Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:34:30.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Crusade Against the Mongols (1241)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Peter Jackson
Peter Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Keele, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The great Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe in 1241–2 has received a fair degree of attention from historians.1 The same cannot be said of the crusade it provoked: at least from a crusading vantage-point this paper could be subtitled ‘a neglected category‘. The general histories of the crusades are content, at most, to mention the invasion and the proclamation of the crusade against the Mongols by Pope Gregory ix; some omit any reference to the episode. And if the Mongols receive more notice in Maureen Purcell's investigation of papal crusading policy in the thirteenth century, it is nevertheless in rather general terms; there is no mention of the crusade of 1241. The only author to examine that crusade at all qua crusade seems to have been Paulus in his history of the Indulgence.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The standard work is still Gustav Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall der Mongolen in Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1241 und 1242, Innsbruck 1893Google Scholar. See also Saunders, J.J., The History of the Mongol Conquests, London 1971, 84–9;Google ScholarChambers, James, The Devil's Horsemen, 2nd edn, London 1988, chs vii–viii;Google ScholarCheshire, Harold T., ‘The great Tartar invasion of Europe’, Slavonic Review v (1926–1927), 89–105;Google ScholarPashuto, V. T., ‘Mongol'skii pokhod v glub’ Evropy', in Tikhvinskii, S. L. (ed.), Tataro-Mongoly v Azii i Evrope. Sbornik statei, 2nd edn, Moscow 1977, 210–27Google Scholar. For Western reactions, see Bezzola, Gian Andri, Die Mongolen in abendlÄndischer Sicht: ein Beitrag zur Frage der Völkerbegegnungen (1220–1270), Berne and Munich 1974, 66–109.Google Scholar

2 H.E., Mayer, The Crusades, 2nd edn, Oxford 1988, 269, for example, mentions only the invasion. See Jonathan Riley Smith, The Crusades: A short history, London 1987, 164–5, for a brief reference to the crusade against the MongolsGoogle Scholar. Michel, Villey, La Croisade: Essai sur la formation d'une theorie juridique, Paris 1942, 216Google Scholar, makes a fleeting reference to the Mongols in his discussion of the crusade in north-eastern Europe.

3 Maureen Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy 1244–1291, Leiden 1975, esp. 67–9, 88–91.

4 Nikolaus, Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zjur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts, Paderborn 1922–1923, ii. 26–7, 35Google Scholar. The fullest account of the crusade is in Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 129–39.Google Scholar

5 David, Morgan, The Mongols, Oxford 1986, 5.Google Scholar

6 On the crusade preached against the Mongols in Syria in 1260, see Jean Richard, ‘The Mongols and the Franks’ Journal of Asian History iii (1969), 51Google Scholar; on the background, Jackson, Peter, ‘The crisis in the Holy Land in 1260’, EHR xcv (1980), 488, 509–10.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. 481–90. For an example of the older view, see Denis Sinor, ‘The Mongols and Western Europe’, in Hazard, H. W. (ed.), A History of the Crusades iii: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Madison, Wis. 1975, 519, repr. in Denis Sinor, Inner Asia and its Contacts with Medieval Europe, London, 1977.Google Scholar

8 See in general J.J., Saunders, ‘Matthew Paris and the Mongols’, in T.A., Sandquist and M.R., Powicke (eds), Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson, Toronto 1969, 116–32Google Scholar. For an analysis of the letters, see Hans-Eberhard Hilpert, Kaiser- und Papstbriefe in den Chronica Majora des Matthaeus Paris, Stuttgart 1981, 153–64.Google Scholar

9 J.F., Bohmer, ‘Briefe iiber den Anmarsch der Mongolen gegen Deutschland im Jahr 1241’, in K.Ed., Forstemann (ed.), Neue Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-anliquarischer Forschungen iv/2, Halle 1839, 105–17. These letters were collected by a contemporary copyist at Ottobeuren and preserved in MS Universitatsbibliothek Innsbruck 187: the importance of this MS has recently been highlighted once more by Robert E. Lerner, The Powers of Prophecy, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1983, 11–12.Google Scholar

10 For the Polish campaign, see Strakosch-Grassmann, , Der Einfall, 37–49; for MoraviaGoogle Scholar, ibid. 57–65; and for the occupation of Hungary, ibid. 68 ff., and Balint, Homan, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters ii, Berlin 1943, 134–53Google Scholar. The raids on Saxony and Meissen are mentioned in a letter of the Dominican Bartholomew of Trent to Egino, bishop of Brixen, in HDFS, ed. J. L. A. Huillard-Brholles, Paris 1852–1861, v. 1147Google Scholar(‘fines Boemie et Saxonie aggrediuntur’) = Frhr, Joseph. Hormayr-Hortenburg, von, Die goldene Chronik von Hohenschwangau, Munich 1842, ii. 70Google Scholar (no. 8); and in ‘Coloniensis, Annales S. Pantaleonis’, MGH SS xxii. 535, ‘fines Missinensis diocesis attigit [sc. predicta gens]’. For Austria, see the letter of Frederick 11, duke of Austria, to Conrad iv, 13 June 1241, in Bohmer, ‘Briefe’, 114Google Scholar no. 5 = BFW, comp. Bohmer, J. F. and Ficker, J., new edn E.Winkelmann, Innsbruck 1881–1901Google Scholar, no. 11349 = HDFSv. 1216 = Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik, ii. 66 no. 2; Frederick n, duke of Austria to Henry, bishop of Constance, 23 June 1241,Google Scholaribid. 70 no. 9 (BFW, no. 11338); Siboto, bishop of Augsburg, to the Franciscans in his diocese, 30 June 1241, ibid. 71 (no. 12). Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 143, pointed out that the attackers would have been Mongols from Hungary and not those passing through Moravia: in this case the locality ‘Niunburch’, on which a raid is mentioned by the ‘Annales Admuntenses’, MGH SS ix. 597, would have been Korneuburg, on the left bank of the Danube, and not Klosterneuburg on the right bank, which was inaccessible to Batu's army until after Christmas, Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 189.

11 Constantin Hbfler (ed.), Albert von Beham und Regesten Pabst Innocent IV, Stuttgart 1847, 28; cf. also 30, for a letter to the pope (?), 6 May 1241. On AlbertGoogle Scholar, see Koster, W., Der Kreuzablass im Kampfe der Kurie mil Friedrich II. Miinster 1913, 27. For the landgrave's warning, see Matthew Paris, CM, ed. Luard, H.R. (Rolls Series 1872–1883), iv. no. The date Laetare Jerusalem (10 March) given at the end of his letter can apply only to the earlier portion, Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 54 n. t.Google Scholar

12 A., Theiner (ed.), Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, Rome 1859–1860, i. 182Google Scholar no. 335. For Béla's visit to Austria and subsequent stay in the Zagreb region for the summer of 1241, see Thomas of Spalato, ‘Historia pontificum Salonitanorum atque Spalatensium’, in Gombos, A. F. (ed.), Catalogus Fontium Historiae Hungaricae, Budapest 1937–1938, 2238–9; for his despatching of the bishopGoogle Scholar, see ‘Rogerii Carmen Miserabile’, ed. Juhász, Ladislaus, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, Budapest 1937–1938, ii. 575.Google Scholar

13 For the crusade in Syria, see Peter, Jackson, ‘The end of Hohenstaufen rule in Syria’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research lix (1986), 32–3, and ‘The crusades of 1239–1241 and their aftermath’, BSOAS 1 (1987), 32–60Google Scholar; for the expedition to Constantinople, Setton, K.M., The Papacy and the Levant i Levant, Philadelphia 1976, 66 n. 93;Google Scholar for the Russian crusade, Eric, Christiansen, The Northern Crusades, London 1980, 127–9;Google Scholar anc' for tnat against Frederick, , Strayer, J.R., ‘The political crusades of the thirteenth century’, in Wolff, R. L. and Hazard, H. W. (eds), A History of the Crusades ii. The later crusades, 1180–1311, 2nd edn, Madison, Wis. 1969, 350–3; for Gregory's letter on commutation, see p. 11 and n. 45 below.Google Scholar

14 ‘Annales Stadenses’, MGH SS xvi. 367, ‘Tandem papa ad instantiam regis Ungariae, ducis Austriae et domini Carintiae dedit generalem terrae Iherosolimitanae indulgentiam contra eos’. See Köster, Der Kreuzablass, 29, quoted and refuted by Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses ii. 26 and n. 2.Google Scholar

15 C. Rodenberg (ed.), MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 722 no. 82i=Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 183 no. 337; see also Gregory ix to the bishop of Vad, 16 JuneGoogle Scholar, ibid. 184 no. 338.

16 MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 723 no. 822. For the other recipients of this letter, see Auvray, Lucien (ed.), Les Registres de Grégoire IX, Paris 1896–1955, nos 6073–5.Google Scholar

17 For the Bohemian king, see Otto, duke of Bavaria, to Siboto, bishop of Augsburg, in Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 70–1 no. 11 (BFW, no. 11325). For Duke Henry's army, see ‘Annales Silesiaci compilati’, MGH SS xix. 540.Google Scholar

18 The decrees are reproduced in a letter from Henry, bishop of Constance, to Anselm, warden of the Franciscans at üCberlingen, in HDFS v. 1209–13. That the date, 25 April, applies to Siegfried's decrees, rather than to Henry's letter, was argued convincingly by Julius Ficker, ‘Ueber eine irreleitende Datirung aus der Zeit der Mongolengefahr’, MIOG iii (1882), 103–9. Some scholars, including Strakosch–Grassmann, Der Einfall, 131, supposed that the council was held at Herford;Google Scholar but see Dobenecker, Otto (ed.), Regesta diplomatica necnon epistolaria historiae Thuringiae, Jena 1896–1939, iii. 164Google Scholar no. 971. For Siegfried's activity, see also ‘Annales Wormatienses’, MGH SS xvii. 46–7; ‘Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum Rhenense ab Innocentio in usque ad annum 1429’, ed. Weiland, L., Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfur dltere deutsche Geschichtskunde iv (1879), 74Google Scholar, ‘Huius tempore anno domini 1241 in Maio predicata fuit crux contra Tartaros per totam Almaniam sub Sifrido episcopo [sic] Moguntino’. For the promulgation of Siegfried's decrees by his suffragans, see Henry, bishop of Constance, to the Franciscans in his diocese, 25 May 1241, in HDFS v. 1213–14, and edited also by P. Livarius Oliger, ‘Exhortatio Henrici episcopi Constantiensis ad Fratres Minores, ut crucem contra Tartaros praedicent’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum xi (1918), 556–7; Siboto, bishop of Augsburg, to the Franciscans in his diocese, 30 June 1241, in Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 71 (no. 12).

19 HDFS v. 1211.Google Scholar

20 Ibid, 1214–15 (‘in festo Pentecostes’). For two Swabian counts who took the cross at this time, see C. F. Stalin, Wirtembergische Geschichte, Stuttgart-Tubingen 1841–56, ii. 192–3.Google Scholar

21 ‘Gestorum Treverorum Continuatio IV’, MGH SS xxiv. 404. Ann. S. Pant. Col.', 535, for Archbishop Conrad.Google Scholar

22 ‘Annales breves Wormatienses’, MGH SS xvii. 75 (sub anno 1238 in error). ‘Sachsische Weltchronik’, MGH Deutsche Chroniken ii. 254. The gathering is referred to in the letter of the Dominican ‘R.’ and the Franciscan ‘J’., in CM vi. 82, though the implication is that Conrad's forces were involved, which is unlikely. For a Thuringian lord who may have taken the cross in 1241, see Dobenecker, Regesta iii. 170 no. 1,015.Google Scholar

23 Henry, landgrave of Thuringia, to Henry 11, duke of Brabant, in CMiv. no; another letter in vi. 78 (incorrectly dated 1242 by Luard).Google Scholar

24 Conrad, bishop of Hildesheim, to all who see the letter, 1241, in C.L., Scheidt (ed.), Origines Guelficae, Hanover 1750–1780, iv. 190–1 no. 86.Google Scholar

25 Huter, Franz (ed.), Tinier Urkundenbuch, Innsbruck 1937–, iii. 180, 181Google Scholar, nos 1137* (= Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 64) and 1140*. I should stress that I have limited myself at this juncture to those greater magnates who are singled out by chroniclers as having taken the cross or who figure in documents as having done so.

26 ‘Ann. S. Pant. Col.’, 535. For friars in Thuringia, see CM iv. 110 and vi. 78.Google Scholar

27 HDFS v. 1212; also v. 1214 (diocese of Constance); Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 71 no. 12 (diocese of Augsburg). For friars as crusade preachers from the 1220s onwards, see Benjamin Z. Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European approaches towards the Muslims, Princeton 1984, 138–42.Google Scholar

28 ‘Annales Scheftlarienses Maiores’, MGH SS xvii. 341, sub anno 1240 in error, ‘multitudo hominum in universis mundi partibus’Google Scholar. Ponce d'Aubon, preceptor of the Templars in Francia, to Louis, ix, in ‘Ex historiae regum Franciae continuatione Parisiensi’, MGH SS xxvi. 604, ‘tout le clergie et toutes les genz de religion et moinnes et convers ont prins la crois’Google Scholar. For other references, see ‘Ann. Worm.’, 47, ‘fere totus populus est signatus’ (in the Mainz archdiocese)Google Scholar; ‘Ann. S. Pant. Col.’, 535, ‘per totam fere Teuthoniam’; ‘Annales Zwifaltenses’, MGH SS x. 59, and ‘Annales Sancti Trudperti’, MGH SS xvii. 294Google Scholar, homines tocius Germanie’; CM iv. 107 and vi. 82.Google Scholar

29 ann. Admunt. Continuatio Garstensis’ SS ix. 597Google Scholar. continuatio San– crucensis Secunda’, ibid. 640 (though erroneously attributing the preaching to papal legates). gest. Trev. Cont. IV, 404. Cf. also Annales Sancti Georgii. Continuationes A.', MGH SS xvii. 297.

30 ‘Ann. Worm.’, 47. For redemption of crusading vows, see J.S.C., Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades? London, 1977, 47, and idem, The Crusades, 143–4Google Scholar; Brundage, James A., Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, Madison, Wis. 1969, 132–3; Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses ii. 32–9.Google Scholar

31 CM iv. 107, 131. See comments by Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 142.Google Scholar

32 CM iv. 298.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. 272–3 (sub anno 1243, but the date can only be 1241; see Hilpert, Kaiser– und Papstbriefe, 160–1 and n. 45)Google Scholar. Strakosch-Grassmann Der Einfall, 144 n. 5, long ago made the correct interpretation, but more recent authorities continue to write of the siege of Wiener-Neustadt. For a discussion of the interpolations by Paris himself, see Hilpert, op. cit. 160–4Google Scholar. Strakosch-Grassmann argued that the whole episode is authentic, though acknowledging that a fully fledged siege of Vienna is unlikely, Der Einfall, 139–40, 144–5, 146, 188–91Google Scholar. For a more recent discussion of Ivo and his testimony, see Peter Segl, Ketzer in Osterreich, Untersuchungen iiber Hdresie und Inquisition im Herzogtum Osterreich im 13. und beginnenden 14Google Scholar. Jahrhundert, Paderborn 1984, 76–111.Google Scholar

34 Gabriel Ronay, The Tartar Khan's Englishman, London 1978; see the comments in D.O., Morgan, ‘The Mongol empire: a review article’, BSOAS xliv (1981), 121–2Google Scholar. Such details as we possess about the anonymous Englishman are given in CM iv. 274–5.Google Scholar

35 ‘Ex historiae’, 604.Google Scholar

36 ‘Annales monasterii de Theokesberia’, in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R., Luard (Rolls Series, 1864–9),i. 118Google Scholar. Mouskes, Philip, Chronique rime'e, ed. de Reiffenberg, Baron F. A. F. T., Brussels 1836–1838, ii. 681Google Scholarlines 30963–5; the context suggests a date in 1242, after the release of the archbishop of Cologne from prison. Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 135, 147, viewed this report as unfounded.Google Scholar

37 HDFS v. 1215.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. vi. 817–18; for the contents of this document, see n. 42 below. Winkelmann, E. (ed.), Ada Imperil inedita saeculi XIII, Innsbruck 1880–5, no 402 no- 479Google Scholar; summary in HDFS v. 1218, and in BFW, no. 4,439.Google Scholar

39 Böhmer, ‘Briefe’, 113–14 no. 4 = Hormayr–Hortenburg, Diegoldene Chronik ii. 65 no. 1 (BFW, no. 11357).Google Scholar

40 HDFS v 1212, 1215. Scheidt, Origines iv. 191.Google Scholar

41 ‘Ann. Admunt. Cont. Gar.’ 597. Gest. Trev. Cont. IV, 404.Google Scholar

42 ‘Ann. S. Pant. Col.’, 536Google Scholar. ‘Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses’, MGH SS ix. 787Google Scholar. ‘Gest. Trev. Cont. IV, 404. For the pact, see C., Will (ed.), Regesten zur Geschichte der Mainzer Erzbischofe, Innsbruck 1877–1886, ii. 263–4Google Scholar,, xxxin, no. 392 (BFW, no 3239). On 10 Sept. 1241 King Conrad ordered the duke of Limburg to prevent the archbishop of Cologne building a castle at Remagen, HDFS vi. 817. The defection of Archbishop Siegfried seems to have been related to a dispute over the abbey of Lorsch. See in general Manfred Stimming, ‘Kaiser Friedrich 11. und der Abfall der deutschen Fiirsten’, Historische Zntschrift cxx (1919), 226–9 (with 10 Nov. for the pact in error at 228); Alfred Haverkamp, Medieval Germany 1056–1273, Oxford 1988, 256.

43 For the events of 1239–41, see T.C., Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, Oxford 1972, 427–54Google Scholar; Strayer, ‘Political Crusades’, 350–4Google Scholar; Abulafia, David, Frederick II, London 1988, 340–50.Google ScholarThe crusade is also discussed in Koster, Der Kreuzablass, 20–32.Google Scholar

44 Gregory ix to Berthold, duke of Carinthia, 19 June 1241, in HDFSv. 1138 = MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 723–4 no. 823; Gregory to Bela iv, 1 July 1241, ibid. 726 no. 826 = Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 185 no. 342; summaries in Auvray, Les Registres, nos 6076, 6094

45 Gregory ix to John of Civitella, 12 Feb. 1241, MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 707 no. 801 = Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 178–9 no. 327.

46 MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 723 no. 822.Google Scholar

47 HDFS vi. 902–4.Google Scholar

48 Alexander, iv to Béla, 14–10. 1259 in Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 239 no. 454Google Scholar. Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 112. ‘The cardinals’ letter is printed in W. Wattenbach, ‘Zum Mongolensturm’, Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte xii (1872), 643–5, and in Gombos, Catalogus, 2115–16.Google Scholar

49 Fedor Schneider, ‘Ein Schreiben der Ungarn an die Kurie aus der letzten Zeit des Tatareneinfalles (2. Februar 1242)’, MIOG xxxvi (1915), 670, ‘ad auxilium matris ecclesie respeximus, et non erat’.Google Scholar

50 MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 726 no. 826, 1 July 1241; cf. the interpretation of Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 114–15, and Koster, Der Kreuzablass, 29.Google Scholar

51 Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 122–3, 138. The evidence quoted is a sentence in a letter of Frederick 11, HDFS v. 1152 = CM iv. 116; but what the emperor is actually voicing is a general complaint that Gregory has launched against him a crusade (i.e. since 1239) which ought to have been sent against Saracens and Mongols, and cannot be taken as referring to any diversion of the anti-Mongol crusade. This is not to deny that in Italy, on the other hand, Gregory was still encouraging resistance to Frederick at the time of his death, as shown by his letter to the Genoese, 16 Aug. 1241, MGH Epp. s. XIII i. 727–8 no. 828.

52 Innocent iv to Berthold, patriarch of Aquileia, 21–07 1243, in MGH Epp. s. XIII ii. 3–4 no. 2 = Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 187–8 no. 348Google Scholar; summary in èlie Berger, (ed.), Les Registres dInnocent IV, Paris 1884–1910, no. 30Google Scholar. Berthold, who was King Béla's uncle, had become something of an expert on Mongol affairs: Denis Sinor, ‘Un voyageur du trèeizieme siecle: le Dominicain Julien de Hongrie’, BSOAS xiv (1952), 600–1, repr. in idem, Inner Asia; see also n. 61 below.Google Scholar

53 Innocent iv to Béla, 4–02. 1247 m Theiner, Vetera monumenta i. 203–4 no– 379 summary in Berger, no. 2957. Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy,68, 106–7, doubts whether such a campaign against the Mongols was regarded as fulfilling the vow. Rumours of an impending invasion of Hungary in 1247 are mentioned in CM iv. 547 and vi. 133Google Scholar; see also Sinor, Denis, ‘John of Piano Carpini's return from the Mongols’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1957), 203, repr. in idem, Inner Asia.Google Scholar

54 Innocent iv to Cardinal-deacon Peter of St George, papal legate, 18 Mar. 1247, MGH Epp. s. XIII ii. 234–5 no– 3°9; summary in Berger, no. 2964. The letter also refers to preaching in Germany and Denmark. For the crusade against Frederick during Innocent's pontificate, see Koster, Der Kreuzablass, 33–56.Google Scholar

55 Frederick 11 to the Roman Senate in HDFS vGoogle Scholar. 1142; Frederick, H to the Swabian nobility, BFW, no. 3210. See also CM iv. 298; ‘Richeri Gesta Senoniensis Ecclesiae’, MGH SS xxv. 310Google Scholar; ‘Ryccardi de Sancto Germano notarii Chronica’, MGH SS xix. 380;Google Scholar ‘Ann. S. Pant’. Col., 535; ‘Sachsische Weltchronik’, 255. On the bishop's mission, see above, p. 5 and n. 12; Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 105–6.Google Scholar

56 CM iv. 119, 120, 298Google Scholar. ‘Rich. Gesta Sen. Eccl.’, 310. Mousk è s, Chronique rimée ii. 681 lines 30967–70Google Scholar. The rumour is traceable to the papal agent Albert of Beham, Háfler, Albert von Beham, 28; Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 115.Google Scholar

57 For the Cumans as allies in the German civil war in 1203 see Eduard Winkelmann, Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. von Braunschweig, Leipzig 1873–8, i. 288. As late as 1240, the Mongols would doubtless have appeared as simply another steppe nomadic power which had supplanted them; cf. the sentiments of Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, in 1238, as quoted in CM iii. 489.

58 Strakosch–Grassmann, Der Einfall, 102–5.Google Scholar

59 HDFS v. 1142; Frederick 11 to an anonymous German princeGoogle Scholar, ibid. vi. 4–5.

60 Ibidv. 1141, 1144; BFW, no. 3210; Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 124Google Scholar. For the papal attack on the Regno in 1229, see Van Cleve, T. C., ‘The crusade of Frederick II’, in Wolff and Hazard, Later Crusades, 454–5, 460–1; Abulafia, Frederick II, 194–201.Google Scholar

61 HDFS, v.i 145–6, 1166, and vi. 5. The visit to Frederick by the Patriarch Berthold of Aquileia (n. 52 above) in February-June 1242 ‘pro facto Tartarorum’ may have been prompted, at least partly, by Bela's situation, ‘Ryccardi de S. Germ. not. Chron.’, 382–3. For the emperor's other letters see ibid. 381; ‘Ann. S. Pant. Col.’, 535; and cf. HDFS v. 1215–16.

62 ‘Corn. Sane. Sec.’, 640–1.Google Scholar

63 Innocent iv to Béla, 21–08. 1245, MGH Epp. s. XIII ii 98–9 no. 131 – HDFS vi. 345–6; summary in Berger, no. 1420. Frederick's attitude is discussed by Bezzola, Die Mongolen, 78–81.Google Scholar

64 Bohmer, ‘Briefe’, 112–13 no. 3 = Hormayr–Hortenburg, Diegoldene Chronik ii. 66 no. 3 (BFW, no. 11,341).Google Scholar

65 Conrad, bishop of Freising, to Henry, bishop of Constance, in Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 70 no. 10 (BFW, no. 11337). For the news which occasioned his retreat, see the letter of the Dominican ‘ R.’ and the Franciscan ‘J.’ to all brethren, in CM vi. 82–3 (written before St James's day, 25 July)Google Scholar. Wenceslaus's meetings with Duke Albert of Saxony at Konigstein in early May 1241, and with the Landgrave Henry at Hradek in mid–Oct., were doubtless linked with the defence of the region against the Mongols, C. J. Erben (ed.), Regesla diplomatica necnon epistolaria Bohemiae el Moraviae i, Prague 1855, 482–3, 497–8 nos 1030, 1053Google Scholar; summaries in Gustav Friedrich el ed. (eds), Codex diplomatics necnon epistolarius Bohemiae et Moraviae iv, Prague 1962–5, 59–64, 67–9 nos 4, 8.Google Scholar

66 Ulrich, count of Ulten (in the Tyrol), 5 June 1241, in Huter, Tiroler Urkundenbuch iii. 172 no. 1131, ‘pro patrie liberatione et fidei catholice conservation[e]’ = Hormayr- Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 64. Albert, count of Altbach (in Swabia), 23june 1241, in Wiirttembergisches Urkundenbuch iv, Stuttgart 1883, 27–8 no. 978, ‘pro defensione christiane fidei in obsequio Ihesu Christ’Google Scholar. See also HDFSv. 1214, ‘pro defensione nominis christiani et patrie’; Hormayr–Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 71 no. 12, ‘pro defensione fidei et patrie nostre salute’.Google Scholar

68 Scheidt, Origines Guelficaeiv. 191, ‘Nee ratione huius signationis ad ulteriores terminos evocetur’. Only the year is given. The date is probably May or early June; for difficulties concerning Otto's itinerary in the latter month, see Bernhard Diestelkamp, Die Stadteprivilegien Herzog Ottos des Kindes, Hildesheim 1962, 103 n. 2.Google Scholar

69 Bbhmer, ‘Briefe’, 115 no. 5 = HDFS v. 1217 = Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik 2. 66.Google Scholar

70 HDFS vi. 904. For the Mongols' crossing over the Danube at Christmas, see ‘F.’, abbot of St Mary's, 4jan. 1242, in CM vi. 79; and for the devastation of western Hungary generally, Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 160–73.Google Scholar

71 ‘Rogerii Carmen Miserabile’, 588, ‘per cruciferos de insula Rodi et dominos de Frangapanibus multis agminibus militum adiutus’; the phrase ‘de insula Rodi’ is an interpolation, as the editor, Juhasz, pointed out, since the Hospitallers took over Rhodes only at the beginning of the fourteenth century, but it misled Strakosch-Grassmann, Der Einfall, 176. For the Frangipani family, see ibid. 162.

72 See Denis Sinor, ‘Horse and pasture in Inner Asian history’, Oriens Extremus xix (1972), 181–3, repr. in idem, Inner Asia; Morgan, The Mongols, 140–1. For a discussion of ecological problems facing nomadic invaders west of the Carpathians, see R. P. Lindner, ‘Nomadism, horses and Huns’, Past and Present xcii (1981), 3–19. The best source on the Mongol retreat from Dalmatia is Thomas of Spalato, 2242–3, who mentions that Qadan brought only a part of his force since the region afforded insufficient grass for the entire division.

73 ‘Ann. Worm.’, 47.Google Scholar

74 A. L. Poole, ‘Germany in the reign of Frederick II’, Cambridge Mediaeval History vi, The victory of the papacy, Cambridge 1929, ch. iii, esp. pp. 104–5. Henry was appointed procurator of the German kingdom in succession to Archbishop Siegfried.

75 See Riley-Smith, , What were the Crusades?, 34–7; Villey, La Croisade, 48–54, 97–112Google Scholar; Russell, F. H., The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1975, 202–7.Google Scholar

76 ‘Ann. Stad.’, 367. Gest. Trev. Cont. IV, 404.Google Scholar

77 HDFS v. 1209–10; for the other measures, see ibid. 1210, 1212, and Ann. Worm., 46. Fasting, prayers and carrying of crosses had been decreed in their territories by King Wenceslaus and the Landgrave Henry, Bohmer, ‘Briefe’, m no. 2 = Hormayr– Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 67 no. 4 (BFW, no. 11328); CM iv. no and vi. 78.

78 ‘Puto quod episcopus non potest dare auctoritatem praedicandi crucem, primo quia nee remissionem potest facere tantam quantam requirit crux… item quia ad solum Papam pertinet de fide respondere & periculis ipsius taliter occurrere… tertio, quia ad ipsum pertinet votum crucis’: Summa aurea, lib. in, tit. De voto, 19–20, Venice 1570, fo. 297r. For the vow, see also ibid. 13, fo. 295V, ‘episcopi etiam authoritas in omnibus sufficit exceptis duobus, scilicet voto crucis… ’.

79 HDFS v. 1209. For Gregory's decretal, lib. v, tit. xxxix, cap. 58, see Emil Friedberg (ed.), Corpus iuris canonici ii: Decretalium collectiones, Leipzig 1881, col. 912.Google Scholar

80 For the indulgence, see Archbishop Siegfried's decrees, HDFS v. 121 o, and the bishop ofHildesheim's charter, in Scheidt, Origines Guelficae iv. 191. The phrase ‘remissio omnium peccatorum’ occurs in HDFSv. 1212, but in the context of crusaders rendering each other mutual assistance against those who harm them–sicut Tartaros; it appears in ’Ann. Worm.’, 46. Nonspecific references to the indulgence offered by Siegfried are made by Henry, bishop of Constance, in HDFS v. 1214, and by Siboto, bishop of Augsburg, Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 71 no. 12. Although the vow is mentioned, I have encountered the term ‘pilgrimage’ only in the charter of Count Albert of Tyrol, Huter, Tinier Urkundenbuch iii. 180 no. 1137* = Hormayr-Hortenburg, Die goldene Chronik ii. 64, ’si in itinere peregrinationis sue decesserit’. For its use in the eastern European context, see Villey, La Croisade, 249–50.

81 For a precedent from 1230, involving the issue of a crusading indulgence by the bishop of Utrecht, see Elizabeth T. Kennan, ‘Innocent m, Gregory ix, and political crusadesGoogle Scholar: a study in the disintegration of papal power’, in Lytle, G. F. (ed.), Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church, Washington 1981, 26–9Google Scholar. (I am indebted to Dr Norman Housley for bringing this paper to my attention.) Hostiensis regarded holy wars of this kind as ‘sine crucis signaculo’: Summa aurea, lib. in, tit. De voto, 20, fo. 2g7r For earlier treatment of the subject by the decretalists, see Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, 74, 91, 95, 106; they had largely confined themselves to t he question whether a bishop could permit crusading vows to be commuted or redeemed. Episcopal indulgences in general are discussed by Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses ii. 61–72..Google Scholar

82 HDFS v. 1215, ‘tali conditione premissa ut ex eo summo pontifici non simus tamen aliquatinus obligati’.

83 Ibid.v. 1141, 1166, and vi. 5. For a succinct statement of Frederick's conception of his role as universal emperor, see Abulafia, Frederick II, 187–8.

84 On which see Villey, La Croisade 41–6; he suggested that the crusade of Frederick 11 to the Holy Land in 1228–9 should be viewed in this lightGoogle Scholar, ibid. 102.