel, but just as before the request of the Franks had been rejected, so was his own. Thus, the enemy confirmed his failure on the pages of the Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana, which moreover was emphasized by the act of Amirdalis, who left Kurbugha's forces knowing that the battle was lost and the Crusaders would defeat the atabeg of Mosul 2146 . However, Fulcher indicates that the Turkish army numbered three hundred thousand knights (milites) and infantrymen (pedites) 2147 ; even more interestingly, in the first edition of his text Fulcher stated that the number was six hundred sixty-six thousand 2148 . In the later edition, he changed this number, probably considering it to be too great and apart from references to the beast from the Book of Revelation 2149 . A stereotypical approach to the depiction of an enemy army is further enhanced by recalling the catalogue of enemy commanders, which consists of Kurbugha, Maleducat and Amisoliman, but on the pages of first edition consists of almost thirty names such as Amir Begibbe, Amir Maranie, Amir Mahummeth, Carajath, Coteloseniar, Mergalscotelou and many others 2150 . Although attempts have been made to identify these figures 2151 , it seems that for the Frankish recipient of Fulcher's work at least as much as the political reality that was associated with each name, the symbolic meaning of such a literary measure was important 2152 . The list of thirty foreign-sounding names would rather not arouse the interest of recipients who, especially in the West, had rather little insight into the political realities of Muslims and thus the message would seem unintelligible. The topos of the catalogue of enumeration of the enemy was present in classical epic literature, e.g. in Virgil's Aeneid, which Fulcher most likely knew through his education of trivium 2153 . The catalogue appears repeatedly on the pages of other eyewitness accounts of the First Crusade, and always aims to show the enemy's power. Also in this case it seems feasible that Fulcher wanted to hhighlight the strength of the enemy in the description of the battle against Kurbugha; firstly by giving a huge number of Turkish warriors and secondly through a catalogue of enemy commanders. Furthermore, the catalogue of enemy commanders on the pages of Fulcher's work was confronted with the list of Frankish commanders, which creates a clear binary opposition 2154 .

The catalogue of the enemy forces also appears in the depiction of the army of Fatimids during the siege of Jerusalem and in the battle of Ascalon. Each time Fulcher points out that this army consisted of at least two components. During the siege of Jerusalem, Fulcher mentions that Arabs and Ethiopians (tam Arabes quam Aethiopes) fled into the Tower of David when the city was lost 2155 . Later, this same contingent was described as the Turks and Arabs and also black Ethiopians (Turci et Arabes, nigri quoque Aethiopes) 2156 . According to the author, enemy enemy in the battle of Ascalon consisted of Turks, Arabs and black Ethiopians (Turci et Arabes, nigri quoque Aethiopes) 2157 . Presumably, Fulcher's account reflects the ethnic composition of the Fatimid army, consisting of Turkish and Ethiopians mercenaries as well as the forces of Arabic origin. However, at the same time this catalogue points to the strength and diversity of this army. By evoking the image of the Ethiopians, Fulcher refers to the complex world of colour symbolism, specifically the symbol of black indicating evil. In the Christian thought, the light was opposite to the darkness and, basing on the exegesis of the Gospel of St John, the light has not been overcome by darkness. In this biblical perspective, the darkness appears as an embodiment of evil and light as a symbol of purity.

The colour black preserved the meaning of darkness and the dark, and it symbolized evil, which was recognized as the enemy of the Church. The colour black was associated with the negative state within the Christian thought 2158 . For instance, King of Germany Henry III (1028-1056), because of his attacks on the Church was described by the nickname "the Black" 2159 . Therefore, the Fulcher's depiction of the army of enemy could bear the symbolic mark associated with the sphere of collective imagery in the Christian world.

2.4.4. The massacre of Jerusalem in Fulcher's perspective Fulcher states that after the capture of the city of Jerusalem as a result of assault, the enemy of Crusaders was destroyed in many ways. The author records that there was no place where the Saracens could escape from swordsmen (nusquam erat etiam locus, quo Saraceni gladiatores evadere possent) 2160 and none of them were left alive. Neither women nor children were spared (nullus ex eis vitae est reservatus. sed neque feminis neque parvulis eorum pepercerunt) 2161 . The blood of the slain reached the ankles and in the Temple of Solomon many of the enemies climbed on the roof, but they were shot to death by Christian archers and fell down, and ten thousand more were beheaded near the Temple 2162 .The description of the slaughter committed by the Crusaders in information of his own, that is some details of the massacre around the Temple. Perhaps Fulcher had his own informants, but it leaves no doubt that his description is an expanded version handed down by Raymond of Aguilers, especially the mention of blood reaching the ankles taken from the Book of Revelation. The function of this description in Fulcher's work coincides with other authors; to show that the holy place had to be cleansed of unbelievers, the Crusade was completed successfully, and God's favour shows it 2163 .

One additional piece of information given by Fulcher in the context of the description of the spoils that the Crusaders had gained on their enemyseems interesting in terms of insight into the author's writing and its construction of the image of "other". The author, although he did not participate in the event, shows how the Franks acquired the gold and he devotes a whole chapter to that description: Mirabile autem quid videretis, cum scutigeri nostri atque pedites pauperiores, calliditate Saracenorum comperta, ventres eorum iam mortuorum findebant, ut de intestinis eorum bisantios excerperent, quos vivi faucibus diris transglutiverant. Quapropter post dies aliquot, acervo magno de cadaveribus facto et cinere tenus combusto, aurum memoratum in eodem cinere facilius reppererunt (How astonishing it would have seemed to you to see our squires and footmen, after they had discovered the trickery of the Saracens, split open the bellies of those they had just slain in order to extract from the intestines the bezants which the Saracens had gulped down their loathsome throats while alive! For the same reason a few days later our men made a great heap of corpses and burned them to ashes in order to find more easily the above-mentioned gold) 2164 .

What is worth emphasizing, in other sources describing the capture of Jerusalem by the Franks in 1099, including Arab, Jewish or Armenian relations, it is impossible to find a description of such practices. Only copyists of the Historia Hierosolymitna, as so-called Bartolf of Nangis and the author of the "L" manuscript reproduce this information. Therefore, it is puzzling why Fulcher, in contrast to other accounts, describes this practice of the Crusaders? Is it possible to indicate the potential source of this reference? If so, is this a record of an oral story or a motif that Fulcher encountered during his earlier education most likely acquired at the famous school in Chartres or Orléans?

It should be pointed out that Fulcher made a significant use of the written sources available to him. He also used information from oral sources, different from those used by other chroniclers who took part in the Crusade in other contingents 2165 . As the chaplain of the King of Jerusalem, he was such an important personality that he could speak to almost all the veterans of the Crusade, and in one of the circles could have related the act of ripping the bellies of the dead enemies in search of 2163 Cf. P. Cole, op. cit., pp. 84-111;N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 180. 2164 FC, I, XXVIII, 1, p. 302;FA (Ryan&Fink), p. 122;W.G. Zajac, op. cit., pp. 153-180. 2165 Cf. IV.2.4.3.1. Iron hooks of the Turks.

gold. It can be assumed that Fulcher used elusive oral sources and got acquainted with the report of the participants of these events.

However, the other possibility to indicate the potential source of the author's inspiration should be taken into account, basing on his classical education and familiarity with the texts even from outside the classical canon of readings appearing in trivium, which proves his high level of education. Fulcher came from Chartres, which at the end of the 11th century was a significant intellectual centre where emphasis was placed on studying classical authors. It is worth paying attention to the occurrence of numerous quotes and references to the texts of classical authors in Fulcher's work 2166 . In the context of the analyzed passage, it can be assumed that the potential source of inspiration was the work of Josephus Flavius.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in Bellum Judaicum indicates that during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, during the Great Revolt, it happened that among the Syrians a fugitive was caught picking gold coins from his excrement. According to Josephus, the coins were swallowed before the escape because the Jews searched all the fugitives, and the city itself held huge amounts of gold. When this deception was detected in one case, news spread immediately that the arriving fugitives from Jerusalem were stuffed with gold, and the Arab and Syrian soldiers cut through and searched the escapees' stomachs. One night, two thousand Jews were to die. Titus forbade these practices, but they were continued by the Syrians and Arabs, especially when no Roman was looking at them 2167 .

As was indicated above, it is most likely that Fulcher knew the works of this author, not in the Greek original, but in the Latin translation of Flavia Josephi Hebraei opera. The author's knowledge of Antiquitates, but also Bellum Judaicum is visible in the descriptions of Tiberias 2168 , the Dead Sea 2169 , the Lake of Gennesaret 2170 or the history of city of Tyre 2171 . In addition, Fulcher himself literally mentions Josephus Flavius several times as his source 2172 .

Based on the fact that the author of Historia Hierosolymitana used the works of Josephus in other descriptions, it can be assumed that Fulcher most probably knew the above-mentioned story from Bellum Iudaicum and used it in his own narration. The convergence of description in the case of the place where the action in both sources is Jerusalem (besieged by Romans or by the Franks) of the massacre in Jerusalem are justified in the perspective of Fulcher. The reasons for the justification of even the wildest behaviour of the Franks are that the Turks were pagan idolaters and were an enemy that constituted a real threat for the existence of the Christians, both Eastern and Western; a threat so serious that Pope declared peace in the Christian world to be able to fight it. crusading propaganda through the appropriate historical exempla. Furthermore, a clear difference in the literary workshop of all authors is the indication that Fulcher of Chartres is the only one among writers who refers to the classical works to a greater extent, while other authors clearly heavily rely on the authority of the Bible and liturgical and theological works which determined their standpoint.

The abundance of biblical or liturgical and epic elements in the texts constituted literary framework and shaped the way of organizing the narration based on recognizing and naming the "other" using by their own, sometimes inadequate, inventory of language and knowledge.

The examined representations of "otherness" take the form of the phenomenon of "xenophany", characterized by a high degree of complexity in terms of the numerous mechanisms and wide range of measures used to describe the enemy by each author. All chroniclers have, to a greater or lesser degree, submitted to the enemy with the help of stereotypical traits attributed in the Christian tradition to almost all non-Christians. Representations in the analyzed texts did not significantly undermine the knowledge of chroniclers and that of their recipients about other religions. Thus, the representation of Muslims was linked with the Christian thought and its concept of salvation, which belongs only to the followers of a true religion, being a part of this same community based on the shared socio-cultural norms. Hence, the enemies of Crusaders are described by the terms evoking cultural dissimilarity, such as barbarians, or indicating their religious distinctiveness, such as pagans, unbelievers or excommunicates, accusing them of idolatry and polytheism. It is also worth mentioning that the authors perceive the enemies as the religious nemesis of all Christianity as indicated by the terms of the enemy of God and Holy Christianity, giving them diabolical references as the representatives of the power of Evil. Moreover, the enemy of the Crusaders was also inscribed in the history of Christianity, playing the role of a persecutor of Christian faith. However, all images differ in a significant way in terms of their selection of the presented content, the way in which the subject is illustrated or the description of the religion of the enemy. For instance, in the Gesta Francorum Mohammed is not described as the god of the enemy, while in the Tudebode's narration about the martyrdom of Rainald Porchet this is clearly indicated.

Moreover, according to Raymond of Aguilers, the religion of the enemy is a mirrored form of Christianity, with its own Pope and a false god but without the label of polytheism. Therefore, the narrative framework consists of individual authors coming from various geographical, political and socio-cultural areas.

It should be emphasized that the Muslim enemies were not the main focus of the authors' interest, and hence played various roles depending on the general aims of their work. In the spiritual dimension, the Crusaders perceived themselves as imitating Christ (imitatio Christi) and struggled with the forces of Evil represented by Turks, Fatymids, etc., in two dimensions: earthly and divine.

Worth noting is that such a vision was not a purely abstract speculation in today's sense because there was also a strictly existential trend of interpretation. The description of God's works, as the divine help shown to the Crusaders through the holy warriors-martyrs, in the real world was already a theological reflection and, at the same time, a manifestation of hierophany, but still a non-abstract event. Christian authors were guided by the principle of providentialism, which they firmly believed in. In this context, the fate of the whole community of the People of God was considered in the integral communion of earthly and divine history. The analysis of the Gesta Francorum, the narrations of Tudebode and of Raymond of Aguilers allows to point to a binary opposition, perhaps mostly based on or referred to the thought of Saint Augustine, but expressed by different terms (Paganimitas/Christianitas, Christians/Pagans, amici/inimici Dei, etc.). In Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana the papal discourse of Clermont is much more visible, referring to the idea of Truce of God and the authority of Pope Urban II who wanted to establish peace among Christians and send the military forces against the enemy of Christendom. It can also be seen that there was an intellectual debate about the nature of the First Crusade in the Latin society in the biblical dimension, as was attested by Fulcher's Prologue in which the author referred to Raymond of Aguilers' comparison of the Crusaders to the Maccabees.

In the context of theological dimension of the works, attention is drawn to the lack of intrest of chroniclers in terms of promoting the conversion into the Christian faith; rather, the Carolingian approach is visible, understood as an ultimatum: death or conversion, or conversion of Muslims through miracles such as victories on the battlefields which are used to show that the Christian God is the strongest. However, Fulcher breaks out of this scheme. Moreover, the chroniclers spare relatively little space in their texts to discuss the sphere of the enemy's beliefs. It is difficult to look for a detailed description of the essence of Islam. Perhaps the authors did not have full knowledge about it and they were content with the stereotypical approaches and quite rare descriptions of the religious practices of the enemy, often being a mirror of the Christian faith. This may indicate that the chroniclers writing for specific recipients of the works acknowledged that such information is simply not needed; the enemy had already been defined and there was no reason to bring his sphere of beliefs closer to the audience. Most importantly the enemies were not Christians, which sets them in a binary opposition to the authors. However, there is information indicating that the writers could have known, for example, about the division within Islam into Sunni and Shia and an indication that the Fatimids belonged to the latter, and the Turks were Sunni, or rather they were subjects of Baghdad's Caliph rather than the one residing in Cairo.

Chroniclers presented a number of enemy characters, of which the most negative prevail.

Despite the existence of a repetitive catalogue of main characters like Kilij Arslan, Yaghi Siyan or individual preferences of the authors, and in the case of Fulcher of Chartres the list grew to a monstrous size in the first redaction of his work. For instance, in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, an unnamed emir appears and can be identified with Ahmad ibn Merwan, a commander of the citadel of Antioch by order of Kurbugha known from Muslim sources. However, in the Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum a different character named Mirdalim is present, playing the role of Kurbugha's main advisor prior to the battle against the Crusaders. On the other hand, Fulcher's narration about Amirdalis is a clear reference to the Raymond of Aguilers' work, but reworked slightly. Nevertheless, the emir plays an important role in the narrations, although significantly different in details. Emerging positive characters often either ultimately convert to Christianity, or, as in the case of Kurbugha's mother, realize the inevitable defeat of Muslims against Christians. The literary approach shows the roles of particular characters in the narrations, and so the already mentioned mother of Kurbugha in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia seems to inscribe in a wider topos of woman who has knowledge about future events and who unsuccessfully tries to warn their son. Thus, the search for content beyond a fictitious literary description in this case is doomed to fail.

The context of the representation of the enemy is mostly dominated by military struggles, which, according to the literary genre, commend the virtues of the enemy. Such description works on the principle observed in the epic from ancient times; the success of the heroes depends on the strength and abilities of the opponent: the stronger the defeated opponent, the greater the victory.

Victory over the weak enemy does not deserve glory. The enemy could achieve victory, and as such the victories of Muslims are considered as divine punishment and the military actions frequently are presented through the prism of Apocalypse and Old Testament. Nevertheless, this is a negative image, on the one hand dominated by fear, and on the other imbued by the conviction of the Crusaders' own superiority. Descriptions of Turkish fighting abilities appear in all the accounts; all chroniclers describe the Turks as typical representatives of steppe peoples whose military abilities are largely based on horse riding and archery. Worth mentioning is that the authors show a broad mosaic of peoples fighting on the side of the Turks and the Fatymids, probably reflecting the political reality of the late 11th and early 12th century. Terminology used to describe hostile peoples seems to be a mixture of generic terms like Saracens, the words acquired without much understanding from another culture as a sign of trans-cultural borrowing like Azymites, the terms from ancient literature such as Persians, as well as the words more accurately reflecting the historical reality such as Kurds. In this case, the factual substrate fits perfectly with the literary description; the ennumeration of hostile nations, different across the works of individual authors, which appears in the Bible 2226 as well as in the Historia Francorum (Qui propter civitatem Tyri sunt) 2227 , he also used the form of Sur derived from the Arabic language, which suggested that the vernacular language influenced the author of Historia Francorum to a high degree 2228 . Furthermore, Raymond shares with his audience a reflection on the etymology of the name of Syrians (Suriani), who supposedly come from the city of Tyre 2229 , and according to Raymond from the word Sur the Syrians take their name Suriani 2230 . However, in the 2 Chronicles there is a mention of Sidonians and Tyrians (Sidonii et Tyrii), used to refer to the people coming from those cities 2231 . Therefore, it can be seen that the biblical tradition did not necessarily influence the transcription of local places or people's names; hence, also transcultural borrowings should be taken into account 2232 the name of that place is read in his language in the form of Sidon (quam legimus Sidonem vocabulo dictam) 2248 . Based on the biblical tradition, the author informs that the city was founded by Sidon, the son of Canaan from whom the Sidonians come. Fulcher writes that the inhabitants of this area call the city Sagitta in their language and the Hebrews call it Soor 2249 . Then, Fulcher mentions that the Crusaders went to Tyre by using the term Tyrus 2250 , but he also adds that the local inhabitants call this city are Sur 2251 . The note on about both cities ends with the mention that both appear in the Gospels, recalling the passages from the Gospels of Saint Mark and Saint Matthew 2252 . The term of Sagitta, which appears also in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account seems to have some connections with the Latin meaning of word arrow, because the later Frankish coins from that city and the seal of the local lord bear the emblem of an arrow in their iconographic representations 2253 . However, it is difficult to determine the origin of this form of the name; perhaps it is a name that was invented by the participants of the Crusade.

Moreover, yet another source of knowledge of the accounts' authors must be taken into In conclusion, the authors of the accounts used in their narrations the names they could learn through reading the Bible, but they were also susceptible to the influences of the vernacular language and transcultural borrowings from Arabic. The writers used the Bible to a greater or lesser extent, which for them was the onomastic basis to describe the region. Fulcher of Chartres also knew the work of Flavius Josephus, which clearly distinguished him among other authors.

However, the vast majority of the examples constituted the attempts to adapt the local Arabic des relations sexuelles avec des représentants de la religion islamique, ce qui est également considéré, dans la dimension théologique, comme un grave péché contre la foi chrétienne.

L'image de l'ennemi est caractérisée par un degré élevé de complexité en termes d'utilisation, par chaque auteur, d'une pléthore de mécanismes et un large éventail de processus de description de l'ennemi. Tous les chroniqueurs se sont, à un degré plus ou moins grand, confrontés à l'ennemi à l'aide de traits stéréotypés attribués, dans la tradition chrétienne, à presque tous les non-

9 I.

 9 List of Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................7 Introduction........................................................................................................................................The image of Muslims as an "other" as a problem in scientific reflection (state of research and methodological basis of the study) 1. Selected methodological approaches concerning the image of the Muslims in the Latin cultural circle in the Middle Ages....................................................................................................................12 2. Methodology and theorethical thought of the work.......................................................................23 II. The Image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere 1. Introduction: Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere -the authors and theirs works 1.1.Date of origin of the sources.............................................................................................30 1.

  . Authorship of the accounts..............................................................................................39 1.3.1. Anonymous or not, author or authors of the Gesta Francorum........................39 1.3.2. Author of the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere...........................................44 1.4. The language of the sources and intellectual background...............................................46 1.5. Structure of the accounts.................................................................................................50 2. The Image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere 2.1. The recall to the Urban II's sermon at Clermont in the Gesta

  . Representation of the enemy: Turks as barbarians, enemy of God, excommunicated race, pagans and unbelievers..............................................................................................................59 2.3.1. Turks as barbarians...........................................................................................60 2.3.2. Enemy of God and Holy Christianity................................................................61 Introduction μέχρι μὲν ὤν τούτου ἁρπαγάς μούνας εἶναι παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου Ἕλληνας δὴ μεγάλως αἰτίους γενέσθαι· προτέρους γὰρ ἄρξαι στρατεύεσθαι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἢ σφέας ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην. [...] σφέας μὲν δὴ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίης λέγουσι Πέρσαι ἁρπαζομενέων τῶν γυναικῶν λόγον οὐδένα ποιήσασθαι, Ἕλληνας δὲ Λακεδαιμονίης εἵνεκεν γυναικὸς στόλον μέγαν συναγεῖραι καὶ ἔπειτα ἐλθόντας ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην τὴν Πριάμου δύναμιν κατελεῖν. ἀπὸ τούτου αἰεὶ ἡγήσασθαι τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν σφίσι εἶναι πολέμιον. τὴν γὰρ Ἀσίην καὶ τὰ ἐνοικέοντα ἔθνεα βάρβαρα οἰκηιεῦνται οἱ Πέρσαι, τὴν δὲ Εὐρώπην καὶ τὸ Ἑλληνικόν ἥγηνται κεχωρίσθαι.

6 E

 6 . Renan, Averroès et l'Averroïsme, Paris 1852.

  7

1 .

 1 Date of origin of the sources The Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum and the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere are the accounts written by men who participated in the First Crusade 88 . Both sources are considered the earliest descriptions of the expedition, but there is no consensus which of the two came first. 1.1.1. Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum Manuscript tradition indicates only the general framework for the dating of Gesta Francorum. There are two manuscripts, which incline to pose a date of the source about the first half of the 12th century. The two earliest manuscripts of Gesta Francorum are Vatican Reginensis latini 572, which dates back to the first half of the 12th century, and Vatican MS Reginensis latini 641 dating from the 12th century 89 . The other manuscripts derive from Vatican Reginensis latini 572 or come from later times like Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional E.e. 103 (9783), which is from the end of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century 90 .

  fighting clergyman appears in the Chanson de Roland, where famous Archbishop Turpin is one of the most important and brave characters, and is considered as one of the biggest symbols of the fighting Church. There are examples of the fighting clergy from the times before the First Crusade as well as from the period after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099. For instance, during the siege of Paris by the Vikings in the years 885-886, the defense was entrusted to Odo Count of Paris, but also to two people who were clerics: Gauzlin (or Goslin) Bishop of Paris and Hugh Abbot of Saint-Quentin 161 . Pope Leo IX led his army himself against the Normans to the Battle of Civitate in 1053, but he lost and was captured 162 . Bishop Odo of Bayeux, a half-brother of William the Conqueror, on the Bayeux Tapestry is depicted as fully-armed warrior with in the battle of Hastings. The armed clergy appears in the Bella Antiochena, where the clergymen are preparing to defend the city against the Turks after the battle of Ager Sanguinis in 1119 163 . Aleksander of Malonne, Bishop of Płock (1129-1156) accompanied Bolesław III in his military expeditions, which was ambivalently presented by a chronicler, Vincentius Kadłubek, Bishop of Kraków (1208-1218), a vigorous supporter of the Gregorian Reforms 164 . Philip of Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais, a participant of the Third Crusade, in 1214 at the Battle of Bouvines fighting with his mace took into captivity William

  It should rather observe who could bind Tudebode personally to the leaders of the First Crusade such as Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Adhémar of Le Puy and a South-French contingent in which Peter participated in an expedition to Jerusalem, which, among others, is confirmed by his description of the passage through Sclavonia of the Crusade's forces. Of the many Crusaders who were identified by J. Riley-Smith, several of them come from the territories close to Poitiers such as Gervase of St Cyprian, Abbot of Saint-Savin-sur-Gartempe 174 or Peter Fortis of St Cyprien of Poitiers 175 . Lack of participation in the First Crusade of the Duke of Aquitaine William IX (1086-1126) probably caused that those who wanted to take part in the expedition joined the contingents of other lords from the region. In this perspective, the participation of Rainald, the steward of Hugh VI of Lusignan (Raginaldus dapifer Hugonis Liziniacensis) should be noted 176 . His senior was closely link to Raymond of Saint-Gilles having the same mother, who was Almodis of La Marche 177 . Furthermore, Hugh VI of Lusignan, such as Raymond of Saint-Gilles, William IX of

  participants of the Crusade than high educated on the classical works men like Baldric of Dol, Guibert of Nogent or others intellectualists of that time 189 . In this perspective, the model proposed by J. Riley-Smith for interpretations of the Crusade by the second generation of historians in which the authors, who were mainly monks, remade the relations of participants of the First Crusade and transformed them into more spiritual expedition, turns out to be very verifiable 190 . Both authors showed their knight's audience by mentioning the stories of simple warriors such as the death of two close kins of Tudebode 191 , Achard of Montmerle 192 and Rainald Porchet 193 or the military deeds of Gaudemar Carpinel 194 , Raymond Pilet (or Pelet) 195 , Geoffrey of Lastours 196 , Bego of Ribeira 197 or Letold of Tournai 198 . The main characters like Bohemond, Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond of Saint-Gilles or even Adhémar of Le Puy are presented as brave warriors who led the army of Christ to the Holy City. Both sources are the epic stories with a number of factors, which approximate the accounts to the genre of chansons de geste 199 . The listing of the Crusaders bearing names not only of the great commanders, but also the names of the knights from more local level. In this perspective, the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's account could be treated as the repository of the oral tradition of eyewitnesses and a source of cultural power for the military aristocracy 200 .

  and in obsessione Malfi 215 in the Tudebode's Historia and Deinde pervenimus de castello in castellum et de villa in villam ad Rusam civitatem 216 and in obsidione Malfi 217 in Gesta Francorum 218 . It should be stressed that the language, composition and content of both accounts suggest that the potential audience should be rather the feudal estates than the monastic seclusion buildings, because the works did not have the sophisticated form, which could satisfy a demanding recipient such as Baldric of Dol or Guibert of Nogent or representatives of schools in Paris or Chartres at that time. The language close to vernacular and sequential structure of narration could be understood by the feudal lords and, if necessary, translated into even more affordable form even by a not very well educated cleric. The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere referred to the Bible mostly in three main scenes of narration 219 . The beginning of both accounts is full of the biblical references, because of the causes of taking the cross by people and preaching of the Crusade by Urban II 220 . The next scene is in Xerigordon, when authors used the reference to the Matt 10.28 221 , and the battle of Dorylaeum 222 . The final narration, abundant in biblical quotations, is the dialogue between the mother of Kurbugha and her son 223 . Peter Tudebode adds the biblical quotations in the scenes of Rainald Porchet's martyrdom 224 and the lament of Guy, Bohemond's brother 225 . The quotation of classical writers are not popular in the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. H. Hagenmeyer noted some possibilities of the references to Vergil,

February 1097 . 2 .

 10972 Therefore, there is information about the preaching of the Crusade by Pope Urban II, the Peter the Hermit's so-called Peasants' Crusade, the slaughter of the Christians at Civetot, the journeys of all leaders of Crusade to Constantinople. The second narrative begins with the Bohemond's arrival at Byzantine capital, passes through the descriptions of the oaths of allegiance to the Alexius I, and ends with the capture of Nicaea. The third narrative is the description of the battle of Dorylaeum and the march of Crusader army to Antioch with the narrations of the battle at Heraclea, the conquering of Cilicia by Tancred and Baldwin and acquiring the Caesarea in Cappadocia and Coxon. The books from the fourth to the seventh consist of the descriptions of the siege of Antioch and the battle against Kurbugha and this is the main part of the whole expedition on the pages of the account. The eighth book is the final one and it contains the description from the departure of Hugo of Vermandois to Alexius I, throughout the relation about the march through the Northern Syria to Jerusalem, the attack on and the capture of the Holy City, the election of Duke Godfrey as the first Latin ruler of Jerusalem and Arnulf of Chocques as the Patriarch. The book ends with the victory over the Fatimids at Ascalon. In the case of the structure of Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere I will use the division of the Peter Tudebode's account proposed by J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill, who divided this work into twelve books in their English translation and did not clearly divide it in the Latin version 233 . According to them, the first book is about the preaching of the Crusade by Urban II and the People's Crusade. It ends with the slaughter of Christians at Civetot. The second book is a description of the journey of the Princes' armies to Constantinople. The third starts with the siege and capture of Nicaea, passes through the battle of Dorylaeum, the conquering of Cilicia, Caesarea, Coxon and ends with the arrival at Antioch. The books from the fourth to the eighth are the descriptions of the siege of Antioch, finished by the battle with Kurbugha, who was an atabeg of Mosul. The ninth is about the Crusaders' presence at Antioch and their raids in Northern Syria. The tenth describes the march from Ma'arrat an-Numan to Jerusalem. The eleventh deals with the capture of Jerusalem. The twelfth is the final book in which there is a description of the battle of Ascalon ended by a short hymn: Largiente Domino nostro Ihesu Christo, cui est honor et gloria nunc et semper in seculorum secula. Amen (By the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom is the honor and glory now and forever unto the ages of ages. Amen) 234 . The Image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere 2.1. The recall to the Urban II's sermon at Clermont in the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere The Urban II's sermon at Clermont in 1095, a speech that initiated the crusading movement, was mentioned in the Gesta Francorum and the Peter Tudebode's account. However, the version of Urban II's speech in these sources does not contain a word-by-word account of the sermon and presentation of the enemy. The emphasis in the sermon in the Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere has been placed on the biblical references as evidence that the time has come to fulfill the word of the Gospel of Matthew: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me (If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me) 235 . Then Pope Urban II crossed the Alps with the archbishops, bishops, abbots and priests -in brief with the whole clergy, and preached the crusading sermons in the lands of Franks. Peter Tudebode indicates the Archbishop of Bordeaux -Amatus, as the one who preaches the Crusade's sermons and aids Urban II as his legate 236 . This short information could be considered as the local attachment of chronicler, because Peter mentions an important person from the Archdiocese of Bordeaux -the region which he came from. The Tudebode's mention shows also the power of the authority. Amatus as an Archbishop of Bordeaux and the papal legate was an especially important person for the audience and environment of the chronicler. It was desirable to mention him by name and indicate the role of local hierarchy in the preaching of the Crusade.The mission of the Pope and clergy on the lands of Kingdom of France shows the ecclesiastical authority, which had to enjoy considerable prestige in the eyes of the chroniclers, originating probably not from the highest social elites. Furthermore, Urban II crossed the Alps, which, at that time, was a severe ordeal that required proper preparation and he did this for preaching the Crusade among the Franks 237 . It seems that the multitude of citations at the beginning of the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia plays the role of the strengthening of Urban II's statement in the accounts. The authority of the Church, the Pope, the whole clergy, and Peter's papal legate from Bordeaux were a clear declaration of support, which the participants of Crusade enjoyed. The authority of the Bible pointed to the importance of that mission and showed that the expedition was a part of the divine plan 238 .

  that was a part of a common tradition272 .The figure of Charlemagne brought to mind in the 12th century a specific ideological programme. He was the most powerful and most pious king of the Franks in the popular view. He was the hero from the chansons de geste. He fought against the enemies of Christianity and expanded the Christian faith to other lands. In such a manner the heritage of Charlemagne sees Gallus Anonymous, the author of Cronica et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum (The Chronicle and Deeds of the Dukes and Princes of the Poles), composed about 1115. In the perspective of Kingdom of Poland Bolesław III the Wrymouth, refers to the model of the rulership of his great ancestor Bolesław I the Brave, is the continuer of the Charlemagne's mission. Bolesław III fought against the barbaric peoples from the territories of Selentia, Pomerania and Prussia (Selenciam, Pomoraniam et Prusiam) and he tried to convert them to the Christian faith 273 .

  only use the invective to describe the enemy as the pagans, which excluded them from the Christianitas as the heathens, but they also showed the expedition to Jerusalem in the framework of a broad historiosophical plan of the Divine Will, where the Christians fight against the forces of the City of the Devil.

  Princes' Crusade were listed Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Adhémar of Le Puy, Bohemond, Richard the Principate, Robert of Flanders, Robert the Norman, Hugo the Great, Evrard of Puiset, Achar of Montmerle, Isoard of Mouzon, William the son of the Marquis 470 . In the Gesta's description of the Lotharingian contingent, Duke Godfrey, his brother Baldwin and also Baldwin of Mons were mentioned 471 . However, in the Historia's version Baldwin of Mons disappeared 472 . When the Bohemond took the cross, his army on the pages of Gesta Francorum was described in much more details. In the Norman expedition the participants were Tancred son of the Marquis, Richard princeps, and his brother Rainulf, Robert of Anse, Herman of Canny, Sobert of Sourdeval, Robert son of Tostain, Humphrey son of Radulf, Richard son of Count Rainulf, the count of Russinolo with his brothers, Boel of Chartres, Albered of Cagnano and Humphrey of Monte Scabioso 473 . Peter

  M. Borgolte, Memoria: Bilan intermédiaire d'un projét de recherché sur le Moyen Áge, in: Les tendences actuelles de l'histoire du Moyen Áge, eds. J.-C.Schmitt, O.G. Oexle, Paris 2002, pp. 53-70; M. Lauwers, Memoria: À propos d'un objet d'histoire en Allemagne, in: Les tendences actuelles de l'histoire du Moyen Áge, eds. J.-C.Schmitt, O.G. Oexle, Paris 2002, pp. 105-126; N.L. Paul, op. cit., pp. 10-55. 492 GF, XVII, 5, p. 271; PT, p. 72. 493 Eph. 6.10-20; cf. P. Buc, Holy War, Martyrdom, and Terror: Christianity, Violence, and the West, Pennsylvania 2015, p. 90. over the Turks. Then the others Crusaders saw the Bohemond's banner and immediately stopped falling back. Afterwards, the whole Christian army charged the enemy and in consequence the Turks started to run away. However, the Crusaders chased them until the Iron Bridge and killed many of them. The Turks fell back to their castle, set fire to it and fled. After the battle, the local Syrians and Armenians, knowing that the Turks had been defeated, killed and captured many of them. The chroniclers summarized the narration by the statement that the Crusaders gained a victory by the will of God. Moreover, later they brought one hundred heads of the dead Turks to the city gate, which was observed by the messengers of the ruler of Egypt, who stayed in the Crusaders' camp, and which was for sure an image of the power of Christians 494 . Similar vision of presentation the enemy's forces in a significant advantage compared to the Crusaders appears in the epistolary sources. The Letter of Symeon, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Adhémar of Le Puy written around 18 October 1097 shows the number of Crusaders estimated on one hundred thousand knights and men in armour. However, the authors claim that this number is low in comparison with the pagans, even if the true God is fighting on thier side (pauci enim sumus ad comparationem paganorum. Verum et vere pro nobis pugnat Deus) 495 . In the Letter ad occidentales of Symeon, the Patriarch of Jerusalem and others bishops, written around late January 1098, the author of epistle claims that where we have a count the enemy have forty kings, where we have a squadron, the enemy has a legion; where we have a knight they have a duke; where we have a foot-soldier they have a count; where we have a fortress they have a kingdom (ubi nos habemus comitem, hostes XL reges, ubi nos turmam, hostes legionem, ubi nos militem, ipsi ducem, ubi nos peditem, ipsi comitem, ubi nos castrum, ipsi regnum) 496 . Furthermore, in the letter, there appears the phrase that the Franks did not put their trust in numbers or strength nor arrogance (nos autem non confisi in multitudine nec viribus nec praesumptione aliqua), but in their faith in God, who protected them 497 .

  Romania and Antioch 546 . The question then arises: what is the meaning of this description? This narration seems clearer in comparison with the Bohemond's response to the Crusaders at the beginning of the accounts. During the preparation for the Crusade, Bohemond had besieged Amalfi in Southern Italy. When he heard about the preparation for the expedition to Jerusalem, he posed three questions (which suggests that three elements appeared on the principle of harmonizing the message) to the participants: what type of weapons they used, what emblem of Christ they carried and what war cry they had 547 . He received the response that they were properly armed for the battle, they had an emblem of the cross of Christ on the right shoulder or between the shoulders and their war cry was Deus le volt, Deus le volt, Deus le volt in Gesta Francorum 548 , and Deus hoc vult, Deus hoc vult, Deus hoc vult in the Tudebode's account 549 . The war cry in Gesta's version could be described as barbaro-latina and it could be a sign of the vernacular language 550 .

  Cf. N. Hodgson, The Role of Kerbogha's Mother in the Gesta Francorum and Selected Chronicles of the First Crusade, in: Gendering the Crusades, eds. S.B.Edgington, S. Lambert, Cardiff 2001, pp. 163-176.

  has scattered the peoples who delight in war561 and Pour out Your wrath upon the nations which do not know You, and upon the kingdoms which do not call upon Your name 562 . Both references to the Psalms are in connection with the phrase that the Kurbugha's mother uses, that the Christians are under the God's protection and they cannot be harmed or troubled by any nation and God along with the saints has vanquished all their enemies 563 . Furthermore, she reinforces her utterance by appealing not only to the Psalms, but also to other scriptures from biblical tradition. She mentions that the Christians are called the sons of Christ (filii Christi) 564 , and by the prophets the sons of adoption and of promise (filii adoptionis et promissionis)565 , and by the Apostle the heirs of Christ (heredes Christi) 566 . As was pointed out by N. Dass by using the mixture of Psalm 113.3, Isaiah

  chroniclers paint a black picture of the military situation of the Crusaders at the beginning of the year 1098. The enemy attacked the Christians' besiegers from all sides, thus in consequence as Tudebode writes: nullus nostrorum audebat iam exire extra tentoria, tantus erat Turcorum timor (no one dared to go beyond the tents, because so great was the fear of the enemy)636 . During the siege of Antioch by the Kurbugha's army, Bohemond had problems mobilizing the Franks to fight because of the fear to the Turks (timore Turcorum) 637 . Moreover, the Crusaders could not dare go down to the sea, because of the fear of the enemy ( propter timorem pessimorum Turcorum)638 . The Turks were presented in this passage as the powerful opponent, who arouses the fear of Christians by constantly attacking. The use of word malus in a form of superlativus makes a direct and at the same time simple invective against the Turks. It is not a sophisticated form of the transmission of a certain content, but its directness should reach the tastes of the audience, because it clearly indicates who represents the evil side in this struggle.

  Deus le volt, Deus le volt, Deus le volt in Gesta Francorum 643 , and Deus hoc vult, Deus hoc vult, Deus hoc vult in the Tudebode's account 644 or Tolosa of the Provencal forces of Raymond of Saint-Gilles according to Raymond of Aguilers 645 , also their enemies could use the war cry in the battles.Actually, it was a common practice of the warfare, to indicate at least the most famous calls, such as Ancient Greek Ἀλαλά, Late Roman Nobiscum Deus or French Montjoie Saint Denis. In the Islamic world the common war cry was Allahu Akbar (Arabic: God is greatest) and it was used historically by Mohammed himself in the first battle of Islam, in the battle of Badr, which took place on 13

2. 4

 4 .5. Literary framework of the battles in Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere The authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere, on the pages of their works, present several battles against the enemy, starting from the fatal fate of the so-called Peasant's Crusade destroyed at Xerigordon and Civetot, through the descriptions of the battles of Dorylaeum, Heraclea, many struggles and skirmishes during the siege of Antioch, sieges of Ma'arrat an-Numan, Arqah or Jerusalem and ending by the victory at the Battle of Ascalon. Apart from the military history and detailed descriptions of each battle, worth paying attention is to the narrative framework of these struggles in accounts 699 . 2.4.5.1. Peasants' Crusade

2. 4

 4 .5.2.2. Battle of Dorylaeum Battle of Dorylaem was the first battle in open field described in both accounts after the successful siege of Nicaea. The forces of Crusaders consisted of two contingents, because of the logistical problems of acquiring the supplies during the passage through Anatolia. One contingent consisted of forces of Bohemond, Robert of Normandy and Tancred, and in the second one there were Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Adhémar of Le Puy, Hugo of Vermandois and Robert of Flanders 754 .Near Dorylaeum the vanguard of the crusading forces led by Bohemond was attacked by the enemy. The Turks quickly encircled the Christians and started to shoot arrows from a distance. The situation of the Franks seemed to be tragic, because they suffered big losses and even women helped the Frankish warriors by bringing water and encouraging them. Bohemond sent a message to the second contingent of crusading forces. The chroniclers mention that in this difficult time, a secret sermon was circulated among the Christians in which God promised the victory and all riches to the Crusaders, if they stood firm in the faith of Christ (in fide Christi) and had faith in the victory of the Holy Cross (sanctae crucis vexilli victoria)755 . It seems that this passage could be interpreted as a test of the faith of the Crusaders in a reference to the description of the so-called Peasants'

  Furthermore, in the Book of Revelation ignis de caelo is sent by God to devour the army of the Satan: Et cum consummati fuerint mille anni, solvetur Satanas de carcere suo, et exibit, et seducet gentes, quae sunt super quatuor angulos terrae, Gog, et Magog, et congregabit eos in praelium, quorum numerus est sicut arena maris. Et ascenderunt super latitudinem terrae, et circuierunt castra sanctorum, et civitatem dilectam. Et descendit ignis a Deo de caelo, et devoravit eos (When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and to gather them for battle.

Tudebode' s

 s Historia, which may indicate an influence on the Armenian chronicler of the Latin tradition with which Matthew could have come into contact in Edessa ruled by the Franks. Furthermore, it seems that the influence of the religious zeal of the Crusaders in their decision to fight against Kurbugha in the open battle should not be underestimated. Worth noting is that in this narration the literary vision of the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de

  . It seems that both biblical examples are important, because of expressing the idea that Israel, in the military confrontation against the enemy, cannot rely on military force, but only on the power and divine protection of God, shown through a prayer 791 . To illustrate the function of the Gesta Francorum's and Tudebode's description a close analogy should be indicated. In the Bella Antiochena of Walter the Chancellor the whole narration about the military campaign of Baldwin II against Ilghazi and Tughtekin of Damascus has a common symbolic meaning. Before the march, the Christians consisted of clerks, monks and the whole population gathered in the temple of Saint Peter at the Mass. Bernard of Valence, the Latin Patriarch of Antioch (1100-1135) made a twofold blessing to the participants of the expedition, the second time carrying the relics of the Tree of the Cross, and citizens blessed the warriors who would 786 GF, XXIX, 1, p. 368; PT, p. 110; cf. M.C.

  martyrs and the patrons of the knighthood such as Saint George, Saint Mercurius and Saint Demetrius, who were mostly venerated at the beginning of the 12th century in the Byzantine Empire 805 . The number of three holy warriors refers to the symbolic meaning of the harmony, perfection and emphasizes the importance of the God's help 806 .In search of the analogy to this narration it should be invoked the work of Geoffrey Malaterra, entitled De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis and Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratris eius, written at the end of the 11th century 807 . A white horseman, identified with the patron saint of Saint George, assists Christians in the description of the fight with the Muslims in the decisive battle of Cerami 808 . In 1063, the Norman army engaged in the conquest of Sicily faced a huge challenge. Palermo and Agrigent fought against it, backed up by the forces of the Zirids. The threat was significant, as the combined Muslims repeatedly outnumbered the Christian army, which had 136 knights and about 150 infantrymen. The successful sign that showed the Normans that God was on their side recognized the victorious breakout of the Serlo Hauteville to the camp, who, along with 35 knights, defeated nearly 3,000 enemy soldiers. Then there was the Norman army's clash with Muslims. Before the start of the battle, seeing the fear on the faces of the knights, Roussel de

  Leo the Deacon, The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, transl. A.-M.Talbot, D.F. Sullivan, Washington D.C. 2005, pp. 197-198. 816 GA, II, 6, p. 73. patron saint is Adalbert (Wojciech), and in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's work the battle took place on 28 June on the eve of Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, whose activities were associated with the city of Antioch 817 . The holy intervention of the army of white warriors, known from Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, had been transmitted to other accounts, describing the First Crusade 818 . The image of the white horsemen appears on the pages of the chronicles of the second generation of the historians of the crusading movement. It was described by Baldric of Dol 819 , Guibert of Nogent 820 , Robert the Monk 821 , the Monte Cassino's Chronicle 822 , Hugh of Fleury 823 and Henry of Huntinghton in his De captione Antiochiae a Christianis 824 . Furthermore, the white knights with their saints' commanders are recorded in the very early source; in the Letter ad occidentales of a Patriarch of Jerusalem and others bishops 825 .

Furthermore,

  the participants of the expedition took counsel and choose Godfrey of Bouillon as the prince of the city (principem civitatis) 860 , who would fight against the enemies and protect the Christians. They also elected a Patriarch of Jerusalem, who became Arnulf of Chocques 861 . These two elections show the demonstration of the power of the Franks in the centre of the Christianity and it was a realisation of the aim of the protection of the holy places in Jerusalem. The prince of the city protects it by military strength and Patriarch is responsible for the spiritual sphere; the fulfilment of religious practices. The elections also show a conviction about the durability of conquest, even in the face of the enemy.

2. 4

 4 .5.2.6. Battle of Ascalon According to Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the final stage of the Crusade was the battle of Ascalon against the forces of the Fatimids. At the beginning of the campaign of Ascalon, the Christians captured many Arabs in the city of Ramla and received many details about the position of the enemy and his situation. The forces of Fatimids were ready to fight, but the Crusaders decided to attack and surprise the enemy. The forces of the Christians marched off from Jerusalem 866 .An important part of the preparation for the crucial battle against the enemy was the activity862 On the discussion about the size of the massacre in Jerusalem made by Crusaders cf. B. Kedar, The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099 in the Western Historiography of the Crusades, "Crusades" 3 (2004), pp. 15-75; T.F.

  seems that this perspective of the representation of the lands of the enemy could be confirmed by the description of Crusaders' passage through the massive range of Taurus: Nos autem, qui remansimus, exeuntes inde intravimus in diabolicam montanam, quae tam erat alta et angusta, ut nullus nostrorum auderet per semitam, quae in monte patebat, ante alium praeire. Illic praecipitabant se equi et unus saumarius praecipitabat alium. Milites ergo stabant undique tristes, feriebant se manibus prae nimia tristitia et dolore, dubitantes quid facerent de semetipsis et de suis armis 887 (We others, who had remained behind, set out and began to cross over a diabolical mountain, which was so high and strait that none of us dared go around another man on the track that lay along the side of the mountain. Horses fell off headlong, and one lead horse dragged down others with it. And the warriors stood wretchedly, wringing their hands in misery and agony, not knowing what to do with themselves and their arms) 888 . The crossing of the mountain range, regardless of factual substrate, in the sphere of sociocultural facts is an epic deed, made by heroes. In The Chronicle and Deeds of the Dukes and Princes of the Poles of Gallus Anonymus, there is a mention about the expedition of Bolesław III the Wrymouth from 1110 when he invaded the Principality of Czech, ruled by Władysław Przemyslid. Bolesław sought to settle on the throne Sobieslaw and took revenge for the earlier invasion on his lands and for the support and hospitality given by the Czech ruler to Zbigniew, the brother and rival to throne of Bolesław. To surprise the adversary, the Polish Prince led his troops through the inaccessible and terrifying Sudetes. This deed was in The Chronicle and Deeds of the Dukes and Princes of the Poles adorned by Bolesław' comparison with the outstanding leader of antiquity -Hannibal 889 . In the crossing of the Polish-Czech border, the obstacles are the steep mountains (montes arduos), the dark forests (per silvas tenebrosas) and the deep marshes (in paludibus profundis) 890 . Anonymous shows the landscape of the borderland as an untouched by human activity. The Polish warriors passed through horrifying places, where the human foot had never been before. In this description an image of the anecumene -a world uninhabited by manwas drawn up 891 .

  symbolic connection with the indicated passage of The Chronicle and Deeds of the Dukes and Princes of the Poles. The chroniclers show the obstacles that stand in the way of the Christians that

  Nicaea was a place of two Ecumenical Councils in 325 and 787. It was the main city in Asia Minor in terms of demography, importance and economic potential. Nicaea, having huge walls and towers, was crucial from the perspective of Emperor Alexius, who wanted to ensure the safety to Constantinople -the truly sacral and political "navel" of the world from the Byzantine perspective 899 . From the antiquity Antioch was one of the most important cultural, commercial, political and religious centres of the Mediterranean. It was founded around 300 BC by Seleucus I Nicator, who named it in honour of his father Antioch, one of the commanders of Alexander the Great. Antioch became the second chronological centre of Christians after Jerusalem, which was testified by the Acts of the Apostles 900 . For the Christianity Antioch is a symbolic place, where the followers of the Christ were for the first time called Christians. The expedition to Jerusalem understood as a part of the universal history of Christianity in the perspective of its participants could be observed due to the words of the chroniclers, that Antioch was donated to Peter the Apostle by Jesus Christ to convert its inhabitants into the Christian faith 901 . Therefore, from this point of view, the Crusaders follow in the footsteps of Saint Peter and try to realise the orders of Jesus himself.It seems that the expressions about the capitals of the whole regions are not without significance. In the narrative schemes the central point of a given land was the most important in the literary military strategy. There are numerous examples of social space organizations based on the sacred and political central point. When Svetoslav I, the Grand Prince of Kiev (945-972), considered that the centre of its lands was located in Perejeslav on the Danube, he decided to move there, instead of Kiev 902 . The political centre of the community in Pomerania according to Gallus Anonymous was Bialogard, while for the Kingdom of Hungary was Szekesfehervar 903 .

Francorum

  and Tudebode's Historia, the Turks came from the land of Khorasan. The appearance of this term in both accounts could have double nature: the term Corosan could find its way to the chroniclers through the personal observation of the Crusade's participant, as the word for describing the geographical region of Khwarazm 904 . It had to sound alien to the eyewitnesses' authors, so spelling of this word, in Arabic Xuwārizm, had to be adapted to Latin syntax. Moreover, it could find its way to the pages of the accounts by the textual analogies, which could inspire the chroniclers. It can be pointed out that the term of Corosan in a form of Corozain appears in the Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, where it was indicated as a place of rejection of faith and in a context of woe to the cities, which do not repent 905 . Furthermore, in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius from the 7th century (known in Latin version a century later) Khorasan was presented as a birthplace of the Antichrist, and this eschatological overtone posed the Turks in the sphere of the Evil 906 . Although difficult is to point to the direct knowledge of the authors of this work, it should be noted that it was a relatively popular text in the 12th century; in the Kingdom of England itself there were twenty-four manuscripts created in the Middle Ages, and the two oldest ones were from before 1100907 . It should also be noted that the use of the toponym of the Khorasan to describe the Turkish S.Rosik, Bolesław..., Cf. A.V. Murray, Coroscane: homeland of the Saracens in the Chansons de geste and the historiography of the crusaders, in: The Franks in Outremer. Studies in the Latin Principalities of Palestine and Syria, 1099-1187, ed. A.V. Murray, Farnham 2015, pp. 1-9. 905 Matt 11.21; Luke 10.13. 906 Pseudo-Methodius: Apocalypse. An Alexandrian World Chronicle, p. 63. 907 M.W. Twomey, The Revelationes of Pseudo-Methodius and Scriptural Study at Salisbury in the Eleventh Century, in: Source of Wisdom: Old English and Early Medieval Latin Studies in Honour of Thomas D. Hill, eds. Ch.D. Wright, F.M. Biggs, T.N. Hall, Toronto 2007, pp. 371-372.

2. 5 . 4 .

 54 Model of conversion: the Raymond Pilet's expedition and the abrenuntiatio diaboli in Albara After the battle of Antioch, Raymond Pilet (Pelet) who was a knight from the army of Raymond of Saint-Gilles took many warriors and entered into the inferior of enemy land. Raymond

  : Raymond of Aguilers and his work The Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem is an account of the First Crusade written by those who participated in the expedition to Holy Land in the Provencal contingent of Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Adhémar of Le Puy. It seems that this very early source presented a perspective different than Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere. 1.1. Date of origin of the source Unfortunately, the original manuscript of the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem has not survived until our times from the medieval period. However, there are seven complete or almost complete manuscripts of Raymond of Aguilers' work and several fragmentary accounts 973 . The latest publishers divided the manuscripts into two branches. Group A is based on the tradition of the manuscript of Raymond's account which was included in the codex of Grassegals (in fol. 160-223) along with other works, i.e. Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres and Walter the Chancellor's Bella Antiochena 974 . Based on a manuscript from this group, namely on Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 14378, the latest edition of the account was made. Although there were some remarks and reservations about source editing. C. Kostick pointed out that J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill used one manuscript and did not take into account the arrangements of J. France that among the manuscripts, MS Latin 14378 is relatively far from the original. Therefore, J. France

1. 4 . 2 .

 42 Structure of the account Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Ihierusalem in Latin edition of J.H. Hill and L.L. Hill, which is used in this work, is divided into the Prologue, 18 chapters and more than 233 subsections 1045 . The first and second chapters of the Historia Francorum contain the march of the crusading army through the Sclavonia and the first encounter with the Byzantines and their Emperor. The third chapter is about the siege of Nicaea. The siege and capture of Antioch, as well as the decisive battle against Kurbugha and death of Adhémar of Le Puy constitute the chapters from the fourth to ninth. The capture of cities of Albara and Ma'arrat an-Numan, the siege of Arqah, where Pons of Balazuc was killed, the ordeal of the Holy Lance and the renewal the journey to Jerusalem are described in the chapters tenth to thirteenth. The fourteenth chapter presents the siege and capture of Jerusalem and the final fifteenth chapter describes the battle of Ascalon and ends with a phrase: Explicit liber Raimundi d'Aguilers feliciter (The Book of Raymond d'Aguilers happily ends) 1046 . The image of the enemy on the pages of the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem 2.1. Describing the enemy as pagan, persecutor, hostile foe and tyrant Raymond of Aguilers's work presents a certain image of the enemy of the Crusaders. Representation of the enemy was shaped through the vocabulary, the reference to specific ideas and other means of literary expression, related to the intellectual background of the author. To what extent Raymond's representation is distinct can be assessed by a comparison with the enemy's representation in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia.2.1.1. Enemy as pagan: the triumph over paganimitasIn the Prologue of the Historia Francorum, Raymond of Aguilers shows the first indication on the perception of Crusaders' enemy. At the beginning of his work, the chronicler presents the causa scribendi, which was to inform all the people beyond the Alps (Transalpinis omnibus) about the great deeds of God through the Franks, and to resist the cowardly deserters who spread the lies 1047 . Thosereading Raymond's account are advised to avoid the counsel and fellowship (verba et consortia) of these people to whom the chronicler attributed apostasy 1048 . Then, the author of The Historia Francorum uses a short passage to describe the enemy. He distinguishes the army of God (exercitus Dei), which by the mercy of God is to triumph over all pagandom (super omnem paganimitatem)1049 . The term paganimitas (-atis) is not known from the other sources written by eyewitness participants of the expedition to Jerusalem. In this form the term describing the pagandom is rare, more often the word paganitas appears 1050

  indicated on the capital of a column in the Cathedral of the Crusaders from the beginning of the twelfth century in Nazareth 1062 . Concerning the deaths of martyrs, another example would be the decapitation of St Paul of Tarsus during the reign of Nero 1063 , or the case of one the most prominent martyrs who was highly admired by Crusaders: St George who was martyred under Diocletian 1064 .

  However, there is no mention of forced conversions of local Christian community to Islam after the conquest of Antioch, as N. Morton concluded 1068 .Moreover, another description contains information about the oppression of the Turks against local Christians. After turning towards Jerusalem, the Crusaders began to search for guides who would show them the way to the Holy City. During this time, contacts were made with the local Syrians living in the area around the city of Tyre. Raymond shares with his audience a reflection on the etymology of the name of Syrians (Suriani), which is supposed to come from the city of Tyre, known in the popular language as a Sur, thus the people from Sur are Suriani 1069 . Raymond then writes that these Syrians, living in the mountains of Lebanon, numbered sixty thousand people 1070 . Most likely the chronicler described the population of Lebanon Maronites 1071 . According to the author of the Historia Francorum, these people were under the control of Turks and Saracens for four hundred years or more. It is worth noting that Raymond writes that the enemy conquered the Syrians' territories by the judgement of God -per Dei iudicium, which is understandable, considering how Raymond perceives the world, namely in the perspective of providentialism, where nothing happens without the will of God 1072 .

  these and other afflictions1083 . It seems that the Raymond's mention refers to the popular stereotype of sexual promiscuity prevailing among Muslims, which was very visible in later tradition of the polemics with the Islam 1084 . However, at the end of 11th century and at the beginning of 12th century, such a plea was well-established, based among other things on the tradition of accusations of debauchery made against the heresiarchs 1085 . Moreover, such vision could also show the world upside down in the moralistic perspective; certainly, for the Christian recipient such far-reaching mentions about sexual treatment of women by the Syrians made by the author would arouse the disdain among the audience of his work. This based on the proper pattern of behaviour, which implicitly resembles the author's model of the world. affairs. As was mentioned above, Raymond of Aguilers claims that the enemy took the land of Syrian Christians by the judgement of God. It happened because in the opinion of Raymond the Syrians were bad Christians. He even believes that the Syrians have certainly been against the Christian faith: Surely this race plotted against the Holy of Holies and His inheritance. Had not God by His order and initiative armed brutish animals against similar evils as He did once in our presence, the Franks could have met misfortunes like those of the Syrians (Coniuraverunt certe gens illa contra sanctum sanctorum et eius hereditatem, quod nisi iussu et instinctu Dei Francorum gentes his malis occurrissent profecto bruta animalia contra illos Deus armasset, quod aliquando nobis presentibus fecit) 1086 .

Nicea) 1108 .

 1108 The term Saracens (Sarraceni) often appears separately from the Turks, such as Quanti autem de Turcis et de Sarracenis tunc perierunt, dicere nescimus (We cannot say how many of Turks and Saracens were killed at that time)1109 . Its usage on the pages of Raymond's work suggests that the author separates the Turks from the Saracens, presenting the political realities of Syria, Palestine and Anatolia, where the Turks, despite their military strength, were definitely an ethnic minority 1110 . For instance, the term Saracens appears in the sentences such as civitatem Sarracenorum Barram nomine (the Saracen city named Albara)1111 . Moreover, after a great victory over the people of Peter of Hermit, the Turks sent the weapons and captives to the noblemen of their race and to Saracens (ad nobiles suae gentis et Sarracenorum)1112 . The term is also sometimes uses by Raymond to describe the enemy in more general terms. For example, the garrison of Jerusalem according to Raymond consists of the Saracens and the Turks (Sarraceni et Turci)1113 . In the description of the struggles during the siege of Antioch, the author of the Historia Francorum describes that the Crusaders killed seven thousand of the Saracens (septem milia Sarracenorum), but earlier he presented the fights against the garrison of Antioch as the struggles against the Turks 1114 . Similarly, the context of the use the term Arabs (Arabes) is quite vague. Raymond describes the struggles of the Turks and the Arabs (Turci vero et Arabes) and (Turcorum et Arabum exercitum) against Count of Flanders 1115 . In the description of the route to Jerusalem, the army of the Turks and the Arabs (Turci et Arabes exercitum) attacked the marauders and poor people from the Crusade 1116 .

  there is no indication that prior to the expedition he would have read literature on Islam. During the Crusade, he could have collected some information about the political realities of the areas through which they travelled, realizing the divisions of the enemy world. Perhaps he also obtained some information at the Byzantine court and from the Crusade leaders' councils where they negotiated with al-Afdal's envoys; the source might also be other Christians, especially Italian merchants, although this will remain within the realm of speculations. In conclusion, it should be noted that Raymond had some knowledge about the realities of Middle Eastern political context.One of hostile nations could be considered as visibly distinguishable among the other enemies in the Historia Francorum. On the pages of Raymond's account, one of the Muslim rulers, so far living in harmony with the Franks, turned into an enemy because of the unsuccessful siege of Arqah and quarrels in the crusading forces. The enemy in the upcoming battle was presented as Tripolitans (Tripolitani) 1126 , which shows their origin from the city of Tripoli. Raymond describes the massacre of enemy troops by words: the land stank with Moorish blood (Fedatur enim terra sanguine Maurorum) 1127 . It is quite astonishing since the term Maurus is used to name the inhabitants of Tripoli. Raymond does not classify them as Turks, Saracens or by other term, but for the first time in his work he creates a name from the city where they lived: Tripolitani. Furthermore, he uses the term of Maurus that is not associated in the geographical sense with the territories of Syria and Palestine. The political reality of that time seems to confirm the understanding of the term Maurus used by Raymond. In the time of the creation of the Historia Francorum, the city of Tripoli was under the control of the qâdîs from the Banu Ammar: Jalâl al-Mulk (1072-1099) and later by his brother Fakhr al-Mulk (1099-1109). They were descendants of the family of officials settled in Tripoli by the Fatimids who took advantage of the difficulties of the Fatimid and became relatively independent in 1070. They practiced a policy of balance between the Fatimids in the South and the Seljuks in the North 1128 . The Fatimids, from the beginning of their expansion, used the Berber mercenaries: the Berbers of Kutama were the first adherents of Fatimids and Caliph Al-Mustansir(1036-1094) in his military campaign used the forces known as al-Maghariba, consisting of the Berbers of Lawata and other unidentified North African elements. However, there is no such confirmation for the use of Berber mercenaries or the mercenaries from the Iberian Peninsula by the rulers of Tripoli 1129 . In consequence, it should be assumed that the rulers of Tripoli would maintain relations allowing them to hire the Berber or other Iberian troops, which would be also so characteristic that the Franks would have no problem with their identification and distinction among many other troops of their enemies. Otherwise, the Franks would have accurate information about the state the army of the qâdîs. Therefore, in this case it seems that a different interpretation of the use of this term by the chronicler is possible, referring more to the literary reality of the text.

  diebus in Asia Turcos, in Europa Mauros christianorum uiribus debellavit, et urbes quondam famosas religionis sue cultui gratia propensiore restituit)1134 .The term Maurus also gives some insight into Raymond's intellectual background, through which he describes the world using concepts known to him. The Spanish theatre of war against the Moors was popular among the warriors from the Southern part of France. For instance, William VIII Duke of Aquitaine with many others participated in the Barbastro campaign of 1064, which was a joint expedition of the Christian forces, sanctioned by Pope Alexander II, against the Hudid Emirate of Lārida 1135 . Raymond of Aguilers was the chaplain of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who in 1087 participated in a campaign against Tudela in the Iberian Peninsula and who was bound by blood ties with the Iberian kingdoms, because in 1094 Count of Toulouse married Elvira, the natural daughter of Alfonso VI of León and Castile 1136 .

  Raymond's contain the account of a certain commander of Kurbugha named Mirdalim (nomine Mirdalim) 1251 , who certainly is a different character than the commander of citadel Antioch from Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia. Raymond's Mirdalim was linked to the information about Kamal al-Din (1192-1262) in the Tārīkh Ḥalab, where the list of Kurbuga's allies appears along the mentions of Djenah ed-Daula, Tughtekin, Duqaq of Damascus and Soqman ibn Ortoq, Wahab ibn Mahmud 1252 . He was to lead a forces of the Arabs who attacked Tell Mannas, the inhabitants of which maintained cordial contact with the Franks 1253 . Kamal al-Din mentions that the Arabs under Wahab ibn Mahmud entered into a quarrel with the Turks and for this reason they left the ranks of the Muslim coalition forces as well as the Turkmens 1254 . Nevertheless, Wahab participates in further events as he appears as one of the advisers of Kurbuga at the battle of Antioch. Wahab proposes to oppose the Franks who leave the city. However, it was not Wahab but another nameless emir, who proposed a massive attack on the Franks, who had not yet fully developed their battle ranks 1255 . Furthermore, it should be noted that Tārīkh Ḥalab is quite late source, and the authors contemporary to the events in Antioch such as Ibn Al-Qalānisī (ca. 1070-1160) in his Ta'rikh Dimashq and Matthew of Edessa (ca. 11th c.-1144) do not mention a character that could be identified in any way with Mirdalim known from Historia Francorum. Therefore, the case of identification of Kamal al-Din's Wahab ibn Mahmud with Raymond's Mirdalim seems complicated and rather doubtful. It is difficult to find common points between the Latin source and the Muslim chronicler. The only thing that connects all relations is that Wahab appears as one of the commanders of Kurbuga. Nonetheless, Wahab is not the only one in narration of Kamal al-Din who advises Kurbuga at the battle of Antioch, and Wahab does not propose an attack on the forces of the Franks before they develop their battle ranks, which is the main determinant of the identification of this character 1251 RA, p. 80. 1252 Tārīkh Ḥalab, pp. 578, 580. 1253 Tārīkh Ḥalab, p. 580. 1254 Tārīkh Ḥalab, pp. 582-583. 1255 Tārīkh Ḥalab, p. 583. with Mirdalim, by S. Runciman, among others 1256 . Furthermore, while it seems possible that the name Ahmad ibn Merwan could have been replaced by the Latinized form of the title of the emir in the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, it is hard to assume that the Arabic Wahab ibn Mahmud was transformed into Mirdalim. Especially in comparison to other Latin adaptations of the Turkish and Arabic, which are usually adapted to Latin pronunciation and after all reflect the original sound: e.g. Cassianus or Aoxianus is Yaghi Siyan (Turkish pronunciation yaːɯsɯjan) 1257 , his son Sensadolus or Sanxadonus is Shams ad-Daula from Kamal al-Din 1258 , Solimannus vetus is Suleyman, Sultan Ar-Rum 1259 , Corbaras, Curbaram, Curbaan -Kurbugha (Turkish Kürboğa) 1260 , Danisman is Malik-Ghazi ibn Danishmend 1261 , Maledoctus or Ducath is Malik Duqaq, emir of Damascus 1262 , Tuldequinus is Tughtekin (Turkish Tuğtekin) 1263 . Other elements of the description known from Raymond's account also raise serious doubts about the identification of Mirdalim with Wahab ibn Mahmud. Chronicler reports that the adviser of Kurbugha escaped from Antioch (quendam Turcum qui de Antiochia aufugerat) 1264 , and was known to the Crusaders because of his military skills: nobilem et nobis notum per miliciam suam (nobleman known to us, because of his military skills) 1265 . Meanwhile, Kamal al-Din makes it clear that Wahab joined Kurbugha when he crossed the Euphrates and it is difficult to point to Ibn Mahmud's earlier ties with Antioch 1266 . Raymond indicates the ethnic origin of the commander, although in this case it should be noted that the Firuz, who was Armenian, was also referred to by them as a Turk 1267 . Nevertheless, it can be concluded from Kamal al-Din's narration that Wahab was most likely an Arab 1268 . Therefore, it is difficult to identify a figure known from the narration of Raymond of Aguilers as Mirdalim with Wahab from the Tārīkh Ḥalab.

  -1102), described as Corbaga or Corbaras 1275 , the commander of the Turks (dux Turcorum) 1276 . As was mentioned above, the name of Latinized form of Kurbugha has a prefix of Cor-, which in vernacular Old French, known from later chansons de geste, describes someone strong and powerful, like Corsolt in Le Couronnemrnt de Lotas 1277 . Raymond presents Kurbugha as the lord of Turks (Turcorum dominus) 1278 , or duke of the Turks (dux Turcorum) 1279 , who quickly wanted to enageg in a battle against Crusaders 1280 .

  Menelaus and Paris which was to settle the dispute over Helen of Troy 1293 . The importance of trial by duel is demonstrated by its presence in the laws of Germanic peoples; it appears, among others in Lex Alamannorum 1294 , Lex Baiuvariorum 1295 , Lex Pious 1298 . Furthemore, the trial by duel is also present in the narrative sources describing the history of such peoples as the Franks or the Longobards, as shown by the examples of the Gregory of Tours' Decem Libri Historiarum 1299 and Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon 1300 . Trial by duel was a judical practice well known in the world of Latin Europe, established with a large admixture of the Germanic influences. The importnace of the tiral by duel is also demonstrated by its durability because one of the most known fights of this kind is the "Combat of the Thirty" ("Combat des Trente"), which took place on 26 March 1351 during the Breton War of Succession, in the framework of the Hundred Years War 1301 . Raymond's mention therefore reflects the sociocultural context of his society, not Kurbugha's, because in the world of Islam there was no known practice of dispute settlement through a duel. In the case of duels in the Islam culture the existence of mobarezon )مبارزون( -the duelers -should be mentioned, who were to fight before battles in single combat against the enemies to decrease the morale of the opponent and to increase the morale of thier comrades, like in the Battle of Badr, where Ali ibn Abi Talib distinguished himself by killing the enemy warriors with their standard bearer. However, this did not entail any legal consequences 1302 .

  mules, and annually tribute 1334 . However, Raymond further indicates that the ruler of Tripoli refused to pay the tribute to the Franks because of the failure of the siege of Arqah and disagreement at the Crusader camp, which occurred when the authenticity of the Holy Lance of Antioch began to be questioned, and the trial of ordalia took place1335 .In consequence, the king of Tripoli became an enemy of Crusaders, which in the literary representation of Raymond of Aguilers gives him several specific traits. Author of Historia Francorum presents the audacious tone of Fakhr al-Mulk, who undermines the basic characteristics of the Franks, namely martial skills by asking Et qui sunt Franci? Et quales milites? Et quanta est eorum potentia? (Who are the Franks? What kind of knights are they? How powerful are they?)1336 .Moreover, the ruler of Tripoli claims that he cannot pay the tribute to the Franks because he does not know their strength (fortitudinem eorum ignoro)1337 . He issues a special challenge for the Crusaders, telling them to come to Tripoli where they can be tested in their military skills (conprobemus miliciam eorum) 1338 . However, the result of this test of Frankish military skills ends badly for the ruler of Tripoli and his army, consisted among others of the Moors, has been crushed.After the defeat, Fakhr al-Mulk sent the tribute of fifteen thousands of golden coins and other goods to the Crusaders 1339 . Therefore, it seems that on the pages of Raymond's account, the ruler of Tripoli plays the ambiguous role of someone who initially supports the Crusaders and pays the tribute to the Franks, but also is the one who tests their military skills and loses the battle. huge role in narration. Duke of Aleppo (dux de Caleph), Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan, is mentioned as the leader of succour of Antioch 1340 . King of Shaizar (rex Cesariae) sent the guides who led the Crusaders along a bad path 1341 . Moreover, he ordered to all of his subjects to flee before the Franks, but Raymond of l'Isle-Jourdain (Raimundus de Insula) captured the king's messenger with letters urging all the natives to flee 1342 . Then, the ruler of Shaizar claims that he sees why the God had chosen the Franks (Video quia Deus hanc gentem elegit), and began to supply them with all the necessary goods 1343 . In the Historia Francorum there is also a mention of the king of Acre (rex Achon), described as the friend of us (amicus noster)1344 . He writes a letter to another Muslim ruler, the duke of Caesarea (dux Cesariae), in which he describes the Franks as a foolish and headstrong race with no rules (Gens stulta atque contentiosa, sine regimine)1345 . Raymond mentions that the letter made it to the hands of the Crusaders and its were made public. Author summarizes that God revealed to the Franks the enemies' secrets (inimicorum nostrorum etiam archana nobis reseraret) 1346 . Raymond's wordplay reveals the change in the role of ruler of Acre on the pages of the Historia Francorum: from amicus the king became inimicus, along with the other enemies'

  through trickery. According to Raymond, one group of Turkish warriors would enter Nicaea through the southern gate and would go out another gate, thereby surprising the army of Franks and allowing them to win the battle. Therefore, the enemy divided their forces into two parts and attacked the Christians. However, Franks had divine protection and God ruined the idea of the Turks because according to Raymond's narration, God would turn the plans of the wicked people upside down (Sed qui consilium impiorum subvertere solet Deus)1401 . A God sent Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles against the Turkish forces and the count destroyed them at the first charge. The Germans (Alemanni), who are clearly distinguished by the author from the Franks, destroyed other forces of the enemy 1402 . This short description shows that the chronicler attributes the main role in this battle 1399 RA, p. 149; cf. N.

  Thus, it was not yet the right expedition to Jerusalem; the right expedition was the one, in which chronicler participated, armed, well prepared to face the enemy and in accordance with the Papal guidelines. Probably Raymond, as a person closely associated with the Papal legate of the Crusade, could admit such a view. Condemnation of the pride of the enemy also appears in the depiction of struggles during the siege of Antioch. In one of Raymond's descriptions of the skirmishes against the enemy, the Turks killed mostly unarmed foragers and started to attack Christian's forces around Antioch 1479 . However, because of the enemy's attacks, the Franks chose Bohemond, Robert of Flanders and Robert of 1476

  sources written during the First Crusade clearly point to a similar perspective, for instance: Pauci enim sumus ad comparationem paganorum. Verum et vere pro nobis pugnat Deus (Because we are few in comparison to pagans. True God truly fights for us) 1645 . 2.2.5.4. Battle of Godfrey of Bouillon -vicarius Dei In one of the narrations the chaplain of Count of Toulouse, Raymond of Aguilers, presents Godfrey of Bouillon, the Duke of Lorraine 1646 in the extremely positive way. The choice of hero as well as the manner of presentation may indicate that the chronicler felt special respect for this commander of the Crusader army; the source of this may have been, for instance, Godfrey's wellknown piety 1647 . However, the literary framework of this battle seems different from other Raymond's heroes' narrations.

  and they wanted to have a Roman Bishop in Eastern Church (episcopum romanum in orientali ecclesia habere voulit) 1743 . Raymond of Aguilers describes the main role of the new Bishop in a strict connection with the expedition and fight against enemy because Bishop of Albara should oppose the pagans as much as possible, aid God and His brethren, and defend the city even unto death. After the election accepted by the people, Raymond of Saint-Gilles gave Peter half of Albara and its environs, securing his material foundations. After this event, the Count of Toulouse returned to Antioch, taking with him the new Bishop, the first Latin Bishop in Syria 1744 .

  most likely written in a period of December 1099 to summer 1101. Although there are many indications that as a canon in the Le Puy-en-Velay Cathedral, Raymond had access to the library containing many works of classical authors, surprisingly, he used almost exclusively the references to the biblical tradition, breviary and Christian liturgy. Moreover, the Historia Francorum indicates that the Latin language used by Raymond was close to the vernacular language. Probably this was due to the fact that the work was addressed to a fairly wide group of recipients who did not necessarily have to be erudite. The content of the Historia Francorum contains countless descriptions of military deeds of the First Crusade's participants, thus the work was written within the framework of epic tradition. This claim is supported by the author's choice of heroes, including the main commanders of the Crusade such as Raymond of Saint-Gilles and Godfrey of Bouillon, but also the less known knights such as Galdemar Carpinel, Raymond Pilet or Geoffrey of Lastours,; because of their deeds, they deserved the praise and were deemed worthy of being featured in the chronicle. In Raymond's Historia Francroum, Adhémar of Le Puy plays a huge and special role because even after his death he still has impact on the ongoing events on the pages of the account and he walks around the city of Jerusalem captured by the Franks.

  Participants of the expedition to Jerusalem on the pages of Raymond's account are perceived as a unique community of both living and dead members of the Crusade, which emphasizes the almost mystical perception of this event by the author.It seems that in comparison to Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, Raymond's account contain more descriptions of struggles, battles and sieges which are not mentioned by other eyewitness authors. For instance, the siege of the fortified place identified with Ḥoṣn al-Akrād or the battle against the Tripolitans appears only in the Historia Francorum. This should not be surprising, however, because Raymond belonged to a different group of Crusaders than the author of Gesta Francorum. Peter Tudebode, besides fragmentary information, does not present the point of view of Raymond of Saint-Gilles' contingent.

  Raymond of Aguilers underlines many religious differences that exist between the Franks and their enemy who repeatedly performs blasphemous acts, desecrating the cross and other sanctities. However, the world of the enemy and his religious and political organization are perceived as mirroring the Franks' community. Therefore, the enemy of Crusaders is presented through the prism of his own categories: there is the Pope of the Turks and the Turkish warriors are described by a term miles. Furthermore, the enemy has own cemeteries and temples, which, through the name used to describe them are connected with the figure of Mohammed. Chronicler presents the clear division into "our God" and "their God". Moreover, Raymond draws attention to the IV. The image of the Enemy-Infidel in Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium is an eyewitness report, one of the four accounts written by the participants of the First Crusade. It was written by Fulcher of Chartres, who took part in the expedition to Holy Land in the forces of Count Stephen of Blois. However, when the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana disappeared from the historical sources in 1127, he was known as the former chaplain of Baldwin I, Count of Edessa (1098-1100) and King of Jerusalem (1100-1118). 1.1. Date of origin of the source Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana is a very specific account of the First Crusade. Author wrote a piece of work which can be clearly divided into three parts, according to period of time when he was writing and the subject of each part. The first part of the Historia Hierosolymitana starts from the Prologue, in which Fulcher presents his causa scribendi as the response to the requests of some of his companions to describe the illustrious deeds of the Franks (Francorum gesta clarissima) who by God's ordinance (Dei ordinatione) made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 1745 . However, the Prologue was not an original part of the first redaction of his work and was added by

1. 4 .

 4 Structure of the Fulcher's account The Historia Hierosolymitana by Fulcher of Chartres is divided into the Prologue and three Books. Book I consists of thirty-six chapters, Book II has sixty-four chapters and Book III sixtytwo. The description of the First Crusade starts from the Council at Clermont in Chapter I and ends at the battle of Ascalon and the return of the victorious Christian forces to Jerusalem in chapter XXXI 1840 . However whole Book I ends with the death of Godfrey of Bouillon in chapter XXXVI, which was commemorated on the pages of the work by an epitaph written by Fulcher 1841 . In the first eight chapters of Book I Fulcher describes the Council of Clermont and the passage of participants of the expedition to Jerusalem from France to the capital of Byzantine Empire. In the chapters IX and X he presented the city of Constantinople and the siege of Nicaea. The chapters from XI to XIII contain the description of the march of Crusaders through Asia Minor and in XIV Fulcher describes the division of the troops of the Crusaders in Heraclea and in consequence of that, the expedition of Baldwin to Edessa. The siege of Antioch and the battle against Kurbugha are the content of chapters from XV to XXIII. Chapters XXIV and XXV describe the events concerning the way to Jerusalem, and from XXVI to XXX Fulcher presents the siege, capture and initial decisions taken in Jerusalem by the Franks. In the Chapter XXXI holds a description of the battle of Ascalon and the next one is about the return of many Crusaders home.

  world and the need to end the ecclesiastical schism with Urban II's appeal calling for the armed rescue of the Eastern Christians. Fulcher considers the Roman Church (Romana ecclesia) as the head of all Christianity (universae Christianitatis) 1880 whereas the Roman Church for the chronicler is this Church, our mother (ea ecclesia…mater nostra)1881 . The author clearly writes in the spirit of the papal discourse, on one hand by seeing the central role of Rome and the need for change and reforms, and on the other hand by evoking the image of the church schism of antipope Clement III that leads to evil 1882 . The Fulcher's perspective of the beginning of the First Crusade and its ideological background drastically differs from the depictions presented by Gesta Francorum, Peter Tudebode and Raymond of Aguilers. Authors other than Fulcher do not refer to the idea of Truce of God as the starting point for the expedition to Jerusalem.

  Tudebode's account and Gesta Francorum mention Urban II's sermon at Clermont but they focus in particular on representation of the Franks as the new chosen people and indicate on the imitatio Christi in taking the cross and going to Saint Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The authors of these sources do not give a different reason to start a Crusade than: When that time had already come (Cum iam appropinquasset ille terminus) 1883 .

Fourthly

  , the representation of the enemy in Fulcher's version of the First Crusade appears in the official papal sermon recorded by the author, so the source of the image is strictly linked with the Papacy and the main idea of peace within Christianity. Therefore, in the Fulcher version of Urban's sermon, the papal discourse and the idea of Truce of God play a significant role.Fulcher's attachment to the Pope could be observed in the short mention about the Turkish reconnaissance before the battle of Antioch, when a certain Turkish noblemen informed Kurbugha that the banner of Bishop of Le Puy advances with the crusading forces, and this is the banner of the mighty Pope (signum magni Papae) 1886 . It should be emphasized out of all the other First Crusade participants, only Fulcher mentions this standard. Starting in the 11th century, the papacy endeavoured to strengthen their position in the Christian world via symbolic acts, such as granting the banner of St Peter to individuals who in return offered themselves as the vassals of Holy See, such as William the Conqueror and Robert Guiscard. Furthermore, Fulcher incorporated the Letter of the crusading leaders into his account, including Bohemond, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Duke Godfrey and his brother Eustace of Boulogne, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders; the letter was addressed to the Pope and dated on 11 September 1098 1887 . This letter could exemplify how non-harmonized of a source the Historia Hierosolymitana is. The author introduces a few inaccuracies to his readers.

2. 3 . 3 .

 33 Enemy as idolaters In the presentation of the city of Jerusalem, Fulcher for the first time in his account presents the image of the enemy as idolaters. Author writes that: All the Saracens held the Temple of the Lord in great veneration. Here rather than elsewhere they preferred to say prayers of their faith although such prayers were wasted because they were offered to an idol set up in the name of Mohammed. They allowed no Christian to enter the Temple 1936 (Hoc Templum dominicum in veneratione magna cuncti Saraceni habuerant, ubi precationes suas lege sua libentius quam alibi faciebant, quamvis idolo in nomine Mahumet facto eas vastarent, in quod etiam nullum ingredi Christianum permittebant) 1937 .

  However, Fulcher describes it comparatively briefly. The ruler of Antioch is only mentioned twice. For the first time, Yaghi Siyan appears alongside his son, Shams ad-Daula, in the appeal for help against the Franks: Aoxianus, Antiochiae princeps et admiratus, filium suum nomine Sanxadonem, ad Soltanum, scilicet imperatorem Persidis, ut eis citissime succurreret, quia in nullo alio spem auxiliandi eis habebant, praeter Mahumet advocatum eorum (Aoxianus, the prince and emir, sent his son Sanxado to the Soltan, that is the Emperor of Persia, urging that he should aid them with all haste. The reason was that they had no hope of other help except from Mohammed their advocate) 1979 . Once again, in Fulcher's account the same way of presenting the enemy can be observed: it uses a foreign transcription of names and imprecise titles. The forms used to name the characters are Aoxianus, to name a ruler of Antioch Yaghi Siyan, and Sanxado for Shams ad-Daula, the ruler's son. This form used by the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana explains and indicates a significant difference between him and other participants of the First Crusade: Raymond of Aguilers mentioned Gitcianus or Gracianus, whereas Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode use the form Cassianus 1980 . It suggests the different intellectual background of the eyewitnesses and it is

2. 4

 4 .1.3. Barkyaruq It seems almost certain that Fulcher recognizes another hostile ruler as someone more important in the political hierarchy of enemy in comparison to Kilij Arslan and Yaghi Siyan because he describes this figure by the term the Emperor of Persia (imperator Persidis) 1984 . According to

  invasion of Magyars into Pannonia and their invasions of Western Europe from the 9th to 10th century. Fulcher's description of the Turks could be summed up to the two main points of their tactic: mobility and archery. The first mention that the Turks are very skilled archers (acres nimis et arcubus sagittarii) appears in the presentation of the bad fate of the Peasants' Crusade 2031 . At the beginning of the Fulcher's work, the Turks have the military advantage over the Christians led by Peter the Hermit and Walter because of their numbers and their military tactic, In Fulcher's description of this event, the Crusaders proved ignorant of the use of arrows by the Turks 2032 .

2. 4 . 3 .

 43 Presentation of the battles In Fulcher's account, descriptions of battles are very common. His point of view is also that of a clergyman, which is reflected by the introduction of moralist and symbolic dimensions into his narrartive. The battles in the Fulcher's narration are presented with the use literary schemes, symbolical matrices and his own specific observations. 2.4.3.1. Iron hooks of the Turks In the description of the siege of Nicaea, Fulcher writes that the Turks treated the bodies of the killed Crusaders with cruelty: Truly you would have grieved and sobbed in pity when the Turks killed any of our men in any way near the wall, for they lowered iron hooks by means of ropes and snatched up the body to plunder it. None of our men dared or were able to wrest such a corpse from them. After stripping the bodies the Turks would throw them outside [the walls] (vere doleretis et pietate suspiraretis, cum aliquem de nostris prope murum quoquomodo trucidassent et submissis uncis ferreis, quos funibus deorsum demittebant, corpus perempti sursum ad se rapiebant, quod nullus nostrum audebat nec poterat ab eis extorquere. Corpore sic exspoliato, cadaver foris iaculabantur) 2062 . Fulcher's observation was completely different from the version presented in the Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia and Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum that focus more on the cruel deeds committed by the Franks, which were intended to frighten the enemy 2063 .

  Turks' hooks used to snatch up the bodies of dead Christian's warriors came from a different social background than other eyewitnesses and this environmental discourse should be taken into account. Other sources written by participants of the First Crusade indicate a South-French or Italian pedigree. While Fulcher of Chartres and Albert of Aachen represented the communities of Northern

Francorum

  and Historia Francorum, chose the content which was close to his audience and his own experience. The siege of Nicaea on the pages of Historia Hierosolymitana was ended when the Turks surrendered to the Emperor Alexius and let Turcopoles (Turcopolos) into the city 2071 . As was mentioned above, the term Turcopolis/Torcopolis in Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's version and Fulcher's Turcopolos derived from Greek term τουρκόπουλοι, sons of Turks. During the expedition to Jerusalem, the vast majority of the Western Crusaders encountered this type of military unit in service of Byzantine Emperor for the first time. Turcopoles reflected the social changes resulting from the Seljuk's invasion on the Byzantine Empire because they were children of mixed Turkish and Greek parentage and they fought like Turkish light cavalry, using bow and light armour. Later, they became a military unit in the Crusader States, where similar social process took place 2072 . However, it was clear for Fulcher and other chroniclers that Turcopoles were different from the Turks and the use of this term indicates Byzantine influences on the vocabulary of the authors of the sources.

  . As can be observed on the example of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, the role of local arabic names is quite important because the city of Tyre in these sources also appears as Sur 2233 , while the term Sagitta is used for a city of Sidon (Ṣaydā) and has the meaning of arrow, bolt in Latin 2234 . A clear difference in the local names is introduced by Fulcher, which is much more based on the literary tradition of the Bible and other written sources, informing about it expressis verbis, unlike other authors. What is worth emphasizing, Fulcher used the work Antiquitates of Flavius Josephus, where he found quite accurate information about the places with which the Franks encountered, maintained in the biblical tradition. Therefore, according to Fulcher, the stronghold of Archas (Arqah) was founded by Aracaeus, son of Canaan, who was grandson of Noah 2235 . Fulcher indicates the cities of Bara and Mara 2236 , Gibellum 2237 , Tripoli 2238 , Berytum 2239 , Ziph 2240 , Ptolemais, which has second name Accam 2241 , Acharon, Ascalon, Jamnia, Azotus 2242 , Arsuth 2243 , Ramatha or

  consideration. H. Diament suggested that the name of Tripolis 2254 , Tripoli 2255 , Tripulis 2256 , could be a sign of the Byzantine Greek influence on the Crusaders and that the Greek clergy could have served as a transmission belt in such an onomastic creation 2257 . Moreover, the Arabic name of that city, Ţarābulus al-Gharb, was not transferred into the eyewitnesses accounts and thus the name of city came from the Greek Tripolis.

  RESUMÉ: L'image de l'ennemi-infidèle façonnée par les relations des témoins oculaires et des participants à la première croisade: le cas des musulmans *L'objectif de ce travail est d'examiner la formation de l'image d'un groupe spécifique « d'autres », façonné dans le contexte socioculturel latino-chrétien à la fin du XIe et au début du XIIe siècle, d'après des récits de témoins oculaires de la première croisade, tels que portés par les Gesta Francorum, l'Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere de Pierre Tudebode, l'Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Ihierusalem deRaymond d'Aguilers et Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium de Foucher de Chartres. Le choix de la base des sources, volontairement limité à deux genres littéraires proches (gesta et historia), permet de restreindre relativement le champ de la construction de l'image des musulmans et, en conséquence, de se concentrer sur l'analyse détaillée des descriptions ; il fournit aussi une base de comparaison limitée mais bien établie dans un matériau relativement homogène. Toutes, les oeuvres-sources indiquées ci-dessus ont été créées de décembre 1099 à 1105 ; toutes, dans leur composition et leur style, sont similaires par l'emploi de la langue latine et l'utilisation de la prose rythmique ; elles présentent des caractéristiques narratives similaires à celles des chansons de geste. Très probablement, toutes ces sources étaient destinées aux cours des chevaliers, célébrant les actes des guerriers chrétiens, et à des personnes moins éduqués que les oeuvres critiques ultérieures du style des chroniques, telles que celles de Guibert de Nogent ou Baudri de Dol.L'analyse est consacrée au cas des musulmans avec lesquels les chrétiens latins ont noué de plus en plus de contacts à cause de l'expédition à Jérusalem. Dans cette perspective, la question se pose de savoir quelles circonstances historiques et socioculturelles ont façonné l'image des musulmans dans les sources analysées, et quelle fut la perception du rôle de l'ennemi dans certains passages comme dans la perspective générale de l'ensemble des travaux. Ainsi, l'étude illustrera la morphologie, les sources et les fonctions de l'image des musulmans du point de vue latin ainsi que le contenu symbolique d'une représentation spécifique. Dans cet ouvrage, le terme d'infidèle-ennemi est considéré du point de vue des auteurs latins et chrétiens des sources, en tant qu'opposant que les croisés ont dû affronter lors des luttes militaires menées lors de l'expédition de Jérusalem, principalement les Turcs Seldjoukides (sans explorer l'étendue de leur islamisation), ou les peuples qui leur étaient subordonnés (en gardant à l'esprit que les Turcs appartenaient à une minorité ethnique au Moyen-Orient), ainsi que les Fatimides et leurs sujets. Le domaine de recherche est déterminé par le cadre des sources écrites. Toutes les descriptions exprimant les attitudes et les idées des chroniqueurs à l'égard des musulmans seront prises en compte. I. L'image des musulmans comme « autres » en tant que problème de réflexion scientifique (état de la recherche et base méthodologique de l'étude) Le sujet de la perception des musulmans dans le cercle culturel latin se situe dans la sphère de la recherche historique inspirée par la pensée théorique de l'anthropologie culturelle, de la psychologie ou de la sociologie, avec l'utilisation d'outils d'interprétation tels que le concept « d'orientalisme », celui de la « représentation », les oppositions binaires (Est/Ouest, Christianisme/Islam, etc.) et le classement de l'ennemi des croisés dans le cadre de la catégorie de « l'autre ». Par conséquent, il ne devrait y avoir aucun doute sur le fait que, pendant les croisades, les peuples présentés dans les sources écrites comme des ennemis du christianisme ne pouvaient être considérés de manière positive. Les chercheurs modernes donnent pour fondement à ces attitudes des auteurs médiévaux latins à l'égard des musulmans : l'hostilité politique, religieuse et idéologique, l'ajustement émotionnel négatif ou la conviction de la supériorité du monde chrétien sur l'islam. De manière générale, de nombreux chercheurs expriment leur opinion sur le manque de compréhension et d'intérêt, dans le cercle culturel latin, pour la réalité sociopolitique des musulmans et de leur religion, ce qui a nui au portrait historique et factuel du monde islamique. Après tout, les sources décrivant les musulmans et leur religion proviennent de leurs ennemis les plus féroces: il s'agissait en majorité de prêtres et de moines représentant une religion différente et n'hésitant pas à présenter la pire image possible de la religion hostile et de ses fidèles. Dans cette perspective, il semble également important d'utiliser les acquis du débat scientifique sur l'état des sciences humaines et sociales pendant la crise de « l'école des Annales », à l'occasion de laquelle le concept dévalorisé de « mentalité » a été remplacé par le concept de « représentation » 2266 . De ce point de vue, l'objectif de l'étude est défini comme une tentative de montrer les images des musulmans à travers le prisme d'idées collectives : non ce que les chrétiens savaient de l'islam, mais quelles représentations ils s'en ont créées et comment cette image se rapporte au monde intellectuel et au contexte socioculturel de chaque auteur. Dans les études sur l'image de l'islam il convient de souligner que, dans la pratique de la recherche, on distingue deux approches : l'hypercritique, comme celle d'Édouard Said, aux yeux duquel presque toutes les mentions des écrivains médiévaux sont fausses et déformées a priori 2267 , ecclésiastique, représenté au tournant des XIe et XIIe siècles, par exemple par Yves de Chartres et saint Anselme du Bec, dans lequel le désir sexuel est condamné comme une force destructrice pour le salut personnel, y compris les activités sexuelles au sein du mariage, si elles ne sont pas destinées à la procréation, mais au plaisir 2369 . Cependant, les relations sexuelles avec les femmes de l'ennemi ont également été clairement condamnées et, selon l'auteur, les Francs auraient retrouvé les femmes dans le camp de l'ennemi après la bataille d'Antioche, mais « ils ne leur ont fait aucun mal [i.e. pas de viols], si ce n'est de les avoir tuées en leur enfonçant leurs lances dans le ventre (Mulieribus in tentoriis eorum inventis, nihil aliud mali eis Franci fecerunt, excepto quod lanceas suas in ventres earum infixerunt) 2370 . Les phrases concernant les femmes païennes sont clairement un exemple « d'altérité » dans les récits à l'exemple de l'interdiction des liens du sang entre chrétiens et musulmans pendant la période des croisades. Les relations sexuelles entre hommes et femmes constituent l'un des éléments les plus fondamentaux de la vie humaine et de l'organisation de la société. À travers les mariages, le groupe pourrait créer des relations avec l'autre groupe et établir des relations amicales. Les relations sexuelles entre chrétiens et musulmans sont présentées comme les relations interdites pour les Francs et considérées comme un péché et une source d'échecs, comme cela a été présenté dans l'Historia de Tudebode et les Gesta Francorum où les femmes musulmanes étaient liées à la mauvaise odeur qui monte au ciel, indiquant l'impureté d'un acte sexuel accompli avec elles 2371 . Pour résumer cette partie, dans les deux récits, l'ennemi était décrit par divers termes, faisant principalement référence à son altérité religieuse ou culturelle et soulignant ses qualités négatives. On peut voir que les auteurs des sources ont utilisé différents termes avec différentes fréquences d'utilisation. Par exemple, dans l'Historia de Tudebode et les Gesta Francorum, les termes paganus et inimicus sont les plus fréquents et le stigmate de la barbarie est utilisé, tandis que Raymond d'Aguilers utilise le plus souvent le terme hostis et reproche sa tyrannie à l'ennemi. D'autre part, Foucher de Chartres applique les termes hostis et paganus, faisant également référence à l'étiquette de barbarie, mais aussi à l'accusation de tyrannie. En premier lieu, selon la pensée chrétienne, les termes relatifs aux païens pourraient être examinés à travers le prisme du discours littéraire, faisant notamment référence à la Bible et au De civitate Dei contra paganos de saint Augustin. Dans cette oeuvre a été exprimée l'idée de l'histoire du monde guidée par Dieu par une intervention divine -la Providence -et où se déroule une guerre métaphysique entre l'Église -la Cité de Dieu et la sainte Jérusalem -et le diable (la Cité du diable, i.e. Babylone). De plus, dans l'Évangile de Matthieu, il a été dit que « si votre frère fait le mal et 2369 Cf. R.M.

  chrétiens. Ainsi, l'ennemi des croisés est décrit par des termes évoquant la dissimilarité culturelle en tant que barbares ou indiquant leur distinction religieuse en tant que païens, incroyants ou excommuniés, les accusant en considérant leur religion comme idolâtre et polythéiste. Il est également intéressant de mentionner que les auteurs les perçoivent comme l'ennemi religieux de tout le christianisme, en leur donnant des références diaboliques en tant que représentants du pouvoir du Mal. De plus, l'ennemi des croisés était également inscrit dans l'histoire du christianisme, jouant un rôle de persécuteur de la foi chrétienne.Cependant, toutes les images diffèrent de manière significative dans la sélection du contenu présenté, la manière dont le sujet est illustré ou la description de la religion de l'ennemi. Par exemple, dans les Gesta Francorum, Mahomet n'est pas décrit comme le dieu de l'ennemi, alors que dans la narration de Tudebode sur le martyre de Rainald Porchet, cela est clairement présenté. De plus, selon Raymond d'Aguilers, la religion de l'ennemi est plutôt une forme de christianisme, avec son propre pape et son faux dieu, mais sans l'étiquette du polythéisme. Par conséquent, il convient de prêter attention au cadre narratif des auteurs individuels provenant de divers domaines géographiques, politiques et socioculturels. Il convient de souligner que l'intérêt des auteurs pour les ennemis musulmans ne constituait pas leur principal objectif. En conséquence, l'ennemi musulman a joué divers rôles en fonction de l'objectif général du travail. Dans la dimension spirituelle, les croisés se considéraient comme imitant le Christ (imitatio Christi), luttant avec les forces du Mal représentées par les Turcs, les Fatimides, etc., en deux dimensions : terrestre et divine. Il est à noter qu'une telle vision n'était pas une spéculation purement abstraite au sens actuel du terme, car il existait également une tendance d'interprétation strictement existentielle. La description des oeuvres de Dieu, en tant que l'aide divine montrée aux croisés par les saints guerriers-martyrs, constituait déjà dans le monde réel une réflexion théologique et, en même temps, une manifestation de la hiérarchie, mais un événement non abstrait. Les auteurs chrétiens étaient guidés par le principe du providentialisme et y croyaient honnêtement. Dans ce contexte, le destin de toute la communauté du peuple de Dieu a été considéré dans la communion intégrale de la terre et de l'histoire divine. L'analyse des Gesta Francorum et des récits de Tudebode et Raymond d'Aguilers permet de mettre en évidence une opposition Néanmoins, il s'agit d'une image négative, dominée d'une part par la peur et, de l'autre, par l'empreinte d'une conviction de supériorité. Les descriptions des capacités de combat turques apparaissent dans tous les récits. Tous les chroniqueurs montrent une large mosaïque de peuples combattant aux côtés des Turcs et des Fatimides, reflétant probablement la réalité politique de la fin du XIe et du début du XIIe siècle. La terminologie utilisée pour décrire les peuples hostiles semble être un mélange de termes génériques (tels que les Sarrasins), acquis sans grande compréhension d'une autre culture comme un signe d'emprunt transculturel (comme pour Azymites), des termes de la littérature ancienne (tels que Persans), ainsi que de termes relevant de la réalité historique, comme pour les Kurdes. Dans ce cas, le substrat factuel correspond parfaitement à la description littéraire ; l'énumération des nations hostiles, différente dans les oeuvres de chacun des auteurs, reflète parfaitement la force de l'adversaire -juste comme le topos du nombre considérable de forces ennemies -qui combattait contre les chrétiens.En conclusion, les représentations des musulmans dans les récits des participants à la première croisade constituent un fait socioculturel qui permet de mieux comprendre l'imaginaire collectif de la communauté chrétienne latine. Une multitude de procédés variés décrivaient l''infidèle ennemi sous forme de topoi et, avec autres procédés littéraires, jeux de mots, attitudes et idées constituaient « le monde du texte » dans lequel se reflétait la conscience sociale. Les auteurs, en fonction de leur passé intellectuel, ont créé l'image de « l'autre » à laquelle ils ont été confrontés lors de la première croisade. Bien que l'image ait été formée peu de temps après les événements, du point de vue des conflits culturels, il convient de souligner que l'image de ces témoins oculaires était proche de l'auditoire des chevaliers, en attente d'une description des victoires militaires plutôt que d'une conférence théologique.Cette image spécifique remplissait plusieurs fonctions, en fournissant des informations, même déformées, sur l'ennemi (la fonction de savoir) ; elle pourrait être utile pour souligner l'identité collective (la fonction d'identité), les manifestations du comportement de « l'autre » donnant l'occasion prendre conscience des comportements souhaités dans sa propre communauté (fonction d'orientation) ; quant à l'image négative, elle permet de justifier et de légitimer les actions les plus cruelles contre l'ennemi (fonction de justification). Il convient donc de souligner que cette image a été créée après la confrontation militaire, quand les attributs positifs de l'adversaire ne servaient qu'à souligner la gloire de la victoire des croisés et la supériorité de Dieu. Ainsi, la représentation des musulmans dans les récits de la première croisade tenus par des témoins oculaires n'est même pas une image ambivalente, mais bien une image négative de l'infidèle ennemi.

  , pp. 58-97; J.M.A. Beer, Narrative Conventions of Truth in the Middle Ages, Genève 1981, pp. 24-34; Y.N. Harari, Eyewitnessing in Accounts of the First Crusade: The Gesta Francorum and Other Contemporary Narratives, "Crusades" 3 (2004), pp. 77-99; E. Lapina, Nec signis nec testibus creditor. The Problem of Eyewitnesses in the Chronicles of the First Crusade, "Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies" 38 (2007), pp. 117-139. 89 GF (Hill), p. xxxviii; GF (Dass), p. 7. 90 GF (Hill), pp. xxxviii-xlii; GF (Dass), pp. 7-8; PT, p. 19; J. Flori, Chroniqueurs et propagandistes. Introduction critique aux sources de la Première croisade, Genève 2010, pp. 68-69; cf. GF (Bréhier), pp. xxii-xxxiv; there is also a manuscript in a close correspondence to Gesta and Historia from around the middle of the 13th century in a collection of texts in St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, 3. However, it is described as the Peregrinatio Antiochie; cf. M. Bull, The Relationship Between the Gesta Francorum and Peter Tudebode's Historia de Hierosolymitano

Itinere: The Evidence of a Hitherto Unexamined

Manuscript (St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, 3)

,

"Crusades" 11 (2012)

, pp. 1-17; S. Niskanen, The origins of the Gesta Francorum and two related texts: Their textual and literary character, "Sacris Erudiri" 51/1 (2012), pp. 287-316. 91 EA, p. 148; EA (RHC), p. 21.

  Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade, in: Studies in French Language and Mediaeval Literature: What is the GestaFrancorum..., p. 202; in response to this opinion Y.M. Harari and also E. Lapina proposed that the emphasis on the autorship of Gesta Francroum whether individual or collective has been treated as a badly posed problem and the authorship is unimportant because of the tradition of medieval historiography, which

	Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, Manchester 1939, pp. 183-209.
	152 GF (Bréhier), pp. v-viii.
	153 GF (Bréhier), p. vii.
	154 J. Rubenstein,

privileges divine inspiration over the direct observations; cf. Y.M. Harari, op. cit.; E. Lapina, Nec signis nec testibus creditor.

166

  Annae Comnenae Alexias, eds. D.R. Reinsch, A. Kambylis, t. 1, Prolegomena et textus, t. 2, Indices, in: Corpus Author of the Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere Peter Tudebode presents himself as a priest from Civray (Sivracensis), a place located about 50 km South of Poitiers 170 . The indication on the place of origin appears in the three of the four manuscripts of his account. Peter writes about himself while he describes the procession around Jerusalem 171 . He describes the death of two of his close kin, maybe brothers. Arvedus Tudebode was killed during the siege of Antioch and Arnaldus died during the struggle at Ma'arrat an-Numan 172 .

	Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 40/1-2, Berlin-New York 2001 (=Alexias), X, 8, 8, p. 307; about the fighting
	churchmen cf. C.M. Nakashian, Warrior Churchmen of Medieval England, 1000-1250. Theory and Reality,
	Woodbridge 2016.
	167 GF, III, 7, p. 147; IX, 1, p. 194; XXV, 1, p. 341; cf. R. Rogers, Peter Bartholomew and the Role of the 'Poor' in the
	First Crusade, in: Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages: essays presented to Karl Leyser, eds. T.
	Reuter, K.J. Leyser, London 1992, pp. 109-122; C. Kostick, op. cit., pp. 95-130; S.V. Elst, The Knight, the Cross,
	and the Song: Crusade Propaganda and Chivalric Literature, 1100-1400, Philadelphia 2017, p. 27.

168

Cf. bellipotens GF, IV,

1, p. 147; acerrimus GF XX, 6, p. 303; vir

prudens GF XVII, 2, p. 267; fortissimus GF VI, 3, p. 171; fortissimus Christi athleta GF, XII, 5, p. 247. 169 Cf. R.E. Curtius, Literatura europejska i łacińskie średniowiecze, Kraków 2009 [Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern 1948], pp. 543-546; W. Mrozowicz, Autobiographisches in der Schlesischen 1.3.2.

  Niskanen was earlier than Gesta Francorum, actually does not imply any wider changes, much less a literary genre of the work. The examples of the type of historiography similar to GF or PT, describing the heroic deeds of particular character or whole community, having similar implications, are the chansons de geste like La Chanson de Roland or other gesta such as William of Jumièges' Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Anonymous'

Gesta Hungarorum, Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, Widukind of Corvey's Res gestae Saxonicae and Radulf Caen's Gesta Tancredi. Thus, the modern scholars have not failed in defining what the Gesta Francorum is, classifying it as an exemplar of gesta. About the Crusader written sources, cf. E.

Lapina, Crusader Chronicles, in:

The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of the

Crusades, ed. A. Bale, Cambridge-New York 2019, pp. 11-24.

  the subject of the Holy War and Proto-and Crusading movement from the perspective of Kingdom of Poland: cf. Du sacré. Croisades et pèlerinages. Images et langages,Paris 1987, pp. 264-287; in the French historiography a question was posed that "Christendom" even existed at the time of writing of the chronicles about First Crusade (cf. M. Zerner, Le comte de Toulouse Raymond IV, chef d'un peuple à la croisade, "Publications de l'École française de Rome" 168/1 (1993), pp. 45-60; D. Iogna-Prat, La Terre sainte disputée, "Médiévales" 41 (2001), pp. 83-112). However, in the Gesta and Historia are several indication that they used the term Christianity (e.g. GF, X, 1, p. 208; PT, p. 55: sancta Christianitas -Holy Christianity), and understand it as the community of Christians, especially Western Christians, but also Syrians, Greeks and Armenians. So the term Christianity can therefore be used as much as possible in the context of the analyzed works, without an accusation of the mark of anachronism.

M. Gładysz, Zapomniani krzyżowcy. Polska wobec ruchu krucjatowego w XII-XIII wieku, Warszawa 2002 (=The Forgotten Crusaders: Poland and the Crusader Movement in the Twelth and Thirteenth Centuries, Boston-Leiden 2012; D. von Güttner-Sporzyński, Poland, Holy War and the Piast Monarchy, 1100-1230, Turnhout 2014; Idem, Holy War and Proto-Crusading. Twelfth-Century Justifications for the Campaigns against the Pomeranians and Prussians, in: Crusading on the Edge: Ideas and Practice of Crusading in Iberia and the Baltic Region, 1100-1500, eds. T. K Nielsen, I. F. Schmidt, Turnhout 2016, pp. 225-244. 275 Cf. A. Dupront, 276 J. Stuckey, The Vita Karoli and the Making of a Royal Saint, in: The Charlemagne Legend in Medieval Latin Texts, eds. W.J. Purkis, M. Gabriele, Woodbridge 2016, p. 54.

  Franks, which does not give too good testimony to these local communities among Latin writers 341 . Moreover, in consequence of information donated to the Turks by the Syrians and Armenians, the enemies of Crusaders could prepare the ambushes for them. Furthermore, in this narration the authors describe the Turks as excommunicati. The Latin word excommunicatio means Chronographia was available in the Latin translation of Anastasius the Librarian in the 9th century as well as the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius translated into Latin in the 8th century 347 . However, as J.V. Tolan shows the textual transmission of the idea of Islam as heresy in the North of Europe in

	Worth emphasizing is the case of transmission of the idea about Islam as the heresy that
	could influenced the eyewitnesses authors of the First Crusade. The text of Theophanes'
	the time before the Crusades was quite insignificant, and the knowledge of the works presented
	"outside the community", "exclusion from the community", thus it expresses the exclusion from the above from the Iberian Peninsula was very limited. Nevertheless, the works by authors such as
	Christian community. This categorization is still surprising: if the Turks are seen as Isidore of Seville, Jerome and Bede the Venerable might have influenced the thought of Latin
	excommunicated, would they not have originally belonged to the community? It is worth authors 348 .
	considering whether the authors of Gesta and Historia could consider the Turks in the framework of
	discourse of the Islam as a Christian heresy.
	In this context Islam was presented by Guibert of Nogent or Peter the Venerable and later
	polemical tradition 342 . However, the perception of Islam as Christian heresy at the end of the 11th
	century and the beginning of the 12th century had a long established tradition. Already in the 8th
	century, John of Damascus in one of his works placed Islam as the last of a hundred other heresies,
	situating it within the biblical genealogy as descendants of Hagar and her son Ishmael, considering
	Mohammed as a false prophet, being on the influence of the Arian monk Bahira, but not as a God 343 .
	Similarly, Islam was presented by the 9th-century authors from the Iberian Peninsula. Alvaró de
	Córdoba presented the Muslim conquest in an apocalyptic vision of world's history and saw
	Mohammed as the precursor of the Antichrist. Moreover, Eulogius characterized Mohammed as a
	false prophet, who was announced in the Gospel of Matthew, including Islam in the Christian vision
	of history 344 . Furthermore, in the reaction to the Arab conquest, the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-
	Methodius from the 7th century presented the rise of the Antichrist, where this apocalyptic figure
	was personified by Mohammed. In the content of the text it is important that the Christians are
	punished for their sins by Muslims, but they will be overthrown by a Christian Emperor-Saviour 345 .
	In a similar vein, Theophanes the Confessor in his Chronographia (Χρονογραφία) presented
	Mohammed as the Antichrist and Islam as a heresy, consisting of Jewish and Christian elements 346 .
	340 GF, XII, 4, pp. 244-245; PT, p. 64.
	341 About the alliance with the Muslims as contributing to the perception in the bad light in the Western point of view
	cf. A.H. Cutler, H.E. Cutler, The Jew As Ally of the Muslims. Medieval Roots of Anti-Semitism, Indiana 1986.
	342 Cf. N. Daniel, Islam and the West..., pp. 35-99; J.V. Tolan, Saracens…, pp. 135-169, 209-213; Idem, Faces of
	Muhammad..., pp. 44-72.
	343 John of Damascus, Liber de haeresibus, in: Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 4, ed. P.B. Kotter, Berlin
	1981 [=John of Damascus, Liber de haeresibus], pp. 19-67; cf. J.V. Tolan, Saracens..., pp. 50-55.
	344 J.V. Tolan, Saracens..., pp. 88-97
	345 Cf. Pseudo-Methodius: Apocalypse. An Alexandrian World Chronicle, ed. and trans. B. Garstad, Cambridge MA
	2012.
	346 Cf. Theophanes Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD284-
	813, trans. C. Mango, R. Scott, Oxford 1997 [=The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor], pp. 463-465.

  PT, p. 137; cf. M.C. Gaposchkin, The Pre-battle Processions of the First crusade and the Creation of Militant Christian Communitas, "Material Religion. The Journal of Objects Art and Belief" 14/4 (2018), pp. 454-468, who widely presents that aim of such supplicatory processions, which were to be transformative both individually and collectively, changing a state of sin to a state of grace.

  Baldric of Dol and Orderic Vitalis mentioned that the army of the enemy of the Crusaders consisted of the Turks, Arabs, Saracens, Persians, and everyone except for Guibert noted Angulans 402 . The version of the Montecassino Chronicle is almost identical with the account of Tubeode and Gesta Francorum 403 . Lengthier was description made by Robert the Monk in the

	the Arabs whose number no man knows; only God knows 399 (Turci et Arabes et Saraceni et
	Angulani et omnes barbarae nationes dederunt velociter fugam per compendia montium et per
	plana loca. Erat autem numerus Turcorum, Persarum, Publicanorum, Saracenorum, Angulanorum
	aliorumque paganorum CCCLX milia extra Arabes, quorum numerum nemo scit nisi solus Deus) 400 .
	The enumeration of the enemies' nations during the battle of Dorylaeum has gained a topical
	character in other sources of the First Crusade. Stephen, Count of Blois, in the Second Letter to his
	wife dated back to 29 March 1098, apart from the Turks mentions Saracens, Publicans, Arabs,
	Turcopoles, Syrians, Armenians and other different nations (Saracenis, Publicanis, Arabibus,
	Turcopolitanis, Syriis, Armenis aliisque gentibus diversis) 401 . In the second generation of the
	Crusade's historians the description of the battle of Dorylaeum was created in a similar term.
	Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana, where the author enumerated Persians, Publicans, Medes, Syrians,
	Candei, Saracens, Agulans, Arabs and Turks, giving a show of his erudition 404 . However, what was
	the purpose and significance of this rhetorical figure? Why did the authors enumerate a great
	number of the nations' names? Were they ethnic names or just a way to present "others" in a
	framework of classical of biblical tradition? Or maybe the factual substrate was interspersed with a
	literary vision?
	, pp. 47-49; J. Dudek, Pęknięte zwierciadło. Kryzys i odbudowa wizerunku władcy bizantyńskiego od 1056
	roku do ok. 1095 roku [A broken mirror. Crisis and reconstruction of the image of the Byzantine ruler from 1056 to
	around 1095], Zielona Góra 2009, pp. 252-261.

  Encountering Islam..., pp. 147-149; who claims that the Crusaders presented the Arabs in a very different way to the Turks, however, it seems that in the case of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's work the Arabs are not considered as the ethnic group, different in many aspects from the Turks, but rather as a component of the world of the enemy, where they stand side by side to the Turks and Saracens against the Crusaders like in the battleIn the case of the term of "Saracens" what dominates is the almost purely literary understanding of the word as defined by the Bible's tradition 414 . The name was disseminated in the 4th century. From the Christian perspective, the Saracens had references to the biblical origin's discourse. Eusebius of Caesarea noted that they came from Sarah and Hagar, referring to Genesis' episode415 . In the Genesis Ishmael was the first son of Abraham, born of the Egyptian slave Hagar.

	409 , as well as in the siege of
	Ma'arrat an-Numan 410 . Moreover, Kilij Arslan meets ten thousand Arabs after the defeated battle
	again the Crusaders 411 , and the Kurbugha's army consisted of the Arab forces 412 . Thus, the word
	"Arab" does not seem to have on the pages of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's account the strictly
	ethnic meaning, because it is likely that a general and cultural term refers to Muslims inhabitated
	the Middle East, who are supporters of the Turks 413 .
	407 Josh 15.52; 2 Chr 17.11; 26.7; 2 Macc 12.10-11; Neh 4.7.
	408 GF, IX, 7, p. 202; IX, 9, p. 204; PT, pp. 53-54.
	409 GF, XIII, 5, p. 250; PT, p. 66.
	410 GF, XXXIII, 1, p. 402; PT, p. 121.
	411 GF, X, 1, p. 209; PT, p. 56.
	412 GF, XXI, 1, p. 314; PT, p. 89.
	413 Cf. N. Morton,

  After this event, the Turcopoles and Pechengs attacked the Bohemond's army during the further march near the Vardar River. The Normans won the battle and captured many of the attackers. Bohemond posed a question to them: Quare, miseri, occiditis gentem Christi et meam?

	mentioned it.
	Ego cum vestro imperatore nullam altercationem habeo 456 (Why, wretches, did you slaughter
	Christ's men and mine? I have no quarrel with your emperor)
	Isa 26.11; Ps(s) 79; Gen 19.24.
	455 Mark 9.49.

   The First Crusaders..., p. 219. 511 The whole story about martyrdom of Rainald Porchet, PT, pp.79-81; it is also present in the Chanson d'Antioche (cf. The Chanson d'Antioche An Old French Account of the First Crusade, transl. S.B. Edgington, C. Sweetenham, London-New York 2011 [=The Chanson d'Antioche], 164

80-81; cf.

detailed comparatistic study about the influences of martyrologies on Tudebode cf. S. Loutchiskaya, L'idée de conversion dans les chroniques de la première croisade, "Cahiers de civilisation médiévale" 177 (2002), pp.

46-48. 510

  Cf. J. Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study Into Augustine's City of God and the Sources of His Doctrine of

the Two Cities, Leiden 1991; S.

Loutchiskaya, The Muslim Political World as Mirrored..., p. 347

; A. Scheil, Babylon under Western Eyes: A Study of Allusion and Myth, Toronto 2016. 614 Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale. 8: Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées, Tarn-et-Garonne , eds. R. Favreau, J. Michaud, B. Mora, Paris 1982, pp. 137-145; A. Gieysztor, The Genesis of the Crusades: The Encyclical of Sergius IV (1009-1012), "Medievalia et Humanistica

  discipulis ascendentem, ac deinde consolationem Sancti Spiritus perfecte mittentem et eum in caelo et in terra regnantem recta mente et fide credidissent, ipsis potentiores vel fortiores vel bellorum ingeniosissimos nullus invenire potuisset: et tamen gratia Dei victi sunt a nostris 660 (What man, however experienced and learned, would dare to write of the skill and prowess and courage of the Turks, who thought that they would strike terror into the Franks, as they had done into the Arabs and Saracens, Armenians, Syrians and Greeks, by the menace of their arrows? Yet, please to God, their men will never be as good as ours. They have a saying that they are of common stock with the Franks, and that no men, except the Franks and themselves, are naturally born to be knights. This is true, and nobody can deny it, that if only they had stood firm in the faith of Christ and holy Christendom, and had been wiling to accept One God in Three Persons, and had believed rightly and faithfully that the Son of God was born of a virgin mother, that he suffered, and rose

	Franci et illi. Veritatem dicam, quam nemo audebit prohibere: Certe, si in fide Christi et
	Christianitate sancta semper firmi fuissent et unum Dominum in trinitate confiteri voluissent,
	Deique filium natum de virgine matre, passum et resurgentem a mortuis et in caelum suis
	655 GF, VIII, 3, pp. 181-182; cf. PT, p. 49.

. After this message Peter and Herluin come back to the Crusaders' camp and report what the Turkish leader said

659

. The mention about the chains that Kurbugha intends to link to defeated Crusaders plays a significant role in the text; it emphasizes the pride of the enemy, staying in reference to the image of Kurbugha. Similarly to the case of the battle of Nicaea, the literary vision could be clearly observed; the enemy who was not humble was condemned by the defeat from the hands of the Franks.

2.4.4.2. In praise of the enemy's military valour

After the battle of Dorylaeum the authors of Gesta Francorum and Historia de Hierosolymitano Itinere made the descriptions about the Turkish enemy: Quis unquam tam sapiens aut doctus audebit describere prudentiam, militiam et fortitudinem Turcorum? Qui putabant terrere gentem Francorum nimis suarum sagittarum, sicut terruerunt Arabes, Saracenos et Heremenios, Suranios et Graecos? Sed, si Deo placet, nunquam tantum valebunt quantum nostri. Verumtamen dicunt se esse de Francorum generatione, et quia nullus homo naturaliter debet esse miles nisi 656 GF (Dass), p. 37. 657 GF, XXVIII, 4, p. 366; PT, p. 109.

658 GF, XXVIII,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] p. 367; PT, p. 109. 659 GF, XXVIII, 5, p. 367; PT, p. 109

. cernentibus from the dead and ascended in the sight of his disciples into Heaven, and sent them in full measure the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and that he reigns in Heaven and earth, you could not find stronger or braver or more skilful soldiers; and yet by God's grace they were beaten by our men) 661 .

  Reichl, op. cit., pp. 13-55; K. Uray-Kőhalmi, J.-P. Roux, P.N. Boratav, E. Vertes, Götter und Mythen in Zentralasien und Nordeurasien, Stuttgart 1999.667 Fredegarii et aliorum chronica, in: MGH: SRM 2, ed. B.Krusch, Hanover 1888, pp. 46, 93. 668 Cf. J. Barlow, Gregory of Tours and the Myth of the Trojan Origins of the Franks, "

	Frühmittelalteriche Studien" 29
	(1995), pp. 86-95; H.H. Anton, Troja-Herkunft, origo gentis und frühe Verfaßtheit der Franken in der galisch-
	fränkischen Tradition des 5. bis 8. Jahrhunderts, "Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische
	Geschichtsforschung" 108 (2000), pp. 1-30.

669

A.V. Murray, William of Tyre and the origin of the Turks: observations on possible sources of the Gesta orientalium principum, in: Dei Gesta per Francos: Etudes sur les croisades dédiés à Jean Richard: Crusade studies in honour of Jean

Richard, eds. M. Balard, B. Kedar, J. Riley-Smith, Aldershot 2001, pp. 223-224.

  Tajna historia Mongołów. Anonimowa kronika mongolska z XIII w. [The Secret History of the Mongols], transl.

	673 GF, XVIII, 10, pp. 285-286; PT, p. 77.
	674 Cf. M. Wołoszyn, Między wschodem a zachodem: pochówek wojownika ze stanowiska 1 C w Gródku, pow.
	hrubieszowski, woj. Lubelskie [Between the East and the West: a burial of the warrior from site 1c at Gródek,
	Hrubieszów district, Lublin province], in: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia: Sztuka wojenna na pograniczu polsko-rusko-
	słowackim w średniowieczu, vol. 1, eds. J. Machnik, W. Banach, P.N. Kotowicz, Kraków-Sanok 2005, pp. 87-105.

675

Cf. S.

Kałużyński, Warszawa 1970, 190, p. 132. 676

GF, II, 7, p. 122; PT, p. 35.

677

Cf. N.

Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 92. 678 GF, X,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] p. 215; PT, p. 58.

  680 GF, XXI, 1, p. 315; PT, p. 89. 681 Isa 6.3; Jer 7.4; D. Forstner, op. cit., Cf. M. Mielczarek, Cataphracti and Clibanari (Studies on the History of the Ancient & Mediaeval Art of Warfare),

	Łódź 1993.

683

Cf. H. Kennedy, The armies of the Caliphs military and society in the early Islamic state, London 2005, pp. 168-182.

684

Cf. ibid., pp. 118-147.

  Cf. C. Sweetenham, Crusaders in a Hall of Mirrors..., p. 55. Ursprung und Wesen der 'Knabenlese' im osmanischen Reich, Münich 1963, the practice of the devshirme was: the forcible removal, in the form of a tribute, of children of the Christian subjects from their ethnic, religious, and cultural environment and their transplantation into the Turkish-Islamic environment

	694 GF X, 2, pp. 210-211; PT, pp. 56-57.
	695 GF (Dass), note 5, p. 131.
	696 According to B.D. Papoulia,

with the aim of employing them in the service of the Palace, the army, and the state, whereby they were on the one hand to serve the Sultan as slaves and freedmen and on the other to form the ruling class of the State ; cf. V.L. Ménage, Some Notes on the Devshirme, "Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies" 29/

1 (1966), pp. 64-78.

  St Augustine in De civitate Dei claimed that the origin of all the sins is superbia 710 . Pope Gregory the Great placed it as the origin of all sins as the

	700 GF, II, 4, p. 115; PT, p. 34.
	701 GF, II, 4, p. 116; PT, p. 34.
	702 GF, II, 4, p. 116; PT, p. 34.
	703 GF, II, 4, pp. 115-116; cf. PT, p. 34.
	704 Cf. GF (Dass), pp. 26-27.
	705 Prov 16.5; 16.19; Matt 19.30; Luke 14.11; cf. C. Casagrande, S. Vecchio, Histoire des péchés capitaux au Moyen
	Âge, Paris 2003, pp. 19-65.
	706 Prov 16.18.
	707 Isa 14.13-14.

708

W. Hempel, Übermuot Diu Alte Der Superbia-Gedanke und Seine Rolle in Der Deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, Bonn 1970, pp. 7-9. 709 F. Bardziński, Pojęcie hybris w kulturze i filozofii greckiej, "Ethics in Progress" 7/2 (2016), pp. 31-57.

710

De civitate dei,

XII, 6, pp. 359-360.

  Cf. M. Starr, Saint Michael: The Archangel, Boulder 2007.

716 GF, II,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] cf. PT, p. 35. 717 GF, II,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] PT, II, 7, p. 121; PT, p. 35. 719 GF, II, 7, p. 122; PT, p. 35.

  . The altar is considered as the table of theLord (τραπεζα

	724 PT, p. 36.
	725 PT (Hill&Hill), p. 20.
	726 GF, note 70, p. 126.
	727 2 Chr 23.17.
	728 2 Kgs 23.20.
	729 1 Macc 2.24.
	730 Lam 2. 20.
	731 Matt 23.35.
	732 M. Greenberg, The Biblical Conception of Asylum, "Journal of Biblical Literature" 78 (1959), pp. 125-132; G.
	Stevenson, Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation, Berlin-New York 2001, pp. 103-112,
	161-164.
	733 Matt 5.23-24.

  735 , where the priest makes the sacrifice. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus Christ reminds the importance of the altar forgotten by the Pharisees: You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it 736 . The altar itself symbolizes Jesus Christ and it is a reminder of the encounter with God.The altar as the place of death of saints' martyrs appears in two other cases. Saint Thomas Becket was a friend and chancellor of Henry II. In 1162, he was consecrated as an Archbishop of Canterbury enjoying the king's support. Soon after this event, he came in conflict with the king. This quarrel between Henry II and Archbishop Thomas from 1163 to 1170 is known as "Becket controversy" 737 . It was ended when four knights from the royal household interpreted the words of Henry II as the command to kill an Archbishop. According to Vita S. Thomae written by Edward Grim, Thomas Becket was martyred between the altars of the blessed mother of God and the holy confessor Benedict in the Canterbury's Cathedral in 1170 738 .

	735 1 Cor 10.21.
	736 Matt 23.19-20.
	737 J.W. Alexander, The Becket Controversy in Recent Historiography, "Journal of British Studies" 9/2 (1970), pp. 1-26.
	738 E. Grim, Vita S. Thomae, in: Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J.C.
	Robertson, no. 67, vol. 2, in: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, London 1876 [repr. 2012], p. 436; cf. D.
	Knowles, Thomas Becket, London 1970; F. Barlow, Thomas Becket, Berkeley 1986; M. Staunton, The Lives of
	Thomas Becket, Manchester 2001; Idem, Thomas Becket and His Biographers, Woodbridge 2006; A. Duggan,
	Thomas Becket, London 2005.

E. Magnani-Soares-Christen, Transforming Things and Persons. The Gift pro anima in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, in: Negotiating the Gift. Pre-modern Figurations of Exchange, eds. G.

Algazi, V. Groebner, B. Jussen, Göttingen 2003, pp. 269-284.

κυρίου; mensa Domini)

The next example comes from the Kingdom of Poland. Saint Stanislaus, a patron of Poland, was a Bishop of Cracovia and he was martyred on the altar by the king Bolesław II the Bold during the Mass. According to the description made by Bishop Vincentius on the pages of the Chronicles of the Kings and Princes of Poland, the Bishop was in a conflict with the king because of prolonged war in Ruthenia. The wives of Polish knights, when they were at the campaign, were taken over by slaves and servants. In this case, a huge part of Polish army deserted and returned home. The king punished the soldiers' faithless wives very cruelly by the breast-feeding of dogs. Bishop Stanislaus condemned this act. Bolesław II ordered his knights to capture and kill the Bishop, but finally he killed him himself on the altar. After this, the king was deposed from the throne, died on exile and his son was murdered after returning to Poland 739 . However, it should be clearly stated, that the murder of the Bishop by the King at the altar is a hagiographic vision and raises doubts as a historical fact. The previous chronicler, Gallus Anonymus (11th c.-after 1116), writes about punishing the Bishop by issuing him for dismemberment (truncatio membrorum), so there was no question of killing by the ruler himself 740 . Furthermore, it seems that Becket's case could be an echo 739 Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek), Kronika polska, ed. B.

Kürbis, Wrocław 2003, II, 20-21, pp. 74-80; M. Plezia, Dookoła sprawy świętego Stanisława. Studium źródłoznawcze, "Analecta Cracoviensia" 11 (1979), pp. 251-413; K. Skwierczyński, op. cit., pp. 115-145. 740 GA, I, 27, pp. 52-53.

  Cf. D. Borawska, Z dziejów jednej legendy. W sprawie genezy kultu św. Stanisława Biskupa, Warszawa 1950; W. Uruszczak, Les répercussions de la mort de Thomas Becket en Pologne (XIIe-XIIIe siècles), in: Thomas Becket et la France. Actes du colloque international deSédières 19-24 août 1973, ed. R. Foreville, Paris 1975, pp. 115-125: T.

Wünsch, Kultbeziehungen zwischen dem Reich und Polen im Mittelalter, in: Das Reich und Polen. Parallelen, Interaktionen und Formen der Akkulturation im hohen und späten Mittelalter, ed. T.

Wünsch ,Ostfildern 2003, pp. 374-377. 742

Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek), Kronika polska, II, 20, pp. 75. 743 Rev 6.9.

  753 . It is a clear indication, that the fight with the infidels during this expedition to Jerusalem could bring to the Franks a palm of martyrdom and salvation if they died during the battle.

	747 GF, VIII, 3, p. 181; PT, p. 49.
	748 GF, VIII, 3, p. 181; PT, p. 49.
	749 GF, VIII, 3, pp. 181-182; cf. PT, p. 49.

750

GF (Dass), p. 37.

751 GF, VIII,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] PT, p. 49. 752

J. Markale, L'épopée celtique en Irlande,

Paris 1971, p. 48. 753 GF, VIII, 9, p. 198; PT, p. 50.

   J. Maillard, Modulorum Ioannis Maillardi..., p. xviii. 766 Cf. J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea..., pp.95-97, 101-103, 105-107. 767 Cf. T. Asbridge, The Holy Lance of Antioch: Power, Devotion and Memory on the First Crusade, "Reading MedievalStudies" 33 (2007), pp. 3-36. 768

  Gaposchkin, op. cit., p. 110. 788 GF, XXIX, 2, PT, p. 110.

789

Exod 17.8-13. 790 1 Sam 7.2-17.

791

Cf. H.-Ch. Schmitt, Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch,

Berlin-New York 2001, pp. 155-164.

  GF, XXXIII,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] p. 405; PT, p. 122. 794 GF, XXIX,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] p. 372; PT, p. 111. 795 GF, XXIX,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] p. 372; PT, p. 111. 796 GF, XXIX,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] p. 372; PT, p. 111. 797 GF, XXIX,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] p. 373; PT, p. 111. 798 GF, XXIX, 5,

  PT, p. 112; PT (Hill&Hill), p. 88. 801 GF, XXIX, 5, p. 376; PT, p. 112. 802 Cf. L. Russo, Maccabei e crociati: Spunti per una riflessione sull'utilizzo della tipologia biblica nelle fonti della prima crociata', in: Auctor et auctoritas in Latinis Medii Aevi litteris: Author and Authorship in Medieval Latin

Literature, eds. E. D'Angelo, J. Ziolkowski, Florence 2014, pp. 979-994; E. Lapina, Warfare and the Miraculous in the Chronicles of the First Crusade, Pennsylvania 2015, pp. 97-121. 803 Rev 6.2. 804 Rev 7.9.

  the cult of St. George cf. E. Dehoux, Des saints, une société. Des saints guerriers (Georges, Guillaume, Martin, Maurice, Michel) dans les images et la littérature du royaume franc (VIIIe-XIIIe siècle), Poitiers 2010; Eadem, Saints guerriers: Georges, Guillaume, Maurice et Michel dans la France médiévale (XIe -XIIIe siècle), Rennes 2014. 809Malaterra, II, 33, p. 44. 810 The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard by GeoffreyMalaterra, transl. K.B. Wolf, Michigan 2008, pp. 109-110. 811

  [START_REF] Knoch | Studien zu Albert von Aachen[END_REF] GF, XXXIII, 7, p. 408; PT, p. 124. 839 GF, XXXVII, 2, p. 452; PT, p. 134. 840 GF, XXXVII, 5, p. 458; PT, p. 135. 841 GF, XXXVII,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] p. 458; PT, p. 136.

842 GF, XXXVII, 7, p. 459.

  Madden, Rivers of Blood: An Analysis of One Aspect of the Crusader Conquest of Jerusalem in 1099, "Revista Chilena de Estudios Medievales" 1 (2012), pp. 25-37; K. Hirschler, The Jerusalem Conquest of 492/1099 in the Medieval Arabic Historiography of the Crusades: From Regional Plurality to Islamic Narrative, "Crusades" 13 (2014), pp. 37-76. 863 2 Cor 6.15; 864 Deut. 20.10-14; Josh 6.21; 10.32-40. 865 GF, XVIII, 6, p. 282, PT, p. 76.

866 GF, XXXIX, 8, p. 488; PT, p. 144.

  It seems that the passage from the Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia remains in

	886 GF, XIII, 2, p. 249; PT, p. 65.
	887 GF, XI, 6, pp. 234-236; cf. PT, p. 62.

888

GF (Dass), p. 49.

889 GA, III, 21, III, 21,

T.

Pełech, Hannibal ante portas..., pp. 5-13.

  Terra autem et regnum Corrozana sic montanis et aquarum paludibus undique clausum est, ut quicunque semel captivi illuc intraverint, non ultra hinc magis quam pecus a cavea exire valeant, nisi licentia et permissione Turcorum; AA (Edgington), p. 71: Moreover, the land and kingdom of Khurasan is so enclosed by mountains and watery marshes on all sides that anyone who is once captured and enters there is unable to come out again, any more than a beast out of a stall, unless with the licence and permission of the Turks.912 GF, XVIII, 1, p. 275; PT, p. 73. 913 GF, XXI,[2][START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] PT, p. 89. 914 GF, XXI,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] p. 319; PT, p. 91. 915 GF, XXI,[7][8][START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF] PT,

	908 The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, pp. 512, 587, 661, 665.
	909 GF, VIII, 3, p. 181; PT, p. 49.
	910 GF, XXVIII, 4, p. 367; PT, p. 109.
	911 AA, VIII, 19, p. 571:

  . The 916 Cf. N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 126. 917 Pomponius Mela's description of the world, ed. and trans. F. Romer, Ann Arbor 2001, pp. 66-67. 918 A. Mayor, The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World, New Jersey 2014, pp. 155-169; 249-355. Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, in: MGH Fontes iuris 4, ed. C. von Schwerin, Hanover 1918, pp. 37-44.

919

PT, p. 115. 920 GF, XXX, 6, p. 387.

921

Cf.

  Kurbugha, in the mentioned charters, swore to Caliph in the name of Mohammed and by all their gods (per Machomet et per omnia Deorum nomina)951 . In the Tudebode's account the Prophet of Islam was described also in a form of Malphumet 952 . Furthermore, Tudebode put into the mouth 959 . On the other side, the Tudebode's representation is much sharper. In the narration of Rainald Porchet's martyrdom, the faith of the enemy is literally described as the faith in Mohammed and other gods (et crede Malphumet et nostris aliis diis)960 . The key in this sentence is the Tudebode's composition,

of al-Afdal the speech, after the heavy Fatimids' defeat at Ascalon, in which he invoked Mohammed and our gods (O Machomet et dii nostri)

953

. The version of Gesta Francorum presents the al-Afdal's invocation in a different way: O spirits of the gods (O Deorum spiritus!) 954 . Furthermore, his speech is ended by the oath to Mohammed and to the divinity of all the gods (per Machumet et per omnia Deorum numina) that the emir will never again raise an army against the Franks 955 . Thus, the specificity of the enemy's faith was signaled, showing the enemy "otherness" 956 . According to the chroniclers the enemy's faith is closely related to Mohammed. However, it seems that Mohammed was not classified in the Gesta Francorum as a god, because in all mentions Mohammed is always presented separately 957 ; the formula consists of Mohammed and the gods, as was described in the dialogue between Kurbugha and his mother (per Machomet et per omnia Deorum nomina) 958 , as well as in the case of al-Afdal's speech

(per Machumet et per omnia Deorum numina)

  Cf. C. Kostick, op. cit., p. 27; furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Hills' edition is actually the publication of the manuscript MS Latin 14378.Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 5131 977 . The second group contains the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 5511 A, dated to the 12th century. It occurs independently, it does not appear next to the works of Fulcher of Chartres and Walter the Chancellor. This manuscript is entitled Hystoria Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem 978 .Unfortunately, in the issue of dating and the creation of the account very little can be said based on the tradition of manuscripts, and only the general statement remains that the earliest manuscripts are from the 12th century.However, there are others circumstances which may allow to narrow down the date of creation of Raymond's account. Firstly, it should be said that Raymond possibly used the notes of Pons of Balazun (Balazuc), who was killed in the siege of Arqah taking place from 14 February to 13 May 1099 (though it is obvious that Raymond did not finish his work on that date 979 ). For a broader perspective, the date of origin of the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Ihierusalem can be combined with the case of other sources, namely Gesta Francorum and Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres. As it was described in Chapter II, on the base of comparison of the texts of Gesta Francorum and account of Raymond of Aguilers made by H. Hagenmeyer and enriched by J.

	973 RA, pp. 20-30; RA (Hill&Hill), pp. 8-9.
	974 RA, p. 21; cf. J. Rubenstein, Putting History to Use: Three Crusade Chronicles in Context, "Viator" 35 (2004), pp.
	131-168.

975 976 Cf. J. Richard, Raymond d'Aguilers, historien de la première croisade [Le «Liber» de Raymond d'Aguilers, publié par John Hugh et Laurita L. Hill, introduction et notes traduites par Philippe Wolff] , "Journal des savants" 3 (1971), pp. 206-212. manuscript,

  Letter and Raymond used the same words, such as Hispania when referring to the Islamic lands990 . Due to this hypothesis, Raymond started to write the Historia Francorum around September 1099 or at least at this time he had a general framework of his work. However, this point of view is questioned, but at the same time it suggests that Raymond's account is a very early source, perhapsfinished in the first redaction quickly after the battle of Ascalon 991 . Bearing in mind the time of creation of Gesta Francorum and Historia Hierosolymitana it should be pointed out that it it very likely that the date of origin of the Historia Francorum on the base of relationship between the other sources may be restricted to the period of 1099-1102.In the searching for other leads, it should be noted that Raymond of Aguilers mentions that Raymond of Saint-Gilles wanted to return to his homeland, but in fact the Count of Toulouse participated in the Crusade of 1101 in Anatolia during the summer of that year. In consequence, the chronicler probably ended the writing of his work before this expedition and he had no information about this event. Another important fact is that Raymond of Aguilers did not describe ormake any suggestions regarding the death of Raymond of Saint-Gilles, which was happened in 1105992 . In Furthermore, Arnulf in the Raymond's vision ignored canonical decrees and during the Crusade he was accused for incontinentia, which could be translated into inability of restraining one's desires, and from his dishonourable or disgraceful behaviour indecent stories were composed (ut vulgares cantus de eo inhoneste conposuissent) 996 . Arnulf was not even afraid of the divine punishment of the Bishop of Marturana when he continued to take benefices from clergymen, both from those who had the altars in Holy Sepulchre and from those who received fees for its care, what seems to be a reflection of the reformist ideas in the Church during the 11th and the 12th century 997 . In the opinion of Raymond, Arnulf was a man of a disgraceful birth, lack of conscience, who ignored canonical decrees and lacked qualities needed to be a Patriarch of the Holy City. Raymond writes about the first Latin Patriach in Jerusalem in a moralistic tone as if supposing or knowing that Arnulf would be condemned for his sins. It could be an indication that Raymond had the knowledge of a future deposition of Arnulf, who was replaced by Daimbert of Pisa in December 1099, though Raymond could have simply created a bad image of this person 998 .

	H. Hagenmeyer analysed the Letter of Daimbert of Pisa from September 1099 and posed a
	hypothesis that because of its content, stylistic similarity and the pro-Provencal perspective, it was
	the work of Raymond of Aguilers 989 . Later the scholars added an argument that both the author of
	984 Cf. J. Flori, Chroniqueurs et propagandistes..., p. 178.
	985 Cf. FC, pp. 65-70.

The date of the Crusade of 1101 is the possible beginning of Fulcher's writing asin October or November he heard about the failure of this expedition. Furthermore, he added a piece of information to the pages of his work regarding Stephen of Blois, who deserted from Antioch in 1098, and died a martyr death in the battle of Ramla in 19 May 1102

987

. The most likely date of ending of the first part of Historia Hierosolymitana is 1106, more precisely March or slightly later, because the last things mentioned in his account are the astronomical events of that year 988 . In conclusion, Fulcher of Chartres' wrote the first part of his Historia Hierosolymitana over the period of 1101-1106, which indicates that the account of Raymond of Aguilers was available in Jerusalem during this time, but probably earlier, because Fulcher need to examine this work, and he did not use it exclusively in 1106.

There is also another source which could be used in to date Raymond's Historia Francorum.

986

FC, p. 47; note h, p. 746; FC (Ryan&Fink), pp. 20-21, 23. 987 FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 169. 988 FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 21. 989 H. Hagenmeyer, Der Brief der Kreuzfahrer an den Papst und die abendländische Kirche, 1099 nach der Schlacht

the addition, the chronicler ended his work with a description of battle of Ascalon and he did not mention any further events 993 . This composition of the text, which ends on the same event as Gesta Francorum, may indicate that the author considered the battle of Ascalon as the perfect ending of his work. Furthermore, though it does not exclude the indicated literary argument, he must have finished the Historia Francorum quite early, not yet knowing about further events as the Crusade of 1101 or Godfrey's election, because the document of January 16, 1103 could indicate that Raymond of Aguilers still was in the East at this time, working at the Raymond of Saint-Gilles' chancellery 994 .

It is also worth emphasizing that Raymond describes the election of Godfrey of Bouillon as the ruler of Jerusalem and Arnulf as the Patriarch, but in this last case he presented a completely different picture than Gesta Francorum or Peter Tudebode, revealing that he could have known the future deposition of Arnulf. Namely, Raymond mentions that Arnulf was elected by the certain people (a quibusdam) contrary to the wishes of the good people (contradicentibus bonis)

995

. Arnulf was not even a subdeacon or of priestly origin (non erat subdiaconis, maxime etiam quia erat de genere sacerdotali).

Supposing that the first option is more likely, that could indicate that the author created his workafter above mentioned date.

  themselves as Pontius de Baladuno and Raimundus canonicus Podiensis 999 . Very little could be said about Pons, and even his place of origin is uncertain as he could be from Balzun, Balazuc, Ballon or Baladun 1000 . However, most likely Pons came from Balazuc, where a castle from 11th century is located, in the region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, around 100 km South of Le Puy-en-Velay. He was a son of Géraud of Balazuc, lord of Saint-Montant and Larnas, first lord whose existence is known, Privas Imprimerie Centrale de of Raymond of Saint-Gilles dated16 January, 1103 issued at the Mons Peregrinus, in which the Count donated half of the city of Gibelet to the Abbey of St Victor in Marseille 1011 . Raimundus is mentioned as the witness and the author of this charter (qui hanc cartam fecit) 1012 . However, it may have been someone else, especially since the name Raymond was quite popular, although it seems that the most likely identification points to Raymond of Aguilers, who, as a chaplain, could have been made responsible for preparing the document of Count Toulouse. Moreover, the better situated clergymen such as Albert, Abbot of St Errard, who later became the Bishop of Tripoli 1013 , or Peter the Bishop of Glandèves, appear as the document's witnesses much higher in the hierarchy than Raymond, who together with three other figures, occupies the last places of the list of witnesses 1014 .

	so Pons had a knightly origin and probably belonged to this social group 1001 . The information about
	996 RA, p. 154; Cf. RA (Hill&Hill), p. 131.
	997 RA, p. 154.

998

RA, p. 154. 999 RA, p. 35. 1000 Cf. RA (Hill&Hill), note 1, p. 15. 1001 L'Abbé Filet, Un chevalier du Vivrais à la Première Croisade: Ponce de Balazuc,

  Franks and Provencals. Although Raymond often uses the divertatis 1038 ; (…) iuraverunt se ab oppugnatione Antiochiae non discessuros per septem annos nisi civitas caperetur 1039 . Raymond also knew cursus tardus, in which a stressed syllable is followed by two unstressed, one stressed, two unstressed: Inventa est autem lancea octavo decimo kalendas Iulii 1040 ; (…) et illum hoc dixerat capellano suo Raimundo custodiendum tradidit 1041 ; (…) et adhuc hoc ipsum vobis offero 1042 . Furthermore, Raymond's account uses cursus trispondianicus in which a stressed syllable is followed by three unstressed, one stressed, one unstressed: Illi vero hostes, facultate caedis et rapinae, multo acrius vias obsidebant 1043 . As in the case of Gesta Francorum and the work of Peter Tudebode, the structure and stylistics of Raymond's account indicate its recipients

  . It is not easy to indicate why Raymond chose the form of paganimitas due to the lack of comparative material and possible of inspiration, although an error of copyist cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the role of such term in the text could be presented. It seems that christianitas, as a community of believers in a true God, is a part of the binary opposition used in this category. Thus, the indicated term unambiguously determines the axis of the narration, indicating the opponent of the Franks.However, not only the term of paganimitas is different from the other accounts. In the first part of his work, Raymond does not refer to the Urban II's sermon at Clermont. If Raymond was even informed about the Pope's actions and his preaching of the Frist Crusade, which could have happened, considering that Bishop of Le Puy became a papal legate later, and most of Urbana II's route led through the south of France, the chronicler does not mention it at all 1051 . In his narration, Raymond omits this event, focusing on the presentation of paganimitas as an enemy and starts to describe the passage of Provencal contingent through the Balkans. Unlike the content of Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, Raymond does not even refer to the sermon of Clermont, which could be a great chance to illustrate the enemy, which was done by the second generation of Crusade's historians such as Baldric of Dol, Robert the Monk and Guibert of Nogent 1052 .

	1046 RA, p. 159; RA (Hill&Hill), p. 135.

1047 RA, p. 35. 1048 RA, p. 35. 1049 RA, p. 35. 1050 Cf. Pagani, in: Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, vol. 6, 089b.

sources Raymond of Aguilers refers to the idea of a clash between Christians and pagans in his descciption of the siege of Antioch, Saint Andrew appears to Peter Bartholomew and points out that the land on which the Crusaders fight is not the land of the pagans, but is under jurisdence of Saint Peter (terra iuris Beati Petri...non paganorum) 1053 . It seems that in this passage Raymond recalls a Catholic tradition in which Saint Peter was established as supreme jurisdiction over the Christian Church, and because of this claim, Antioch as a former Christian area, is under the authority of Saint Peter. Therefore, the author considers Antioch to be a part of Christianitas. Such understanding of the matter may also draw attention to the papal discourse in Raymond's the Historia Francorum, because the expression iuris Beati Petri, could be associated with the formula present in the papal chancellery in 11th century 1054 . Raymond sums up the Apostle's statement, saying that Christ promised that he would raise the Christian kingdom and destroy and tread underfoot the kingdom of the pagans (elevaret regnum christianorum, deiecto et conculcato paganorum regno) 1055 . Furthermore, Raymond manifests the triumph over pagans, describing the capture of Jerusalem. Author of the Historia Francorum considers this event as the end of all paganism, the affirmation of Christianity, and the renewal of faith (tocius paganitatis exinanicio, christianitatis confirmatio, et fidei nostrae renovatio) 1056 .

  The question arises regarding Raymond's source of that rumour. He only states that Et ut nobis relatum est quod... (And it has been told/repeat/report/announce to us that)1097 . According to chronicler's words, it was a rumour; therefore, most likely it seems that it came from oral, elusive sources.However, the biblical and then canonical discourse seems to be appropriate for the exposure of Raymond's cultural context. In the Book of Genesis one can be observe Rebekah and Isaac's disgust about the marriages with Canaanite and Hittite women, which is presented in the religious dimension1098 . The clear prohibitions of marriages between believers and non-believers have been expressed in the Book of Deuteronomy in the description of conquest of Canaan: neque sociabis 1100 . The tradition of the New Testament seems similar because the prohibition of marriages with non-believers is repeatedly invoked, especially in the Letters to Corinthians 1101 . Furthermore, as was indicated above, in the early Christian Councils the existence of the prohibition of marriage and other sexual relations of Christians with members of other religions is recorded 1102 . Moreover, many sources remain close to Raymond's perspective, such as the mentions of other chroniclers of the First Crusade and even a much later Nablus Council's canons from 1120, where the ban on blood ties with unbelievers appears 1103 .

cum eis conjugia. Filiam tuam non dabis filio ejus, nec filiam illius accipies filio tuo quia seducet filium tuum, ne sequatur me, et ut magis serviat diis alienis: irasceturque furor Domini, et delebit te cito (You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly )1099 . The same idea of prohibition of the intermarriages was repeated in the Book of Joshua:

Quod si volueritis gentium harum, quae inter vos habitant, erroribus adhaerere, et cum eis miscere connubia, atque amicitias copulare iam nunc scitote quod Dominus Deus vester non eas deleat ante faciem vestram, sed sint vobis in foveam ac laqueum, et offendiculum ex latere vestro, et sudes in oculis vestris, donec vos auferat atque disperdat de terra hac optima, quam tradidit vobis (For if you turn back and cling to the remnant of these nations remaining among you and make marriages with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good ground that the Lord your God has given you)

  RA, p. 97.

1107

Cf. J.A. Brundage, Prostitution and Miscegeneation and Sexual Purity in the First Crusade, in: Crusade and Settlement, ed. P.W.

Edbury, Cardiff 1986, pp. 57-65.

  since he had a powerful army but used it poorly.2.2.3.5. Al-AfdalRaymond also presents the ruler of Egypt who is referred to as the king of Babylon (rex Babyloniorum)1308 , the emir (amiraius)1309 or even tyrant (ipso tyranno)1310 . The context of the use of these terms suggests they are only synonyms and do not mean different characters in the Historia Francorum. It could be clearly observed, that in the two narrations where the ruler of Egypt appears, Raymond uses the terms rex and amiraius to describe the same political figure. In the description of the letters of Alexius I, which were found after the battle of Ascalon, a phrase bello cum rege Babyloniorum apud Ascalonam (the battle against the king of Babylon at Ascalon) 1311 appears. Then, the author states that Crusaders realized that this was a reason why the emir held the envoys for a year in Babylon (His itaque aliisque de causis amiraius detinuit legatos nostros per annum captos infra Babyloniam) 1312 . Furthermore, in the description of the battle of Ascalon, the king of Babylon (rex Babyloniorum) 1313 is the same figure as emir (amiraius) and both terms are synonymously in use 1314 . Historia, the term Babylon is in Raymond's usage. This term has specific symbolic content in Western thought as a part of binary opposition to Jerusalem, sign of pride, sin and exotic ideas 1316 . However, it should be also mentioned that in Raymond's account there is a phrase where the Babylon appears separately from Egypt (Non eamus ad presens in Iherusalem, sed versus Egyptum et Babyloniam) in the section where the Crusaders enter into a dispute regarding the objective of the military campaign 1317 . Furthermore, during the same dispute the Franks say they could conquer not only Jerusalem but also kingdom of Egypt, Alexandria, Babylon and other kingdoms (superare possumus regem Egypti, non solum Iherusalem verum etiam Alexandriam et Babyloniam, et plurima regna obtenebimus) 1318 .

, pp. 197-209; C. Morris, Policy and Visions.

The Case of the Holy Lance at Antioch, in: War and Government in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of J.O. Prestwich, eds. J. Gillingham, J.C.

Holt, Cambridge-New York 1984, pp. 33- 46.

commander Therefore, it should be noted that Raymond, as well as Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia, did not present the political structure of the Fatimid Caliphate 1315 . Raymond simply points to the titles, without proof of knowledge that the real ruler of Egypt at that time was the Grand Vizier of al-Afdal, instead of the Fatimid Caliph Ahmad al-Musta'li bi-Allah

(1094-1101)

. This shows that either the authority of al-Afdal (most likely Raymond's amiraius and rex Babyloniorum) was so great among the Franks that he was presented as the only representative of Egypt, either that was a simplification or lack of knowledge of the chronicler about Fatimids' political realities.

Furthermore, similarly to Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's

  RA, p. 82; describing the Muslim enemy by glorifying his horse as swift or nimble was popular practice in the chansons de geste, cf. S.B. Edgington, 'Pagans' and 'Others'' in the Chanson de Jérusalem, in: Languages of Love and Hate: Conflict, Communication, and Identity in the Medieval Mediterranean, eds. S. Lambert, H. Nicholson, Turnhout 2002, p. 39. 1350 Farius Equus, in: Glossarium Mediae et Infimae

1348 RA, p. 50.

1349

  breeding and using horses in the armies of the Middle Ages cf. R.H.C.Davis, The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development and Redevelopment, New York 1989, pp. 31-68; cf. B.

	Wallner et al., Y Chromosome Uncovers the Recent Oriental Origin of Modern Stallions, "Current Biology" 27/13
	(2017), pp. 2029-2035.

1353

Leonis VI

Tactica, ed. et transl. G.T. Dennis, in: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 49, Washington, D.C. 2010, XVIII, 129, pp. 484-487; RA, p. 50. 1354

Alexias, XIV, 2, 14, p. 434; cf. J.W.

Birkenmeier, The Development of Komnenian Army 1081-1180, Leiden 2002, p.

172.

  Fulcher around 1118Fulcher around -1119Fulcher around 1746 . It seems that the author originally wanted to end his work shortly after the chapter XXXIII of Book II, describing the victory of Baldwin I at Ramla on August 27, 1105. Further, Fulcher wrote an additional chapter, which seems to be his farewell with possible recipients: he gave his name, he mentioned his lack of skill to write and he begged the further eloquent recipient to correct Fulcher's work in terms of diction. However, the author indicates that he would prefer that excessive pompous eloquence would not obscure the truth 1747 .Nevertheless, after that chapter Fulcher added another one in which he describes an earthquake which took place December 24, 1105 and some astronomical events of 1106, so most likely first part ended at the XXXV chapter of Book II. Fulcher's idea of the place in which he should have finished his own work was so obscure to his rewriters that a one of them, commonly named Bartolf content of chapter XXXV Bartolf added Explicit hystoria1748 .Unlike other eyewitness participants of the First Crusade, Fulcher did not stop writing after finishing the description associated with the expedition to Jerusalem. Instead of this, he continued his work until 1127, which makes him a representative of the two generations of historians of the First Crusade. The second part of Fulcher's account was written after 1106, but the time when he resumed writing remains uncertain. He also made a revision of his first text by making modifications in some places and by adding a chapter about the battle of Harran in 1104, in which Baldwin II of Edessa is described as the future king 1749 . In the second part, he describes the later events which occurred at the Near East, until the death of King Baldwin I in 1118 considered by the author as the end of an era. The end of this part of the Historia Hierosolymitana, which contains all chapters of Book II starting from the chapter XXXVII, is an epitaph in which the author praises the deceased king 1750 .The last part of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana is a whole Book III that encompasses thirty six chapters whose contents describe the reign of Baldwin II from the beginning in 1118 to 1127, which is probably a date of death of the chronicler. Fulcher wrote a lot of content of the second and third part of the account on a regular basis, contemporaneously, which confirms the author's use of the term nunc ("now") when describing certain events 1751 . Worth noting is that Fulcher believed that there were three expeditions that set off to the East: the Crusade of 1096, the Crusade of 1101, and the Bohemond's expedition against the Byzantine Empire.Due to the selection of the topic and the efforts made to focus attention to the image of the enemy in the reports of the participants of the First Crusade, only the first part of the Fulcher's work is taken into account as corresponding to the topic of this thesis. Because of this, the time of composition of the first part seems the most important for further consideration. As was mentioned above, it is possible to narrow down the date of origin of the first part of the Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana. The Fulcher's work from all other eyewitnesses' accounts of the First Crusade is the latest one. A certain information about the date of writing the source is in the Fulcher's Prologue, actually revised by the author around 1118-1119, where he notes that he wants to describe the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which is a clear argument that he wrote his work after the First Crusade 1752 . However, the historical events associated with the author's participation in the First Crusade cause problems because he did not take part in the capture of Antioch or the conquest of . Instead of this, he left the main crusading forces and went with Baldwin of Boulogne to Edessa, where the first of the Crusader states was established 1753 . Therefore, Fulcher had to base his account on other grounds than other eyewitness authors did. He prepared a description of the events in which he did not take part by using the reports of others eyewitnesses who provided him useful information and through reading others written sources. Based on a comparative analysis, scholars indicated that Fulcher used earlier sources describing the Crusade, such as Gesta Francorum, Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers and Letter of the crusading Leaders to Pope Urban II from September 11, 1098, which was inserted to his own work as a content of a Chapter XXIV of Book I 1754 . The author himself confirmed that he used some written sources from Jerusalem's library (ut in bibliotheca legimus) among which these accounts could be found1755 .Bearing in mind this perspective, Fulcher is likely to have started his work when the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers' account were available for his use and for sure he needed some time for examine them. The most likely dates of creation of these accounts are shortly before December 1099 and no later than 1101 for Gesta Francorum and December 1099 to summer of 1101 in the case of Raymond's Historia Francroum, and these dates could be the terminus post quem for Fulcher of Chartres' beginning of writing. Because of the lack of these sources in Edessa in that time, the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana could not have started to write prior to his permanent settlement in Jerusalem, where he possibly had access to the indicated accounts. For the first time he was for a short period of time in the Holy City from December 21, 1099 to January 2, 1100, when he completed his pilgrim vows and spent the Christmas as a member of the group of Franks from Northern Syria under the lead of Bohemond, Prince of Antioch and Baldwin I, Count of Edessa. The permanent stay of Fulcher in Jerusalem began in November 1100, when he came to Jerusalem with a retinue of Baldwin of Boulogne who was appointed as the king.The Crusade of 1101 seems to be another event which could be considered in the discussion of the starting date of works on Fulcher's account . Fulcher describes it with knowledge of its failure, and in the heading of a chapter there is a title which could have been added later, De secunda Francorum miserabili peregrinatione (About the second miserable pilgrimage of theFranks) 1756 . Therefore, it is likely that Fulcher began writing his Historia Hierosolymitana in October or November 1101 when the news about the failure of the expedition could reach him, or he was already writing back then 1757 . Furthermore, the case of Stephen of Blois plays a key role inChroniqueurs et propagandistes..., pp. 220-221. the restriction of the date of origin of the first part of Historia Hierosolymitana. Most likely, when chronicler was writing his work he did not know that Stephen was killed at the battle of Ramla in May 1102 because during the description of the Stephen's desertion from Antioch Fulcher makes no mention of the Count's later death. Author of the Historia Hierosolymitana writes that Stephen was regarded by the Franks as a very noble man and a person skilful in arms but he disgraced himself through his deed. Fulcher ends his mention of the Count of Blois by a phrase: Nam non prodest alicui bonum initium, nisi fuerit bene consummatum 1758 (For a good beginning does not profit one if one does not end well) 1759 . However, Fulcher, describing the death of Stephen of Blois at the battle of Ramla praises him by writing that in this struggle the Franks lost many good knights and among them was Stephen, a prudent and noble man (vir prudens et nobilis)1760 . This redemption of Stephen's reputation through death in the battle against infidels seems to be a persuasive argument that Fulcher lacked information at the time of writing his work, as he created the description of the events in Antioch. Thus, Fulcher probably started to write first part of his account shortly after he received the news about the failure of the Crusade of 1101 in October or November 1101 or in this time he started to write and he was writing before May 1102 when Count of Blois was killed in battle1761 . This date also indicates that at that time it was possible for Fulcher to have access to the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum in Jerusalem.From that time, Fulcher continued his work and, as was mentioned above, he probably wanted to finish his work around the chapter XXXIII of Book II, but he later added the chapters XXXIV and XXXV 1762 . Most probably, that the date when Fulcher of Chartres' finished the first part of the Historia Hierosolymitana is 1106, with a more accurate indication on March or slightly later because in that time the last mention in the account appears1763 . Fortunately, the external sources can help to determine the date of writing the first part of Fulcher's work. Firstly some questions are answered by the rewriter of the Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana, an author of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem Expugnantium commonly known as Bartolf of Nangis 1764 . Despite the huge dependence on Fulcher, this author added some of his own content, derived from sources other than Historia Hierosolymitana 1765 . The place of his work and relations with Fulcher are a problematic case. H. Hagenmeyer stated that Bartolf was an eyewitness of the events from 1100 to author of the Historia Hierosolymitana in Jerusalem, and this is why the rewriter used a form of brother Fulcher of Chartres in his account 1766 . However, S.B. Edgington revised this common opinion by claiming that Bartolf could have been describing Fulcher as brother because they both were clerics. Moreover, she argued that it was also possible that Bartolf could have found the manuscript of the Historia Hierosolymitana in Western Europe, where the two earliest manuscripts of Bartolf's work were placed. More precisely, they were in Marchiennes and Saint-Omer in Northern France; and Lambert of Saint-Omer, an author of Liber floridus, used Bartolf's the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem Expugnantium before 1121, the time from which Lambert's autograph comes from 1767 .However, the most important aspect of the Bartolf's work from the perspective of the origin date of the Fulcher's account is a very strong hypothesis that Bartolf had access to the version of Fulcher's work ending on the chapter XXXV written by Fulcher in 1106. Most likely, the author of Gesta Francorum Iherusalem Expugnantium rewrote a manuscript of Fulcher's first redaction and he finished doing this at the description of some astronomical events of 1106 at the Historia Hierosolymitana's chapter XXXV, where Bartolf finally noted Explicit hystoria. After that, he probably did not have access to the further content of Fulcher's work because in the time when Bartolf was rewriting the manuscript, the content after chapter XXXV or even XXXVI did not exist. Bartolf had to finish rewriting Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana before 1109 because he described that Tripoli was still under the rule of Muslims though the attack of William II Jordan, Count of Berga, in 1105. The copyist of Fulcher's work hoped that the city would be captured in the future, which actually took place in 1109 1768 . Furthermore, in his work,Bartolf presented the political situation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1105. The author of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem Expugnantium described the deposition of Daimbert of Pisa from the patriarchal see of Jerusalem and that he had left to Rome, where he wanted to appeal before the Pope 1769 . It is worth to emphasize that Daimbert travelled to the West together with Bohemond, and the synod which restored the office to former Archbishop of Pisa most likely took place in the spring of 1105 1770 . However, Bartolf did not mention Daimbert's restoration to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and that the old-new patriarch died during his return journey to Palestine at Messina probably in late 1105 or Unfortunately, Fulcher's autograph has not been preserved and the manuscript of his redaction ended in 1106, which was used by the authors indicated above, but fifteen manuscripts of the Historia Hierosolymitana have survived to our times. On the base of these existing manuscripts, H. Hagenmeyer distinguished two redactions of Fulcher of Chartres' work, where the first redaction contains the manuscripts A, B, F, G, I, O, R, Z, and the second redaction of Fulcher's account, to which the manuscripts C, D, E, H, K, P, S are ascribed 1779 . In this division, the most important and the oldest is the manuscript A; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 14378. It is a codex of W. (probably William) Grassegals, which is a collection of the works of Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of Aguilers and Walter the Chancellor's Bella Antiochena from the first half of twelfth century; it was given as a gift to King Louis VII of France 1780 . The Historia Hierosolymitana in this collection occupies the space from fol. 4 to 113, and ends with the description of the treaty with the Venetians, concerning the division of the city Tyre from 1124, and the return of the Patriarch Warmund with the army to Jerusalem at the beginning of the same year, which represents the content of the chapter XXXVI of Book III of Fulcher's final redaction. Other manuscripts from this group are newer and derived from the manuscript A such as Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 5131 from the end of the twelfth century 1781 . The Hagenmeyer's second redaction is also newer and for instance the manuscript C, Codex Douai, Stadtbibliothek MS Latin 882 is from the 12th century and it presents the full text of Fulcher's account to 1127, and this version is quite different in the wording from the text of the first redaction 1782 . Thus, the tradition of manuscripts does not help much in determining the dates of the creation of the work, although it indicates that the Fulcher's HistoriaHierosolymitana was being written more or less constantly, with several possible versions, ending at different times and contents, which should not be surprising because the author kept working until 1127. Therefore, there was the earlier redaction of the Fulcher's manuscript than the Hagenmeyer's first redaction, which survived to our times and ended probably on the chapter XXXV of Book II.Although it is not entirely clear whether the division of the Fulcher's account into three Books was made personally by Fulcher, it is almost certain that the author expanded the narration by further descriptions and it seems reasonable that the closure of the Historia Hierosolymitana's Book I could be the mention and epitaph on the death of Godfrey of Bouillon 1783 . In that division, the source could, alongside Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia and Historia Francorum of It can be seen that even the terminology used by Fulcher (e.g. in relation to the Turks, whom he calls Partian race) changes in the next books, cf. C.

	1748 BN, LXXI, p. 541; LXXII, p. 543. 1749 FC (Ryan&Fink), pp. 23-24. 1750 FC, II, LXIV, 7, pp. 613-614. 1751 FC (Ryan&Fink), pp. 22-24. 1752 FC, p. 42. 1753 Cf. M. Amouroux-Mourad, Le Comté d'Édesse (1098-1150), Paris 1988. 1754 FC, p. 66; FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 43. 1755 FC, II, LVII, 2, p. 598; cf. FC, note 11, p. 598. 1756 FC, II, XVI, p. 428. 1757 FC, pp. 44-45; cf. J. Flori, 1779 FC, pp. 91-104. 1780 J. Rubenstein, Putting History to Use..., pp. 131-168.

Jerusalem

1781 Cf. stemma codicum; ibid., p. 161. 1782 ibid., p. 161. FC, pp. 99-100. 1783

  However, the author used other eyewitness accounts during his work in Jerusalem and could have receive information from the other participants of the First Crusade. Furthermore, Fulcher was present in Jerusalem for a long period until his death around 1127, thus he had an opportunity to contact many important Crusaders. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that he did not share the common experiences with the authors such as Raymond of Aguilers or Peter Tudebode and he did not take part in the siege of Antioch, the battle against Kurbugha and the capture of the Holy City. Some parts of the text seem to be a paraphrase which is devoid of details known from other relations, as in the case of the description of the struggle under Antioch. Thus, the value of the eyewitness account of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana lies primarily in the description of the events in which he participated but Fulcher's descriptions up to the battle of Dorylaeum are also insufficiently detailed; and secondly in the fact that his work is rather a portrait of a collective memory. The author chose the appropriate content according to him, which is a great source for learning what content was transmitted in which community. In that way, the Historia Hierosolymitana reflects the intellectual background of Fulcher and his given socio-cultural context. Therefore, it is a different perspective than those of other eyewitness participants 1.3. Language of the source and intellectual background Most likely, Fulcher of Chartres as a cleric was educated in the place of his origin, i.e. completely impossible that Fulcher did not know Greek language because the school of Chartres held a manuscript of Priscian's Institutiones grammaticae, which was a monumental book of comparative grammar where the analogies between Greek and Latin languages were shown on the examples of Homer, Demostenes, Isocrates or Plato 1812 . Furthermore, to describe the fauna of Palestine and Egypt, Fulcher referred to Solinus' Collectanea rerum memorabilium, to Epistola Alexandri regis magni ad Aristotelem magistrum suum de situ et mirabilibus indiae and to Liber de situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicum of St Jerome 1813 . Fulcher of Chartres shows his knowledge of the other classical works such as Vergil's Aeneid and Georgics, Odes of Horace, Ovid's Metamorphoses and Fasti, Pharsalia of Lucan, Annales of Ennius, Bellum Jugurthinum of Sallust, Mimi of Publius Syrus, Eutropius' Breviarium ab urbe condita 1814 and maybe Juvenal's Satires 1815 . However, he also was well educated in the Christian thought because he knew De consolatione philosophiae of Boethius, Hexameron of St Ambrose, Homiliae of Pope Gregory the Great, Orosius' Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII and Decretales pseudoisidorianae 1816 . Moreover, he was experienced in the Bible: most often he quotes the Book of Judges, the two Books of Kings, the Book of Isaiah, the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Joel and two Books of the Maccabees 1817 . It should also be added that Fulcher refers twice to the proverbs of peasants (proverbia rusticana), which shows his familiarity with oral sources 1818 . As was mentioned above, in Jerusalem he had access to the earlier sources of the First Crusade such as Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum. However, he also used official documents from the royal and patriarchal chancellery, like the letter of King Baldwin I to Tancred 1819 and the privilege of Pope Paschalis to Patriarch of Jerusalem Gibelin of Arles from July 11, 1111 1820 . Fulcher's education situates him in the circle of people who have passed the classical education of Trivium, which gave a great insight into the ancient world and Christian literature. Fulcher writes in the Latin of his time, i.e. not in the classical Latin framework of Cicero, but in a language heavily influenced by the works of the Church Fathers. The author was perfectly aware of the difference between the classical Latin and the one he uses, about what he writes himself 1821 . The intellectual background suggests that the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana was best prepared among the eyewitness and participants of the First Crusade to write a literary work on a high intellectual level.However, Fulcher's style did not find recognition in the eyes of Guibert of Nogent who gave a less-than-flattering opinion about the work 1822 . Nevertheless, despite Guibert's remark, it should be pointed out that Fulcher made many references to classical authors and he wrote to a different audience than the Benedictine Abbot of Nogen-sous-Coucy which could be observed in the use of the rhythmic prose in Historia Hierosolymitana. For instance, Fulcher uses cursus velox: (…) in (…) unde moti pietate lacrimas multas ibi perfudimus 1828 ; and cursus trispondaicus: (…) vix enim inter delicias adfluentes modus servabatur 1829 . Moreover, the author does not hesitate to use the word from vernacular language such as standarz instead of classical vexillia 1830 , trevia (treuga) for pax 1831 , or words from Late Latin like rumigerulus 1832 . Although Fulcher's language fulfils the elements of oral language formulas and the subsequent sentences are connected to each other by words such as itaque, denique, sed, cur, quid, iam, etc., he cannot be accused of ignorance of the Latin style and grammar. For instance, he can compose poems in the classical metre inspired by the Hexametric taken from Ovid 1833 . His style is characterized by wordplays, proverbs and poems at the end of the chapters 1834 . Furthermore, Fulcher uses the grammatical constructions of accusativus cum infinitivo and nominativus cum infinitive, so he knew the rules of classic syntax 1835 . Nevertheless, the first Book of his work, even in comparison with Gesta Francorum and Historia Francorum of Raymond of Aguilers, is hardly a work of exceptional quality. This part of the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana seems to be a collection of notes, reports and extracts from others accounts from time to time enriched by a poem.

	honorem pristinum competenter erigere conarentur 1823 ; (…) nec non illis succurere valebamus 1824 ;
	as well as cursus planus: (…) diligenter et sollicite in memoriam posteris collegi 1825 ; (…)
	quoadusque tempus opportunum eos adgrediendi sentirent 1826 ; cursus tardus: (…) fere XX milia
	spadones ibi habitatione adsidua 1827 ;
	Chartres, where a famous school with a tradition of classical studies existed from the time of
	activity of Bishop Fulbert in the early 11th century 1804 . Fulcher was probably not a member of the
	1801 FC, I, VII, 1, p. 163.

1802 FC, I, XIII, 4, p. 203. 1803 FC, I, XIV, 2, p. 206; cf. J. Flori, Chroniqueurs et propagandistes..., pp. 220

-223. 1804 Cf. L.C. MacKinney, Bishop Fulbert and Education at the School of Chartres, Notre Dame 1956; E. Jeauneau, Rethinking the School of Chartres, Toronto 2009. not

  in the medieval Latin East, in: The Crusades and the Near East: Cultural histories, ed. C.Kostick, London 2011, p. 243.

2126

Cf. J.A.

Table 1 .

 1 The frequency of the use of individual words by the chroniclers when they describe the opponents of the Crusaders 2258 .

		gentilis, is	paganus, i	barbarus, i	inimicus, i	tyrannus, i	hostis, is 2259
	GF	5	33	8	35 2260	0	6
	PT 2261 5	58	7	42	1	6
	RA 2262 0	17 2263	0	20	2	94
	FC 2264 0	15	1	2	2 2265	11
	Diagram 1. Numerical comparison of the used words.

Représentation et sélection des caractères L

  'il n'écoute pas l'Église, qu'il soit avec vous en tant que gentil » 2372 . Ce sont des indications claires, référées à la tradition biblique, que quelqu'un qui appartient aux païens est exclu de l'Église chrétienne2373 . Par conséquent, en supposant que les chroniqueurs de la croisade aient été influencés par la Bible et par le travail de saint Augustin, ils pourraient non seulement avoir utilisé l'invective pour décrire l'ennemi comme étant des païens, les excluant de la christianitas en tant que païens, mais ils montreraient aussi l'insertion de l'expédition à Jérusalem dans le cadre du vaste plan historiosophique de la Volonté divine, dans lequel les chrétiens se battent contre les forces de la Cité du diable. Deuxièmement, malgré l'impact potentiel de cette tradition littéraire, il convient de souligner que les générations ultérieures du Moyen Âge ont acquis leur propre expérience de contact avec les païens et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire, dans le contexte intellectuel des auteurs, d'attribuer un impact total, complet des écrits de saint Augustin ou du discours biblique. La confrontation avec « l'autre » culturel et religieux était un fait et les participants à la première croisade ont décrit les véritables ennemis qu'ils ont rencontrés. Par conséquent, il convient de noter que le terme « païen » ne devrait pas être référé de manière rigide au modèle patristique mais, en se basant sur le contexte intellectuel et les expériences des chroniqueurs, on pourrait souligner qu'ils ont tout d'abord présenté l'idée de la communauté chrétienne constituée dans la relation à Dieu 2374 .Ainsi, les termes « païens, incroyants », etc. décrivent tous ceux qui n'appartiennent pas à la communauté chrétienne des fidèles, qui ne partagent pas le même Dieu. 'un des aspects les plus importants de l'épique est de présenter les adversaires comme des héros, car les personnages positifs se détachent de leurs origines. Dans la représentation de « l'autre », les commandants du parti hostile ont donc joué un rôle important : toutes les sources ayant pour auteurs des participants à première croisade ont mentionné des personnages tels que Kilij Arslan, Yaghi Siyan et Kurbugha. Cependant, les chroniqueurs diffèrent par la sélection des personnages (Shams ad-Daula, Barkyaruq, Fakhr al-Mulk, Danishmend Gazi, etc.), ainsi que par les détails de la représentation des dirigeants musulmans. C'est, par exemple, le cas du premier ennemi indiqué nommément dans les textes des Gesta Francorum et de l'Historia de Tudebode, Kilij Arslan, décrit comme Solimanus, le fils de

Karras, op. cit. p. 103; J. Brundage, Prostitution and Miscegeneation..., p. 57. 2370 FC, I, XXIII, 5, p. 257; cf. Y. Friedman, Peacemaking: perceptions and practices..., p. 243. 2371

Cf. Y.

Friedman, Captivity and Ransom..., pp. 128, 134.

quII.2.

2372

Mt 18.17.

2373

2 Co 6.15.

2374

Cf. S.

Rosik, Interpretacja chrześcijańska religii pogańskich..., pp. 325-330.

 Cf. F. Hartog, Le Miroir d'Hérodote. Essai sur la représentation de l'autre,Paris 1980.

J. Rubenstein, What is the GestaFrancorum...,

Ibid., p. 202.

PT, p. 138.

GF (Dass), p. 9.

GF, p. 13.

GF, IV, 8, p. 163.

GF, VIII,[START_REF] Ra (hill&hill | The Anonymous Gesta Francorum and the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem[END_REF] p. 194.

PT (Hill&Hill), p. 7.

PT, p. 149; PT (Hill&Hill), p. 127.

GF, I, 1, p. 101; GF (Dass), p. 25; Matt 16.24.

PT, p. 32; cf. A. Becker, Le voyage d'Urbain II en France, in: Le Concile de Clermont de 1095 et l'appel à la croisade, ed. A. Vauchez, Rome 1997, pp. 127-140.

Gen 2,[START_REF]Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade[END_REF][20]

Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum Libri XX, PL 82, I, 7, 1, p. 82: Nomen dictum quasi notamen, quod nobis vocabulo suo res notas efficiat. Nisi enim nomen scieris, cognitio rerum perit.

 Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum Libri XX , , PL 82, XIV,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

PT, p. 137.

PT, p. 137.

PT, p. 138.

Cf. Y. Zuev, Rannie Tyurki: Ocerki istorii i ideologii [Early Turks: Essays on History and Ideology], Almaty 2002, pp. 73-76.

The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jāmiʻ al-tawārīkh, transl. K.A.Luther, C.E. Bosworth, London-New York 2001, pp. 3-4, 25-29; A. Falk, op. cit., p. 72.

FC, I, II, 14, p. 129; however, this phrase is not present in Bartolf's version, which suggested that it could be added later, or the copyist did not consider it important.

Cf. N. Morton, Encountering Islam..., p. 158.

FC, I, XXII, 5, p. 253: according to Fulcher, Amirdalis asks Kurbugha by using the question: quid scaccis ludis? (Are you playing chess?); cf. P.Jonin, op. cit.,

FC, I, XXII, 8, p. 254.

FC, I, XXII,[1][2][START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF][START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF][5][START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF][7][8]

FC, I, XXI, 5, p. 250; note d, p. 250.

FC, I, XXI,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF][5][START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF]

In the case of transmitting the content from the eyewitness accounts worth mentioning is the case of Chanson d'Antioche, where a character named Amedalis appears, playing a role similar to that Mirdalim and Amirdalis but to greater extent, which indicates that at least in part of the Crusaders community functioned a story about known from the works of Raymond and Fulcher. Importantly, the Chanson d'Antioche also describes the surrender of the citadel garrison after being bribed by Bohemond and the baptism of Muslim soldiers, which is present in other sources of participants of the Crusade, e.g. in Gesta Francorum as well as in the letters, cf. TheChanson d'Antioche, 321, p. 291;[325][326] 328,

FC, I, XVI, 8, p. 229.

FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 97.

FC, I, XXII,[START_REF]la fonction de justification permet de légitimer des décisions, des actions et des comportements envers les autres groupes sociaux 2287 . Cette image ainsi considérée renvoie au concept de « l'altérité[END_REF] p. 253; cf. K. Skottki, op. cit., p. 321.

FC, I, XXII, 5, p. 253.

FC, I, XXII, 5, p. 253.

FC, I, XXII,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] p. 254.

FC, I, XV, 12, p. 222.

FC, I, XXXV, 2, p. 346.

FC, I, XXXV,[START_REF]The image of the Enemy-Infidel in the Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana: Gesta Francorum Iherusalem peregrinantium 1. Introduction: Fulcher of Chartres and his work[END_REF] p. 346.

Cf. Matthew of Edessa, Extraits de la Chronique deMatthieu d'Édesse, in: RHC Arm. 1, II, 5,

FC, I, XIV,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] p. 210.

FC, I, XIV, 7, p. 211.

FC, I, XIV,[START_REF] Jerusalem | When the enemy surrounded the Frankish troops from all sides, the chronicler claims that he had wished he were in Chartres or Orleans at that moment[END_REF] p. 210.

*Dans le RÉSUMÉ, les notes de bas de page sont limitées autant que possible afin d'éviter toute duplication inutile de contenu du texte principal.

R.Chartier, op. cit., pp. 1505Chartier, op. cit., pp. -1520;; cf. A. Burguière, op. cit., pp. 269-297.

E. Said, Orientalism..., p. 71.

The Chanson d'Antioche An Old French Account of the First Crusade, transl. S.B. Edgington, C. Sweetenham, London-New York 2011. The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard by Geoffrey Malaterra, transl. K.B. Wolf, Michigan 2008. The Deeds of God through the Franks; a translation of Guibert de Nogent's Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. R. Levine, Woodbridge 1997. The Deeds of the Franks and Other Jerusalem-Bound Pilgrims. The Earliest Chronicle of the First Crusade, trans. N. Dass, Lanham-Boulder-New York-Toronto-Plymouth 2011. The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, eds. D. Kempf and M.G. Bull, Woodbridge 2013. The History of al-Ţabarī, vol. 7, transl. W.M. Watt, M.V. McDonald, Albany 1987. Theophanes Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD284-813, trans. C. Mango, R. Scott, Oxford 1997. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi chronicon, in: MGH: SRG NS 9, ed. Robert Holtzmann, Berlin

of saving their lives, and the rest of forces fled. In this way, all the city of Antioch was subordinated to the power of the Crusaders 1625 . The whole narration about the battle ends with the expression of gratitude to the patron saints of the vigil of the day on which the victory was achieved, i.e. Saints Peter and Paul. As Raymond believed, through these saints, Jesus Christ sent the victory to the participants of the expedition to Jerusalem, which the chronicler described as: peregrine ecclesiae Francorum (the pilgrim church of the Franks) 1626 . In this passage it could be clearly observed that the Crusaders according to Raymond identified themselves with the idea of a pilgrimage, with the Church, and with the Franks 1627 . Therefore, the participants of the expedition were the pilgrim church, in addition to the Frankish origins, which probably should be seen as a belief in the existence of a cultural community, based on a common tradition and a glorious history, referring, inter alia, to Charlemagne 1628 . The indicated identity determinants can also be a kind of mirror in which the image of the enemy can be reflected; for Raymond it was clear that the Turks are neither pilgrims nor a part of the Church nor a part of the Franks' society.

The importance of the religious practices in the eve of the battles, which as an act of humility could bring to the Franks' victory sent by God, was described in other military campaigns.

existence of religious divisions within Islam between the Turks and the Farimids. Conversion to Christianity does not play a significant role in the account, although there are a few examples of conversions that have become an opportunity for the author to highlight differences between two communities. Because of the conversion to Christianity, a certain Turk named Bohemond deserved the words of praise on the pages of the account, which would not have been possible had he not changed his faith.

On the pages of the Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum the encounter with the Seljuk Turks and Fatimids was the experience of the enemy's "otherness" and it took on the shape of the phenomenon of "xenophany", because the author writes about many differences of the group, recognized as the "other", who in the Raymond's account undoubtedly are the Muslims. In this perspective, all the actions of the Crusaders, including the slaughter of cities' inhabitants and taking the spoils have been justified as acts of war against the "other", primarily different in the sphere of religion, and characterized by a specific catalogue of traits and deeds that situate the enemy outside the boundaries of the Christian community. differs significantly in a few cases of events, from which the failure of the miracle of the holy fire to appear on Holy Saturday in 1101 should be taken into account. In his description of the event, Bartolf of Nangis informed that the exact description of this incident is in the work of Fulcher 1772 , what actually cannot be the description from the later redaction after 1106 because in this version an author only presented a small passage that the fire did not appear and king departed to Jaffa 1773 . Besides Bartolf, there was also another copyist of the work at the beginning of the twelfth century. That was an anonymous person who wrote the manuscript Cambridge, University Library MS 2079, commonly known as the "L" manuscript or "Codex L" 1774 . Author paraphrased the Historia Hierosolymitana, made some changes to the stylistic layer and added some details which do not appear in the later version of Fulcher's account: for instance, a detailed description of the miracle of holy fire in 1101, known from Bartolf's version 1775 . Anonymous also ended on the content from chapter XXXV of Fulcher's work. Most likely, the rewriter used a version of Fulcher's account from around 1106.

The statement about the earlier redaction of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana from 1106 also confirms the use of the manuscript by another author, undoubtedly working in Northern France, which testifies the transmission of text in the West fairly soon after its creation. He was named Guibert of Nogent and wrote Gesta Dei per Francos in 1107-1109 while he was living in the monastery of Saint-Germer-de-Fly in exile from his abbacy in Nogent-sous-Coucy where he probably ended his first part of work 1776 . Guibert mentioned that he learned some things that he did not know about the First Crusade in the work of Fulcher of Chartres, a chaplain of Duke of Edessa Baldwin, who described the events in the East in rough language 1777 . It took place when Guibert was preparing the chapter VII of his chronicle, so most likely it was after Fulcher's work from 1106 was circulated in the West 1778 . It is impossible for it to be the full version of the Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana because it was completed around 1127. Furthermore, the content on which Guibert bases his account indicates that it was the same or very similar version that Bartolf and the copyist of the manuscript "L" were able to use: for instance, there is a detailed description of the failure of the miracle of the holy fire. cathedral chapter of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres because there is no information about him in the list of the dignitaries 1805 . The pupils of the Chartres' school were scholars of the measure of Bernard of Chartres, Thierry of Chartres or John of Salisbury. In the education process of trivium and quadrivium, the teachers in Chartres put particular emphasis on natural philosophy and mathematical arts. However, worth emphasizing is that the authors who went through the Chartres' education largely referred to classical works and the local library had many manuscripts of Latin classical authors 1806 Furthermore, he led an enormous correspondence, resulting in 288 letters 1808 . Ivo of Chartres also knew Saint Anselm of Canterbury, a theologian famous because of his Monologion and Proslogion, in which he proposed an approach to faith seeking understanding 1809 . Fulcher is likely to have had contact with Ivo of Chartres, maybe he was even a pupil of the Bishop or other famous scholar of his time. However, even if this is only a supposition, it is important to discuss the intellectual background of Fulcher in which a future chronicler of the First Crusade grew and received an education.

Fulcher of Chartres gave a proof of his classical education on the pages of Historia Hierosolymitana 1810 . He made use of his knowledge acquired at Chartres in the geographical descriptions of the Palestinian region and other parts of the Middle East. Fulcher knew Bellum Judaicum and Antiquitates of a Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, but in the form of its Latin translation of Flavii Josephi Hebraei opera rather than the Greek original text 1811 . However, it was participants of the expedition by saying that those who were robbers now became the soldiers of Christ (Christi milites). Those who had fought against their brothers and relatives were tofight against barbarians (contra barbarous), and those who have been hirelings for silver were now to attain the eternal reward 1863 . In this final passage of the sermon, Fulcher refers to the Gospel of Matthew from the Bibled and to the concept of miles Christi based on St. Paul's letter, present in the monastic discourse 1864 . Hence, Urban II on the pages of Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana invoked the topics related to the virtues of the clergy and warriors and the necessity of fighting for the Christian religion.

In the sermon, words used to define the participants of expedition play a crucial role: they are described as Christi praecones, milites Christi, amici eius (Dei) 1865 . Christi praecones means the heralds or criers of Christ, that is, those who announce, preach the Christ. This term suggests an evangelical dimension where the Crusaders become the heralds of Christ. In this context, a significant piece meaning is realised through that statement that God himself exhorts the participants of the expedition to be the heralds of Christ and by extermination of the enemy, they are to aid the Eastern Christians 1866 . Therefore, it is difficult to identify the evangelizing status of the mission here; the idea of providing help to the other Christians is also in the foreground. The term amici Dei clearly indicates the binary perspective shown by Urban II. Namely, those who would fulfil the papal recommendations were bound to become joyous and rich, and be considered God's friends, and those who would not agree with the Pope were to be sad and poor, becoming His enemies: here the enemies of the Lord, here his friends (hic inimici Domini, illic autem amici eius) 1867 . In this view, the enemy against whom the expedition is prepared is not indicated; it does not only include the Turks, the enemies of God, but also all who would oppose the papal will.

Therefore, the context of use of inimici Domini is much wider and refers to the opponents of papal recommendations.

The term milites Christi, an idea adapted to warriors in the 11th and the 12th century, refers simultaneously to spiritual and secular battle against the enemy, the Turks, and against the evil in Christians' souls 1868 . Moreover, the enemy is considered as a race enslaved by demons. It gives the image of a two-dimensional aspect of the Crusade. Urban II presents the model of the ideal Christian knight who disposes of the evil against the innocent and the poor and turns against the enemy of the Christian faith. Those who had been wayward were appointed to defend the oppressed 1863FC, I, III, 7, pp. 136-137. 1864 Matt. 27.3;2 Tim 2.3;cf. K.A. Smith, War and the Making of Medieval..., pp. 71-112. 1865 FC, I, III, 4, pp. 134-135;I, III, 7, pp. 136-137. 1866FC, I, III, 4, pp. 134-135. 1867FC, I, III, 7, p. 137. 1868 K.A. Smith, War and the Making of Medieval..., pp. 71-112. Author mentions that the Saracens had practiced their rule of idolatry there with superstitious rite and moreover had not allowed any Christian to enter 1950 (cum Saraceni legem suam idolatriae superstitioso ritu exercerunt, qui etiam Christianum nullum in id ingredi sinebant) 1951 . Therefore, for Fulcher the religion of the enemy is defiled by the sin of idolatry and it bears marks of superstition and as such, the chronicler claims that it deserves to be condemned and destroyed.

Locus terribilis

In the description of the pilgrimage of Baldwin and Bohemond to Jerusalem, Fulcher presents an image of the territories subordinate to the Muslim rulers from the Frankish perspective.

It is worth emphasizing that this report is significantly different from Fulcher's description of the march of the Crusaders from Antioch to Jerusalem, in which the author did not take part. The narration about the pilgrimage of Baldwin and Bohemond is presented more clearly and features many details. Moreover, Fulcher devotes a lot more space to this description. The author mentions that the Christians entered into the interior lands of the Saracens (fines Saracenorum interiores) 1952 .

H. Hagenmeyer, suggests that it is possible to assume that Fulcher understood this territory as the areas of Hama, Homs, and Damascus located more inland and predominantly inhabited by Muslim people 1953 . However, Baldwin and Bohemond should have probably used the way through the places neigbouring the coast because of security and logistics. Furthermore, the only mentions of exact locations through which they traveller are related to the coast; they left the city of Valania (identified with Baniyas) and Laodicea 1954 , and after that Fulcher speaks of Tripoli and Caesarea 1955 .

Therefore, the term the interior lands of the Saracens does not necessarily mean territories located off the coast, but it is a general designation of the Muslim areas.

Fulcher presented this territory in really bad terms for Christians. The description invokes the topos of locus terribilis 1956 . The inhabitants of these lands were hostile because they did not want Similar to other authors describing the First Crusade, Fulcher presents the leaders of the enemy indicated by names and titles. The term princeps in classical Latin means the first, the foremost, but in the 11th century it had a different use as it signified a ruler who was sovereign or quasi-sovereign. The term princeps was one of the most commonly used titles in the sources and it notoriously appears in the narrative texts. The ambiguity of the term means that authors were very eager to use it where they could not to write the factual title, when they had trouble translating the native word into Latin, and finally princeps appeared wherever a word synonymous with any other description of the ruler had to be found 1968 . In the narrative texts, the term princeps did not refer to a specific political reality and it did not carry any political or historical motivation. In the chronicles of the same author, many meanings of this word can be found, which are usually translated as the ruler. The analysis of building out of the city, and let no further mention of the Sepulchre ever be made again! 2128

(eamus et capiamus Iherusalem cum Francis in ea clausis! quibus omnibus interemptis, eradamus illud

Sepulcrum tam sibi pretiosum et lapides ipsius aedificii extra urbem eiectos, nec mentio ulterius umquam inde fiet!) 2129 . However, as was pointed out by Fulcher, by God's mercy the Franks won and instead of the slaughter of Christians in Jerusalem, the Franks loaded the horses and camels with the spoils taken from the Saracens 2130 . It seems that an inspiration for Fulcher's account was Raymond of Aguilers' description of the blasphemous words of the ruler of Egypt who announced that he would destroy all the sacred Christian places and the Holy Sepulchre in particular 2131 .

However, Fulcher's account slightly differs from Raymond's version. The narration of Fulcher is expanded and the words are uttered by the Babylonians instead of the king of Babylon. It is difficult to regard both narrations as something more than an invention of the writers. In Fulcher's case, the author ascribes the desire to take revenge to the defeated enemy, which is to be achieved through attacking the realm of the Christian sacrum. It is very doubtful that such words would be spoken in a Muslim camp, and even if it did happen, Raymond and Fulcher would have no way of learning about it. Therefore, more likely, these speeches were a literary convention to show the enemy as evil. In addition, they indicate that God was on the side of the Franks because in both cases the enemy who had bad intentions was defeated.

The literary framework through which the battles against the enemy are presented, though slightly different in the structure of "sin -redemption through religious practices -victory," as in the lens focuses on the narration of Baldwin's deeds. At the end of the Book I of the Historia Hierosolymitana, Fulcher tries to explain why Baldwin, of whom he was a chaplain, did not participate in the capture of Jerusalem and what they did against the Turks. Perhaps it was propaganda against the critics of both Baldwin and Bohemond, which must have occurred because of their lack of participation in major military events of the Crusade. In his argumentation, firstly, Fulcher supposes that perhaps it was the Divine Providence which delayed them [Baldwin and Bohemond], judging that they could be more useful in what remained to be done than in what had been done (Forsitan divina providentia distulit eos, plus in peragendis quam in peractis negotiis iudicans eos profuturos) 2132 . Secondly, Fulcher indicates their military deeds against the Turks by informing his audience that Baldwin fought in many battles with the enemy. According to the author, Baldwin had to fight the Turks on the borders of Mesopotamia (in Mesopotamiae finibus), which evokes the image of the struggle in the distant regions of the world where much glory could 2128 FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 127. 2129 Most likely Fulcher knew this episode from Bellum Judaicum because there is no doubt that he knew of Flavius' works, most likely in Latin translation. The convergence of the description as to the place of the siege, which is Jerusalem, the use of the motive of ripping the bellies in the search for gold, which is not reported by other eyewitnesses, and a lack of his personal participation in this event suggests that probably Fulcher used a depiction known to him from classical literature.In terms of the passage from the Historia Hierosolymitana, the case of Fulcher differs from that described by Josephus Flavius. Namely, the Crusaders' act was not condemned, as in the case of the actions of the Syrians and Arabs in Bellum Iudaicum. On the contrary: Fulcher points to the trickery and cunningness of the Saracens (calliditatis Saracenorum) who hid gold in their innards, condemning them for this deed and justifying the Franks. A feature of the Muslim enemy of the Crusaders, which appears in the Fulcher's text, was even explained by Francois Guizot as l'artifice des Sarrasins pour conserver leurs richesses (the art of Saracens hiding their valuables) 2176 .

Moreover, another word used by Fulcher in the creation of the enemy has a pejorative coloring: dirus, i and is clearly associated with something "wild", "fearful", "dreadful" 2177 . Through its use, the author made it clear that the Saracens play a negative role in the indicated passage, because the gold is swallowed by their fearful, wild or loathsome mouths or throats (faucibus diris) 2178 .The function of the analyzed passage in the whole narration about the capture of Jerusalem is also very important. Fulcher introduces it as a curiosity, something different, extraordinary, as evidenced by the beginning of the Latin sentence: Mirabile autem quid videretis... (It would astonish you or How astonishing it would have seemed to you). It can therefore be assumed that the author does not relate the typical behavior of Frankish squires and infantry but shows some deviation from the norm.

Furthermore, the composition of the narration indicates that Fulcher, after presenting the description of the capture of Jerusalem by the Franks corresponding to the references from other sources added his own story as a piece of additional content. 2173 Transglutire, in: Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, vol. 8, 153c. 2174 Bellum Iudaicum, V, 13, 4, p. 317. 2175 FC, I, XXVIII, 1, p. 302. 2176 Collection des mémoires relatifs à l'histoire de France, ed. F. Guizoit, vol. 24, Paris 1825, p. 74. 2177 There is no doubt that the description of the capture of Jerusalem and the massacre of its population enjoyed popularity among the eyewitnesses of the First Crusade, and it was presented in a positive tone 2179 . It seems that individual authors gradually improved the description of the massacre of Jerusalem: Raymond of Aguilers based his description on the passage from the Book of Revelation, while Fulcher enriched the description of events with a theme from classical literature.

It looks, therefore, that based on the factual substrate, which was the slaughter of the inhabitants of the Holy City, the participants of the expeditions created a literary image of it. The Frankish practice of ripping the bellies of the fallen enemies in order to find gold in their guts is rather a product of the Fulcher's pen than a reflection of the acts that the Crusaders would allow, although this can not be ruled out with certainty. It is worth noting once again that, in the author's opinion, this practice did not deflect the Franks, but was a condemnation of the Saracens, who in their cunning wanted to hide the valuables from the conquerors of Jerusalem. It seems that this way of presenting the enemy was the purpose of describing the ruthless practice of the Crusaders: the author pointed to another negative feature of the enemy of Christians.

Spoils of war

Fulcher's account also contains descriptions of the spoils taken after the victories over the enemy 2180 . At the end of the narration of the battle against Kurbugha, the author of Historia Hierosolymitana notes that the Crusaders captured the camp of enemy containing an enormous wealth. Among the spoils of the Franks, Fulcher records gold, silver, robes and other clothes, mules, horses, camels, donkeys, turbans, bows and arrows with quivers 2181 . After the capture of Jerusalem, Fulcher devotes a whole chapter to describe the spoils taken from the city. Author mentions gold, silver and precious stones as the Crusaders' spoils 2182 . After the battle of Ascalon, the Franks were to take horses, camels, and coins of enemy; they burned what they were unable take to Jerusalem, i.e. tents, spears, bows and arrows, 2183 . Therefore, it seems that the taking of spoils from the enemy in the accounts of First Crusade has the topical character and it constitutes important content for the 2179 K. Skottki unconvincingly presents that Fulcher is less euphoric in his description of the Jerusalem massacre than Raymond of Aguilers (In der Tat fällt in FC die Schilderung der Einnahme Jerusalems weniger euphorisch als etwa in RA aus, cf. Eadem, op. cit., pp. 312-313), while e.g. Fulcher adds even a praise poem at the end: FC, I, XXVIII, 3, p. 303, maintained in a laudatory tone of the slaughter: Ensibus exemptis currit gens nostra per urbem/Nec cuiquam parcunt etiam miserere precanti./Vulgus erat sliatum, veluti cum putrida motis/Poma cadunt ramis, agitataque ilice glandes (With drawn swords our men ran through the city/Not sparing anyone, even those begging for mercy./The crowd fell just as rotten aplles fall/From shaken branches and acorns from swaying oaks, cf. FC (Ryan&Fink), p. 122). 2180 Cf. supra, III.2.2.4.4. Spoils of war. 2181FC, I, XXIII, 3, p. 256. 2182FC, I, XXVIII, 2, pp. 302-303. 2183 FC, I, XXXI, 12, p. 318. recipients. The enormous spoils mentioned by the chroniclers suggest that the enemy was wealthy and associated with the sphere of luxury 2184 . Getting the spoils of the enemy is on the one hand a great deed, praised after won battles, although on the other hand, it can be the cause of sins leading to the Christians' suffering 2185 .

Conclusion

Fulcher of Chartres' Historia Hierosolymitana is the work that is most deprived of the value of an eyewitness account of the First Crusade out of all the analysed sources. The visible difference between the Fulcher's Book I and other sources gives the impression of the chaotic and not-detailed character of the work as it repeats the content from the other accounts, supplementing it in several places with poems written in hexameter to enrich the style of the narration. However, despite all remarks this is also early source written around 1101-1105.

The image of the enemy was created based on other reports, especially on the Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers' Historia Francorum. However, the Fulcher's account differs significantly in the perspective; the emotional emphasis was put on the suffering of the Crusaders from the hands of the enemy, even in the passages adopted from other works where emphasis was put on something else. Fulcher does not pay any attention to individual deeds of the members of Frankish warrior society. For instance, there is no mention of the heroic actions of Raymond Pilet or people other than the main leaders of the expedition. The Historia Hierosolymitana also distinguishes the apparent papal discourse, e.g. presented in the description of Urban II's sermon at Clermont or in the information about the Pope's banner during the battle against Kurbugha.

Furthermore, in several cases, it seems clear that Fulcher came from a different intellectual background and military contingent than the authors of Gesta Francorum and Raymond of Aguilers. For example, in the description of the siege of Nicaea, the mention of the iron hooks appears, which most likely belonged to the point of view of contingent of the North-Frenchmen.When the enemy, Fulcher refers to the ancient tradition; the Turks are presented as of Persian origin, and they are coming from Persia. Perhaps, such image of the enemy evokes the Rome -Persia binary opposition. The author does not mention the label of Khorasan known from other sources, except for a letter to the Pope which Fulcher did not write, he re-wrote it entirely and added to his work. Similar to other sources, the Fatimids are presented within the framework of the image of Babylon. However, Fulcher's point of view differs significantly from the other eyewitness 2184 Cf. A. Leclercq, op. cit., pp. 218-228. 2185 Cf. FC, I, XV, 13, p. 223. accounts because he pays much attention to the political reality of the enemy presented in his work.

The most powerful and most important character is the Sultan of Seljuk, presented as the King or Emperor of Persia. His commander is satrapa, and lesser rulers are referred to as princeps, dux or emirs. The ruler of Fatimids is named the King and his commander as a dux; only Fulcher presents a clear division in the Fatimids' army into two tiers of leaders, most likely reflecting his knowledge which he gained serving as the royal chaplain. The enemy's figures bore the bizarre-sounding names such as Aoxianus or Bordagis, which must have been adapted to the Latin syntax, and the list of these names is vast indeed, especially considering the first redaction where more than thirty names are mentioned in one place.

The Turks are the main enemy in Fulcher's work. They are depicted as barbarians, pagans, unbelievers and idolaters. Other hostile nations play less important role, and even in the narration about the battle of Ascalon, the Turks appeared in the Fatimids' army. Apart from the Fatimids, against whom the Franks fought during the siege of Jerusalem and the last battle of the First Crusade, the Turks are the archenemy, and most of the descriptions are devoted to them. Therefore, Fulcher describes the place where the Turks live as a land hostile to the Christians. According to the author, the Turks persecute and kill Christians and they even hate Eastern Christians, to whom the Crusaders come to the rescue and those greet them as saviours. The enemy fights with mobile horse archers, but despite the Turks' advantages, they can still be defeated in battle. The depiction of the battles against the Turks refers to several stereotypical labels. For instance, the author of the Historia Hierosolymitana invokes the huge number of the enemy forces facing off against the small forces of Christians. The literary framework of the main battles against the enemy such as Dorylaeum and Antioch is presented in the perspective of sins, committed by the Franks; all the failures of Christians are explained by their sins, from which Fulcher repeatedly refers to the sexual impurity and in this case, the Turks can be used as a tool for punishing Frankish sins. However, Fulcher presents the belief that the pious religious practices among the Franks in the eve of the military confrontation could bring redemption and the divine help and be the reason of the victory, granting God's support against the enemy to the Crusaders.

In summary, the image of the "other" in the Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres indicates that certain content had already settled in the intellectual background of the authors describing the First Crusade when he was writing his piece. Fulcher found many differences between the enemy and his own society, and the wrong faith is the main determinant of the enemy's "otherness". This image of the enemy, known from other sources, was only slightly enriched by Fulcher, but its overtone is almost unambiguously negative, although with some exceptions, such as the conviction that the Turks may be baptized. All actions of the Crusaders, such as the description

Final Conclusions

The comprehensive analysis established the main points of the final conclusions. In order to avoid unnecessary repetitions that might arise in connection with the summaries after each chapter, this section shall present the general characteristics of the image of enemy which should allow for a broader look at all the presented eyewitness sources. As indicated at the beginning, the main aim of the work was to examine the textual shape of the encounter with the "other" during the First Crusade, through the prism of searching all manifestations of the phenomenon of "xenophany". The applied category of "otherness" in relation to the enemies of the Crusaders makes sense due to the contact of representatives of the Christian-Latin world with representatives of religions and cultures in many aspects different from their own. For the historians of the First Crusade, Seljuk Turks or other Eastern peoples as well as the Fatimids were "other" in almost every aspect: in terms of religion, language, behaviour in sphere of morality, political structures or the manner of fighting. Moreover, the "otherness" of the Muslims in the Christian writers' perspective has an anthropological character because, for instance, all authors mention the prohibition of maintaining sexual relations with representatives of the Islamic religion, which is considered also in the theological dimension as a serious sin against Christian faith.

Presentation of the sources allowed to establish the chronology of the descriptions and intellectual background of each individual author. Attention was paid to the local discourses, the early metric of account's creation, an indication that the authors creating the work knew the effects of the presented events such as the results of the battles, and the specificity of literary genre of gesta and historia. Therefore, the chroniclers drew heavily on their own experiences, the conventional stereotypes and the pre-existing literary tradition to provide the recipient with an "appropriate" image from the point of view of the pragmatic of sources.

Visible similarities exist between the eyewitnesses' accounts, which does not deny their significance. However, the mutual differences were the starting point for analysis and allowed the author of this thesis to trace the issue of shaping the image of the enemy-infidel in various "worlds of the text", created in similar, but different communities of the First Crusaders. Historia Hierosolymitana of Fulcher of Chartres has proven the least valuable source considering the eyewitness character of the account since Book I is largely contaminated work. Thanks to this, however, Fulcher's account is valuable in another way which is very important in shaping the image of the enemy: it shows which pieces of content from almost the beginning of the creation of literary works describing the First Crusade were chosen as those that should be transmitted, probably due to the pragmatics of the sources and the attempts they made to shape public opinion or spread the thoroughly reflected the strength of the opponent who fought with the Christians as well as the topos associated with it: the idea of huge number of enemy forces.

To conclude, the representations of Muslims in the accounts of the participants of the First Crusade are socio-cultural facts that provide insight into the collective imagination of the Christian-Latin community. A plethora of various means and measures used to depict the enemy-infidel in the form of topoi and other literary devices, wordplays, attitudes and ideas constituted "the world of the text" in which social consciousness is reflected. The authors created the image of the "other" they faced during the First Crusade according to their particular intellectual backgrounds. Although the image was shaped shortly after the events from the standpoint of cultural conflict, this eyewitnesses' image was close to the knightly audience, awaiting descriptions of military victories rather than a more precise theological lecture, known form the theological refinement of the second generation of the Crusade's historians.

At the end it should be said that in order to persuade people to participate in the First Crusade, i.e. leave their homes and venture to distant places such as Syria and Palestine, it was necessary to convince them that the case was just and profitable, and the threat from the enemy was as real as possible. In that case the image of the enemy played a vital part in the crusading propaganda. This specific image played several functions, such as providing information, even distorted, about the enemy (the function of knowing), underlining the collective identity (the identity function), presenting the manifestations of the behavior of "others" and giving the opportunity to become aware of behaviors desired in one's own community (the function of orientation), and presenting the negative image which allowed to justify and to legitimize even the most cruel actions against the enemy (the function of justification). It should therefore be emphasized that this image was created after the military confrontation, where the positive attributes of the opponent serve only to emphasize the glory of the Crusaders' victory and God's superiority. Thus, the representation of Muslims in the eyewitnesses' accounts of the First Crusade is not even ambivalent: it is unquestionably a negative image of enemy-infidel.

Appendix A

The place names in the First Crusade's accounts

On the way to Jerusalem, the Crusaders encountered many geographical names of the places in Northern Syria and Palestine. During the creation of the sources, the authors faced the issue of the description of these names, which certainly could have sounded alien to them would cause difficulties when being adopted to Latin. These local names were the certain modes of understanding or adaptation of the Crusaders to new situation on the onomastic level because each name, if it did not appear in the Bible, had to be adapted to Latin declension. Moreover, each place name had to be pronounceable by the Franks who spoke several vernacular languages, because the sources such as Gesta Francorum, Tudebode's Historia, Raymond's Historia Francorum and Fulcher's Historia Hierosolymitana were created for reciting and not exclusively for quiet reading.

The aims of this appendix are, on the one hand, to consider the use of given terms through the prism of transcultural borrowings and literary workshop of individual authors; and on the other hand to point to the manifestaion of "xenophany" appearing in the accounts of the participants of the First Crusade. The process of adaptation of the local names into Latin language reflects, in a sui generis way, the confrontation with the various kinds of "otherness" aroused during the First Crusade since the Arabic language provides "other" place names in the widest sense of the word 2186 .The Gesta Francorum and Tudebode's Historia contain the place names such as Marra 2187 , wording to the Latin morphology and syntax. Authors tried to literally reproduce the pronunciation of the words and casually noted the Arabic prefixes, as in the case of the name Talamannia or Thelemanit. As the issue of the local names shows, the examples of transcultural borrowings can be found above all in the onomastic layer because the First Crusaders had to find their place in the new reality, not always using only the biblical tradition. mythe et histoire, Paris 1996. Taylor A., Chivalric Conversation and the Denial of Male Fear, in: Conflicted Identities and Multiple Masculinities. Men in the Medieval West, ed. J. Murray, New York 1999, pp. 169-188.

The Armies of the