The History of the Crusades (vol. 1 of 3)Michaud, J. Fr. (Joseph Fr.)
History
The History of the Crusades (vol. 1 of 3)
Michaud, J. Fr. (Joseph Fr.)
Crusades
evils which this kingdom would undergo would pass in the eyes of men as
the fruit of our imprudence.
“Do not believe, however, brothers and companions, that I speak thus
because I am ambitious of royalty, and that I am seeking your favour or
suffrages. No; I have not sufficient presumption to aspire to such an
honour; I take Heaven and men to witness, that even if you should offer
me the crown, I would not accept it, being resolved to return to my own
country. That which I have said to you is but for the good and glory of
all. For the rest, I supplicate you to receive this advice as I give it
to you, with affection, frankness, and loyalty, and to elect for king
him who by his virtue shall be most capable of preserving and extending
this kingdom, to which are attached both the honour of your arms and
the cause of Jesus Christ.”
Scarcely had the count of Flanders ceased speaking, than all the other
leaders gave him the warmest praise for his prudence and good feelings.
Most of them even thought of offering him the honour he had declined,
for he who in such circumstances refuses a crown, always appears to be
the most worthy of it; but Robert had expressed himself with frankness
and good faith; he longed to return to Europe, and was satisfied with
the honour of bearing the title of “the Son of St. George,” which his
exploits in the holy war had obtained for him.
Among the leaders who could be called upon to reign over Jerusalem,
we must place in the first rank Godfrey, Raymond, the duke of
Normandy, and Tancred. The only object of Tancred was glory in
arms, and he placed the title of knight far above that of king. The
duke of Normandy, likewise, had evinced more bravery than ambition;
after having disdained the kingdom of England, he was not likely
to be anxious to gain that of Jerusalem. If we may believe an
English historian,[190] he might have obtained the suffrages of his
companions; but he refused the throne of David from indolence, which
so irritated God against him, says the same author, that nothing
afterwards prospered with him during the remainder of his life. The
count of Thoulouse had taken an oath never to return to Europe, but
his companions dreaded his obstinate and ambitious character; and
although several authors have said that he refused to ascend the throne
on account of his great age, everything leads us to believe that the
Christians feared to have him for king.
The opinions of the leaders and the army were various and uncertain.
The clergy insisted that a patriarch should be named before they
elected a king; the princes were not at all agreed among themselves,
and of the body of the Crusaders, some would have wished to choose him
whom they had followed through the holy war, whilst others, like the
Provençals, who had no attachment for the count of St. Gilles, and were
not desirous of remaining in Asia, gave all their efforts to keep the
crown of Jerusalem from the prince under whose colours they served.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account