“Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association,
of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical”.
Elizabeth Lapina
See also Damien F. Mackey’s related article:
Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders
(4) Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Elizabeth Lapina has written most intriguingly on this subject in her article:
“Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)”
(4) “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” | Elizabeth Lapina - Academia.edu
….
It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was very ancient: “the book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” the poet is apparently alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34).
….
In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against
Muslim infidel, are substantially identical.”
Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem, was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone.
Describing the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious, Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows:
“For when did victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many thousands.”
….
For instance, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus, a monk and the archbishop of Mainz, argued that Mattathias (the father of Judas Maccabeus) was a “type” of Christ and his sons signified the community of saints. In the late tenth or early eleventh century, Aelfric, an abbot at the Anglo-Saxon monastery of Eynsham, included the story of Judas Maccabeus in his collection of saints’ vitae compiled for the edification of the laity. On the one hand, Aelfric acknowledged that warfare in defense of one’s home and one’s faith, such as the one that Judas Maccabeus had undertaken, was just. On the other hand, he emphasized that spiritual combat is of greater value than actual warfare.
In the aftermath of the First Crusade, there was considerable questioning of old paradigms regarding warfare. Some began to argue that crusaders fought “for Christ” and hence could almost be equated with monks. This revalorization of warfare led, at least in part, to the increasing popularity of the Maccabean warriors. However, many authors writing about the First Crusade found the very outward resemblance between the Maccabees and crusaders disturbing. From their perspective, if the wars of crusaders were both physical and spiritual, the wars of the Maccabees lacked a spiritual dimension, since, of course, they had nothing to do with the Christian faith.
Damien Mackey’s comment: But, see my articles:
Religious war waging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus
https://www.academia.edu/107036451/Religious_war_raging_in_Judah_during_the_Infancy_of_Jesus
and:
Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees
https://www.academia.edu/111517720/Shepherds_of_Bethlehem_and_the_five_Maccabees
Elizabeth Lapina continues:
….
Both Cafaro and Fulcher saw the crusaders as “new Maccabees” of a hybrid variety: they resisted actively, with sword in hand, just like Judas Maccabeus, but at the same time they were martyrs, just as the Priest Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother. In this manner, the connection between the crusaders and Maccabees acquired a new meaning: the deeds of the crusaders surpassed the military exploits of the Maccabean warriors and, at the very least, equaled the spiritual victories of the Maccabean martyrs.
….
The moment when crusaders came closest to resembling the Maccabees was during the Battle of Antioch. According to a number of sources, crusaders were able to emerge victorious thanks to divine intervention. For instance, the anonymous author of Gesta Francorum, one of the earliest narratives of the First Crusade, writes that there “appeared from the mountains a countless host of men on white horses, whose banners were all white.” he crusaders realized that “this was the succor sent by Christ, and that the leaders were St. George, St. Mercurius and St. Demetrius.” An obvious parallel to this and other narratives of celestial intervention in the Battle of Antioch is to be found in the Second Book of Maccabees, where there are several similar episodes. In one battle, for instance, “five resplendent men from heaven on horses with golden bridles . . . led on the Jews” (2 Macc 10:29–30). They “showered arrows and thunderbolts on the enemy till, blinded and disordered, they were utterly bewildered and cut to pieces” (2 Macc 10:30–31).
There are several other biblical and non-biblical texts that mention celestial warriors or an entire celestial army. However, the only parallel that chroniclers of the Crusades acknowledge overtly is with the Second Book of Maccabees.
William of Malmesbury, who included an extensive narrative of the First Crusade in his Deeds of the English Kings, uses the reference to the Maccabees to demonstrate that the miracle of saintly intervention in the Battle of Antioch was credible. Ater describing the miracle, he adds: “nor can we deny that martyrs have aided Christians, at any rate when fighting in a cause like this, just as angels once gave help to the Maccabees.” According to William, both the Maccabees and crusaders were fighting for a worthy cause and thus deserved divine help. Thus, William’s reference seems to be an example of a conventional use of Jewish heroes as prototypes of medieval warriors.
….
Orderic Vitalis, the author of Ecclesiastical History, most of which was written between 1123 and 1137, represents the fourth strategy for undermining the standard connection between the crusaders and Maccabees. Orderic’s presentation of the Battle of the Field of Blood seems a response to that connection as raised, for instance, by Fulcher in the framework of the Battle of Tall Danith. As discussed above, Fulcher compared crusaders to Maccabees, who frequently won battles regardless of their numerical inferiority. he Battle of the Field of Blood took place just four years ater the Battle of Tall Danith; it was also fought relatively close to Antioch and involved the same crusading leader, Prince Roger of Antioch. But as its name suggests, the Battle of the Field of Blood was an unprecedented disaster for crusaders, with Prince Roger killed and his entire army annihilated.
According to Orderic, just before the battle’s beginning, Bernard of Valence, the Patriarch of Antioch, warned Roger against engaging the enemy, begging him to wait for reinforcements. Abandoning the discourse of divinely-sponsored victory of the few over many, the patriarch gave Roger highly practical advice:
“Temper your zeal with prudence, valiant duke, and wait for King Baldwin and Joscelin and the other loyal lords who are coming early to our assistance. Rash haste has brought many men to ruin and deprived great princes of life and victory.” The Patriarch supported his admonitions by citing historical precedent:
Study ancient and modern histories, and ponder seriously over the fates of some remarkable kings. Call to mind Saul and Josiah and Judas Maccabeus, and the Romans who were defeated by Hannibal at Cannae, and take great care not to drag your subjects with yourself into a disaster of the same kind. Wait for your worthy allies . . .
….
The Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought their wars on the same terrain, with Jerusalem being the ultimate goal. Both referred to the restoration of sites of worship and the possibility of freely practicing their faith in the city as the aims of their fighting and both profited from a remarkably similar type of miracle: the intervention of celestial agents on the battlefield.
….
In canto XVIII of Dante’s Paradiso, completed shortly before the author’s death in 1321, the narrator meets eight rulers who have been admitted to paradise. The attribute shared by all eight is having defended the “true faith,” whether Judaism or Christianity, against “infidels.” Among these individuals, the narrator meets Duke Geofrey of Bouillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade, and “the great Maccabee” (alto Maccabeo), presumably Judas. Clearly, by the fourteenth century, the controversy surrounding the comparisons between Christian and Jewish warriors was a thing of the past. It was no longer disquieting to find a crusader and a Maccabean warrior as neighbors in paradise.
Comments