The Goose That Went on Crusade by Dr Kathleen Walker-Meikle

Medieval chroniclers report a curious incident that occurred in the course of the People’s Crusade of 1096. This was a popular movement, led by the charismatic Peter the Hermit (1050–1115), distinct from the ‘official’ First Crusade proclaimed by Pope Urban II (1035–1099) at Clermont. The crusaders in this huge grouping were drawn from all walks of life, from peasants, to townsfolk, to knights. In the course of their (unsuccessful) journey to the Holy Land, many Jewish communities in the Rhineland were destroyed in a wave of murder and forced conversion. These communities were the focus of the crusading fervour of this large travelling movement; seen as ‘unbelievers’ in Christian lands and as potential sources of plunder.  This is the context in which we hear tell of the goose who went on crusade. Like the contemporary interpretation of various meteorological phenomena, the goose was one of many strange portents of the times that were taken by some as foretelling the success of their endeavour to reach Jerusalem.

Unknown, A Goose, 1277 or after. Ms. Ludwig XV 4 (83.MR.174), fol. 44



Animals imbued with divine influence were not rare in medieval culture, and numerous saints’ lives abound with their miraculous interactions with animals. The veneration of the Crusaders’ goose was held in low esteem, however, by all three chroniclers who reported it, all emphasising the credulity of the ‘common folk’ who believed in its powers. Geese at the time were widely kept, and appear in other medieval sources as animals imbued with a superb sense of smell and who made excellent guards. They provided a steady source of flesh, feathers, and eggs, and the chroniclers seem rather horrified at the elevation of such an ordinary domestic animal by its human devotees. 

The story has a comic turn in Guibert of Nogent’s (1055–1124) Dei gesta per Francos (The Deeds of God through the Franks, early twelfth century). The goose’s poor followers are derided as credulous to the extreme. In Guibert’s version the goose even leads, rather than be led by its foolish female owner. The gender of the goose is does not go unnoted as her crusading fervour is ‘clearly exceeding the laws of her own dull nature’ and is likely a remark on the place of women on a crusade:

What I am about to say is ridiculous, but has been testified to by authors who are not ridiculous.  A poor woman set out on the journey, when a goose, filled with I do not know what instructions, clearly exceeding the laws of her own dull nature, followed her.  Lo, rumor, flying on Pegasean wings, filled the castles and cities with the news that even geese had been sent by God to liberate Jerusalem.  Not only did they deny that this wretched woman was leading the goose, but they said that the goose led her. At Cambrai they assert that, with people standing on all sides, the woman walked through the middle of the church to the altar, and the goose followed behind, in her footsteps, with no one urging it on. Soon after, we have learned, the goose died in Lorraine; she certainly would have gone more directly to Jerusalem if, the day before she set out, she had made of herself a holiday meal for her mistress.

The devotees not only considered that the bird had divine instructions, but also allowed its presence in a church in Cambrai as it waddled up to the altar as all looked on in awe, a place which should be goose-free. Guibert ends his account with a scoffing note regarding the death of the avine augur, who in his opinion would have been better roasted than off crusading. 

Comedy is replaced with the dangers of popular belief in First Crusade historian Albert of Aix’s (1060–1120) Historia Hierosolymitanae expeditionis (History of the expedition to Jerusalem, early twelfth century). He mentions the goose - and an accompanying goat with similar powers - shortly after his discussion of the violent massacre of the Jewish community of Mainz carried out by those under the command of Count Emicho in the Rhineland:

There was another detestable crime in this assemblage of wayfaring people, who were foolish and insanely fickle. That the crime was hateful to the Lord and incredible to the faithful is not to be doubted. They asserted that a certain goose was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that a she-goat was not less filled by the same Spirit. These they made their guides on this holy journey to Jerusalem; these they worshipped excessively; and most of the people following them, like beasts, believed with their whole minds that this was the true course. May the hearts of the faithful be free from the thought that the Lord Jesus wished the Sepulcher of His most sacred body to be visited by brutish and insensate animals, or that He wished these to become the guides of Christian souls, which by the price of His own blood He deigned to redeem from the filth of idols!

Albert was not only dismissive of this anserine wonder, but emphasised the danger of such actions, such as the blasphemous claim that an animal, who lacks reason and a soul, could be influenced by the Holy Spirit. While both humans and animals were all part of the web of creation, there were clear distinctions between the two. The crux of Albert’s argument against the goose’s followers is thus that by worshipping animals they became animal-like themselves, and thus completely unfit crusaders. While Guibert of Nogent mocked the presence of the goose in a church and the ensuing devotion, for Albert the worshipping of the animal was highly problematic. It was another ‘detestable crime’, which in the chronicle follows the ‘cruel slaughter’ of the men, women, and children of the Jewish community of Mainz, despite the efforts of the town’s bishop, whose efforts were praised by Albert who condemned the actions of Emicho’s followers. Elsewhere in his chronicle, Albert praises Crusaders in general extensively but considered killing innocents as troublesome.   

The incident of the goose is also recounted by Jewish chronicler Solomon bar Simson (mid-twelfth century), in his account of the massacres of the Jewish communities in the Rhineland:

One day a Gentile woman came, bringing a goose which she had raised since it was newborn. The goose would accompany her wherever she went. The Gentile woman now called out to all passers by: “Look, the goose understands my intention to go straying and desires to accompany me”.

For Solomon bar Simson, it was one of the immediate causes of the mass murders that soon followed, as the ‘burgers and peasants said to us [the Jewish community] “...Now you will see these are the wonders which the crucified one works for them [the Crusaders]”. The portent of the miraculous goose is a comment on the terrifying mind-set of the crusading multitudes, beset on ‘vengeance’, which could not be pacified with bribes or pleas from authorities. 

This is an admittedly peculiar but intriguing minor episode in Crusader history, which can help illuminate perspectives of popular belief and (rather animal-centred) religious fervour in a time of upheaval and violence. For the two Christian chroniclers, the episode also served as a clear distinction between the ‘rabble’ of the People’s Crusade and more ‘legitimate’ armies of the First Crusade. Both also stress the rather blasphemous nature of attributing holy powers to a waterfowl. This goose did not possess any spiritual merit in the eyes of any of its chroniclers: for Albert and Guibert, it was merely a foil of foolish people, but for Solomon bar Simson, it represented the irrational mindset of the mobs that almost destroyed his community. 

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY FEATURED IN ISSUE 125, THE CRUSADES

IF YOU LIKE THIS AND WANT MORE, SUBSCRIBE BELOW!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Kathleen Walker-Meikle is a historian of medieval and early modern animals and medicine. She has published widely on the history of animals, including Medieval Pets (Boydell & Brewer, 2012), Cats in Medieval Manuscripts (British Library, 2019), Medieval Dogs (British Library, 2013), The Dog Book: Dogs of Historical Distinction (Bloomsbury, 2014), The Cat Book: Cats of Historical Distinction (Bloomsbury, 2015) and The Horse Book: Horses of Historical Distinction (Bloomsbury, 2017)

Work website: https://renaissanceskin.ac.uk/about/#person40 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Medieval_Badger