Embedded Files
Volume 1 | Issue 2 - Women & Gender
Article by Antony Lowe. Edited by Duncan Robinson. Additional Research by Liz Goodwin.
There was a general precedent in medieval sources that showed an obvious bias towards the deeds of great men. This precedent led Mrs Lintott in the British comedy The History Boys to declare that ‘History is nothing more than a commentary on the continuing failures of men,’ and that ‘history is women, following behind with a bucket’. Furthermore when one asks for the kneejerk reaction to the question of women’s role in war, most will say nurse, ambulance drivers, washerwomen, and even prostitute or the victim of rape. Even though there is evidence to support these claims the role of women in the Latin Crusades shows a perception that develops beyond the idea that they were simply following behind with a bucket.
There is an abundance of sources from the medieval period that prove the existence of women on the crusades, not just as nurses or washerwomen or even prostitutes, but instead as taking the cross themselves. They donned the Crusading armour, which would hide their bodily shape; they forced on the helmet to hide their visage and charged with religious fervour alongside the male Crusaders. Despite the belief that the Crusades were solely a male venture, women were just as eager to take the cross and, although they didn’t participate as much as men, women fought, and they died alongside their brothers, fathers and sons. The image brings to mind Lady Marian, in the recent BBC version of Robin Hood, fighting for justice, often outdoing Robin the supposedly superior ex-crusading knight from the King’s private guard. The sources that portray this are mainly Muslim chronicles. The Christian chronicles have an evident bias towards the integrity of male crusaders. The presence of women may have been deemed embarrassing to the testosterone of male crusaders.
One particularly gruesome example of female involvement is seen in the aftermath of a naval battle in 1190. ‘Our women pulled the Turks along by the hair…cutting their throats, and finally beheaded them. The women’s physical weakness prolonged the pain of the death’. Even though the source refers to the women as physically weaker, the context enforces the role of women in capacities other than washerwomen. Women were found dead on the fields of Acre, after the battle in 1190. They found female bodies at the battle of Dorylaeum (First Crusade 1097) and the Siege of Antioch (First Crusade 1098).
Most striking of all however is the idea that women actually led forces of knights and men against the enemy. These aristocratic women on both sides completely reversed gender roles. Shagrat al-Durr, who came to the throne as Sultan of Egypt after the death of her husband, mobilised and regrouped the Egyptian army to fight the Frankish Crusaders and to take back Damietta (Egypt). There are sources that point to this end. An Arab source states ‘another person who arrived by sea was a noblewoman, she was a queen in her land, and arrived accompanied by five hundred Knights…they rode out when she rode out, and charged when she charged’. After the crusaders took Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade (1099) they set up several Crusader states. One such state was the Kingdom of Jerusalem. When King Baldwin IV died his sister Sybilla succeeded him, the throne passed to her younger sister Isabella. Women, therefore, sometimes ruled Crusading affairs.
There was a similar state on the home front. With male soldiers and nobles off fighting for the cause, it was left to the women to manage estates and ensure legal and administrative smooth running of their lands. It was in fact one of the rare moments in Medieval Europe when women could exercise real administrative power.
There is no finer example of the strength and demeanour of the Crusading women than the image of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Countess of Poitiers and queen consort of France. Her life and works is crucial to any sketch of women’s fighting role in the Crusades. Many assume her role in the Crusades was limited to being the mother of King Richard the Lionheart, a key figure in the Second Crusade. Yet she was, like the women at Acre, involved herself in the Crusading movement.
Sources suggest she greatly increased the Crusader ranks and helped their numbers by rallying and mobilising her vassals (one who owes allegiance to a feudal lord) in order to aid the crusading movement. There is a myth that after being spurred on by the sermon preached by Bernard of Clairvaux, she roused her followers dressed as an Amazonian woman and rode atop a horse through her lands. Regardless of whether it is accurate, this image serves to highlight the importance of her strong character in relation to the Second Crusade. Her strength and daring increased thecrusader ranks and the simple fact she supplied many of her vassals to the movement suggests she was not just following behind with a bucket. She took 300 of her female followers to the holy land to care for the sick; there is even a story of her leading a force of a thousand men against the enemy. Again this is disputed but serves to show her as a symbol of strength in regards to female involvement. She insisted on engaging in strategic planning during the Second Crusade, siding with Raymond of Antioch (her uncle) about whether or not to march on Jerusalem.
It is not alien to suggest then that women were crucial to the Crusading movement. They did occupy what we might term traditional roles. They were washerwomen and they cared for the wounded. Yet there is a plethora of examples of more important roles. Women were involved in siege warfare as a psychological tactic (boosting numbers), they would dig moats and ditches during battles, showing their physical strength, and they would don Crusading armour to hide their gender so they could fight, and die, alongside male soldiers. They inspired religious and spiritual camaraderie and they would comfort men after battle, providing water and care. Without them the psychological terror of the crusading movement could have taken and destroyed more men than it did. Religious zeal encompassed all, regardless of sex. If gender prejudice had not been so ripe, more women would have taken the cross and fought for their faith.
Report abuse