Miracles, Mysticism and Pious Peasants: The Strange Story of the Holy Lance during the First Crusade

Noah Parsons

By the time of the High Medieval Period, Western Europe remained firmly within the grasp of the omnipotent Catholic Church. Its traditions and beliefs were deeply entrenched in every facet of society, from the highest level of the feudal system to the lowest. Two of these beliefs were miracles and mysticism. Nowhere would these two beliefs become more profound than during the discovery of the Holy Lance at Antioch in the First Crusade.

The First Crusade was no stranger to dramatic events ranging from comical shenanigans and acts of gallantry to brutal persecution and indiscriminate bloodshed. This miraculous event in question took place in the city of Antioch on 15 June 1098. Before this, most of Antioch, excluding its citadel, had fallen to the Crusaders through devious subterfuge on 3 June 1098. No sooner had they entered the city than the vast army of Kerbogha, Atabeg (military governor) of Mosul, arrived to relieve the siege. Thus, the besiegers had become the besieged. Devoid of adequate supplies and beset by plague, the Crusaders found themselves in an extremely precarious position.

Yet, in the lowest nadir of the First Crusade, there was an unlikely hero: a lowly peasant from Provence (a region in southern France) called Peter Bartholomew. Brought before Adhemar le Puy, the papal legate, and Raymond, the Count of Toulouse, he claimed that he had been plagued by visions in which Saint Andrew and an angel appeared to him, suggesting that the Holy Lance was present within the confines of Saint Peter’s Church in the besieged city of Antioch. According to these visions, if it were to be used, victory for the Crusaders would be assured. The Holy Lance was the spear used by the Roman centurion Longinus to stab Christ while he lay on the cross, making it an important relic in the Christian faith. After several days of fasting, Bartholomew and a team of Crusaders began an excavation of the church, and as foretold by the holy visions, the lance was miraculously retrieved on 15 June 1098. After several days of jubilant celebration and further pious fasting, the Crusaders left the confines of Antioch to engage the host of Kerbogha on 28 June 1098, with Raymond carrying the Holy Lance into battle. The Crusaders smashed into the ranks of Kerbogha’s army, breaking the massive host within minutes. Some sources claimed that even the saints George and Demetrius rode alongside the Crusaders during the battle. Antioch was saved, and the First Crusade continued.

However, this surprising miracle was not free of scepticism, even during a period of unwavering piety. The renowned Arabic historian Ibn al-Athir noted that Bartholomew had earlier buried the lance before the excavation, while key Crusader leaders like Adhemar le Puy and Bohemond of Taranto had serious doubts about the lance’s authenticity. Even comically, Byzantine princess and historian Anna Komnene asserted that it was a nail from the cross, rather than the Holy Lance, due to the Byzantines already possessing what they believed to be the Holy Lance back in Constantinople. Nevertheless, this initial disbelief regarding the Lance was mostly overshadowed by the wave of awe and devotion inspired by the unlikely victory at Antioch.

By 8 April 1099, scepticism over Peter Bartholomew and the validity of the Holy Lance had become more vocal within the Crusader camp, accompanied by increasingly erratic visions. In one vision, Bartholomew claimed that the recently deceased Adhemar le Puy, who was now in the depths of hell, begged for forgiveness after having previously doubted the Holy Lance. Moreover, another vision demanded the removal of large swathes of Crusaders from the army for alleged cowardice and betrayal. It is clear that Bartholomew had many enemies after these supposed visions. Chief among them was Arnulf of Rohes. Arnulf was the chaplain to Robert of Normandy, one of the leaders of the First Crusade and son of William the Conqueror. With sufficient support from fellow Crusaders, Arnulf challenged Peter Bartholomew to prove once and for all the authenticity of the Holy Lance through a trial by ordeal.

The trial itself is considered ‘a moment that ignited fierce controversy among the Crusaders and continues to inspire historical debate today’. It required Peter Bartholomew to walk through fire; if he emerged unscathed, the lance would be deemed authentic, and vice versa. According to Fulcher of Chartres, the mystic was mortally burned in the inferno and succumbed to his horrific injuries twelve days later on 20 April 1099. Yet, his contemporaries offer a different account. Guilbert of Nogent and Albert of Aachen attest that Peter Bartholomew survived the trial completely unharmed before being coincidentally crushed by a mob of his supporters. Either way, Bartholomew was dead, and the Holy Lance was proven invalid.

Interestingly, this arbitrary debacle had unexpected consequences for the remainder of the First Crusade. Raymond of Toulouse, a fervent supporter of the Holy Lance, found himself overlooked in the decision to elect a new leader of the Crusade after the death of Adhemar le Puy, with Godfrey of Bouillon becoming the supreme commander. To add insult to injury, after the capture of Jerusalem on 15 July 1099, Godfrey became king of Jerusalem, while Raymond was bestowed the relatively minor title of Count of Tripoli.

In conclusion, the story of the Holy Lance demonstrates the importance of mysticism and miracles within the High Medieval Period. The use of miracles, whether true or not, could be utilised to effectively rally an army to victory in the case of the besieged Crusaders. Furthermore, mysticism provided the potential for people like Peter Bartholomew and Raymond of Toulouse to leverage a higher social standing and gain prestige. However, we must not forget that while people in the Middle Ages were devoutly religious and even superstitious, there was still a significant amount of scepticism and cynicism among the populace regarding bizarre instances like the story of the Holy Lance.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, ed. and trans. by S. B. Edgington (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007)

Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana (1095-1127), ed. by H. Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1913)

Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos, ed. by R. B. C. Huygens (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis, 127A: Turnhout: Brepols, 1996)

Secondary Sources

Bull, Marcus, and Damien Kempf, eds., Writing the Early Crusades: Text, Transmission and Memory(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2014)

Maalouf, Amin, The Crusades through Arab Eyes, trans. by Jon Rothschild (London: Saqi Books, 2006)

Peters, Edward, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials, 2nd edn (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998)

Runciman, Steven, A History of The Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusades and the Foundation of the Kingdom Jerusalem (London: Penguin Classics, 2016)

Tyerman, Christopher, ed., Chronicles of the First Crusade, 1096-1099 (London: Penguin Classics, 2012)