Gesta Francorum (Deeds of the Franks), orGesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (Deeds of the Franks and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem), is the name given to one of a family of Latin narrative accounts of theFirst Crusade. Its simplicity, relative brevity, and similarity to a number of other Latin accounts of the crusade have led scholars to advance a number of theories about the work's authorship, date, and relationship to the larger corpus of Latin crusade chronicles. Although it is still often cited as a stand-alone account of a single author, there is little agreement about the context or authorship of the work nor its exact place within the corpus. Its status as a very early account of the events, informed directly by the experiences of those that took part, is unquestioned. It remains one of the most important sources for the history of the First Crusade.
TheGesta Francorum (often shortened to "theGesta") narrates the events of the First Crusade from the time of its initial preaching by Pope Urban II in 1095 to the firstBattle of Ascalon on 12 August,1099. As an account of a single event, it is a revolutionary book. As Jay Rubenstein has observed "in 1100, histories of single events were rare, almost unheard of."[1] Compared to other narratives of the expedition, it is a short work of only about 20,000 words, divided in most manuscripts into ten books.[2] The work's most recent editor, Rosalind Hill, called the style "extremely terse, simple, and unadorned."[3] Notably, the account makes no direct reference to theCouncil of Clermont (17-27 November, 1095) instead alluding to the preaching of the pope in France more generally. It begins, strikingly, with a reference to the words ofJesus Christ inMatthew 16:24
When that time had already come, of which the Lord Jesus warns his faithful people every day, especially in the Gospel where he says, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me", there was a great stirring of heart throughout all the Frankish lands, so that if any man, with all his heart and all his mind, really wanted to follow God and faithfully to bear the cross after him, he could make no delay in taking the road to the Holy Sepulchre as quickly as possible.
— Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (ed. Hill), Book I, page 1.
The first eight books give a concise account of the crusade's progress: fromwestern Europe to the Byzantine capital ofConstantinople, including the story of thePeople's Crusade (Book I); the siege and capture ofNicaea in May-June 1097 (Book II); theBattle of Dorylaeum on 1 July 1097 (Book III); the march acrossAnatolia, including the incursion ofTancred Marchisus intoCilicia (Book IV); the arrival atAntioch in November 1097 (Book V); the arrival of the forces ofFakhr al-Mulk Ridwan of Aleppo and theLake Battle on 9 February 1098 (Book VI) ; the battle of the Bridge Gate in March 1098 (Book VII); the capture of the walls of Antioch byBohemond of Taranto in April-May 1098 (Book VIII); the arrival of the army ofKerbogha of Mosul, the discovery of theHoly Lance, and theBattle of Antioch on 28 June 1098 (Book IX); the siege ofMaarat al-Numan, the council of the leaders atAll Saints Day 1098, a description ofAntioch, and the march south toJerusalem, thesiege and capture of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099 and the firstBattle of Ascalon on 12 August.
What editors have come to call theGesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum is one among several closely related Latin narratives. These include the account associated withPeter Tudebode, theMontecassino chronicle known as theHistoria belli sacri, and the recently discoveredPeregrinatio Antiochie.[4] All of these works are so similar that, asJay Rubenstein observes, it is very difficult to tell them apart unless consulting modern editions of theirLatin texts (which show even very small variants to the texts). Until a comprehensive attempt is made to re-edit and contrast all of these works (and others which may come to light) it is difficult to know with confidence whether one of them was the source for the others, or whether all drew upon another lost source or group of sources. When the editors of theRecueil des historiens des croisades set out to prepare editions of all the Latin sources of the First Crusade that they knew about, they concluded thatPeter Tudebode was the author of the original account, and that theGesta Francorum was simply an abbreviated version of this text (they entitled itTudebodus abbreviatus). Only later did editors contradict this view, giving theGesta Francorum the status as the source text of Peter Tudebode and theHistoria Belli Sacri as well as, it was believed, the series of substantial revisions undertaken by the threeBenedictine monksRobert the Monk,Baudri of Bourgueil, andGuibert of Nogent, who all used theGesta (or something very close to it) as the basis for their own chronicles in the first decade of the twelfth century.
In seeking to resolve the question of relationships between theGesta Francorum andPeter Tudebode's work,Jay Rubenstein andJean Flori proposed a lost common source, which Rubenstein called "the Jerusalem history," Subsequently,Marcus Bull has argued that when both texts are compared to thePeregrinatio Antiochie, it becomes clear that theGesta Francorum is indeed earlier, but that a process of revisions and additions were underway before Tudebode made his own version.Carol Symes has argued that the Latin account of the crusade emerged as the result of written memories of many participants, whose work circulated in now-lostlibelli: "in short, there are no grounds for believing in a dominant or singleUr-text of the crusade story, nor does the evidence bear out claims that theGesta was the earliest or only written account available,"[5]
Nothing of certainty is known about theGesta's author, nor if the work had a single author. Scholars of the earlier twentieth century believed the author to be a layman, possibly a knight who lost his mount during the expedition and became a footsoldier.[6] They also believed the author to have been a follower of the crusade leader Bohemond of Taranto, who looms large in the narrative.[7]Jay Rubenstein has pointed out, however, that the author was also harshly critical of Bohemond, and that interest in Bohemond's exploits would not have been surprising for any member of the expedition. As Rubenstein also observes, there is probably more evidence that the author was a cleric than a lay person.[8] Although the Latin is simple, the author quotes, paraphrases and merges Biblical passages, andMarcus Bull characterizes parts of the text (particularly Book IX) as complex with subtle intertextual references.[2]
Either theGesta Francorum itself or some very closely related text was used as the basis for three much longer, more detailed, and more stylistically ambitious accounts of the First Crusade. These three histories were all composed byBenedictine monks working in northwesternFrancia:Robert the Monk,Baudri of Bourgueil, andGuibert of Nogent. These authors complained of the simplicity of the text, and that it left out what to them seemed like major elements of the story such as theCouncil of Clermont. Notwithstanding their complaints, they all utilized it as a major source for their works.
How and why theGesta Francorum came to be the source for all three chroniclers at around the same time has been the source of scholarly disagreement. In concert with his belief that the author of theGesta was a southern Italian follower ofBohemond of Taranto, Augustus C. Krey first advanced the argument that Bohemond himself had brought theGesta with him to northern Francia as part of his campaign to recruit a new crusade army in 1105.[9] This argument has been broadly popular with scholars, including the modern translator ofRobert the Monk's chronicle Carol Sweetenham and has been expanded to explain the circulation of other crusade texts, such as the chronicle ofFulcher of Chartres, at around the same time.[10] Skepticism regarding this role for theGesta has been voiced in several quarters. Marc Carrier observed that theGesta would not have made effective anti-Byzantine propaganda.[11] Nicholas Paul argued that it was unlikely that Bohemond, who does not seem to have had extensive engagement with written texts before the First Crusade, would have used a Latin book to recruit lay warriors.[12] Jay Rubenstein reaffirmed his belief in the idea that Bohemond (or someone in his entourage) embraced the utility of Latin histories, arguing that the distribution of theGesta may have been followed by the recruitment ofRalph of Caen for the purpose of writing aDeeds of Bohemond (which became theDeeds of Tancred) after Bohemond's death.[13]
In 2011, Marcus Bull identified seven manuscripts of theGesta Francorum:[14]
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)