For Sid
Entry posted by Goggie
472 views
I couldn't find the final version, but here's 4,500ish words:
To what extent was Religion the motivating factor behind the 1st Crusade?
In late 1095, the Christian religion was changed forever by the words of the then Pope, Urban II. His speech to the people of Clermont in late November that year electrified the continent. The word of Gods messenger on earth reverberated around Western Europe, rallying the Christian Kingdoms of Western Europe to come together as a formidable fighting force, headed for Jerusalem in the East. He had set in motion a religious war machine that would see tens of thousands of peasants, knights, nobles and royalty take up arms in the name of the Lord. What my project is about is establishing what was the motivating factor for these brave men to take up arms and walk thousands of miles to an unknown land in, and why the Pope called the Crusade in the first place.
Despite the length of time inbetween the first crusade and the present there still remain uncertainties about the Crusades. It can be argued that originally the Pope decided to give life to the Crusades after pleas for help from the Emperor of Byzantine Alexios I Komnenos, who asked for urgent military support against the Seljuk Turks. One of the Popes most burning ambitions was to heal the rift that had been created between Byzantine and Rome, and so it seems likely that this played no small part in his decision to preach a Crusade. What has also been put into question is the piety and religious conviction of those who went upon the Crusade, and it is not unlikely that many would have had thoughts of pillage and glory at the front of their mind when considering this arduous journey to the East. Indeed, there are accounts of nobles and peasantry alike who converted only after the Crusade had already begun. Part of the problem with accurately documenting new material about the Crusades is that much of what we know comes from a limited number of sources, mostly scribes who belonged to nobles who made the journey, and in some cases Monks.
Contemporary historians have gradually established two sides in the matter of the Crusade’s origin, either adopting the revisionist view that the Crusade was primarily driven on socio-political grounds like Thomas Madden, or the traditional view trumpeted by Professors like Riley-Smith and Asbridge who still believe that Religion played the biggest role in the origin of the first Crusade. I have been studying differing accounts of the crusades and the people who travelled the thousands of miles to Jerusalem, or in order to find out why the Knights, Peasants and Nobles of Western Europe decided to make the journey, and also why the Pope decided to conceive the First Crusade. One of the very reasons that this subject area is so fascinating is the element of uncertainty. We can never be entirely sure of the validity of sources that are presented before us due to conflicting interests within the Crusading company nor how many sources have been lost over time, but what they can do is paint a lavish story of piety, self-sacrifice, greed, redemption and ambition on a grand scale.
The situation in Europe and The East
Western Europe in 1095 was a heavily fragmented area of land. General stability had been reached by the Normans in Britain after the invasion of 29 years earlier and on the mainland some solidity had been gained through the widespread conversion to Christianity of the Saxons and Vikings, but much of France had become a battleground for power-hungry French nobles. The Carolingian empire which had been forged by French hero Charlemagne 100 years prior was falling apart, and left a number of Dukedoms across France fighting for supremacy. The king held little sway with his subjects, most of whom rivalled his own power, and the lack of centralised rule led to chaos. [2] They did not even share the same language, with two largely different dialects, Languedor and Languedoc. These were the very people that Pope Urban would later be appealing to as a united effort under the banner of Christ, ‘milites Christi’[3] so to speak. Although not committed to a stabilised France, the Normans were however a committed group when it came to religion, having set about building hundreds of magnificent Cathedrals and Abbeys across France and the conquered British Isles. The Anglo-Saxon peasants in England were still greatly opposed to their Norman aristocracy, and after the Domesday Book published in 1086 only 11 of the over 300 English nobles remained, the rest having been given to Norman Knights by King William himself. In many ways, the timing of Komnemnos’ quandary with the Turks couldn’t have been better for Pope Urban.
In the late 11th Century, most of the Western Kingdoms were avid followers of Christianity, and during this time Christianity was undergoing a gradual but rather extreme change. The combined efforts of Pope Urban II and his predecessor Gregory VII moved Christianity towards taking a more aggressive approach against those who opposed them, in 1074 Gregory called for ‘milites Christi’ (soldiers of Christ) to come to the aid of their allies in Byzantium [4]. Although the Crusade didn’t come to fruition, it helped to ease people into the idea of holy war, and taking up arms in the name of Christ. Although not to be considered a proto-Crusade,[5] the first signs of successful religion-driven conflict were evident in the Reconquista [6] in Spain during the late 11th century. The Speculum[7] comments that it was common for Frankish Knights to help the cause in Spain, and shortly before the First Crusade Pope Urban II called for Spanish Christians to reclaim Tarragona. The relevance and reach of the progressive movement under Gregory and Urban is not to be underestimated; Urban went as far as researching the idea of reinterpreting key scripture to allow for fighting. [8]
Jerusalem had been under Muslim occupation since 638 AD when the Arab Caliph[8] invaded Jerusalem, and according to Arab historians the resident Caliph visited Jerusalem personally to ‘receive its submission’ from the current ruler and to ‘cleanse’ the city. A little over 60 years later the Dome of the Rock was built, and through the early Umayyad (650-750) and Abbasid (750-969) dynasties it is recognised that the city flourished. These years also saw a period of relative tolerance towards other religions, however in 1009 the Egyptian Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah commanded that all the Churches in Jerusalem be destroyed. Tensions grew between Christians and the muslim inhabitants although not to levels of outright cival war, but it would be over a hundred years before many of these Churches and Shrines would be rebuilt.
The origins of the Crusade – A Popes mandate to protect or impatience for action?
Although there were many underlying factors that would explain why the Crusade could have been conceived, it appears that the trigger factor may have been the presence of Byzantine diplomats at the Council of Piacenza, a little under a year previous to the Council at Clermont. The Byzantine Empire was under attack from the Seljuks, and asked the Pope for military aid(1). The Pope received the message and decided to discuss it further at the Council of Clermont, which would be attended by a few hundred French clerics and a crowd of eager public outside.
By the time Urban arrived at Clermont in November, word had spread far and wide of his impending arrival and the meeting he would hold there. It was believed by Chronicler Albert of Aachen that the wandering radical Peter the Hermit had already preached of a Holy war in Jerusalem, and perhaps even that the idea of the campaign for Jerusalem was his idea, not Urbans. [9]Peter however lacked the influence or means to effect such a campaign, and so whether or not truth lies in the matter it would be down to a very senior religious figure to bring about such a monumentous event as a Crusade, and it seems more than coincidental that the Council took place not long after the plea for aid in Byzantine.. All of the remaining accounts of the Council[10] agree that the speech was made to a crowd that spread in and around the Church, indicating that a great number of people had come to bear witness to his famous speech.
Interestingly, the five versions of the speech differ quite considerably when it comes to the reason for the Crusades, probably largely down to the persons view on the Crusade and the fact that all 5 of the versions were written years after the Council. In one version by Fulcher of Chartres (who was present at the council) no mention is made of Jerusalem, but the need for military aid in the Byzantine Empire against the Muslims is mentioned;
‘For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them’ [11]
There are other occasions where Urban fails to explicitly command Christians to retake Jerusalem. In his letter to the ‘faithful waiting in Flanders’ he asks for the ‘liberation’ of Christian Churches in the East, again omitting any mention of Jerusalem.[12] Despite the inference made by many that the many goal was indeed the liberation of the City it remains uncertain whether at this early stage Urban had made provision for this in his goal of bringing aid to the Byzantine Empire. At this point in time it appears quite clearly that Urban was more concerned about the state of his political relationship with Komnenos than any ambitions he may have harboured for the recapture of Jerusalem. It is possible that by choosing to leave out the name ‘Jerusalem’ he was teasing the Crusaders with a reason to go, but still keeping a focus on the real and urgent need for aid in Byzantium. Later Urban changed his stance considerably on the matter to move towards the single aim of retaking Jerusalem, which may have been due to fears of wavering support for the campaign or a genuine feeling that this was the right thing to do. The fact remains that he was not short in supporters and volunteers to take part in the expedition whether it be for aiding the Byzantines or liberating the Christians in the East.
A totally different account of the Council is given by Robert the Monk, who documented his memories of the Council some 20 years after it took place. Robert makes a point of showing that the Pope emphasised more heavily on the liberation of Jerusalem than helping the ‘Greeks’ (Byzantines), which seems likely to be as this was written after the Crusades themselves took place and seem designed to show the Pope in a good light. Robert also talks about the supposed atrocities committed by muslims against Christian pilgrims, where he states the Pope says ‘They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font’.(17) This appears a rather wild accusation, as there is no evidence to back up such claims, but such a claim would have sufficiently riled up a crowd and it seems likely that Pope Urban would have exaggerated reports of conflict from the East.
The views shared by Asbridge, Riley-Smith and others are not shared by all however; Thomas Madden writes that the First Crusade was Urban’s attempt to reassert Papal authority, and come to the aid of Christians who in his own words ‘suffered mightily at the hands of Turks’. He differs majorly in the use of evidence, where Asbridge claims that speeches by Urban outlining the maliciousness of Muslims towards Christians were fabricated, Madden cites the growth of Islamic power in the East and the fall of Manzikert in 1071 as evidence of aggression from Muslims. Byzantine lost over half of its land to the Muslims in the late 11th Century and Madden argues that Asbridges suggestion that Islam and Christianity ‘coexisted for centuries’ is either unfounded or out of date. The differences in opinion that historians still have to this day on the subject is unsettling and makes deciding for certain what the Pope’s key intentions were in starting the Crusade exceedingly difficult. What we can be sure of is that as the religious leader of the western world seeing his people being persecuted by another religion would have been deeply unsettling, and equally so in Byzantine which was a key alliance to establish.
From Noble to Crusader – pious Christians or opportunist?
One of the most important and well documented groups for historians today that went on the Crusades were the Noblemen – not simply because they were men of high society and importance in the leadership of the Crusade, but because their journey was the best documented by scribes, Monks and themselves. There is great debate over what category the nobles fell into in terms of the Crusades; passionate followers of Christ, glory-hunters, or in some cases fallen men who sought redemption through valour in combat. The Nobles also took with them a following of servants and their own men, making up the a considerable part of the total force, and most probably the most effective fighters. In many cases it is likely that the information that is available to us is clouded by the intention of the writer, but most likely it was a combination of one or more of these factors that convinced these men to travel so far from home.
One fact about many of the nobles who left Europe to go on the Crusade which is often neglected is the high level of self sacrifice that some of them went through in order to go on the Crusades. It is a common misconception that nobles were able to just gear up and March for Constantinople in search of glory without much thought, financing such a trip would put significant strain on their assets and in some cases would see them selling their land just to make ends meet. Examples of the extreme price of Crusading include many of the prominent nobles of the campaign such as Robert of Normandy, who loaned his entire Kingdom to William of England to preside over and Godfrey of Bouillon, who sold his property to the church.[13] This was a trend repeated by Knights and Nobles across the campaign, and so it remains unlikely that greed was the determining factor behind making the monumental journey. This is not to say that there weren’t those who had thought about the possible riches and glory of battle; undoubtedly there were those who felt that they could make a name for themselves in Jerusalem and hoped for a position of power. For example, Bohemund of Taranto was well known by his comrades to be looking to make his riches out of the Crusade and became leader of the Principality of Antioch. [20] But this was in the minority, and unknown territory. It would take a great deal of persuasion to convince even the most desperate of individuals to take part in such a gruelling and expensive expedition.
Like any decision, there were a number of push and pull factors behind individuals resolutions to leave for Jerusalem. The leaders were predominantly from the Frankish ruling class who were accustomed to a life of treachery and danger at home due to the political instabilities that were rampant in France at that time. The crude form of Darwinism that had come into play between rival nobles may have made the prospect of fighting for righteous causes removed from domestic issues seem appealing. For a group greatly used to fighting it the idea of a Holy War was a stirring one; Tancred’s biographer commented that he was excited to find a holy outlet for violence. Stephen Runciman wrote that there was a ‘general restlessness and taste for adventure’ alongside the religious motivation for wanting to go to war. [14] The level of enthusiasm behind the Crusade may also have been so high due in the aristocracy due to the fact that many of the Frankish nobles were close friends or family, and so like any other group relished the thought of travelling together in a cohort of like-minded compatriots and friends.
An interesting idea to investigate for the Crusades is the idea of repentance. The concept of redemption within the Crusade was brought up by Urban himself, who promised that great rewards would be waiting in the afterlife for those who died on the path to liberating Jerusalem. It is particularly interesting to the concept of piety versus self-gain, as it violently joins the two together. There are accounts of those who believed that by taking part in the Crusades they could be forgiven for sins committed in the past and secure their place in Heaven. Fulcher of Chartre’s interpretation of the speech at Clermont states that the speech ended with a rousing cry of ‘deus vult!’ (God wills it!), and for some repentance and piety enough reason to go on the Crusade.
It is important not to underestimate the pious nature that had become almost hereditary in Western Europe through the 11th Century. Christianity had become embedded into the way of life throughout France and Western Europe, and this was highlighted effectively by the large number of Churches and Cathedrals that had been erected by the Normans in France and conquered England. Although the Normans were undoubtedly a war-inclined socio-political group, they never forgot their commitment to God, replacing battlegrounds with Churches to make certain that they had made peace with God after fighting brutal and unforgiving battles. Moreover, as Asbridge comments there was also a great level of superstition and belief in the supernatural side of Christianity.[16] Many felt that if they did not join the Crusade then they would be cursed or suffer misfortune for the lack of compassion and faith and this was reiterated by other monks and spiritual leaders, which greatly helped Urban in his campaign to draw his recruits from the various ruling classes and peasantry of Western Europe.
It is clear from the variety of opinions from Historians that there are a number of factors that played on the nobles minds when deciding on taking part in the journey. Some of the tales of sacrifice are astonishing, that someone of such status and wealth like Robert of Normandy who gave almost everything but the clothes on their back to take part in this campaign. From an outsiders perspective it seems absurd that a Noble would give so much to take part in a campaign if they did not feel they were going to be greatly rewarded, or had a emotional/religious interest in its outcome. Historians like Riley-Smith mention that the political instabilities and relatively poor economic conditions may have persuaded nobles to go on the Crusade, but the fact that so many took up the call by Urban most likely indicates that the Frankish nobles at this moment in time were more pious than the stereotypes would like you to think; these men were not simply gloryhunters under the pretence of religious liberation for the East. If the nobles truly believed that it was a mission to help their allies in the Byzantine Empire then it is unlikely they would have gone to such efforts to show their piety, with many converting or reaffirming their religious beliefs before or on the Crusade itself.
The Peasants and their Crusade
One of the groups that we know the least about is the Peasants, yet they carried out a Crusade of their own before the official Crusade sanctioned by Urban in 1095. A hermit-turned-preacher named Peter the Hermit who originated from Amiens had been travelling across France, vigorously spreading his message of a Crusade to Jerusalem across northern France and Flanders. Most of the people that Peter was addressing were illiterate peasants who lived a life of relative hardship, and Peter’s message of hope, salvation and glory would certainly have struck them as a desirable opportunity. This is not to say that all that took part in this pre-Crusade expedition were peasants for the future chronicler who recorded the Council of Clermont Fulcher of Chartres was part of the company, and Walter Sans Avoir (Walter the Penniless), an impoverished but experienced Knight who became one of Peter’s lieutenants.
Such was the popularity of Peter’s preaching that he had amassed a force of around 20,000 men, women and children to take part in a march to Jerusalem.(18) In April 1096 Peter gathered his forces in Cologne to try and bolster their forces with Germans, but many of the French were restless, and so a force a few thousand strong under Walter left for Jerusalem early. After some arguments with the Hungarians on the way to Constantinople to rendezvous with the Komnemnos 16 men were stripped of their armour and it was hung from the Castle walls in Zemun, a key town on the path to Constantinople. The French force was let through but later when Peter’s force arrived which had now reached a massive size of 40,000(19) they became suspicious of the armour, and a riot broke out in the market square which quickly turned into an all-out assault on the town. From its conception the expedition had a chronic lack of planning and they were having difficulties before even leaving Christian territory. Peter was an excellent speaker and preacher but he was certainly not a tactician nor could he control his troops, and Walter’s splinter head army was not faring much better. For the peasants it very much seems that the social backdrop and hardship played a major part in their decision to go on the Crusades.
A peasant’s life is generally not a desirable one and as many peasants live agrarian lifestyles the crop problems in France would have weighed in on their decision. When considering Peter’s talent as a preacher and promise of a better life in Jerusalem it would have seemed very appealing. Moreover, a number of interesting events in 1095 may have played their part too. Throughout 1095 there were strange meteorological occurrences that were omens of something great to come; a meteor shower, lunar eclipse and comet amongst others. There was an also an outbreak of ergotism that year and also millienarism, a popular belief that the world was about to end. The difference between the Knights and the Peasants was that while Knights could enjoy a life of relative luxury without the hardships of manual labour, Peasants were at the bottom of the food chain, and had little to lose from such an expedition. It appears that unlike the nobles and the Pope, the peasants were driven more by the glorified tale from Peter of riches and success in the east than the religious aspect, and their particular circumstances in the year 1095 would have made his argument very enticing.
Conclusion
To conclude, what has become clear about the First Crusade and the motivations for it from each group can be argued forcefully with an array of evidence, but it doesn’t appear that any theory ‘wins’ over another theory, it is more down to personal preference having seen the evidence on balance. While some Historians choose to disregard evidence as unimportant such as Asbridge and Runciman with the growth of Islamic power in the east, others just choose to focus on a few texts that give the opinion that they want to convey. One of the key problems that faces historians on this fascinating topic is that the very sources themselves are questionable in their accuracy, particularly in reference to the 5 accounts of the Council of Clermont, each differing greatly and many of which were written some 20 years after Urban’s famous speech took place. It is novel to think that as far back as 900 years ago some of the people writing the accounts of Urban’s speech were trying to protect his nobility and piety, reminiscent of the politics we have today. Having seen a number of convincing arguments about why Pope Urban II made the decision to hold the Council of Clermont, I would argue that he did have intentions of bringing aid to Christians in the East, leaving open the possibility of retaking Jerusalem in the process. The fact that so many were struck by his speech and converted or reaffirmed their faith within days of his call of duty would suggest that something was said that day that would have inspired Lords, Dukes, future Kings and even peasants to swear their allegiance to God and his ‘messenger on earth’, Urban.
The scope for arguments over the Popes motivations are many; the Council of Piacenza earlier that year gave him the basis for following through with the ‘progressive Papacy’ that previous Popes like Gregory VII had tried and failed to implement. It is unclear whether he had actually had accounts of brutality that Asbridges alludes to or whether he even mentioned them, but within the context of growing hostility between Christians and Muslims it is believable that some of these accounts of atrocities may have happened, even if the accounts were embellished by the Popes way with words. In my conclusion I am inclined therefore to agree with Madden’s idea on the Popes intention of reasserting Papal authority in Western Europe and at the same time bring aid to Christians in the East. On the motivations of the Nobles and actual participants in the Crusade I prefer the perspective of Johnathan Riley-Smith, who argues that the failing crops that year in France (Normans making up the majority of the fighting force), growing political instability and genuine faith whether inspired or not by the speech by Urban were the key players in convincing the thousands of men to travel thousands of miles, not the chance of looking for wealth and glory on a religious campaign. A fitting quote on this is a point by Asbridge, ‘this image... is profoundly misleading.’ The exorbitant costs and daunting prospect of travelling such a long distance only to fight in an long and bitter campaign does a great deal to rule out the possibility of wealth playing a major factor in the decision. On the subject of Peasants the argument of the failing crops and an escape from hardship again seem a fitting reason for wanting to go on the Crusade, and Peter’s talent as a preacher would have done much in convincing people that the Crusades were a worthy and desirable thing to do. All things considered, it appears that the traditionalist view of religion being the motivating factor for the Pope and the Nobles though not without its difficulties and inaccuracies gives a more likely idea of what transpired in the late 11th century to bring about the First Crusade.
References
[1]Council held by Pope Urban II in his state visit to Italy.
[2] Asbridge p4
[3] The words used by Gregory VII in his failed attempt to create a Crusade in 1074.
[4] Asbridge p 15-20
[5] R.A Fletcher ‘Reconquest and Crusade in Spain 1050-1150’
[6](Spanish, meaning Recapturing) the retaking of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) by a number of Christian Kingdoms and the removal of the Muslim ‘Al Andalus’ province.
[7] Quarterly journal of Medieval Studies
[8] Gardens of Gethsemane The Bible
[9] term meaning ‘head of state’, where the state is referred to as a Caliphate.
[10] Johnathan Riley-Smith ‘The First Crusade 1095-1131’, pg. 55
[11] there are five credited remaining accounts of the Council of Clermont
[12] Fulcher of Chartres Chronicle
[13] Riley-Smith, Documents of Medieval History
[14] Asbridge, p77
[15] Runciman The First Crusade
[16] Asbridge, p71
[17] Fordham University Archives
[18]J Norwich, the Rise and Fall of Constantinople
[19] J Norwich, the Rise and Fall of Constantinople
[20] Runciman The First Crusade
1 Comment
Recommended Comments