The evolution of memory about the Crusade

Recent scholarship has focused on the importance of crusades in creating and memorializing the identity of ancestors: “aristocratic lineages relied heavily on crusading as a mark of past and future prestige”⁹. Achievements on the crusade were both geographically and socially distant, taking place in a psychogeography which offered freedom to shape individual and collective narrative: “the Crusades created a dynamic framework for the development and performance of medieval identity”¹⁰. What happened in Outremer did not stay in Outremer: it came back to the West shaped into narratives of heroism as well as narratives of failure.

Memories, though, are not static. The function of memory changes as events recede into the distance. Initial memories can be characterized as communicative: they are about creating, interpreting, and socialising experiences. Over the period of a century or so, “as communicative memory fades, so cultural memory takes over… not memory as a subjective practice, but remembrance as a social, political and organizational force”¹¹. What began as personal perceptions of individuals and their reputations turn over time into more abstract representations of the roles played and/or perceived to have been played by those individuals in historical events. Past deeds were evoked and reshaped in patterns that fitted contemporary discourse.

We can trace the development of legends about Robert through this lens. Contemporary accounts of the crusade are clear about his heroism, although with an ambivalence that appears early on. Anglo-Norman historians writing in the first half of the 12^th century adopt a differing balance between praise and criticism of Robert in the context of the disputed succession with Henry I: Robert’s personal qualities or lack of them become critical in their portrayal. Those writing towards the end of the 12^th century similarly reflect this ambivalence, but in a post-Hattin context where crusading took on new relevance and urgency. By the 13^th century, Robert had become a generic crusade hero to whom episodes could be attached which bear little relevance to what he might or might not have done, but make a rattling good story.

Robert on the crusade and on return: reality and reputation

Robert of Normandy was the eldest son of William of Normandy. The first decades of his life were spent in conflict with his father and his brothers, which ultimately led to him taking refuge with Robert of Flanders. On the death of William in 1087, Robert inherited the duchy of Normandy whilst his brother William Rufus was granted the crown of England. The brothers agreed that each would be the other’s heir; however this pact was shortlived, and Robert attempted unsuccessfully in 1088 to take the English throne from his brother William Rufus.

When Urban issued the call to crusade, Robert mortgaged his duchy to fund his departure to the Holy Land. The contemporary accounts of the First Crusade portray Robert as an experienced and capable leader¹². He played a significant role in rallying the Christian forces at the battle of Dorylaeum under intense pressure, something recounted in detail in Ralph of Caen and Guibert of Nogent (who were not there), but not mentioned by Fulcher or the author of the Gesta Francorum (who were)¹³. He led out a column at the Battle of Antioch, though is not mentioned as a leading figure in the battle¹⁴. By contrast, his feat in seizing the standard of the emir leading the Saracen forces at the battle of Ascalon was widely recognized¹⁵. There is no hint that he either coveted or was offered the rulership of Jerusalem; Aird suggests that he in fact played the role of mediator in the discussions¹⁶. His role was by no means undistinguished: “a personal triumph” for Aird, who emphasizes both Robert’s valour and his abilities as mediator and conciliator¹⁷. But arguably he captured the contemporary imagination less than Bohemond or Godfrey. Robert the Monk for example somewhat downplays his role, referring only in passing to his heroism at Dorylaeum and pointedly calling him “comes” rather than “dux”¹⁸.

Robert’s absence left Henry I free to claim the English throne on the death of William Rufus. Robert made an abortive attempt to invade in 1101. Henry was subsequently to invade Normandy in 1105. The ongoing dispute between the brothers concluded at the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, where Robert was taken captive by Henry, and spent the rest of his life in captivity until his death in 1134; the duchy of Normandy was absorbed into England.

There was ambivalence about Robert’s fama almost from the start. His heroism was widely recognized. The mid-12^th Century crusading window at the Basilica of St-Denis explicitly depicts Robert in combat, with the caption “R Dux Normannorum Partum Prosternit”¹⁹. The scene could refer to Robert’s heroism at Dorylaeum, his exploits at Antioch (attacking Corbaran though we might have expected the caption to reflect this, or killing the Saracen emir Red Lion) or his combat with the emir at Ascalon²⁰. Whichever of these it was, Robert’s heroism was perceived as such that he was one of only two leaders to be named in the window, the other being Robert of Flanders. Equally, however, there were murmurings about his weaknesses of character from an early stage. Ralph of Caen and Guibert of Nogent both criticize him for being too lenient towards wrongdoers and extravagant²¹. The Monte Cassino account of the crusade, dating from the second quarter of the century, describes Robert refusing the crown on the grounds that he wants to return home²².

“Tam miranda Dei magnalia”: early 12 ^th Century accounts of the crusade in Anglo-Norman England

We find detailed accounts of the Crusade in the three major Anglo-Norman historians of the first part of the 12^th Century: William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, and Henry of Huntingdon. William’s account dates in its first form to around 1118, revised substantially in the mid-1130s; he relies on the account of Fulcher of Chartres²³. Orderic’s account is likely to date to around 1135 and uses Baldric of Bourgueil as his main source²⁴. Henry wrote his account between 1123-1130 and continued to revise it up to 1154: there is no obvious main source²⁵. The fullest account is Orderic’s, which occupies all of book IX and some of book X of his Historia Ecclesiastica. William’s account occupies around 12% of his Gesta Regum Anglorum²⁶. Henry’s account is shorter but still substantial²⁷.

This explosion of interest some decades after the crusade, in a part of the Anglo-Norman realm which had not participated to any significant extent in the expedition, and in historical works partly at least about England, is striking. All three are clear, thirty years on, about the miraculous nature of the enterprise. Orderic for example comments: “nulla ut reor unquam sophistis in bellicis rebus gloriosor materia prodidit, quam nostris nunc Dominus poetis atque libris tradidit, dum per paucos Christicolas de paganis in oriente triumphavit”²⁸. All three mark it out as a discrete episode standing out from the rest of their narration.²⁹ They comment on the exemplary nature of the enterprise: William, for example, comments “tam famosum his diebus expeditionem audiere sit operae pretium et virtutis incitamentum”³⁰. And they use the modesty topos to underline the magnitude of the enterprise compared to their own powers to depict it³¹. There is little attempt to magnify Anglo-Norman participation: Orderic and William stay relatively close to their respective sources Baldric and Fulcher. There is no reason not to take at face value their own commentary: the crusade was a miraculous enterprise and therefore deserved to be recounted at length.

The crusade mattered. And this created a double dilemma. Robert had distinguished himself on the crusade, but had lost his lands to Henry and was in prison: his heroism on the crusade was cast into question by his defeat and the questions this raised as to how far he, in fact, enjoyed Divine favour. Henry had not been on a crusade, but ruled his brother’s duchy and held the crown Robert had tried to claim: Robert’s widely acknowledged heroism on a divinely favoured enterprise outweighed his brother’s reputation. Crusade heroism could not be ignored or denied. But who enjoyed God’s favour more? And who was the rightful ruler?

The three authors adopt different stratagems to navigate this awkwardness. Orderic minimises Robert’s achievements by barely mentioning them and by repeated sharp criticism of his personal deficiencies. William similarly gives Robert little prominence in his account of the crusade itself, describing him separately from the events and giving greater prominence to Robert’s failings than to his one albeit impressive achievement. Henry, who made no secret elsewhere in his work of his views on Henry I, is more favourably disposed to Robert: he reflects more of Robert’s heroism and embeds it within the account of the crusade, compressing the story of the refusal into one sentence³².

Orderic says little of Robert’s heroism at Dorylaeum³³. He is the only source to describe Hugh Bunel, an exile since 1077, approaching Robert and offering help, but says little about the use Robert made of Hugh³⁴. He retains the description from Baldric about Robert’s capture of the standard at Ascalon and subsequent donation to the Holy Sepulchre³⁵. Conversely, he criticises Robert sharply elsewhere, describing him on his return from crusade as “socordia nempe mollicieque damnabiliter detentus”, and referring obliquely to his desire to get home³⁶. Elsewhere he is repeatedly and sharply critical of Robert, notably in the prophecy made by a hermit to the Duke’s mother that his rule will be disastrous for Normandy³⁷.

William tells us rather more about Robert. He is shown more than once with Robert of Flanders and Stephen of Blois³⁸. There is little reference to him in the account William follows from Fulcher, though he does add a reference to Robert cutting through the centre of the enemy lines at the battle of Ascalon³⁹. After the end of his description of the crusade, he talks in detail about Godfrey including a number of anecdotes, returns to Fulcher for the early years of the kingdom, and talks in detail about Raymond IV. He then goes on to talk about Robert⁴⁰. He describes how Robert killed the Turkish leader Corbaguath at the Battle of Antioch. This is not true. But Kerbogha’s attack was arguably the point on which success or failure hung for the crusade, and to credit Robert with killing him represented a major recognition of his importance. William goes into (eyewitness?) detail not found in any other source, describing how Robert fought alongside “Philippus clericus”, son of the powerful Count Roger of Montgomery, and Warin of Taney in Maine; the three pretended to flee then wheeled about and killed a man each⁴¹. Conversely, William also tells us how Robert refused the kingdom of Jerusalem when it was offered to him by consensus as the son of a king on the grounds of “laborum inextricabilium metu […] [Deus] “omnes eius dulcedines amarissimis offensionibus offuscans”. He qualifies this “ut fertur”⁴². For William, therefore, there is a sharp contrast. On crusade Robert “in multis quidem mirabilis apparuit, ut nunquam a Christiano vel pagano potuerit ex equite pedes effici”⁴³. But his refusal of the crown “indelibili macula nobilitatem suam respersit”⁴⁴. This reflects William’s more general criticism of Robert: he accuses him of being a wastrel, of attacking his brother and “pro mollitie tamen animi numquam regendae reipublicae idoneus iudicatus”⁴⁵.

Henry of Huntingdon’s portrayal of Robert is notably more positive than those of William or Orderic. Henry describes how Robert saved the day at Dorylaeum by rallying the troops, giving a rousing speech, and cutting his way through three Turkish battle lines; this is also in Robert the Monk but considerably embroidered by Henry⁴⁶. Robert grants a city to one Symeon, suggesting that he had territories at his disposal⁴⁷. He slices a Saracen down the middle at Antioch, an exploit placed alongside Godfrey’s famous bisection and implicitly associating Robert with Godfrey’s feat⁴⁸. Henry omits the battle of Ascalon and any reference to Robert’s feat, although it is clear from a reference further on in the context of Robert’s return to England that he was aware of it⁴⁹. Like William, he has the story of Robert refusing the crown though gives it little space: “optulerunt igitur regnum Ierosolim Normannorum duci. Quod quia causa laboris repudiavit, offensus est in eum Deus, nec prosperum quid deinceps ei contigit”⁵⁰.

It is clear from these accounts that stories and anecdotes were already circulating about Robert and probably during his lifetime⁵¹. Robert was indubitably a hero of the Crusade, an event which was by common consent an extraordinary manifestation of the power of God. His heroism needed not only to be acknowledged but magnified, not only in his own right but as the eldest son of the Conqueror and as an outstanding Anglo-Norman leader. Equally indubitable however was the fact that he had been comprehensively outmanoeuvred and defeated by Henry. On one level this could simply be explained as divine disfavour: victory goes to the righteous. However, the story that Robert had refused the throne of Jerusalem was the most damaging possible to his reputation. Whatever his heroism on crusade, he had failed Christ by refusing to defend His holy city and, implicitly, failing to emulate Him; and he had done so out of laziness and a desire for luxury. This both undermined his reputation as a heroic crusader and reflected existing criticisms of his laxness. And it played to a political agenda. It implicitly justified Henry I’s taking of the English throne: if Robert had refused the throne of the heavenly city, he was hardly fit to rule Normandy let alone England⁵². And there was a further implication: that the kingship of Jerusalem had been intended for an Anglo-Norman ruler, thus implicitly underlining the importance and legitimacy of the dynasty. This negative portrayal of Robert’s conduct at Jerusalem was supported both by direct criticism of Robert as unsuited to rule, and by insinuations that he lost impetus and grip after the crusade⁵³.

The mid-12^th Century: all about Robert

The lack of emphasis on the crusade in the historiography of the middle third of the 12^th Century stands in sharp contrast to the detailed accounts of Orderic, William, and Henry. The crusade was a relatively distant memory. And the lack of English participation meant that there were few family memories to preserve. For historians interested in defining a nascent English nationhood, Robert was an obvious exemplar of Anglo-Norman heroism. So Anglo-Norman English historians in the middle of the 12^th Century were more interested in the deeds of Robert on the crusade than in the crusade itself.

Geffrei Gaimar wrote an octosyllabic vernacular history, the first version dating from 1136-37⁵⁴. His account of the crusade is short and focused entirely on Robert⁵⁵. He has nothing but praise for Robert: “suz ciel nen out meillor baron”⁵⁶. In this account, Robert becomes rather startlingly the controlling intelligence of the entire crusade. Gaimar credits him with taking Jerusalem; killing Corbaran, which so impresses the Christians that they want him to be king; capturing Antioch of which he is the “avoué”, handing it over to a Norman and entrusted with parcelling out the captured territories to the other leaders; and bestowing the kingship on Godfrey because he did not wish to remain himself. Gaimar wrote for the provincial aristocracy in Lincolnshire rather than the court, as he explains in detail; we might surmise that stories about heroic deeds by Anglo-Norman crusade heroes rather than deficient dukes went down well⁵⁷.

Wace was commissioned by Henry II to write a history of Anglo-Norman England, the Roman de Rou⁵⁸. He is consistently favourable to Robert and clear that he enjoyed divine favour⁵⁹. He summarises the crusade in some forty lines⁶⁰. Robert’s feats are crisply described: he distinguishes himself at Antioch and Jerusalem, fights with Corbaran, and captures the standard (presumably at Ascalon); Wace is alone in saying that Robert gave it to the Abbaye aux Dames founded by his mother in Caen. He is nothing but complimentary about Robert’s role on crusade: “out il grant priés e grant onor/e mult en parlerent plusor”⁶¹. However, he comments later that Robert was less vigorous in his conduct of affairs after his return from Outremer: “por pereços fu mult tenuz/pois qu’il fu d’oltre mer venuz”⁶². He also observes that the barons were unclear about Robert’s intentions⁶³.

Benoît de Ste-Maure was commissioned by Henry II to take on the work of Wace⁶⁴. The circumstances in which Wace was replaced by Benoît suggest that his approach did not find favour with Henry II⁶⁵. His positive description of Robert, however far it might have reflected Robert’s favourable crusading fama, may not have sat well with Henry I’s grandson. Benoît takes a notably more critical view of Robert⁶⁶. He repeats the allegation that Robert was begged to stay in Outremer but returned home in folly, saying nothing about his conduct on crusade and commenting that he both failed to pay back his debt and promptly attacked Henry I on his return⁶⁷.

Robert of Torigni, an abbot of Mont St Michel who wrote between c.1150 and 1186, similarly gives a brief and selective account of the crusade, which focuses almost entirely on the deeds of Robert: Antioch is not even mentioned under his entry for 1098⁶⁸. He repeats the anecdotes familiar from Henry of Robert’s bravery at Dorylaeum in rallying the troops and killing three Turks; his granting of a town to Symeon; his bisection of a Turk alongside the similar feat of Godfrey; and his capturing of the standard at Ascalon and purchase of another captured standard to give to the Holy Sepulchre. Robert also repeats near-verbatim Henry’s account of Robert turning down the crown of Jerusalem but lays heavier emphasis on it; he comes back to this in the context of the defeat at Tinchebrai, commenting “dampnavit igitur eum Deus deridia perhenni et carcere sempiterno”⁶⁹.

None of these accounts show interest in the First Crusade other than as a backdrop for Robert’s heroism: there is no comment on its extraordinary divinely inspired success, and it is not singled out as a freestanding episode. By the time we reach Benoît, the crusade is barely mentioned. And this in turn shows that, once the crusade was largely outside living memory, it ceased to be of interest at least to English chroniclers in its own right. The crusade is seen entirely through the lens of Robert’s exploits, and this is what we might expect from historians whose objective was to explore nascent Anglo-Norman English identity⁷⁰. Clearly, stories about Robert’s fama circulated widely and were largely positive, focusing on him as an Anglo-Norman crusading hero. However, there is also a perceptible shift towards the negative aspects of his reputation, coinciding with the accession of Henry II.

Angevin sources at the end of the 12^th Century

The turbulence of the later years of Henry II’s reign and the loss of Jerusalem led to a new wave of historical writing, with a focus on current events rather than constructing the past⁷¹. The First Crusade receives little emphasis. In part, this reflects the perception that it was never seen as an English crusade, in stark contrast to the Third Crusade⁷².

Most historians of this period who refer to the crusade give a summarised account stripped down to a narrative focused on Nicaea, Antioch, and Jerusalem which it is hard to ascribe to any particular source. There is little evidence of detailed use of contemporary First Crusade source material. The most detailed account is of Ralph of Diceto, whose account shows similarities to Henry of Huntingdon⁷³. There is a possibility that Roger of Hoveden may have had access to a version of the Old French Crusade Cycle. His description of events at Nicaea gives the names of combattants in Old French rather than Latin, his reference to Corbaran at Antioch similarly taking the Old French form, and the combattants at Nicaea themselves are drawn from the Antioche⁷⁴.

Accounts of the crusade continue to centre around Robert of Normandy, the only leader of the Crusade to be referred to in detail. We continue to see reference to, and if anything a strengthening of, his heroism. For William of Newburgh, Robert “armis tantus fuit ut in illa magna et famosa expeditione Ierosolymitana inter fortissimos totius orbis proceres clarissimae militiae titulis fulserit”⁷⁵. Roger of Hoveden follows William of Malmesbury in referring to Robert killing Curbarand⁷⁶. Ralph of Diceto follows Henry of Huntingdon in laying emphasis on Robert’s heroism at Dorylaeum, giving him a morale-rousing speech and describing him cutting his way through three battle lines; he later ascribes to Robert the same feat as Godfrey in cutting a Turk in half⁷⁷. Gervase of Tilbury refers to him as “vir in armis strenuissimus”⁷⁸. The Anglo-Norman poem known as the Siège d’Antioche, whilst emphasising the role of Godfrey and Bohemond, gives some prominence to Robert. He successfully gathers large amounts of plunder at Nicaea, where he fights a long and valiant battle against Soliman, and is shown requesting a succession of reluctant lords to seek help; at Antioch, he attacks Corbaran, then kills the Saracen leader Red Lion⁷⁹.

The perception of Robert as the flawed hero who refused the crown of Jerusalem was, however, equally tenacious. Roger of Hoveden says that Robert refused the crown on the grounds that he was being threatened by the ambitions of William Rufus, and makes the connection to defeat at Tinchebrai; he sets this in the context of Henry II’s right to the crown of Outremer⁸⁰. Gervase of Tilbury comments crisply that Robert was “utroque regno privatus, Hierosolymitano quod contempsit, Anglicano quod appetivit”⁸¹. The legend travelled far: the annals of the monastery of Waverley echo Henry of Huntingdon in commenting “quia causa laboris repudiavit, offensus est in eum Deus, nec prosperum quid deinceps ei contigit”⁸².

This was, of course, not a new story; as set out above, it had been circulating from the first decades of the 12^th Century, and had been used by Anglo-Norman English historians to underline Henry I’s legitimacy as ruler. But in the hands of Angevin historians wrestling with the arguments around Henry II’s participation - or non-participation - in the Third Crusade, it took on new relevance. Henry II had a double right to the kingdom of Jerusalem, not only through the line of Fulk and Geoffrey but as a descendant of William the Conqueror to whose son Robert the crown of Jerusalem had been offered⁸³. Looked at in this light, it remained important to emphasize Robert’s heroism on the crusade. As Henry’s ancestor, he provided an example to be praised and emulated. And his courage justified the offer of the crown. Conversely, Robert’s refusal to accept that crown led to not only defeat and captivity but the loss of divine support: the implication is that this is an example Henry should learn from and not seek to emulate⁸⁴. And the fact that his claim to the throne had been defeated by Henry II’s grandfather continued to cast a shadow.

13^th Century portrayals of Robert and the crusade

13^th Century historians continued to describe the events of the crusade and to emphasize the role of Robert. Roger of Wendover gives a long and detailed account⁸⁵. This was re-edited by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Maiora as a free-standing episode in his chronicle with little change to the substance⁸⁶. The main source for this version is William of Tyre, showing (obviously) that his Chronicon had made its way to the West. Roger and Matthew summarise and edit William, and add material from the earlier accounts by William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, and Baldric of Bourgueil. A number of additions emphasize Robert’s heroism. In the account of the battle of Dorylaeum, there is a near-verbatim borrowing from Henry describing Robert’s heroism in raising morale and killing three Turks⁸⁷. There is further material from Henry about Robert giving the city of Azena to Symeon⁸⁸. In battle during the siege of Antioch, there is another scene borrowed from Henry: a description of Robert cutting down through a Saracen, juxtaposed with the more famous episode of Godfrey bisecting a Turk, and repeating a comment by Henry comparing Robert Fitzgerald to a lion ⁸⁹. When the crusaders enter Jerusalem, Robert of Normandy and Robert of Flanders are added to the list given by William⁹⁰. At the battle of Ascalon there is an addition from Baldric of Bourgueil, giving details of how Robert captures the emir’s standard and subsequently buys and donates a standard to the Holy Sepulchre⁹¹. Whilst Matthew does include a reference from Henry of Huntingdon to Robert turning down the crown, he qualifies it with “tradunt autem quidam”; Roger of Wendover describes the episode in more detail⁹². Matthew wrote at a time when Henry III was strongly interested in the possibility of a crusade⁹³. So the First Crusade had obvious relevance, as did its homegrown Anglo-Norman hero.

The story about Robert’s refusal of the throne continued to be retailed albeit with an emphasis on his choice as ruler rather than his refusal to do so. Roger of Wendover describes how the leaders of the crusade decided to choose the ruler of Jerusalem by keeping vigil with candles: the one whose candle spontaneously lit was the chosen one. Robert’s candle was the first to be lit. He promptly blew it out, commenting that a better kingdom awaited him in England⁹⁴. This episode is also found in the 13^th Century Chanson de Jérusalem, a heavily fictionalized poetic version of the crusade forming part of the Old French Crusade Cycle, where however Godfrey is the only one whose candle is lit⁹⁵. A different variant is found in the Estoire de Jérusalem et d’Antioche, a gloriously batty 13^th Century French prose account of the crusade and its aftermath⁹⁶. This describes the new ruler of Jerusalem being chosen on the basis of recommendations from friends: whilst this is in William of Tyre, the Estoire specifies that the four under consideration were Godfrey, Robert, Robert of Flanders, and (slightly surprisingly as he was not there) count William of Poitiers⁹⁷. Tales grow in the telling: the late 13^th Century chronicler Peter Langtoft has Robert designated three times rather than once⁹⁸. More generally Robert was portrayed as a crusader to whom miscellaneous heroic exploits could be attached. In the Chanson de Jérusalem his heroism is commented on a number of times, notably when he fights so valiantly that his hand becomes cramped around his sword⁹⁹. The Estoire depicts Robert as the hero of something of a bromance with the Saracen Amidelis, whom he unhorses but does not kill, and who later seeks his help in converting to Christianity¹⁰⁰. The very mention of Robert’s name is enough to dissuade Roger Borsa from the siege of Capua¹⁰¹.

At some point during the 13^th Century, a wooden effigy of Robert drawing his sword was placed in Gloucester Cathedral. There is no firm date; it may be connected with the rededication of the Abbey of St Peter in 1239 but is unlikely to date to later than 1300¹⁰². During the 15^th Century, it was placed on a mortuary chest carrying the arms of the Nine Worthies with the arms of Godfrey at one end, thereby underlining the connection to the crusade¹⁰³. Whatever the date and provenance of the effigy, Robert’s heroism was still remembered and celebrated in the 13^th Century as a crusade participant, with the details of what he might or might not have done blurred into a general perception of heroism.

Conclusion

The stories told about Robert’s participation in the First Crusade show how memory evolved as the crusade receded into the past. The Anglo-Norman historians of the 1120s and 1130s are clear on the importance of the crusade even three decades afterward and the need to include it in their accounts. And this created a dilemma. Robert as crusade hero had been prominent in carrying out God’s will. How then to justify his perceived and actual failures and his brother’s accession, not only to the throne of England but Robert’s own duchy and his imprisonment of Robert? The answer was a story suggesting that he was the author of his own misfortune: by turning down the crown of Jerusalem he forfeited divine support, and clearly, someone who did not have divine support and turned down the throne of Jerusalem could not be a king of England. A dichotomy between Robert as a true hero and Robert as a failed hero was thus created. These tensions may have eased with Robert’s death in 1134 but did not disappear. As the First Crusade receded into history, accounts of it in England became increasingly focused on and synonymous with Robert. Stories both of his heroism and his unfitness for office continued to be told, with a gradual drift to the latter under Henry II. At the end of the 12^th Century a renewed debate around participation in the crusade after the defeat at Hattin led to a new wave of historiography, in which Robert once again served as a proxy for discussion of royal attitudes to the crusade, and the stories from earlier in the century found a new lease of life. By the 13^th Century, arguments about the legitimacy of Henry I as ruler and Henry II’s failure to go on crusade were past history. But interest in the First Crusade as the only truly successful enterprise to Jerusalem remained strong. And in this context, Robert’s fame as a hero of the First Crusade again became topical, albeit by now as a generic hero rather than the ambiguous figure of earlier depictions.

Bibliographic References