User:Somerandomguy291/Holy Lance of Antioch

Intro
The Holy Lance also known as the “spear of destiny” is one of the holy lances believed to be the lance used by Longinus “st Longinus” to pierce the side of Jesus during his crucifixion. With the lance tip being the bit that was lost and vanished. Having been lost as it was torn apart. This particular lance was discovered by Peter Bartholomew. A French peasant who came along during the peasant's crusade and eventually rejoined the actual crusade after a during a vision. That of being St Andrew instructing Peter on the sight of the lance besieging the city of Antioch in 1098. This vision also instructed him to fast for 7 days before the particular siege began. Peter would discover the spear’s head, with Count Raymond, who wielded the spear during the second siege, though no evidence is claimed if he actually used it in battle or simply used it as a rallying point. Leading to a victory and the capture of the city of Antioch. Several months after the siege and Adhemar's death. Bishop Adhemar being a religious figure who was chosen by Pope Urban. Peter would become the spiritual leader, someone who interoperates messages and items from god and other holy beings and tells everyone. However several members of the crusade, particularly due to a mass execution that took place due to a vision of Peter's claiming that their were traitors within. Would eventually convince Peter to do a Trial by Fire to test his credibility. Where the French priest would lose his life, and the crusaders would lose their faith in the lance itself.

Peter would perish in the fire and the lance head would be claimed a fake. This would also inversely ruin Raymond the IV’s credibility as he was one of the major people advocating the lance as real. Yet despite this. It was still taken back to Constantinople after the 1492’s invasion of Turkey. As they had no need for something that they believed to be fake. Eventually back to St Peters back in Rome. Where despite them having one already. Two if you count the one at Vienna. They went and put it on display. Even further attempts at further evidence disproving the lance’s credibility in 1692. It would still be displayed today. Despite several attempts to discredit the lance. It remains today in St Peters.

Histography
Many accounts of the first crusade were given throughout the 19th century and beyond. However, it's important to note the difference of opinions. Especially that of Muslim vs Christian views on the crusade. As within Europe. It was a massive achievement for those of them and they were taken as such. The point where it was considered a great victory for Europe and was considered a turning point for Christianity, Saying such hallmarks like how it was the turning point in European power and Christianity itself. however Muslim accounts within the same year clearly show the fact The Crusades hold way less significance in most middle eastern and Muslim countries. In fact they actually more focus on the mass amounts of innocents murdered in the crusade, and even more so focused on the highlights of the cities lost. The main importance lost was the wife and son of the Sha at the point, though they were returned quite early in the crusades. Even before the fact they made it to Antioch. Even when they actually did worry about the crusaders more when they made it to Antioch and even Jerusalem. However, as history went on.

Particularly in the late 20th century. History really started to turn away from the crusades in general. Far away from the original view that it was a glorious moment in history. These later accounts actually show not the rise of Christianity, but actually the interactions and the results of the first crusades. And in particular, the holy lance itself, as these later accounts actually start to mention the lance itself less and less. To the point where in writings like The siege of Antioch, the lance is just a footnote in the grand scheme of things. This is an unfortunate event, as I really believe the holy lance had a critical role to play in the spirits of the crusaders at that time. Soldiers were leading on mass, and it was because of the lance and the fact they believed god was on their side. That they not only pushed on but also had the moral to keep going. Even past Antioch but even all the way to Jerusalem. However, Later stories told in the 21st century actually focus more on the after-effects of these crusades as well. Especially on how it opened up trade and even expand knowledge of Europe as a whole. It also references the change of war that happened during this time as well How this war was a hallmark on how even told the horrors that went in the cities. Stating stuff of how their quest -- and their violence had become distinctly over worldly

First Crusade Context
The first crusade or just the crusade was called back then. Is the period when pope Urban officially called forth the countries of now-called Europe to rally together under one banner and retake the holy land. However, the reason why Urban even got involved in the first place was due to the fact Constantinople Emperor Alexios the First actually asked the pope for aid after Muslim forces had started to encroach on Byzantine territory. Jonathan Riley-Smith suggests that the pope’s reasoning wasn’t just random or sporadic, but rather the fact he had been dealing with a succession crisis. Becker mentions the Holy Roman Emperor Henry the IV and even Henry the V and the so-called Anti pope Clement IV a name only given by the Christians loyal to Urban. And hope by helping the Byzantines, they in turn could help his crisis out as well. Not to mention the other nobles weren’t all that interested in helping the Byzantines. Later shown by the fact they hardly listened to them during the crusade, and even took lands for themselves after being instructed to give any land back to the emperor that was once Byzantine land into the crusader states that would kick off the second and arguably the third crusades.

However while the pope had other motives, the Crusade’s aims were to take back various lands within Muslim-controlled areas. Also sometimes referred to as the holy lands. In particular, Nicaea. Jerusalem and Antioch were three major cities and the goals of the crusade. Though originally this had the aim of handing this back to the byzantine empire. Many of these crusaders took them for themselves. Even to the point where One crusader leader. Bohemond of Taranto kicked out others from the city. Including his own nephew Tancred Claiming it as his own. Despite all the infighting and chaos. They would ultimately take the cities they set out to do, and the pope was successful in helping the Byzantine empire get the Muslim forces off their borders.

The Siege of Antioch
The Siege of Antioch started on October 20th, 1097, and ended on June 28th, 1098. With the siege takes place two different times. However, it wasn’t until the start of the second siege that the lancehead was discovered by Peter and refurbished by people working under Count Raymond. Where he would be the one to hold and wield the lance in the battle of Antioch after the siege. The lance itself was a rallying point to keep deserted soldiers there by the winter of the 1097s. Had drastically increased the moral fervor of the crusades. To the point where even after purposely fasting themselves, they still had the energy to not only keep fighting but also finally found the point where they could break into the castle and actually fight the Muslim forces. This in turn lead to a decisive capture and slaughter of the Muslim troops stationed there, along with the civilians. Some accounts even said that they left no women or child that they could alive.

Though it's important to say the lance was not the reason why they broke it, a reason why they stuck around. Many of these visions had actually proposed almost detrimental things. One of them even included them fasting for 15 days before the siege. ( Which led to the deaths of thousands of already starving crusaders. Though they remained steadfast and were even more favored by their boldness. The battle itself was quite a massacre. Though in the battle itself, multiple sources claimed Count Raymond, had the lance repaired by some blacksmiths he had hired before the crusade. Fashion him a new handle. No one can agree entirely if he actually used the lance in combat. Or if he simply used it as a banner/rally point for soldiers. Some can’t even agree if he even had the handle refashioned, or did he just have a lancehead with him during the fight. Regardless of the lance’s condition. It was present in the battle itself. and it was something used by Count Raymond to at least rally the troops to finish the battle This lance also caused a shift in political leadership within the crusades. As during the following battles. Bishop Adheamr would eventually suffer from disease and eventually perish from said disease. Leading to Peter the hermit becoming the new spiritual connection for the crusaders.

Peter the Hermit
Peter would have multiple visions throughout his time in the crusade. The major ones are two visions of St Andrew. One of them instructed him on where the lance head was buried after the first siege, and another one instructed him to fast for a week before the siege had started. Leading to more deaths, but also the inspiration of many during the siege. While the effects of this are unknown, the turnout would still be a crusader victory at the second Siege of Antioch. Further evidence shows he also had several other visions of not just St Andrew, but also mentions of the late Bishop Adheamr Who had passed away during the siege due to sickness and starvation. These visions would spur Peter on to eventually round up everyone he believed to be traitors to the cause, and had them executed. Sometimes with little to no reason at all. This would have drastic effects on the morale of the group. To the point where other priests would call out Peter and question the authenticity of the lance. Eventually after a much-heated debate among the army. They settled on a trial by fire to prove the authenticity of the lance.

The trial of fire was typical and at the time traditional method to tell if someone is telling a falsehood or the truth. All they had to do was enter the flame, and come back out unscathed. Though Peter actually went through with this. He would succumb to the flames. He had been declared a heretic, and all his claims had been considered false. This particularly devastated Count Raymond. The noble who had fully backed up Peter. Something he would never recover from, even after the crusades However, some sources have found alternative telling's that claimed he not only survived the fire but then was killed by the crusaders These tales are very old and hold little to no credibility. They also don’t explain the sudden credibility of Count Raymond suddenly dropping as well.

The Various Locations it had been
After the death of Peter Bartholomew and the credibility of the lance disappearing. It was still given to the Byzantine Emperor. Alexius I Komnenus, Who had made all the crusaders return everything they had taken of value. Including holy artifacts found by the crusaders that were lost in these cities. So the Holy Lance, that they had discredited beforehand. Whether Alexius was aware of this fact or not is up to debate. As he had just received plenty of artifacts in one go, it's likely it slipped in without notice, or just assumed it was the real deal. Regardless they displayed it in Constantinople at the Hagrid Sophia for a while after. There it remained on display, Nothing of note would happen of the lance until the fall of the Byzantine empire in 1453 when the Ottomans led by Sultan the first would lead and eventually take the capital and everything with it. (23) Though the damage was kept to a minimum, as he had admired most of the architecture on display. Especially the Hagrid Sophia. However when it came to the lance. He had no real use or belief in it. Not because of the various myth hoods that it was fake. Rather The concept of the Holy Lance is a Christian belief and does not tie in with Muslims, as they only believe that Jesus is a saint, not Christ reborn. So they don't believe in the concept of a holy lance in general. As it was tied to a miracle that they did not believe happened. So Sultan Mehmed II sent the lance to Rome. Having no use for it. However, a different alternative theory proposes that the Turks had stolen the lance during pillage, and the Ottomans had taken it back while conquering them and returned it. Despite the fact that 400 years ago discarded it and wanted nothing to do with it. By this point, it wasn’t a documented event then, and so despite having one. The siege itself only had a few letters talking about them. And most of them were after they had discredited the lance. They went and put it up anyhow. Despite further attempts to discredit the lance, even by a cardinal Prospero Lambertini in the 17th century at one point They still hold on to it today and it's still on display today in St Peter’s Its credibility is still credited today, yet they still keep it on display. As it's not only a great tourist spot but also there's still some credibility to the lance itself that has yet to be proven. Mainly the 5 other lances on display around the world.

Other Sources of Information

 * 1) Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade : a New History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
 * 2) Beneš, Barton Lidicé. Curiosa : Celebrity Relics, Historical Fossils, & Other Metamorphic Rubbish. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002.
 * 3) Becker, A.. "Urban II." Encyclopedia Britannica, July 25, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Urban-II.
 * 4) Baring-Gould, The Lives of the Saints, vol. III (Edinburgh) 1914, sub "March 15: S[aint] Longinus M[artyr]";
 * 5) Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Holy Lance." Encyclopedia Britannica, March 29, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-Lance.
 * 6) Buck, Andrew D.. ““Weighed by such a great calamity, they were cleansed for their sins”. Remembering the siege and capture of Antioch.” In Remembering the Crusades in Medieval Texts and Songs, Edited by Smith, Thomas W. and Buck, Andrew D.. The Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture; 5.2, 1-16. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2019. Doi: 10.16922/jrhlc.5.2.2
 * 7) Hauff, Andrea. “The kingdom of Upper Burgundy and the east Frankish kingship at the beginning of the 10th century.” History Compass 15, no. 8 (2017): 1-12. Doi: 10.1111/hic3.12396
 * 8) Helen Nicholson and David Nicolle, God’s Warriors
 * 9) Helen Nicholson, The Crusades
 * 10) France, John. “Two types of vision on the First Crusade: Stephen of Valence and Peter Bartholomew.” Crusades 5 (2006): 1-20.
 * 11) Gabrieli, Francesco, and E. J. Costello. Arab Historians of the Crusades. Translated by E. J. Costello. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
 * 12) Jean Richard, The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291
 * 13) Kjormoe, Marius. The Holy Lance of Antioch A Study on the Impact of a Perceived Relic during the First Crusade. Bergin, Norway: The University of Bergen, 2009.
 * 14) New Catholic Encyclopedia. United Kingdom: Thomson/Gale, 2003.
 * 15) Ravenscroft, Trevor. The Spear of Destiny; the Occult Power Behind the Spear Which Pierced the Side of Christ. [1st American ed.]. New York: Putnam, 1973.
 * 16) Stone, John Augustus, and Eugene Richard Page. 1827. Tancred (1827). Philadelphia:, https://go.openathens.net/redirector/illinoisstate.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/books/tancred-1827/docview/2138591316/se-2 (accessed December 5, 2022).
 * 17) Thomas, Neil. “The history of a talisman: the quest for the Holy Lance from Chrétien de Troyes to Richard Wagner.” Reading Medieval Studies 34 (2008): 209-222.
 * 18) Sarris, Peter., Matthew. Dal Santo, Phil Booth, and Phil (Philip) Booth. “An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict, and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity”. Leiden ;: Brill, 2011.
 * 19) Wiśniewski, Robert. The Beginnings of the Cult of Relics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.