Ian's World of History

The western world prior to the first crusade was a land in turmoil.
An ongoing dispute over the holy city of Jerusalem had been raging for a long period of time between three major religions. There were the Christians who believed that the city of Jerusalem was the city in which their saviour Jesus Christ was crucified to save the Christian people.
There were the Muslims who believed that Jerusalem was the city in which the Prophet Muhammed (Mahommet) ascended to heaven.
There were also the the Jews who believed that Jerusalem was the city in which Moses recieved the ten commandments from God.
Each laid a claim to who should control the capital of western religion.
The reality was that the city of Jerusalem, at the time of the first crusade, was under Islamic control and the Christians who saw the holy land surrounding Jerusalem as a sacred place could not stand by and see the city controlled by the infadel.
The Byzantine empire...a group of Christians who broke away to follow a more Orthadox Christian religion had suffered defeats at the hands of the Turkish muslims in the east and in 1074 Pope Urban II called for the western Christians to rise up and help the Byzantine empire. This call went largely ignored but a crusade still was not out of the question.
In 1095 at the Council of Clermont Pope Urban gave a speach to rally the western Christians for a crusade to take back Jerusalem from the infadel!
The response this time was much greater although Urban now had an army that was not exactly as he imagined.
This was more of an army of peasents of all ages than an elite army of wealthy and skilled knights, still this would have to do!
This army was over 100 000 strong but had very little fighting prowess....they didn't make it out of Christian territory before getting into trouble for looting and plundering, on their arrival in Muslim land they were mostly massacred although their leader Peter the Hermit lived and escaped.
This was a disaster but Pope Urban couldn't stop there...he assembled a more wealthy and skilled army of lords and princes of various countries including France, Spain and England. This was to become known as the "princes crusade".
This crusade was to prove more fruitful. Upon reaching Constantinople (now Istanbul) the last Christian city in the west  the army was not met with the desired reaction by the prince of Constantinople Alexius I. He was suspicious after his bad experiences with the previous army. He did however regress in the end and agree to send out an army to protect the Christian knights on the way through Turkey.
The first city to be taken, Nicaea, was seiged and eveltually a decree of surrender was accepted and the city was in Byzantian hands.
During the march many Christians became exhausted and died of heat exhaustion and dehydration...they weren't exactly dressed for the occasion, their heavy armour was not suitable for hot weather and they had not anticipated the long, barron stretches of terrain with little water.
The next objective was to take the stronghold at Antioch.
It was a lengthy seige of over 8 months as the city was too big to be surrounded on all sides. Eventually, after a lengthy stalemate a change of tactics was introduced. A garrison was bribed by the Christian leaders to surrender his tower and the Christian army had a foot in the door. They eventually took the city in 1098 but came under seige instantly by the Muslims. This time the Christians had an ace up their sleve in a holy lance...possibly said to have been the spear of destiny was discovered in Antioch which was taken as an omen of Christian victory. Meanwhile a plague broke out in the Muslim camp due to unwillingness to dispose of rotting corpses which killed many thousands of soldiers and key figures. The next year saw the crusade delayed as regional leaders squabbled over the spoils of war and who would control Antioch.
Eventually Jerusalem was reached by only around 1500 of the original 7000 knights. The army began immediately to besiege the city walls. With the thickness of the outer walls combined with a lack of manpower and resources this looked impossible and so another plan was needed. A man by the name of Peter Desiderius stepped up with talk of a divine vision that Jerusalem would fall in 9 days if they marched around the city, much like the seige of Jericho by Joshua. This plan went ahead and, by what was believed to be a miracle, in just 7 days the city walls were broken by Christian seige towers and the Christian army piled in to massacre every Muslim, Jew and even some Christian inhabitants.
This, with hindsight, is seen to be a callous act as when Jerusalem fell to Saladin in 1291 it is said that he allowed all christian inhabitants to leave before his people entered. This act of honour came despite the bloody invasion of Jerusalem in the first crusade and earned Saladin a reputation as a worthy opponent.
Now all that was left was to elect a leader of Jerusalem.
Godfrey de Bouillon was a favoured candidate due to the significant role he played in the crusade but after a lengthy power struggle Baldwin I became the first king of Jerusalem after the death of Godfrey de Bouillon in 1100.
The cruader states of Edessa, Tripoli, Antioch, Palestine and more were established soon after and the holy land was fortified against Muslim advances.
After so long the Christian capital of Jerusalem was back in Christian hands....for now.


Image: Godfrey de Bouillon

Tens of thousands of Christians responded to the call of pope Urban II in November 1095 for a crusade to recapture Jerusalem. A reaction of this sorts was unprecedented so what exactly was it that motivated so many knights to take the cross?

It is possible to identify three main reasons why a crusade would appeal to a knight: spiritual, material and personal. I will expand on each of these points in order to give a full account of why a knight would want to take the cross.

Firstly,it’s important to recognise there were events prior to the crusade that may have motivated some people to take up arms. What were the reasons for Urban calling a crusade?

Image: Pope Urban II

The council at Clermont in November 1095 was mainly in response to a call from the Byzantine emperor Alexius for help against the advancing Turkish armies from the Holy land. This cry for help was sent from Alexius to Urban via a determined and devout man named Peter the Hermit who’s words are, perhaps with hindsight and with some poetic license, recorded here in the chronicles of William of Tyre:

“I, truly, for the sake of the salvation of my soul, urge them to hasten to your relief.”

Peter’s charismatic preaching served to bring to the attention of the western church the extent of Turkish threat in the east.

This threat however had been brewing a long time and the western church was not completely unaware of the situation. For many centuries before the crusade there had been numerous battles between the Christians and Islamic Moors in Spain. There had also been a few campaigns between Normans and Turks in Sicily and also Pisa and Genoa where the Christians had registered some success in driving the armies back. ₍₁₎

So from this we see that the crusade was born, for some, out of years of hostility but there were other reasons why knights would want to respond to the call.

  Spiritual beliefs accounted for a lot during the medieval period, Pope Urban’s letter of instruction given to crusading leaders in 1095 appeals to the religious sentiment of the knights:

“We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins.” ₍₂₎

This idea of having sins wiped clean by crusading is an important one. Knights were warriors who had killed maybe hundreds of people and so were full of sin. Antony Bridge supports this view saying that Urban at Clermont promised “to all that died in battle, Pope urban, there and then promised the absolution and remission of all sins”₍₃₎

Knights would want to go to heaven and to do this they must wipe clean their conscience by having sins absolved. They perhaps saw this crusade as an easy way of doing so.

  This account from Anselme of Ribemont shows his spiritual reasons for crusading:

“we have captured the Lord 200 cities and fortresses” ₍₁₂₎ This is evidence from a letter circa 1098 of knights fighting, not for themselves, but for God and is an excellent counterargument to the view that material gain was more important. It should however be noted that this was possibly written after the crusade was over so is not the best example of motivation fro the crusade and is merely the view of one man, however it illustrates the point well.

  Many knights saw this crusade as an opportunity to travel to the holy land, perhaps the fighting was incidental. The truth was that many knights had only heard of Jerusalem and had never actually seen it. Malcolm Barber suggests that this is one of the key motivations for crusading:

“The ultimate experience, however, was to visit Palestine itself. To touch and see the places where they believed Christ in body had stood” ₍₄₎

Indeed this is a popular idea as all that many people had to go on were ideas of a divine Jerusalem from the bible. Barber goes on to say that “preachers, often unauthorised, found that they could create an image of Jerusalem, with it’s needs and rewards…to people who had never carried arms or had any idea of the location of the Holy land” ₍₅₎ This is mostly true though there are records of an increasing number of pilgrimages in the centuries before the first crusade. Despite this many still got lost on the way to Jerusalem and had to disperse which somewhat illustrates this point.

Around the period between maybe 1000 and 1150 there was a period of end-time belief which indeed had existed before and still exists today. This involves criteria that need to be fulfilled before all good Christians ascend to heaven. One of these criteria was an epic final battle between good and evil. The crusade seemed an ideal setting for this to take place. ₍₆₎

This is a somewhat debatable perspective as it cannot be assumed that all people believed this. Today it is mostly extremists that take this view but one cannot compare the religious views of today to those of medieval peoples accurately. I have found little evidence to suggest that there was any more belief in end time philosophy in this period than in any other.

   Material reasons for crusading appear to be somewhat of a grey area and most historians seem to avoid the opinion that all crusaders packed their bags and went off to get rich. In fact it appears to be quite the opposite.

There are quite a few reasons why a crusade may be materially beneficial, however.

Firstly, Gordon Napier identifies that according to Pope Urban II in his speech agreed to exempt all who took the cross from taxes while they were on crusade ₍₇₎

Andrew Jotischky also identifies that knights who faced the prospect of penance would normally have to give up prosperous land endowments and lands to join religious orders in order to absolve their sins. ₍₈₎ He does however go on to state that a knight would have to spend maybe 7 year’s income to go on crusade which somewhat outweighs the benefit. ₍₈₎

Gordon Napier and an unidentified historian agree that the material benefits were minimal as knights would often have to sell fertile lands in the west to gain hot and barren ones in the east which was not beneficial at all._{­ (9)}

There was a great deal of pillaging during the crusade, so much so that the leaders had to supply food to prevent it ₍₁₀₎ which would sometimes result in wealth but more often than not it came to nothing either due to the cost of crusading or the pillagers being killed. It was also seen by crusaders as being legalised plunder, normally illegal, as it would not be considered sinful to steal from infidels _(7)­ It should be noted however that much plundering took place en route to Constantinople which was Christian and Jewish land not Saracen suggesting that this took priority over the want to punish Muslims.

There is evidence to suggest there was success in plundering on crusade or otherwise, Jacques le Goff says that “they were prouder still of the rich booty and relics gathered from far and wide and displayed, venerated and honoured objects charged with magical powers” ₍₁₁₎

There were many relics retrieved from the first crusade such as the Spear of Destiny (the lance which pierced Christ on the cross) discovered during the siege of Antioch in 1099 which certainly had beneficial effects on moral but whether they brought wealth or not is debatable. Some churches did benefit from relics from the crusade attracting pilgrims however most did not.

Mainly personal gain came in the form of power, many landless victims of primogeniture saw the opportunity to claim rule of conquered lands in the east. Not least to be king of Jerusalem. However, as John Riley-Smith puts it: "there really is no evidence to support the proposition that the crusade was an opportunity for spare sons to make themselves scarce in order to relieve their families of burdens." ₍₂₁₎

Personal reasons are widespread and diverse but are perhaps more important than material gain as reasons for crusading.

Knights in medieval society were warriors brought up on warfare. It was their one role in society, often they were illiterate and often had little wealth rather travelling the land searching for tournaments and looking to pledge their service.₍₁₃₎

Gordon Napier agrees, saying that “many (knights) saw this (the crusade) as an opportunity to fulfil this lust”­₍₇₎

The speech at Clermont by Urban II, according to Fulcher of Chartres, contained the following statement suggesting a unity among Christians:

“Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels” ₍₁₄₎

_­This was certainly appealing to kings and lords as well as knights as it allowed them to settle their feuds which were costing them dearly in the west and unite for the greater good. It was an opportunity to make peace which would reflect on the king/lord well as “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9) ­₍₁₅₎

Exaggerated tales of slaughter were circulating around the west around the end of the 11^th century. Tales of Muslims charging taxes to view holy shrines and butchering Christians. One account, which may or may not have happened and is little mentioned apart from in the writings of contemporary historian Anna Comnena who records that Peter the Hermit was stopped and tortured by Saracens on the way to the west to spread the Byzantine emperor’s news ₍₁₆₎ Peter’s piety would have inspired many to attempt to revenge him, after all what was to stop them doing this to others?

Most of this exaggeration can be found in Urban II’s speech itself. Especially in the somewhat unusual account of Guibert of Nogent:

“They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there.”₍₁₇₎

This account, if at all accurate, would explain why many knights crusaded as acts of revenge upon the Saracens!

Some merely went to the aid of the Byzantines, after all this was a primary goal. This is illustrated by the fact that many units turned back after the assault on Antioch, some hesitated but continued anyway such as Raymond of St. Giles and Godfrey de Bouillon. ₍₁₈₎  

Pope Urban specifies this as a key objective: “ you must hasten to give them (eastern Christians) the aid which has often been promised” ₍₁₄₎

This is quite prominent in all accounts of the speech which suggests it was very important.

Malcolm Barber expands on this by suggesting that another motive for the crusade was the healing of a schism between the churches of the east and west which had developed over time. He identifies that in the speech at Clermont Urban called for “the whole of the former Christian lands converted by the apostles be restored to the faith” ₍₁₉₎ which can be interpreted as an attempt to unite the Christian lands or a suggestion that the crusade was a territorial expansion exercise, another view which is somewhat avoided by many.

In conclusion, the importance of individual factors is hard to assess as there are so many different reasons why knights would decide to crusade. The doesn’t seem to be a clear universal reason but, all evidence considered, I would agree that personal and religious beliefs far outweigh the material gain of the crusade. The only worthwhile material gain would be the recapture of Jerusalem which, while infinitely important doesn’t account for individual gain. Many knights such as Godfrey de Bouillon actually cast aside their land and donated it to the clergy ₍₁₎ in order to crusade which further supports this claim.

I would agree that propaganda played a huge role too, we saw examples of how Urban allegedly included images of torture and discrimination against the Christians by Saracens. According to Gordon Napier this was fairly untrue as he claims that Omar, leader of the Muslims and descendant (?) of Mahomet agreed to allow Christians safe passage to the city and admired them as fellow devout followers of the book, he also had no problem as he saw pilgrims as a “useful source of income” ₍₂₁₎

Footnotes

 

 

1)      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

2)      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html (Urban’s letter of instruction)

3)      The Crusades, Antony Bridge, Granada, 1980, p. 44-45

4)      The Two Cities-Medieval Europe from 1050-1320, Second Edition, Malcolm Barber, Routledge, 2004, P.113

5)      The Two Cities-Medieval Europe from 1050-1320, Second Edition, Malcolm Barber, Routledge, 2004, P.116

6)      Europe in the High Middle Ages, William Chester Jordan, Penguin History, 2001 p102

7)      The rise and fall of the knights Templar, Gordon Napier, Spellmount, 2003, P10

8)      Andrew Jotischky and Caroline Hull- Historical atlas of the medieval world, Penguin, 2005 p98

9)      http://www.templarhistory.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2259&highlight= (Gordon Napier appears as the moderator of the forum Dashinvaine (GN)) Albion agrees with him and gives and opinion but I don’t know of his credibility as a historian.

10)   The World of the Crusaders, Joshua Prawer, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1972, p20

11)   The Medieval World- The History of European Society, Jacques le Goff (translated by Lydia Cochrane), Parkgate Books, 1997 edition, p 75

12)  http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1stCrusade1.htm

13)  Andrew Jotischky’s lecture on the First Crusade

14)  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html (Fulcher of Chartres account of the speech at Clermont)

15)  Europe in the High Middle Ages, William Chester Jordan, Penguin History, 2001 p100

16)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Hermit

17)  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html#guibert

18)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_de_Bouillon

19)  The Two Cities-Medieval Europe from 1050-1320, Second Edition, Malcolm Barber, Routledge, 2004, P.115

20)   The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, John Riley-Smith pg. 47

      21)The rise and fall of the knights Templar, Gordon Napier, Spellmount, 2003, P9