Summary Of The Siege Of Lisbon And The Second Crusade By Alan Forey

670 Words3 Pages
The journal article “The Siege of Lisbon and the Second Crusade” written by Alan Forey attempts to provide enough historical evidence to answer questions about the validity of St. Bernard’s direct involvement in the northern fleet’s siege of Lisbon in 1147. Forey immediately brings to the attention of the reader a historical interpretation of letter 308. St. Bernard purportedly wrote letter 308 to the ruler of Portugal, King Afonso Henriques. However, the author expresses concern about the authenticity of the letter. Forey wrote, “This letter first appears in Brito’s Chronica de Cister, published in 1602: and it is generally accepted that this work is based partly on documents which are not genuine.” Forey cites numerous historical sources in an effort to prove that letter 308 is a forgery. He is extremely concerned about Bernard’s referencing of Pedro Henriques. In the letter, Bernard tells Afonso that Pedro is engaged in Lorraine. Yet Bernard expected that Pedro and others would soon arrive in Lisbon to rid Muslim factions from the peninsula. Forey, notes that…show more content…
Forey does introduce another Pedro Afonso the illegitimate son of Afonso. Finally, to reinforce the assertion that Pedro the brother and son are nonexistent, Forey writes that Afonso Henriques and his wife Taresa had a daughter named Taresa, however, that there is no mention of a son. The author then acknowledges there is no proof that Pedro Henriques the brother of Afonso did or did not exist. Forey concluded the tangled mess of nomenclature means that in all probability letter 308 is a forgery. St. Bernard did not forewarn Afonso of an invasion by Crusaders. Furthermore, he states, the letters is cryptic and imprecise, as it does not show any evidence of St. Bernard’s intentions towards an invasion of Lisbon or his intentions of sending a second crusade to aid Afonso extract Muslim invaders from
Open Document