The Crusading Ideals

David Wiley

MST 120E

5/2/96

The crusades during the middle ages were spectacular whether one considers them right or wrong. The ability of the papacy to mobilize such a vast number of people is a feat in itself. In order for any crusade to be even slightly successful, there needed to be a large amount of members. The mere thought of a crusade was not enough to attract people to join in it. The papacy needed to create a new breed of soldier, the militia Christi. The first crusade in 1095, prompted by Pope Urban II, had many events and councils leading to its popularity. There are many different reasons for the ability of the papacy to accrue such a large amount of people willing to fight, the most important being the propaganda that the church provided to its followers.

The papacy had a difficult time finding willing members. Only in the ancient times had war been popular. Fear of strangers was commonplace during this era. The Greeks completely accepted the ideal of a bellum justum, a just war, against non-Hellenes. The Romans also concurred on this notion against barbarians and heretics of their time. Typically though, Christians frowned upon warfare and even military service (Strayer v4,15). This long history of biases against warfare was difficult to resolve.

Various important figures eventually helped resolve these biases. Following Constantine’s conversion churchmen began to accept the ideal of the Roman’s wars against barbarians and heretics. Augustine brought back the ideal of the just war. He declared that this type of war was the true justice and that the church shall have the authority over the persecution of barbarians, heretics, and pagans. Augustine’s ideals sparked Pope Gregory I to allow wars against enemies of the papacy and heretics. Gregory also encouraged mercenary wars against pagans. Charlemagne waged many wars against pagans and the like on the borders of his empire. To top all of this off, ninth-century popes promised salvation to those who died fighting any just war (15). In a time when papal sanctions were taken very seriously, this last event wrapped up the loose ends to a crusade.

Now that warring was revitalized in Europe, there was a big chaotic mess. Raping and pillaging was commonplace, and the church officials tried to gain a damper on the situation. Bishops initiated the Peace of God and the Truce of God in hopes that this would curb the violence.

The Peace of God was mainly a result of the warfare in central and southern France. Many councils took place: Le Puy in 975 and c990, Charroux in 989, and at Narbonne in 990; at these councils the bishops of Aquitane and Septimania imposed a statue of protection for churches, unarmed clergymen, peasants, and the poor. Later, in 1054 at Narbonne, it was explicitly stated, “no Christian should kill another Christian, for whoever kills a Christian undoubtedly sheds the blood of Christ.”(Strayer v9,474) Any violator of the Peace was to be excommunicated. These councils soon became a popular place for propaganda. There were miraculous cures of incurable diseases, extremely moving sermons, and cries of “Peace, peace, peace!” could be heard in the crowds from people whom seemingly made a pact of peace with God (473).

Where the Peace of God attempted to protect specific classes of people and their property, the Truce of God attempted to prohibit fighting and warring on specific days. This Truce is first evident in a French oath in c1023 where knights are given protection if they don’t fight during Lent. In 1027 a council at Toulouges imposed a general truce from Saturday evening to Monday morning. Soon the Truce was extended to include Thursday and Friday so that the truce ranged from Thursday to Monday morning. In addition, they added the more important saints’ days, Advent, and Lent to the list of days to obstain from fighting (474).

It cannot be said that the Truce, or the Peace for that matter, had an immediate effect on the people. The ideal of each of these movements was nothing new. The church simply took the initiative to claim credit of the ideals. This claim helped instill into the people the ideal that the church controlled warfare (474).

As with all laws, these movements were only effective where people were willing to enforce them. A major contributor to the acceptance of these movements was from clerical reformers. Knights were taught to believe that fighting, against infidels, is a religious duty.

The Truce may have never been taken seriously by the great men of the time, but it continued to be enforced by the less prestigious followers in southern France. However, both movements were influential in the molding of the people’s opinion. A sanction such as this did, however, result in a great amount of respect and acknowledgment from the people. Violators of the Peace were considered absolutely wrong. All accusations were taken seriously. The Truce helped define the ideals of knighthood and warfare that were widely recognized in the age of the crusades (475).

Now with the potential crusaders controlled through the Truce and Peace, popes began to organize campaigns against their enemies. Gregory VII proposed to lead a force of Christian knights to defend the Christians in the Eastern Empire. He hoped to gather a militia Saneti Petri to do the battle. More generally he hoped for the formation of the militia Christi to wage a bellum Christi against the heretics and pagans. At the same time several popes offered material and spiritual rewards to Christian warriors willing to wage a war against the Muslims in Spain.

In 1095, Urban II preached a pilgrimage to aid the eastern Christians against the Turks, and to liberate the Holy Land, especially Jerusalem, from the Muslims. To attract followers he promised remission of sins. A popular way of paying penance in this time was to make a pilgrimage to holy places for worship (Strayer v4,16). At one time it was not this easy. Often, knights had to pay money for the sin of killing a man, even in a bellum Christi. Obviously, this discouraged many.

It was easy to join a crusade. All one had to do is make a vow to go on a crusade. It was certainly made easy on purpose. Retiring from a crusade was difficult, unless the person was killed. The person was bound to participate in the crusade once declared. He was obligated to worship at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. If he could not hold himself to his vow, he had to pay money or provide some service to the papacy. Even though the vow placed the person in debt to the papacy, it also meant that the person could reap the benefits of the crusade; benefits such as spiritual gains and papal protection for himself, his family, and his land were highly prized as rewards (16).

The crusades could be viewed as being successful for the first hundred years or so. The Christians claimed the Holy Land from the Muslims and heretics in addition to many other key locations. Even though there was much bloodshed on the Christian’s side as well as the other sides, the papacy was at least pleased with their advances. Much of the success during the first hundred years, whether it be fighting or recruiting soldiers, can be contributed simply to the passage of fantastic stories of grace and glory throughout Christendom. The downfall of the crusaders came about when Genghis Khan instilled a great fear in all of Europe. The ideal and need for crusades did not seem important any more when there was an incredible threat from the conquering master. Also, it simply wasn’t practical anymore. And as quickly as the Christians had claimed their lands, they lost them (Mills 283).

Freedom from debt and taxes, and other general privileges of Christian warriors had little influence in keeping alive the crusading ideal. The tax exemption was rarely acknowledged by the civil authorities and was never extended to levies on land (287). Even the usual enticements such as being allowed to mortgage one’s lands in order to fund a crusade and to be exempt from interest on loans were no longer valuable enough for knights to risk their lives for (Strayer v4,19).

The acquisition of the Knights of the Templar was another contributing factor to the decline of the crusading ideal in the West. When the papacy turned against its most loyal of followers, by forging letters and the like and persecuting them, there was no hope for retaining any crusade ideal in Europe (298).

The original intention of the Christian knights around was to protect the people making the pilgrimage to the Holy Land. However, this ideal soon changed to the redemption of the sepulcher of Christ and the murdering of all enemies of God (332).

When word of the reality of the crusades spread throughout Christendom, the flame of the holy war was doused. This eventually led directly to the papacy’s loss of support for the crusades. Many attempts were made by various popes to revive the original crusading ideal, but all attempts failed.

Bibliography

1. Gervers, Michael: The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York: St. Martin’s Press 1992

2. Grousset, Rene: The Epic of the Crusades, New York: Orion Press 1970

3. Mills, Charles: The History of the Crusades, for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown 1820.

4. Strayer, Joseph R.: Dictionary of the Middle Ages, New York: Scribner 1982-1989

dfwiley@ucdavis.edu http://wwwcsif.ucdavis.edu/~wiley/homepage.html