However, the question of whether Christians could serve in the imperial Roman army was greatly debated in the early Church. This is understandable given the historical situation of a Church under persecution by the state, whose instrument of persecution was the army. Some early Christian writers believed members of the Faith could serve in the army while others disagreed.
Although the nascent Church wrestled with this question, soldiers embraced the Faith and even gave the ultimate witness of their faith through martyrdom.84
Once the Emperor Constantine legalized the existence of the Church in 313, it grew in membership and began to see itself as part of rather than separate from the empire. As such, the Church used elements of Greco-Roman thought in explaining its understanding of violence and when it can be used, drawing mostly from Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), Livy (59 B.C.–A.D. 17), and Cicero (106–43 B.C.).
Aristotle provided the basic Greco-Roman understanding of violence in his work, Politics, where he focused on the ends of warfare. War, for Aristotle, should be waged for the sake of peace and not for its own sake. In other words, there should be a just end for engaging in combat, such as self-defense, to obtain an empire to benefit the state’s citizens, or to enslave non-Greeks.85
The Roman writer Livy added to Aristotle’s “just ends” by also focusing on the need for a “just cause” to enter into combat, which could include the breaking of an agreement or retribution for an injury. Such reasons illustrate that an understanding of what constitutes “just cause” can be influenced by the historical situation and by those responsible for making the determination. Modern sensibilities recoil at any mention of a “just cause” in a holy war, but those who participated in the Crusades did not share that sentiment.
The Roman thinker Cicero further enhanced Greco-Roman thought on warfare by placing it in a legal context, requiring a formal declaration of war by the state, an expressed purpose to the conflict, and by allowing for the recovery of lost goods or punishment as “just causes” to go to war.86
The major influence in Christian thinking on the causes of and purposes for warfare is St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430). In his work, City of God, Augustine consolidated the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions into a Christian understanding of legitimate warfare. The modern world sees violence as inherently evil, but Augustine believed violence could be used for
legitimate reasons including the restoration of order and property. In special circumstances, war could be a holy undertaking. Using Augustine’s writings, the Church identified four criteria that must be satisfied: a just cause, which can involve past or present aggression; proclamation by legitimate authority; defense or recovery of rightful possessions; and right intention or pure motives of the participants. Additionally, war should be undertaken only as a last recourse and the violence unleashed must be proportionate to the threat.87 In the eleventh century the writings of Augustine on religious war and the secular concerns for just war merged to form a holy just war in the Crusades.88
This Christian understanding of holy war differs greatly from the Muslim teaching on jihad. Jihad is incumbent upon all Muslims and is a foundational teaching of Islam. Christian holy war is not incumbent on every believer; indeed, participation in the Crusades was always voluntary, and violence is seen as a necessary evil that can only be entered into for serious and just reasons. Christian teaching even places restrictions on the nature of warfare and on the intentions of those who participate; jihad harbors no such limitations. The main purpose of jihad is offensive through the conquering of territory in order to spread Islam throughout the world; Christian holy war is defensive and primarily involves the recovery of territory lost to an aggressor.
War as Pilgrimage
Urban’s plan for the recruitment of western warriors to march to the Holy Land, liberate Jerusalem, and alleviate Muslim pressure against the Byzantine Empire was placed within the context of the spiritual journey of pilgrimage. The birth of the Crusades occurred in a time of intense pilgrimage throughout Europe. This was a time of faith and its public expression was a staple of life. Pilgrims throughout Christendom frequented Santiago de Compostela, St. Martin of Tours, Rome, and Jerusalem. The landscape of Christendom was full of national, regional, and local shrines to various saints and relics. Jerusalem was a particular focus for pilgrims, especially those from France. Urban’s idea to marshal Western warriors to liberate the Holy City was not only revolutionary but pastoral. Before Clermont, pilgrims were not allowed to carry weapons, which caused deep consternation for those trained from an early age to defend themselves. This prohibition against bearing arms on pilgrimage presented a special challenge for the nobility, some of whom could not bring themselves to lay down arms even for the spiritual benefits of pilgrimage. Hence, “the summons to Crusade was a pastoral move, giving arms bearers the chance of contributing to their own salvation by undertaking a severe penance which did not entail the abandonment of their profession of arms and the humiliating loss of status involved in pilgrimaging abroad as normal penitents, without weapons, equipment, and horses.”89
In a certain sense, Urban’s summons to Jerusalem was a “universal call to holiness” oriented specifically to the laity, who otherwise believed the only sure way to contribute to their salvation was to renounce the world and enter the monastery. A Crusade was not seen as just another pilgrimage but as the greatest pilgrimage.90
Answering the Call
Urban knew his exhortation to those assembled at Clermont would not produce enough warriors to ensure the success of the Crusade, so he planned an elaborate and lengthy road trip throughout France in order to recruit as many warriors as he could. His preaching tour encompassed 2,000 miles and required an entire year to complete. He made a huge impact on the people of France, most of who had never seen the pope, and a good number of Crusaders came from the areas he visited.91 Preachers were sent throughout Christendom, including England, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, and Italy, and the response was immense. Some estimates indicate 100,000 people may have taken the cross, of which 60,000 were warriors; of those, 6,000–7,000 were knights.92
In order to appreciate the extent of Urban’s preaching and the significant response it engendered, a comparison of populations to respondents in the modern world can be made. The total population of France, Italy, Germany, and England combined in the late eleventh century is estimated at 20 million people; the modern populations of those same countries total 264 million people. If the same ratio of population to respondents were applied, the modern number of Crusaders would be 1.3 million!93 Although Urban desired and asked for soldiers, the devotion to Jerusalem was so widespread that large numbers of noncombatants, who would hinder the armies on the march, also took the cross. So Urban charged bishops and priests with screening potential crucesignati. Those who could not fight were asked to stay in Europe and help the cause through prayer. Urban forbade monks from leaving their monasteries and did not want large numbers of priests to participate. He also stipulated that Spanish soldiers should not take the cross since they were already engaged in the fight against Islam in their home country: the Reconquista. Concerned for the well-being of women, Urban forbade married men from going on the Crusade without permission from their spouses.94 (Later, Pope Innocent III would change this stipulation because too many men were using this rule as an excuse not to go on Crusade!)
The huge response to Urban’s call at the council of Clermont is even more amazing when considering the cost to go on Crusade—for a knight, four to five times his annual income.95 Although some modern critics assert that the Crusades were focused on the accumulation of wealth, the historical record shows that the vast majority of those who took the cross suffered financial hardship as result. They certainly did not profit from it. In order to finance such an expensive undertaking many knights and their extended family sold or mortgaged their land and possessions. Once the Crusading movement had taken root in Christendom, alternative means of finance were developed in order t
o shift the full burden from the individual Crusader. Kings instituted taxes on all their subjects, for example, and popes taxed bishops and the clergy in order to raise necessary funds.
Why Did They Go?
Despite the enormous financial burden involved, staggering numbers of Catholics answered the call to Crusade, raising the question: why? It is a question with an answer that eludes modern man, but was clear to medieval man. Although there is no simple explanation for the overwhelming response to Urban’s Crusade, there is one factor that outweighs all others: faith. Medieval people were steeped in the Catholic Faith; it permeated every aspect of society and their daily life.
This is not to say that every Crusader was a saint or that every warrior who participated in this movement did so for pure and virtuous reasons. Nonetheless the medieval worldview was shaped and heavily influenced by the Faith of the Catholic Church and “for the majority of participants it is undeniable that the crusade proved to be a profoundly (though not obsessively) religious experience.”96 Medieval people saw Urban’s call to Crusade as a highly unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide for their spiritual health and increase their chance of salvation. This recognition is reflected in the commentary of Robert of Rheims who believed “only the creation of the world and Christ’s Crucifixion could match the Crusade.”97 In that vicious and violent age most laymen, especially the nobility, believed it was extremely difficult for those not in a monastery to go to heaven. The Church constantly warned warriors that battling over land holdings against fellow Christians placed their souls in danger, and this alone provided sufficient motivation for many to take the cross. The desire of warriors to perform penances for their sins and the ability to utilize their martial skills in an armed pilgrimage was “one of the chief attractions of the First Crusade … now at last the laity had a task to perform, pleasing to God, for which they were especially equipped and which professed religious were not permitted to undertake.”98 Again, this is not to argue that faith was the only motivator for warriors on Crusade, but it was the primary reason why the majority participated.
Faith is certainly a more reasonable explanation than material gain. If material reasons had been paramount, would it not have been far easier and safer for Western warriors to stay home and fight their neighbors rather than travel 2,500 miles to a distant and completely alien land? It used to be fashionable in academic circles to attribute motivation for participating in the Crusades to second-and third-born sons who, due to the traditions of inheritance in medieval Europe, could not inherit property. Faced with a large population of marauding and landless warriors, it was said, the Church marshaled these forces and sent them to the Holy Land where they could acquire land.
This theory has been thoroughly debunked by examining the actual records of those who went on Crusade. It was not the younger but rather the first-born sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything. And indeed, participating in the Crusade was a bad investment for medieval warriors, the vast majority of whom returned (if they returned) materially poorer for the experience.
We know, too, that most of those who survived the expedition and made it to the Holy Sepulchre returned home afterward; they did not stay to acquire feudal land holdings. The Crusade was a pilgrimage, and just like modern-day pilgrims who visit a shrine or church for a period of time and then return home, so did the warriors of the Crusades. After the First Crusade, there were some nobles who stayed in the Holy Land and created what are known as the Crusader States, but these areas always suffered from a lack of military manpower because of the very episodic nature of Crusading and the desire of most warrior-pilgrims to return home.
War as Penance
Although his calling of the Crusade was unprecedented, perhaps Urban’s most revolutionary act was creating the view that war could be a penitential act in the same vein as prayer and fasting. Participants in a Crusade believed that its religious value derived not just from its achievement of an objective like the capture or recovery of Jerusalem, but also from the way the combatants behaved
while fighting to bring this about.”99 Crusaders were expected to act as penitents during the expedition by dressing simply, and were forbidden from activities usually associated with armies: swearing, gambling, and prostitution. Violating these rules could result in death, mutilation, or public humiliation.100
Crusaders spiritually prepared themselves to go on Crusade by seeking forgiveness for their sins from the neighbors, by asking those remaining at home to pray for them while on Crusade, and through various personal spiritual devotions and exercises.101 Before departing, many warriors visited local or regional shrines, fasted, prayed, and gave alms.
Medieval writers understood the Crusades were penitential wars and exhorted their readers/listeners to participate in the expedition because of the spiritual benefits provided to the penitent. Eudes of Châteauroux clearly identified the holy war of the Crusade with penance when he wrote, “[T]hose who take the cross deny, that is to say renounce, themselves by exposing themselves to mortal danger, leaving behind their loved ones, using their goods, carrying their cross, so that afterwards, they may be carried to heaven by the cross.”102 The fact that the Crusade was considered inherently dangerous and risky proved its penitential foundation, as James of Vitry recorded:
What greater almsgiving can there be than offering oneself and one’s belongings to God and risking one’s life for Christ, leaving behind one’s wife, children, relations and birthplace for the service of Christ, exposing oneself to dangers on land, dangers at sea, dangers from thieves, dangers from plunderers, the danger of battle for the love of the Crucified?103
War as an Act of Love
Faith and love of God, neighbor, and self were the main reasons why medieval people participated in the Crusades. This is clear from the written evidence contained in the charters of the time, which were documents recording property transactions.
For example, the knightly brothers Geoffrey and Guy indicated they were going to Jerusalem for “both the grace of the pilgrimage under the protection of God, to exterminate wickedness and unrestrained rage of the pagans by which innumerable Christians have already been oppressed, made captive and killed.”104
Odo of Burgundy clearly articulated his understanding of the penitential nature of the Crusade and concern for his salvation as the primary motivation for participation when he explained that he undertook “the journey to Jerusalem as a penance for my sins … Since divine mercy inspired me that owing to the enormity of my sins I should go to the Sepulchre of Our Savior, in order that this offering of my devotion might be more acceptable in the sight of God.”105
Odo’s sentiment was shared by the knight Ingelbald, who decided to go on Crusade because of his recognition of the great gift of redemption: “Considering that God has spared me, steeped in many and great sins, and has given me time for penance, and fearing that the weight of my sins will deprive me of a share in the heavenly kingdom, I, Ingelbald, wish to seek that sepulchre from which our redemption, having overcome death, wished to rise.”106
Popes, preachers, and saints throughout the Crusading movement focused their exhortations on the recognition that service in God’s army arose from love of God, love of neighbor, and concern for one’s salvation. At Clermont, Urban urged knights to sacrifice themselves for Christ as the Lord had done for them: “It ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you.”107 In the thirteenth century, Eudes of Châteauroux identified participation in the Crusade with an expressed and devoted love of God: “It is a sign that man loves God, when he casts aside the world. It is a sure sign that he burns with love for God and with zeal when for God’s sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses, sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ.”108 The chronicler Guibert of Nogent aptly summarized the purpose of the Crusade and why warriors took the cro
ss when he wrote, “[T]he Crusader set himself the task of winning back the earthly Jerusalem in order to enjoy the celestial Jerusalem.”109
The testimony found in these written records is compelling, but it is nonetheless wise to recognize that human motivations are not always pure and virtuous, and they are usually complex. Some who went on Crusade probably hoped they would benefit materially. Crusade expeditions comprised large groups of warriors centered on their own vassal lord, and although they may have been primarily motivated by holy reasons that does not mean they were all saints. “They were men of the sword: pious and idealistic, but also crude, arrogant, and at times savage.”110 Crusade armies were “a curious mix of rich and poor, saints and sinners, motivated by every kind of pious and selfish desire.”111 Crusaders indeed went to war not only for reasons that men have gone to war for centuries—glory, adventure, love of country—but also because they recognized the Crusade as a unique opportunity to participate in their salvation and give a witness of their love for God.
Wars of Conversion?
A final brief clarification is in order. Despite the belief of modern-day critics, the Crusades were not wars of conversion comparable to those that had helped Islam spread by the sword. Indeed, engaging in warfare simply for the conversion of others was never a criterion for just war, nor does the historical record indicate that this is what motivated the Crusaders. For the individual Muslim, conversion to Christianity was (and still is) rare and dangerous; any such conversions were only a subsidiary benefit to the Crusaders, who saw their expeditions primarily as defensive, just, holy wars designed to reclaim Christian territory from the hands of aggressive and harassing Muslims. “The Crusaders weren’t fighting in the East to save the souls of unbelievers or to extend the bounds of the Christian religion. They fought to win salvation for themselves and to recover or defend sites that were sacred to their faith.”112
The Glory of the Crusades Page 4
