Holy War - Tammy Woodworth
Summary:
In 1095, Pope Urban II addressed a church council at Piacenza where he called “upon the European Christians to rescue the Holy Land from Muslim occupation” (Allen and Amt 39) and end the persecution of the Christians. According to Fulcher of Chartres, the Turks and Arabs had killed and captured numerous Christians and destroyed churches (Allen and Amt 39). Fulcher highlights the crusades as a journey to obtain the remission of sins and entrance to the “glory of the kingdom of heaven” (Allen and Amt 42). Pope Urban II glorified the battle cry “It is the will of God, it is the will of God”, according to Fulcher by proclaiming that it was with one voice the believers replied to him during Urban’s speech, therefore, the crusades were the will of God.
According to Baldric of Dol, Pope Urban II’s some were listeners were so moved by the “apostolic lord” that they had tears in their eyes and trembled at his words. The message was so moving that in caused “the bishop of Puy, a man of great renown and highest ability, went to the pope with joyful countenance and on bended knee sought and entreated blessing and permission to go” (Allen and Amt 45). It could be assumed that Baldric was so impressed with the speech that he felt it caused the most seasoned soldier to pick up arms and join the battle for Christianity.
According to Guibert of Nogent, Pope Urban II’s spoke of “God fighting in our behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the Holy City and glory of the Sepulcher, now polluted by the concourse of the gentiles, as much as is in their power” (Allen and Amt 44) which pushed for the soldiers to war in order to uphold their Christian beliefs. Nogent held Pope Urban in very high esteem and concluded that Pope Urban had the blessing of St. Peter and “absolved all who vowed to go and confirmed those acts with apostolic blessing”(Allen and Amt 46), thereby absolving them from their sins. Nogen also felt that by Pope Urban’s making the sign of the cross, “the stigma of the Lord’s passion, the emblem of the soldiery, or rather, of what was to be soldiery of God”, thereby giving the reason for soldiers and knights sewing crosses onto their shirts and cloaks. Nogent also draws the conclusion from Pope Urban’s speech that anyone who wears the cross and doesn’t fulfill their obligation would be considered an outlaw.
Raymond of Aguilar recounts the battle for the holy city in terms of nobility and good works in service of the Lord. According to Raymond, the battle to capture the holy city was discouraging and exhausting, but they were “irresolute, and the enemy exulted in our discomfiture, the healing mercy of God inspired us and turned our sorrow into joy, for the Lord did not forsake us” (Allen and Amt 76). Raymond talks about the eventual capture of the city and the mercy shown by the soldiers because they mercifully cut off of the heads of the Saracens instead of “torturing them and casting them into the flames” (Allen and Amt 77). He laments battles as a great victory for God, justification for all Christians and a renewal of faith.
Analysis: Fulcher’s claim that European Christians needed to be rescued from Muslim occupation and brutal oppression was greatly exaggerated and although inflammatory was completely false, according to Thomas Asbridge (Asbridge 3). The Muslims and the Catholics had been living amongst each other for centuries with little conflict and the Muslims had proven to be the more tolerant of other religious views, unlike the empire to the East who had a long history of Christian persecution.
As the Roman Empire began to crumble and the papacy lost power and authority, shifts in politics and religions began. The papacy, under the guidance of Pope Urban II, began the campaign for more power and authority. During the time prior to the First Crusade, the Christian faith “dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer attuned to the attitudes and preconceptions increasingly secularized contemporary society” (Asbridge 6). This religious fervor perpetuated the “overwhelming anxiety: the danger of sin” (Asbridge 6). The fear of sin and need for absolution helped justify the crusades by giving the soldiers an avenue to absolution and entrance to the glory of the kingdom of heaven.
Pope Urban’s supposed declaration that all sins would be absolved of the soldier who took up the cross in the name of Lord, created an atmosphere of salvation for the soldiers. The medieval reality of spiritual absolution was vague and confusing and this was just the solution needed to convince them to bear the cross for Christianity. “The expedition preached at Clermont represented a new form of ‘super’ penance: a venture so arduous, so utterly terrifying, as to be capable of cancelling out any sin” (Asbridge 39). The medieval reality of spiritual absolution was vague and confusing and this was just the solution required to convince them to bear the cross for Christianity.
The continued Arabic expansion into the Byzantium Empire created financial hardships and furthered the rift between Muslims and the Christians. According to Asbridge, “there is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other”, and he states that the crusades were “proactive rather than reactive, and the crusades were designed, first and foremost, to meet the needs of the papacy” (Asbridge 18, 19). The argument made by Nogent that “God is fighting on our behalf” when faced with the real reason for the crusades, papal power and the struggle for wealth.
Raymond of Aguilar talks about the mercy shown by the soldiers in battle, beheadings instead of torture, but the reality of the final incursion into the Holy City was a massacre of unimaginable magnitude. To say that this was in the name of the Lord is in direct contradiction to the numerous references in the Holy Bible to pacifism and mercy. After the capture of the Holy City, “unholy wave of brutality throughout the city” (Asbridge 317) committed by these “soldiers of Christ” was far worse than any perceived atrocity by the Muslim “barbarians”.
Further evidence of the illegitimate reasons for this war on the Muslims was the immediate plundering and ransacking of the city as “the crusaders’ minds quickly turned to thoughts of spoils” (Asbridge 317). The crusaders who apparently came “to Jerusalem alight with pious passion to do God’s work” demonstrated nothing Christian or Godlike in their capture of the city but religious fervor and barbaric warfare. The Christians came to Jerusalem with the “authentic and ecstatic sense of Christian devotion” but showed their own bloodlust and greed. The Holy Land was free in the name of Christianity.
In 1095, Pope Urban II addressed a church council at Piacenza where he called “upon the European Christians to rescue the Holy Land from Muslim occupation” (Allen and Amt 39) and end the persecution of the Christians. According to Fulcher of Chartres, the Turks and Arabs had killed and captured numerous Christians and destroyed churches (Allen and Amt 39). Fulcher highlights the crusades as a journey to obtain the remission of sins and entrance to the “glory of the kingdom of heaven” (Allen and Amt 42). Pope Urban II glorified the battle cry “It is the will of God, it is the will of God”, according to Fulcher by proclaiming that it was with one voice the believers replied to him during Urban’s speech, therefore, the crusades were the will of God.
According to Baldric of Dol, Pope Urban II’s some were listeners were so moved by the “apostolic lord” that they had tears in their eyes and trembled at his words. The message was so moving that in caused “the bishop of Puy, a man of great renown and highest ability, went to the pope with joyful countenance and on bended knee sought and entreated blessing and permission to go” (Allen and Amt 45). It could be assumed that Baldric was so impressed with the speech that he felt it caused the most seasoned soldier to pick up arms and join the battle for Christianity.
According to Guibert of Nogent, Pope Urban II’s spoke of “God fighting in our behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the Holy City and glory of the Sepulcher, now polluted by the concourse of the gentiles, as much as is in their power” (Allen and Amt 44) which pushed for the soldiers to war in order to uphold their Christian beliefs. Nogent held Pope Urban in very high esteem and concluded that Pope Urban had the blessing of St. Peter and “absolved all who vowed to go and confirmed those acts with apostolic blessing”(Allen and Amt 46), thereby absolving them from their sins. Nogen also felt that by Pope Urban’s making the sign of the cross, “the stigma of the Lord’s passion, the emblem of the soldiery, or rather, of what was to be soldiery of God”, thereby giving the reason for soldiers and knights sewing crosses onto their shirts and cloaks. Nogent also draws the conclusion from Pope Urban’s speech that anyone who wears the cross and doesn’t fulfill their obligation would be considered an outlaw.
Raymond of Aguilar recounts the battle for the holy city in terms of nobility and good works in service of the Lord. According to Raymond, the battle to capture the holy city was discouraging and exhausting, but they were “irresolute, and the enemy exulted in our discomfiture, the healing mercy of God inspired us and turned our sorrow into joy, for the Lord did not forsake us” (Allen and Amt 76). Raymond talks about the eventual capture of the city and the mercy shown by the soldiers because they mercifully cut off of the heads of the Saracens instead of “torturing them and casting them into the flames” (Allen and Amt 77). He laments battles as a great victory for God, justification for all Christians and a renewal of faith.
Analysis: Fulcher’s claim that European Christians needed to be rescued from Muslim occupation and brutal oppression was greatly exaggerated and although inflammatory was completely false, according to Thomas Asbridge (Asbridge 3). The Muslims and the Catholics had been living amongst each other for centuries with little conflict and the Muslims had proven to be the more tolerant of other religious views, unlike the empire to the East who had a long history of Christian persecution.
As the Roman Empire began to crumble and the papacy lost power and authority, shifts in politics and religions began. The papacy, under the guidance of Pope Urban II, began the campaign for more power and authority. During the time prior to the First Crusade, the Christian faith “dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer attuned to the attitudes and preconceptions increasingly secularized contemporary society” (Asbridge 6). This religious fervor perpetuated the “overwhelming anxiety: the danger of sin” (Asbridge 6). The fear of sin and need for absolution helped justify the crusades by giving the soldiers an avenue to absolution and entrance to the glory of the kingdom of heaven.
Pope Urban’s supposed declaration that all sins would be absolved of the soldier who took up the cross in the name of Lord, created an atmosphere of salvation for the soldiers. The medieval reality of spiritual absolution was vague and confusing and this was just the solution needed to convince them to bear the cross for Christianity. “The expedition preached at Clermont represented a new form of ‘super’ penance: a venture so arduous, so utterly terrifying, as to be capable of cancelling out any sin” (Asbridge 39). The medieval reality of spiritual absolution was vague and confusing and this was just the solution required to convince them to bear the cross for Christianity.
The continued Arabic expansion into the Byzantium Empire created financial hardships and furthered the rift between Muslims and the Christians. According to Asbridge, “there is little or no evidence to suggest that either side harboured any innate, empowering religious or racial hatred of the other”, and he states that the crusades were “proactive rather than reactive, and the crusades were designed, first and foremost, to meet the needs of the papacy” (Asbridge 18, 19). The argument made by Nogent that “God is fighting on our behalf” when faced with the real reason for the crusades, papal power and the struggle for wealth.
Raymond of Aguilar talks about the mercy shown by the soldiers in battle, beheadings instead of torture, but the reality of the final incursion into the Holy City was a massacre of unimaginable magnitude. To say that this was in the name of the Lord is in direct contradiction to the numerous references in the Holy Bible to pacifism and mercy. After the capture of the Holy City, “unholy wave of brutality throughout the city” (Asbridge 317) committed by these “soldiers of Christ” was far worse than any perceived atrocity by the Muslim “barbarians”.
Further evidence of the illegitimate reasons for this war on the Muslims was the immediate plundering and ransacking of the city as “the crusaders’ minds quickly turned to thoughts of spoils” (Asbridge 317). The crusaders who apparently came “to Jerusalem alight with pious passion to do God’s work” demonstrated nothing Christian or Godlike in their capture of the city but religious fervor and barbaric warfare. The Christians came to Jerusalem with the “authentic and ecstatic sense of Christian devotion” but showed their own bloodlust and greed. The Holy Land was free in the name of Christianity.
The Holy War - Jerome Jacobson
Towards the end of the eleventh century, the Byzantine Empire reached out to its Latin neighbors for help in resisting Islamic expansion. In 1095 CE, envoys from emperor Alexius II were sent to Pope Urban II to request military assistance from their Christian brethren in the West. Urban would answer this plea several months later with a call to arms in his Sermon at Clermont, which would be forever known as the point of ignition for the First Crusade. The sermon was not recorded word for word, but four accounts of the speech were written after the First Crusade and still exist today. These accounts differ slightly in their portrayal of Urban’s sermon, but they all share roughly the same messages. Each version depicts Christians in the East being ruthlessly persecuted and attacked, especially in the Holy city of Jerusalem. Robert the Monk’s account goes into graphic detail of the gruesome tortures and deaths that Christians under Muslim rule were facing (Allen and Amt 41), as does Guibert of Nogent when he describes the persecutions of Christians making pilgrimage to holy places in the East (46). Urban calls the Christians of Western Europe to forget their internal quarrels and unite in a holy and sanctified war against a barbaric enemy. To those who confess their sins and embark on this holy crusade, the pope promises full absolution of sins, along with both earthly and eternal rewards (42, 44). This call to liberate the Holy City of Jerusalem would shape the course of Muslim and Christian relations for centuries to come.
In his book, The First Crusade: A New History, Thomas Asbridge gives an insightful reading of Pope Urban II’s historic speech which emphasis the importance of interpreting historical accounts with a critical eye. To frame his discourse on the First Crusade, Asbridge elaborates on the difference between reality and myth-history, and why it is important to distinguish between the two. He observes that:
"Even before the expedition was over, however, its events began passing into ‘myth-history’, as contemporaries sought to record and explain its remarkable progress, asking why it had happened, who had participated and why, and how the expedition affected the world. Indeed, from its genesis, the history of the crusade was blurred by distortion” (Asbridge 3).
The four acclaimed witnesses that recorded Urban’s speech at Claremont provide an answer to all of these points in a seemingly historical manner, when in fact much of their explanations are not grounded in reality. The first main example is the reason they give as to why the First Crusade began. All four accounts attribute the main reason for embarking on the holy war is to avenge and liberate Christians facing cruel and systematic persecution at the hands of the barbaric Turks and Arabs. As noted by Asbridge, Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for roughly 400 years. In all that time, Christians under Islamic rule experienced a great deal of religious tolerance and were certainly not prey to any form of systematic abuse like that described by Robert or Guibert (18). Any conflict that the Byzantine Empire had with Islam was no more intense than the conflicts they had with their Latin or Slavic neighbors to the west, which shows the unlikelihood that there existed any innate religious hatred between the Christianity and Islam (17-18). With these facts brought to light, it would seem that the explanation that the crusades occurred as a reaction to Muslim hostility is not the true reason why the First Crusade was initiated. Thus from Thomas Asbridge’s examination of the reality in which Pope Urban II gave his speech, it is possible to identify which aspects of the historical account had already drifted into ‘myth-history’.
Since the First Crusade was clearly not a reaction in response to atrocities committed by Islam against Christians, there must be another explanation outside the myth-history that accounts for Pope Urban’s call to arms at Claremont. Asbridge posits the idea that Urban II’s decision to take up the crusade to Jerusalem was a calculated proactive step designed first and foremost to meet the needs of the papacy (19). Urban grew up in an eleventh century Europe that was fraught with internal fighting and senseless violence. When he was rising through the ranks of the church, the reality of papal authority was weak and held hardly any universal power or influence over the various Christian lands (11-12). The Crusade was Urban’s answer to reverse the dire situations that he grew up in. In other words, it was “an attempt to consolidate papal empowerment and expand Rome's sphere of influence” (19). All four of the accounts of Urban’s speech emphasize in some way the urgent need to for Christians to stop fighting towards their mutual destruction. In light of Asbridge’s commentary of Pope Urban’s historical background, the passages calling an end to unjust fighting between Christians reveal on of the true motivating factors as to why the Crusade was waged; to unify a warring and divided Christendom under the universal and apostolic authority of the papacy.
In addition to discerning the reality of why the First Crusade was called, another important issue that deserves attention is the answer to why so many Christians answered the call to embark on the crusade Urban didn’t come up with the idea for a crusade out of thin air, and the idea of a holy war was far from a new concept to him (22). Some popes before him, such as Pope Gregory VII, tried to enlist soldiers to fight under their papal authority with the offer of complete remission of sins. This offer was made in an effort to appeal to the medieval mindset that was plagued by one overwhelming anxiety: the danger of sin (Asbridge 6). Many of these attempts, however, failed to amass anywhere near a substantial following. It is puzzling then why Urban was so successful in gaining support with his speech at Claremont. At first glance, Urban seems to offer the same reward that Gregory did when he says to his followers: “set out on this journey and you will obtain the remission of your sins and be sure of the incorruptible glory of the kingdom of heaven" (Allen and Amt 42). Asbridge makes a compelling argument explaining the appeal of Urban’s message to European arms-bearers. In the eleventh century, pilgrimages were the most recognized penitential activities due to their grueling and dangerous nature, thus making them capable of purging the soul of sin (Asbridge 37). Urban appeals to the medieval mind by promising an arduous journey full of hardship in order to free the Holy Land. "Under Jesus Christ, our leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem... struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks..." (Allen and Amt 44). Urban had combined the prospect of cleansing ones soul through holy warfare with a genuine pilgrimage, full of such struggle that none could deny its penitential power. With the interweaving of the themes of holy war and pilgrimage, along with the prospect of emerging from the evils of battle unsullied by sin, it is easy to see how so many would quickly answer Pope Urban II’s call to arms at Claremont.
Works Cited
Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. [pp. 1-39]
Allen, S.J. and Amt. Emilie, “Urban II’s Call for a Crusade” in The Crusades: A Reader. [pp. 39-47]
Towards the end of the eleventh century, the Byzantine Empire reached out to its Latin neighbors for help in resisting Islamic expansion. In 1095 CE, envoys from emperor Alexius II were sent to Pope Urban II to request military assistance from their Christian brethren in the West. Urban would answer this plea several months later with a call to arms in his Sermon at Clermont, which would be forever known as the point of ignition for the First Crusade. The sermon was not recorded word for word, but four accounts of the speech were written after the First Crusade and still exist today. These accounts differ slightly in their portrayal of Urban’s sermon, but they all share roughly the same messages. Each version depicts Christians in the East being ruthlessly persecuted and attacked, especially in the Holy city of Jerusalem. Robert the Monk’s account goes into graphic detail of the gruesome tortures and deaths that Christians under Muslim rule were facing (Allen and Amt 41), as does Guibert of Nogent when he describes the persecutions of Christians making pilgrimage to holy places in the East (46). Urban calls the Christians of Western Europe to forget their internal quarrels and unite in a holy and sanctified war against a barbaric enemy. To those who confess their sins and embark on this holy crusade, the pope promises full absolution of sins, along with both earthly and eternal rewards (42, 44). This call to liberate the Holy City of Jerusalem would shape the course of Muslim and Christian relations for centuries to come.
In his book, The First Crusade: A New History, Thomas Asbridge gives an insightful reading of Pope Urban II’s historic speech which emphasis the importance of interpreting historical accounts with a critical eye. To frame his discourse on the First Crusade, Asbridge elaborates on the difference between reality and myth-history, and why it is important to distinguish between the two. He observes that:
"Even before the expedition was over, however, its events began passing into ‘myth-history’, as contemporaries sought to record and explain its remarkable progress, asking why it had happened, who had participated and why, and how the expedition affected the world. Indeed, from its genesis, the history of the crusade was blurred by distortion” (Asbridge 3).
The four acclaimed witnesses that recorded Urban’s speech at Claremont provide an answer to all of these points in a seemingly historical manner, when in fact much of their explanations are not grounded in reality. The first main example is the reason they give as to why the First Crusade began. All four accounts attribute the main reason for embarking on the holy war is to avenge and liberate Christians facing cruel and systematic persecution at the hands of the barbaric Turks and Arabs. As noted by Asbridge, Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for roughly 400 years. In all that time, Christians under Islamic rule experienced a great deal of religious tolerance and were certainly not prey to any form of systematic abuse like that described by Robert or Guibert (18). Any conflict that the Byzantine Empire had with Islam was no more intense than the conflicts they had with their Latin or Slavic neighbors to the west, which shows the unlikelihood that there existed any innate religious hatred between the Christianity and Islam (17-18). With these facts brought to light, it would seem that the explanation that the crusades occurred as a reaction to Muslim hostility is not the true reason why the First Crusade was initiated. Thus from Thomas Asbridge’s examination of the reality in which Pope Urban II gave his speech, it is possible to identify which aspects of the historical account had already drifted into ‘myth-history’.
Since the First Crusade was clearly not a reaction in response to atrocities committed by Islam against Christians, there must be another explanation outside the myth-history that accounts for Pope Urban’s call to arms at Claremont. Asbridge posits the idea that Urban II’s decision to take up the crusade to Jerusalem was a calculated proactive step designed first and foremost to meet the needs of the papacy (19). Urban grew up in an eleventh century Europe that was fraught with internal fighting and senseless violence. When he was rising through the ranks of the church, the reality of papal authority was weak and held hardly any universal power or influence over the various Christian lands (11-12). The Crusade was Urban’s answer to reverse the dire situations that he grew up in. In other words, it was “an attempt to consolidate papal empowerment and expand Rome's sphere of influence” (19). All four of the accounts of Urban’s speech emphasize in some way the urgent need to for Christians to stop fighting towards their mutual destruction. In light of Asbridge’s commentary of Pope Urban’s historical background, the passages calling an end to unjust fighting between Christians reveal on of the true motivating factors as to why the Crusade was waged; to unify a warring and divided Christendom under the universal and apostolic authority of the papacy.
In addition to discerning the reality of why the First Crusade was called, another important issue that deserves attention is the answer to why so many Christians answered the call to embark on the crusade Urban didn’t come up with the idea for a crusade out of thin air, and the idea of a holy war was far from a new concept to him (22). Some popes before him, such as Pope Gregory VII, tried to enlist soldiers to fight under their papal authority with the offer of complete remission of sins. This offer was made in an effort to appeal to the medieval mindset that was plagued by one overwhelming anxiety: the danger of sin (Asbridge 6). Many of these attempts, however, failed to amass anywhere near a substantial following. It is puzzling then why Urban was so successful in gaining support with his speech at Claremont. At first glance, Urban seems to offer the same reward that Gregory did when he says to his followers: “set out on this journey and you will obtain the remission of your sins and be sure of the incorruptible glory of the kingdom of heaven" (Allen and Amt 42). Asbridge makes a compelling argument explaining the appeal of Urban’s message to European arms-bearers. In the eleventh century, pilgrimages were the most recognized penitential activities due to their grueling and dangerous nature, thus making them capable of purging the soul of sin (Asbridge 37). Urban appeals to the medieval mind by promising an arduous journey full of hardship in order to free the Holy Land. "Under Jesus Christ, our leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem... struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks..." (Allen and Amt 44). Urban had combined the prospect of cleansing ones soul through holy warfare with a genuine pilgrimage, full of such struggle that none could deny its penitential power. With the interweaving of the themes of holy war and pilgrimage, along with the prospect of emerging from the evils of battle unsullied by sin, it is easy to see how so many would quickly answer Pope Urban II’s call to arms at Claremont.
Works Cited
Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. [pp. 1-39]
Allen, S.J. and Amt. Emilie, “Urban II’s Call for a Crusade” in The Crusades: A Reader. [pp. 39-47]
Samantha Green
The Crusades: Holy Land
Summary:
Expanding Christianity across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East was a primary goal for the papacy and empire during the early A.D. centuries. The new Muslim religion had begun to spread, and soon inhabited the Holy City of Jerusalem. Even though the East and the West Christians were separate in a few religious beliefs, they were encouraged to band together and help push the Muslims out of Jerusalem. Pope Urban II gave a sermon that ushered Christians from the West to help those in the East, he offered cleansing of sin to any soldier that participated in the “Holy War”. With the papacy desiring the reclamation of territory and Christians urgent to help, the First Crusade began in November of 1095.
Critical Analysis:
“The Byzantine Emperor Alexius II addressed Pope Urban II at a church council at Piacenza, describing Constantinople’s urgent need for soldiers to supplement his existing mercenaries and home guard in the fight against the Turks.” (Allen and Amt, 39). Soon after Pope Urban II became the new head of the papacy, he delivered an electrifying sermon outside Clermont, France. He asked his listeners, Catholic Europe, to stand up and fight for God, and deliver to him the Holy Land. The Muslims had inhabited the Holy Land and Pope Urban II was encouraging Christians to fight and reclaim it. A tactic the Pope used in order to get people to join the crusade was by telling them that by fighting for God they would gain salvation. “…A holy war that would cleanse its participants of sin.” (Asbridge, 2). After the title of “soldier of Christ” (Asbridge, 2) was offered to the Christians, most of them jumped at the chance to serve in the First Crusade.
By Pope Urban II offering salvation to the soldiers for fighting in the crusade he is going against the words of the Bible. In John 14:6 it states, “ Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but through me.” Pope Urban II is giving Christians the idea that there is an alternative path to salvation. He puts crusades before the cross, influencing the European Catholics to think that reclaiming the Holy Land is more important and a greater venture than accepting Christ’s sacrifice. Given the violent French environment that Pope Urban II, it seems likely that his thoughts of a “holy war” for God’s benefit could be construed to being an act worthy of salvation. Not to say that the act of a Crusade was wrong, but the gratitude offered to soldiers was not based on biblical text.
The Eastern and Western Christians were united by this crusade. In ‘The Crusades’ by Allen and Amt, each story was told relating the East and West as brother. Pope Urban II capitalized on this issue of East and West being separated by claiming “your blood brothers, your comrades-in-arms, those born of the same womb as you, for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church.” (Asbridge, 35). Giving a sense of family obligation helped aid in the start of the First Crusade.
Pope Paschal, the successor of Pope Urban II, was also a firm believer in the crusades. After the Christians capture Jerusalem, he urges the soldiers to look towards the Eastern Church for guidance and thankfulness. Even though the Western Christians were the ones to come to the aid of their eastern brothers, he points out the Eastern Church. He also calls out the soldiers who fled and were cowards in the face of the offender, saying they are to remain excommunicated unless they pledge their return (Allen and Amt, 78). In his speech, Pope Paschal seems to be calling for more than just this one crusade. Through his words of admiration and confidence in the Christian army, he conveys a sense of unfinished conquering. He mentions other “brethren” that are in need of help to escape the Turkish rule. (Pope Paschal, Letter on the Fall of Jerusalem).
Through all of this allegiance and rejoice from the papacy, there remained the feelings of the Jews and Muslims unheard. From the poem written by Abu L-Muzaffar Al-Abiwardi, titled The Fall of Jerusalem we finally hear the former Holy Land inhabitants speak out. The poem speaks to the Muslim people. They are informed of what his happening to their fellow people and are then accused of being full of rest and not fighting back. The poem tries to evoke emotion in the Muslims about fighting back as men and making it so their fellow brothers and sisters did not die in vein or for no cause.
All these stories written about the crusades are not to be preserved as war for territory or for blood shed. But rather for a group of religious people, the Christians, fighting for their beliefs. The Holy Land is more of a representation of their faith than it is a territorial issue. These crusades began because of Pope Urban II wanting to preserve the Christian faith against the new rise of Islam.
Expanding Christianity across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East was a primary goal for the papacy and empire during the early A.D. centuries. The new Muslim religion had begun to spread, and soon inhabited the Holy City of Jerusalem. Even though the East and the West Christians were separate in a few religious beliefs, they were encouraged to band together and help push the Muslims out of Jerusalem. Pope Urban II gave a sermon that ushered Christians from the West to help those in the East, he offered cleansing of sin to any soldier that participated in the “Holy War”. With the papacy desiring the reclamation of territory and Christians urgent to help, the First Crusade began in November of 1095.
Critical Analysis:
“The Byzantine Emperor Alexius II addressed Pope Urban II at a church council at Piacenza, describing Constantinople’s urgent need for soldiers to supplement his existing mercenaries and home guard in the fight against the Turks.” (Allen and Amt, 39). Soon after Pope Urban II became the new head of the papacy, he delivered an electrifying sermon outside Clermont, France. He asked his listeners, Catholic Europe, to stand up and fight for God, and deliver to him the Holy Land. The Muslims had inhabited the Holy Land and Pope Urban II was encouraging Christians to fight and reclaim it. A tactic the Pope used in order to get people to join the crusade was by telling them that by fighting for God they would gain salvation. “…A holy war that would cleanse its participants of sin.” (Asbridge, 2). After the title of “soldier of Christ” (Asbridge, 2) was offered to the Christians, most of them jumped at the chance to serve in the First Crusade.
By Pope Urban II offering salvation to the soldiers for fighting in the crusade he is going against the words of the Bible. In John 14:6 it states, “ Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but through me.” Pope Urban II is giving Christians the idea that there is an alternative path to salvation. He puts crusades before the cross, influencing the European Catholics to think that reclaiming the Holy Land is more important and a greater venture than accepting Christ’s sacrifice. Given the violent French environment that Pope Urban II, it seems likely that his thoughts of a “holy war” for God’s benefit could be construed to being an act worthy of salvation. Not to say that the act of a Crusade was wrong, but the gratitude offered to soldiers was not based on biblical text.
The Eastern and Western Christians were united by this crusade. In ‘The Crusades’ by Allen and Amt, each story was told relating the East and West as brother. Pope Urban II capitalized on this issue of East and West being separated by claiming “your blood brothers, your comrades-in-arms, those born of the same womb as you, for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church.” (Asbridge, 35). Giving a sense of family obligation helped aid in the start of the First Crusade.
Pope Paschal, the successor of Pope Urban II, was also a firm believer in the crusades. After the Christians capture Jerusalem, he urges the soldiers to look towards the Eastern Church for guidance and thankfulness. Even though the Western Christians were the ones to come to the aid of their eastern brothers, he points out the Eastern Church. He also calls out the soldiers who fled and were cowards in the face of the offender, saying they are to remain excommunicated unless they pledge their return (Allen and Amt, 78). In his speech, Pope Paschal seems to be calling for more than just this one crusade. Through his words of admiration and confidence in the Christian army, he conveys a sense of unfinished conquering. He mentions other “brethren” that are in need of help to escape the Turkish rule. (Pope Paschal, Letter on the Fall of Jerusalem).
Through all of this allegiance and rejoice from the papacy, there remained the feelings of the Jews and Muslims unheard. From the poem written by Abu L-Muzaffar Al-Abiwardi, titled The Fall of Jerusalem we finally hear the former Holy Land inhabitants speak out. The poem speaks to the Muslim people. They are informed of what his happening to their fellow people and are then accused of being full of rest and not fighting back. The poem tries to evoke emotion in the Muslims about fighting back as men and making it so their fellow brothers and sisters did not die in vein or for no cause.
All these stories written about the crusades are not to be preserved as war for territory or for blood shed. But rather for a group of religious people, the Christians, fighting for their beliefs. The Holy Land is more of a representation of their faith than it is a territorial issue. These crusades began because of Pope Urban II wanting to preserve the Christian faith against the new rise of Islam.
Justin Becherer
The Crusades: Taking Back the Holy Land
The call for a holy war, or a crusade, by Pope Urban II signifies a crowning moment in Christian history. With the elegance of propaganda, and a call for proving religious piety from many Catholics, is how Urban was able to scramble together an army that would show a feverish devotion to the cause of recapturing lost Christian territory. As Fulcher of Chartres point out, Urban is able to paint a sense of urgency to aid the East by claiming that the Muslims have destroyed Christian churches, devastated the empire, and will continue to kill Christians if not stopped (Allen and Amt, 39). Multiple accounts from eye witnesses such as Robert the Monk, Fulcher of Chartres, Baldric of Dol, and Guiber of Nogent help give a clear image of the tactics Pope Urban II used to unify the knights and Christians to take up arms against the Muslim threat. One tactic used was the defamation of the character of the enemy, Urban talked of the Muslim people ruling in previous Christian territories as godless, demon worshipping, pagan people who defiled Christian establishments such as churches and abuse the Holy Sites within the cities (Allen and Amt, 40,41, 43). Another skillful tactic by Urban is the use opening old Christian wounds. How Urban does this is by telling stories of Christians being persecuted because of their faith. He tells stories of Christians forced to pay taxes on pilgrimaging to holy sites, being slaughtered, being tortured, and all in all being degraded to a lower status than what they are worth as Christians. By using this information does Urban call upon aid from Christians in the West to help the East, from waring nobles to the common law-breakers to take up arms to rid the Christian lands, especially in the holy city of Jerusalem, of the Muslim threat (Allen and Amt, 43-45). To solidify the loyalty of the people to join the crusade the pope makes promises on behalf of the Catholic church which include a redemption of all sins a person has made, a hold on land and other possessions by the church until the crusader returns, spoils of war, and glory (Allen and Amt, 43-44). These promises made by Urban are just the icing on the cake to convince the people to risk their lives in recapturing Christian lands, and it’s because of these promises that led Urban to be successful in amassing an army. By urging the Frankish people to pick up arms against a common enemy rather than each other, Urban gained a following of men seasoned in battle that were hungry for the spoils of riches and a better life.
Set on the path of unity to bring the Muslim territories back into the good graces of Christian hands, the crusaders set off on their conquest. In a blaze of fury the crusaders quickly recaptured Nicaea, Antioch, and Edessa with their sites set for the holy city of Jerusalem. By 1099 the crusaders were at the walls of Jerusalem ready to attack with their newly built siege towers and mantlets (Allen and Amt, 74). An account from Raymond of Aguilers paints an image of God being on the side of the crusaders in taking over the wall of Jerusalem that lead to the fall of Jerusalem into the crusaders hands. Indeed the brilliant planning of the crusader leaders helped bring the downfall of Jerusalem, for they risked their defeat by moving their siege towers in the dead of night to weaker areas of the wall to overtake the city (Allen and Amt, 75). Soon after the fall of the walls did the crusaders storm the city and put to death many citizens they deemed to be enemies.
Some themes that Allen and Amt portray to the reader is the unity of Christians, the power of the papacy, the appearance of success of the crusades, and the actual unsuccessfulness of the crusades. The unity of Christians, at least with the crusaders, stems from the overall success Pope Urban II had with convincing Western Christians to bring up arms against a common enemy. However this success wasn’t solely due to Urban himself, but to Pope Gregory VII as well. Pope Gregory VII during his time in office tried to bring more power to the papal office by denouncing King Henry IV’s Christian status in hopes to show who had the real power (Abridge, 14). This plan backfired on Pope Gregory VII because he tried to exert too much control in regions that were influenced by nobles and kings during a time that the these groups enjoyed their power in appointing church officials. Pope Gregory VII angered one too many people and this led to the inauguration of Pope Urban II after Pope Gregory VII died in excommunication in Italy. Pope Urban II continued Pope Gregory VII’s dream of bringing more power to the papacy, but did it more delicately than Pope Gregory VII. During his tour of France, his homeland, Pope Urban II called for a crusade to rid the lands of the Muslim threat. By unifying the Western Christians against a common enemy helped bring more power to the papacy. This was Urban’s main goal in calling for the crusades because Islam had captured much of the territory, including Jerusalem, centuries previously and Islam was very tolerant of Christians in their territory (Asbridge, 19). Urban pulled ideas from St. Augustine to justify the calling of a holy war to get rid of enemies of Christianity, and Urban had Pope Gregory VII to thank for already having a group loyal to the papacy so Urban’s work on power was already partially done (Asbridge, 25-28). Asbridge points out that “A central feature of Urban’s doctrine was the denigration and dehumanisation of Islam (33).” In doing this Urban was able to fabricate lies about the Muslim rulers, which include the persecutions Christians faced and heavy taxes imposed upon them (Asbridge, 34). These accusations from Urban led to the unity among the crusaders that Urban desired for his rise in power. To ensure that individuals would pick up arms to fight for the Eastern Christians, Urban claimed that by being a part of the crusaders an individual would be forgiven of their sins (Asbridge, 39).
With Urban’s success of pulling together an army to fight for Christendom comes Allen and Amt’s other two themes of the crusades, the appearance of success and the actual unsuccessfulness of the crusades. Part of the appearance of success came from Urban’s ability to unify a army against Muslim rulers, since this being part of Urban’s main goal of gaining more power for the papacy. The recapture of Jerusalem just helped solidify Urban’s power because the successful recapture could be seen as God approving and even helping the Christians. However in the accounts given by Asbridge the true success of the crusades stemmed from partly in the haste made by the crusaders to reach Jerusalem before the enemy had time to prepare for an attack and the other part came from risky military decisions (Asbridge, 295). The risky military decisions include not capturing cities leading up to Jerusalem which left the crusaders open for decimation, not having proper equipment for the siege until ships brought over tools, and moving their siege towers in the middle of the night in hopes of catching the enemy off guard. These tactics proved to be successful which favored the crusaders to be able to break into Jerusalem for their final assault on recapturing the city. Once inside the walls of Jerusalem is when the truly unsuccessful part of the crusades comes into affect. On July 15th in 1099 the crusaders had successfully broke into Jerusalem and began to kill and plunder the city (Asbridge, 316). Ecstatic on the victory of breaking into the walls, and probably still remembering Urban’s sermon about the enemy, the crusaders began to kill citizens in the name of Christianity and the crusades. Women, children, and men, whether they be Muslim or pagans, alike were slaughtered in the streets of Jerusalem in brutal ways by the crusaders. Many were beheaded on the spot, while others died from the arrows raining down upon the citizens and some were burned to death as way of revenge from the fabricated lies Urban told the crusaders (Asbridge, 316). Merciless in their slaughter, the crusaders then turned to looting the town of valuable objects as the day wore on. The crusaders quickly learned of people swallowing valuable objects so the crusaders brutally began to cut open corpses to find the objects (Asbridge, 318). The actions of the crusaders highlights the unsuccessfulness of the crusades because they didn’t act in a Christian-like manner after seizing the town back in the name of Christianity. Even the Eastern Christians, who had called upon the West for help, were appalled by the actions of the crusades took in the cities they captured.
The Crusades: Taking Back the Holy Land
The call for a holy war, or a crusade, by Pope Urban II signifies a crowning moment in Christian history. With the elegance of propaganda, and a call for proving religious piety from many Catholics, is how Urban was able to scramble together an army that would show a feverish devotion to the cause of recapturing lost Christian territory. As Fulcher of Chartres point out, Urban is able to paint a sense of urgency to aid the East by claiming that the Muslims have destroyed Christian churches, devastated the empire, and will continue to kill Christians if not stopped (Allen and Amt, 39). Multiple accounts from eye witnesses such as Robert the Monk, Fulcher of Chartres, Baldric of Dol, and Guiber of Nogent help give a clear image of the tactics Pope Urban II used to unify the knights and Christians to take up arms against the Muslim threat. One tactic used was the defamation of the character of the enemy, Urban talked of the Muslim people ruling in previous Christian territories as godless, demon worshipping, pagan people who defiled Christian establishments such as churches and abuse the Holy Sites within the cities (Allen and Amt, 40,41, 43). Another skillful tactic by Urban is the use opening old Christian wounds. How Urban does this is by telling stories of Christians being persecuted because of their faith. He tells stories of Christians forced to pay taxes on pilgrimaging to holy sites, being slaughtered, being tortured, and all in all being degraded to a lower status than what they are worth as Christians. By using this information does Urban call upon aid from Christians in the West to help the East, from waring nobles to the common law-breakers to take up arms to rid the Christian lands, especially in the holy city of Jerusalem, of the Muslim threat (Allen and Amt, 43-45). To solidify the loyalty of the people to join the crusade the pope makes promises on behalf of the Catholic church which include a redemption of all sins a person has made, a hold on land and other possessions by the church until the crusader returns, spoils of war, and glory (Allen and Amt, 43-44). These promises made by Urban are just the icing on the cake to convince the people to risk their lives in recapturing Christian lands, and it’s because of these promises that led Urban to be successful in amassing an army. By urging the Frankish people to pick up arms against a common enemy rather than each other, Urban gained a following of men seasoned in battle that were hungry for the spoils of riches and a better life.
Set on the path of unity to bring the Muslim territories back into the good graces of Christian hands, the crusaders set off on their conquest. In a blaze of fury the crusaders quickly recaptured Nicaea, Antioch, and Edessa with their sites set for the holy city of Jerusalem. By 1099 the crusaders were at the walls of Jerusalem ready to attack with their newly built siege towers and mantlets (Allen and Amt, 74). An account from Raymond of Aguilers paints an image of God being on the side of the crusaders in taking over the wall of Jerusalem that lead to the fall of Jerusalem into the crusaders hands. Indeed the brilliant planning of the crusader leaders helped bring the downfall of Jerusalem, for they risked their defeat by moving their siege towers in the dead of night to weaker areas of the wall to overtake the city (Allen and Amt, 75). Soon after the fall of the walls did the crusaders storm the city and put to death many citizens they deemed to be enemies.
Some themes that Allen and Amt portray to the reader is the unity of Christians, the power of the papacy, the appearance of success of the crusades, and the actual unsuccessfulness of the crusades. The unity of Christians, at least with the crusaders, stems from the overall success Pope Urban II had with convincing Western Christians to bring up arms against a common enemy. However this success wasn’t solely due to Urban himself, but to Pope Gregory VII as well. Pope Gregory VII during his time in office tried to bring more power to the papal office by denouncing King Henry IV’s Christian status in hopes to show who had the real power (Abridge, 14). This plan backfired on Pope Gregory VII because he tried to exert too much control in regions that were influenced by nobles and kings during a time that the these groups enjoyed their power in appointing church officials. Pope Gregory VII angered one too many people and this led to the inauguration of Pope Urban II after Pope Gregory VII died in excommunication in Italy. Pope Urban II continued Pope Gregory VII’s dream of bringing more power to the papacy, but did it more delicately than Pope Gregory VII. During his tour of France, his homeland, Pope Urban II called for a crusade to rid the lands of the Muslim threat. By unifying the Western Christians against a common enemy helped bring more power to the papacy. This was Urban’s main goal in calling for the crusades because Islam had captured much of the territory, including Jerusalem, centuries previously and Islam was very tolerant of Christians in their territory (Asbridge, 19). Urban pulled ideas from St. Augustine to justify the calling of a holy war to get rid of enemies of Christianity, and Urban had Pope Gregory VII to thank for already having a group loyal to the papacy so Urban’s work on power was already partially done (Asbridge, 25-28). Asbridge points out that “A central feature of Urban’s doctrine was the denigration and dehumanisation of Islam (33).” In doing this Urban was able to fabricate lies about the Muslim rulers, which include the persecutions Christians faced and heavy taxes imposed upon them (Asbridge, 34). These accusations from Urban led to the unity among the crusaders that Urban desired for his rise in power. To ensure that individuals would pick up arms to fight for the Eastern Christians, Urban claimed that by being a part of the crusaders an individual would be forgiven of their sins (Asbridge, 39).
With Urban’s success of pulling together an army to fight for Christendom comes Allen and Amt’s other two themes of the crusades, the appearance of success and the actual unsuccessfulness of the crusades. Part of the appearance of success came from Urban’s ability to unify a army against Muslim rulers, since this being part of Urban’s main goal of gaining more power for the papacy. The recapture of Jerusalem just helped solidify Urban’s power because the successful recapture could be seen as God approving and even helping the Christians. However in the accounts given by Asbridge the true success of the crusades stemmed from partly in the haste made by the crusaders to reach Jerusalem before the enemy had time to prepare for an attack and the other part came from risky military decisions (Asbridge, 295). The risky military decisions include not capturing cities leading up to Jerusalem which left the crusaders open for decimation, not having proper equipment for the siege until ships brought over tools, and moving their siege towers in the middle of the night in hopes of catching the enemy off guard. These tactics proved to be successful which favored the crusaders to be able to break into Jerusalem for their final assault on recapturing the city. Once inside the walls of Jerusalem is when the truly unsuccessful part of the crusades comes into affect. On July 15th in 1099 the crusaders had successfully broke into Jerusalem and began to kill and plunder the city (Asbridge, 316). Ecstatic on the victory of breaking into the walls, and probably still remembering Urban’s sermon about the enemy, the crusaders began to kill citizens in the name of Christianity and the crusades. Women, children, and men, whether they be Muslim or pagans, alike were slaughtered in the streets of Jerusalem in brutal ways by the crusaders. Many were beheaded on the spot, while others died from the arrows raining down upon the citizens and some were burned to death as way of revenge from the fabricated lies Urban told the crusaders (Asbridge, 316). Merciless in their slaughter, the crusaders then turned to looting the town of valuable objects as the day wore on. The crusaders quickly learned of people swallowing valuable objects so the crusaders brutally began to cut open corpses to find the objects (Asbridge, 318). The actions of the crusaders highlights the unsuccessfulness of the crusades because they didn’t act in a Christian-like manner after seizing the town back in the name of Christianity. Even the Eastern Christians, who had called upon the West for help, were appalled by the actions of the crusades took in the cities they captured.
The "Holy War" By Jenna Landry
The “Holy War” called by Pope Urban II in March of 1095 became one of the most influential moments for Christians in the medieval period and a pivotal moment in European history. The reign of Islam was not anything new at this time but its influence and domination became too close for comfort for Christians in the East once Muslims conquered the Western Byzantine Empire. Urban II was only Pope for a short time once his call to the Christian people was made. They were no word for word account of what Urban said during his Sermon at Clermont but his call was heard and recorded by many. In further research, Urban was able to recruit his people because of the groundwork laid by Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory VII in order to justify and have the resources for the “soldiers of Christ” to go on their pilgrimage to reconquest their Holy City of Jerusalem.
Some of the accounts of Pope Urban II call for a crusade was heard by Fulcher of Chartes, Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Noget. They each gave detailed accounts of Urban’s message and were present at his sermon. These four writers note the same major themes that Urban touched upon. He wanted to persuade people through remission of sins, fighting for God and see movement as a new pilgrimage. Fulcher discusses the fact that the “Turks and Arabs have attacked them” (39) and the Lord wants the Christians to take it back. If any Christian should die in their battle for the holy land they “shall have immediate remission of sin” because “Christ commands” that they fight for him. Robert the Monk says that Urban quoted the Old and New Testament for scriptural evidence of what God would want. Urban says, “take the land from the wicked people… the land which, as the scripture says, is flowing with milk and honey” (41). Because of this, it is a Christians’ duty to take back what is rightfully theirs. Robert the Monk also describes the cross on their chest that the “soldiers of Christ” will wear and the remission of sins they will receive. Baldric of Dol stresses that Urban said that they should help their “Christian brothers, members of Christ [who] are scourged, oppressed and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and other cities of the East” (42). He also tells who the oppressors really are, “bastard Turks [who] hold say over our brothers” (43). Lastly, Guibert of Noget quotes Urban saying, “God leading you, God fighting in your behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the holy city and the glory of the Sepulcher, now polluted…” (45) then later saying, “God working through you” (46). In each of these accounts Pope Urban II is stressing different reasons as to why the Christian crusaders should set out on this mission and why it will be successful.
Pope Urban II’s speech recorded through listeners has a very long history and explanation as to why the crusade can happen and how it has come to happen. The first crusade was able to happen because of the previous work done by Pope Gregory VII and St. Augustine. From a basically failed papacy Gregory was able to put one of the first holy armies together, who later backed Urban on his conquest. The term “soldiers of Christ” originally referred to as monks who, through asceticism, armed with prayer and scripture fought the metaphorical war with temptation. Through Gregory to Urban this term was molded into a crusader who literally fought for Christ. St. Augustine gave the justification to a holy war. He found that in some cases war could be legal and justified but had three prerequisites. They include; “it must be proclaimed by a ‘legitimate authority’, it ought to have a ‘just cause’ and should be fought with ‘right intention’ (24). From the help of Gregory’s army and Augustine’s justifications, Pope Urban II was able to mold his own reasons and messages as to why the first crusade was called.
As mentioned in four accounts listed above Pope Urban II wanted to liberate the Eastern churches and reconquer the Holy Land. The intention was not for Muslim conversions but to protect Christianity and protect their “brothers” in the West. In order to gain support Urban had to dehumanized the Muslims and promote an armed pilgrimage with spiritual benefits. This was a “Just War” in the eyes of Urban but more importantly God. The use of scriptures and remission of sins were instrumental in the persuasion of crusaders and everyone could pay apart in the movement. Pope Urban II’s call for the first crusade lead to Christians taking back Jerusalem and reclaiming the status that they once had. Also, Pope Urban was able to give the papacy authority once more. His actions and decisions as the Pope in the medieval period had a ripple effect for each Pope and their call for another crusade. Each of the crusades afterwards did not have the same positive effect that was like the first. Pope Urban II and his call for a crusade would be one of the most important to Christian and European history of the time.
The “Holy War” called by Pope Urban II in March of 1095 became one of the most influential moments for Christians in the medieval period and a pivotal moment in European history. The reign of Islam was not anything new at this time but its influence and domination became too close for comfort for Christians in the East once Muslims conquered the Western Byzantine Empire. Urban II was only Pope for a short time once his call to the Christian people was made. They were no word for word account of what Urban said during his Sermon at Clermont but his call was heard and recorded by many. In further research, Urban was able to recruit his people because of the groundwork laid by Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory VII in order to justify and have the resources for the “soldiers of Christ” to go on their pilgrimage to reconquest their Holy City of Jerusalem.
Some of the accounts of Pope Urban II call for a crusade was heard by Fulcher of Chartes, Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Noget. They each gave detailed accounts of Urban’s message and were present at his sermon. These four writers note the same major themes that Urban touched upon. He wanted to persuade people through remission of sins, fighting for God and see movement as a new pilgrimage. Fulcher discusses the fact that the “Turks and Arabs have attacked them” (39) and the Lord wants the Christians to take it back. If any Christian should die in their battle for the holy land they “shall have immediate remission of sin” because “Christ commands” that they fight for him. Robert the Monk says that Urban quoted the Old and New Testament for scriptural evidence of what God would want. Urban says, “take the land from the wicked people… the land which, as the scripture says, is flowing with milk and honey” (41). Because of this, it is a Christians’ duty to take back what is rightfully theirs. Robert the Monk also describes the cross on their chest that the “soldiers of Christ” will wear and the remission of sins they will receive. Baldric of Dol stresses that Urban said that they should help their “Christian brothers, members of Christ [who] are scourged, oppressed and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and other cities of the East” (42). He also tells who the oppressors really are, “bastard Turks [who] hold say over our brothers” (43). Lastly, Guibert of Noget quotes Urban saying, “God leading you, God fighting in your behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the holy city and the glory of the Sepulcher, now polluted…” (45) then later saying, “God working through you” (46). In each of these accounts Pope Urban II is stressing different reasons as to why the Christian crusaders should set out on this mission and why it will be successful.
Pope Urban II’s speech recorded through listeners has a very long history and explanation as to why the crusade can happen and how it has come to happen. The first crusade was able to happen because of the previous work done by Pope Gregory VII and St. Augustine. From a basically failed papacy Gregory was able to put one of the first holy armies together, who later backed Urban on his conquest. The term “soldiers of Christ” originally referred to as monks who, through asceticism, armed with prayer and scripture fought the metaphorical war with temptation. Through Gregory to Urban this term was molded into a crusader who literally fought for Christ. St. Augustine gave the justification to a holy war. He found that in some cases war could be legal and justified but had three prerequisites. They include; “it must be proclaimed by a ‘legitimate authority’, it ought to have a ‘just cause’ and should be fought with ‘right intention’ (24). From the help of Gregory’s army and Augustine’s justifications, Pope Urban II was able to mold his own reasons and messages as to why the first crusade was called.
As mentioned in four accounts listed above Pope Urban II wanted to liberate the Eastern churches and reconquer the Holy Land. The intention was not for Muslim conversions but to protect Christianity and protect their “brothers” in the West. In order to gain support Urban had to dehumanized the Muslims and promote an armed pilgrimage with spiritual benefits. This was a “Just War” in the eyes of Urban but more importantly God. The use of scriptures and remission of sins were instrumental in the persuasion of crusaders and everyone could pay apart in the movement. Pope Urban II’s call for the first crusade lead to Christians taking back Jerusalem and reclaiming the status that they once had. Also, Pope Urban was able to give the papacy authority once more. His actions and decisions as the Pope in the medieval period had a ripple effect for each Pope and their call for another crusade. Each of the crusades afterwards did not have the same positive effect that was like the first. Pope Urban II and his call for a crusade would be one of the most important to Christian and European history of the time.
The Crusades: A Reflection Tarik Richardson.
In 1095 AD Pope Urban II called out to the Latin west. He called for a unified catholic Europe to aid their brothers in the east[1] (Allen 39). According to Pope Urban, the tyrannical Muslims expanding their rule into Christian lands had imposed cruelty upon the good inhabitants (Allen 40). Glory and holy salvation were offered by the Pope to any who would answer the call to crusade (Allen 40). The crusade would be a bloody pilgrimage where the largest arm forced would be assembled since the fall of Rome proper[2] (Asbridge 2). Looking back on these events the mind becomes full of imagery of glory and heroism. The reality of these events however are far more crude and the very nature of the crusade can be exposed with further inquiry.
During this era of the medieval period, the Church and sovereign kings jousted for power. The Latin west or western Christendom had no single ruler or authority since the fall of Rome in the fifth century AD. The people once known as barbarians paraded themselves around as dukes, earls and other forms of nobility directly challenging the Catholic Church (Asbridge 4). Pope Urban’s early life is a testimony to this power feud between the barbarian nobility and religious authority. Growing up in a “survival amid bloodthirsty lawlessness” young Urban[3] placed his pious ambition in the church (Asbridge 10). He went to the House of Cluny, a monastery that was “immune to local interference” (Asbridge 10). Apparently the Barbarian rulers sought to control more than their secular domains and began to encroach on the church’s authority. Thomas Asbridge’s text, The First Crusade even states that efforts to bring order to the church were “offered not by the papacy, but by secular rulers” (Asbridge 12). It was clear that without special effort that the church’s authority both in the secular and religious world would be eclipsed by the barbarian rulers. The Papacy would not see the church’s authority fade into obscurity and action was taken. Urban’s predecessor Pope Gregory VII took early steps to centralize power by “[experimenting] with the concept of a papal army (14). With an army the Pope could directly assert his authority still this wasn’t enough.
For years, the Barbarian rulers and the papacy alike had sought to resurrect the glory and supreme authority of the Roman Empire (4). Having a simple army demanding authority wasn’t what brought glory to Rome. Rome wasn’t about an army that slew to control; that was an ongoing occurrence that was often seen in the medieval west. Rome was an empire, it was unified. Urban now a pope, “chose to encourage gradual change through suggestion rather than affect brazen dominance” (15). The power of the papacy began to recover but it was still far from complete (Asbridge 15). What he need was a rallying call, a crusade. Europe was still divided torn by expansionist rulers and bloody infighting (Asbridge 4). Urban sought to unify these people by giving them something to fight for and a common enemy. This enemy would be the Muslim empire which had been for centuries expanding into Christian lands. Pope Urban seeking to bring the entire west under one banner (his banner / the banner of God) called for a crusade. He also wanted to reestablish friendly relations with east (Asbridge 20). Appealing to the religious zeal of the Franks and other westerns, he was able amass the largest force since Rome (Asbridge 2). In a way Urban did consolidate the church’s power in this effort; now the secular leaders who led the Christian forces into the holy land answered to him. As stated earlier Urban “encouraged” change rather than demanding it. This allows for the headstrong to believe that fighting with their own autonomy.
Urban still playing off this religious zeal of his countrymen, promotes the idea that they are God’s chosen people, and that they fight vile infidels (Allen 41). Placing them automatically in the right. He likely is also playing of the ignorance of these people as well. As many of them are not well learned and do not know much about the current situation in the east or even what a Muslim is. In his speech he repeatedly uses derogatory rhetoric like “demons”, “a vile race” and even calling them pagans (Allen 41). A learned person would know that none of these statements accurately describe a Muslim person and in fact the Muslims were known for their religious tolerance (Asbridge 17). Islam and the Byzantine east are even described as having a sense of respect about each other (Asbridge 17). In many if not all accounts they seem to be far more civilized than “God’s chosen people” (Allen 40). In Urban’s speech one statement that struck me, he calls the Muslims, “unclean people”, which is very ironic seeing that hygiene wasn’t well practiced in medieval Europe (Allen 41). Beside the rhetoric of good versus evil, Pope Urban also demands that the fighting amongst other Christians, their brothers must stop (Allen 40). He calls for peace and clearly makes the point that what he (God) demands is far more important than whatever they are fighting about. He states the fighting must be taken to their true enemy and indeed they did (Allen 40). In the siege of Jerusalem accounts talk about the horrors that the crusaders inflicted upon all inside the city walls. One account states at the temple of Solomon men waded up to their knees through blood and the streets were laden with dismembered human body parts (Allen 77).
The Crusade was a tool used by the Pope to rally the west under his cause. It was an effort to bring Europe back into unity as it once was during antiquity. However instead of creating a new unified state forged in battle by the new barbarian nobility and fighting peasants, Christianity had created a mortal enemy. This enemy, Islam would throughout the next millennia bring conflict and turmoil to the Christians (Asbridge 2).
Sources Cited :
Allen, S.J. and Emilie Amt. The Crusades; A Reader. Broadview Press
Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade; A New History. Oxford University Press. 2004
[1] The Byzantine Empire
[2] The Roman Empire
[3] Pope Urban baptized as Odo (3)
During this era of the medieval period, the Church and sovereign kings jousted for power. The Latin west or western Christendom had no single ruler or authority since the fall of Rome in the fifth century AD. The people once known as barbarians paraded themselves around as dukes, earls and other forms of nobility directly challenging the Catholic Church (Asbridge 4). Pope Urban’s early life is a testimony to this power feud between the barbarian nobility and religious authority. Growing up in a “survival amid bloodthirsty lawlessness” young Urban[3] placed his pious ambition in the church (Asbridge 10). He went to the House of Cluny, a monastery that was “immune to local interference” (Asbridge 10). Apparently the Barbarian rulers sought to control more than their secular domains and began to encroach on the church’s authority. Thomas Asbridge’s text, The First Crusade even states that efforts to bring order to the church were “offered not by the papacy, but by secular rulers” (Asbridge 12). It was clear that without special effort that the church’s authority both in the secular and religious world would be eclipsed by the barbarian rulers. The Papacy would not see the church’s authority fade into obscurity and action was taken. Urban’s predecessor Pope Gregory VII took early steps to centralize power by “[experimenting] with the concept of a papal army (14). With an army the Pope could directly assert his authority still this wasn’t enough.
For years, the Barbarian rulers and the papacy alike had sought to resurrect the glory and supreme authority of the Roman Empire (4). Having a simple army demanding authority wasn’t what brought glory to Rome. Rome wasn’t about an army that slew to control; that was an ongoing occurrence that was often seen in the medieval west. Rome was an empire, it was unified. Urban now a pope, “chose to encourage gradual change through suggestion rather than affect brazen dominance” (15). The power of the papacy began to recover but it was still far from complete (Asbridge 15). What he need was a rallying call, a crusade. Europe was still divided torn by expansionist rulers and bloody infighting (Asbridge 4). Urban sought to unify these people by giving them something to fight for and a common enemy. This enemy would be the Muslim empire which had been for centuries expanding into Christian lands. Pope Urban seeking to bring the entire west under one banner (his banner / the banner of God) called for a crusade. He also wanted to reestablish friendly relations with east (Asbridge 20). Appealing to the religious zeal of the Franks and other westerns, he was able amass the largest force since Rome (Asbridge 2). In a way Urban did consolidate the church’s power in this effort; now the secular leaders who led the Christian forces into the holy land answered to him. As stated earlier Urban “encouraged” change rather than demanding it. This allows for the headstrong to believe that fighting with their own autonomy.
Urban still playing off this religious zeal of his countrymen, promotes the idea that they are God’s chosen people, and that they fight vile infidels (Allen 41). Placing them automatically in the right. He likely is also playing of the ignorance of these people as well. As many of them are not well learned and do not know much about the current situation in the east or even what a Muslim is. In his speech he repeatedly uses derogatory rhetoric like “demons”, “a vile race” and even calling them pagans (Allen 41). A learned person would know that none of these statements accurately describe a Muslim person and in fact the Muslims were known for their religious tolerance (Asbridge 17). Islam and the Byzantine east are even described as having a sense of respect about each other (Asbridge 17). In many if not all accounts they seem to be far more civilized than “God’s chosen people” (Allen 40). In Urban’s speech one statement that struck me, he calls the Muslims, “unclean people”, which is very ironic seeing that hygiene wasn’t well practiced in medieval Europe (Allen 41). Beside the rhetoric of good versus evil, Pope Urban also demands that the fighting amongst other Christians, their brothers must stop (Allen 40). He calls for peace and clearly makes the point that what he (God) demands is far more important than whatever they are fighting about. He states the fighting must be taken to their true enemy and indeed they did (Allen 40). In the siege of Jerusalem accounts talk about the horrors that the crusaders inflicted upon all inside the city walls. One account states at the temple of Solomon men waded up to their knees through blood and the streets were laden with dismembered human body parts (Allen 77).
The Crusade was a tool used by the Pope to rally the west under his cause. It was an effort to bring Europe back into unity as it once was during antiquity. However instead of creating a new unified state forged in battle by the new barbarian nobility and fighting peasants, Christianity had created a mortal enemy. This enemy, Islam would throughout the next millennia bring conflict and turmoil to the Christians (Asbridge 2).
Sources Cited :
Allen, S.J. and Emilie Amt. The Crusades; A Reader. Broadview Press
Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade; A New History. Oxford University Press. 2004
[1] The Byzantine Empire
[2] The Roman Empire
[3] Pope Urban baptized as Odo (3)