Gillaume le Castlein
Oct 26 2003, 01:23 PM
Over-simplification has been the plague of medieval historical research. In my first post I attempted to dispel one or two of these over simplifications regarding the historical circumstances of pre-11th century Europe in relation to struggles against non-Christians and in relation to the religiosity of the European nobility.
Another over-simplification revolves around the relationship between the secular nobility and the ecclesiastical leaders of the 11th century. It has been strongly assumed that the Truce of God instituted by Urban II (which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants) pitted ecclesiastical authorities against the aims of the secular nobility. This, however, was not the case as a closer scrutiny of the century and its social and cultural background will reveal.
The relationship between Church authority and secular authority went through profound changes during the century in question, especially in regard to the importance of the city of Rome and papal authority. These changes took place in what is called the Gregorian Reform, named after Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) (1073-1083). By outlining this development we can gain some insight into the actual relationship that existed and how both “sides” perceived each other and their aims.
To call the reforms of the 11th century “Gregorian” is a bit of misnomer. While Gregory VII was definitely the reform’s most outspoken and in many circles most hated adherent, the call to reform predated Gregory’s pontificate--in fact it predated the 11th century. The Gregorian Reform itself was but the later extension of the 10th century Clunaic Reform. The Clunaic Reform, beginning in Burgundy and Lorraine, spurred by the religious sentiment of secular men and women as well as churchmen, centered mostly around the reformed houses of Cluny and Brogne, respectively. It was to have a profound impact on the Church, especially at a time when the initial gains of the papacy under the patronage of Charlemagne had been reduced to bankruptcy after the collapse of the Charlemagne’s empire toward the end of the 9th century. Without the protection of a powerful Holy Roman Emperor who was able to protect papal interests, both spiritual and secular, the papacy was submerged under the various Roman factions. From the pontificate of John VIII (872-882) to the emergency of the first reformers such as Clement II in 1046, the papacy was manned by mere noblemen belonging to one northern Italian political faction or another. Often the fortunes of a one faction or another could be marked by the ends suffered by various popes. For example, John VIII was murdered by his political rivals; Stephen VI (896-897) was thrown into prison and strangled; Benedict VI (973-974) was smothered to death; John XIV was thrown into the Castel Sant’Angelo where he in turn died of thirst. Until 1047 the papacy was little more than an instrument of the local Italian factions, until the reform movement, at this point widespread in the north, pressed itself upon the papacy and the Italian factions that controlled it, with the help of Emperor Henry III.
The Clunaic Reform, as already mentioned, was effective because of the sentiments of noblemen, such as Duke William of Aquitaine who founded the monastery of Cluny in 910. It was a very effective attempt to remove the regular canonical life of the Church from the heavy handed control of the minor lay aristocracy. It sought to do so by re-invigorating the Rule of Saint Benedict, by streamlining ecclesiastical organization, by demanding stricter moral guidelines, especially in regard to abbots and bishops, such as celibacy and living in stricter accord with the Benedictine Rule, and by ending the practice of simony and investiture (there by removing the threat of local and petty aristocrats being able to install puppets to gain control of church property and assets). From the very beginning, the reform movement had for its natural ally the monarchy who had much to gain by keeping church property and assets free from the petty aristocrats who could use such resources against the crown. Thus the Clunaic Reforms could identify themselves intimately with the ruling class of western Europe, and were often, themselves, members of this caste, being closely related to the royal families. Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), the most influential of the first reforming popes, was a close relative of Emperor Henry III. Prior to the Gregorian reform it was already a well established principle that the success of the crown had a direct bearing on the success of the Church, and vise versa. Gregory VII may not have been a reformer from the north, being a Roman, but his ties to the landed nobility were no less strong as his counterparts from the north. He depended on the Pierleoni and Frangipani families to consolidate his position as pontiff, and representatives of these noble families were constantly present in Gregory’s court to insure, not just their interests, but the interests of the Church. That Gregory’s policy’s were to eventually alienate these powerful families demonstrates how the reform movement significantly changed once influenced by a strong papacy (which we will investigate below).
The reformers, Gregory no less than his northern counterparts, believed that they were “restoring” not reforming, as is clearly seen in the names that reforming popes took, such as Victor, Clement, and Damasus. These names were far different than the popular Benedict of a previous (and corrupt) generation of popes, and demonstrates a return to an “early church” mentality. Gregory VII styled himself as another Pope Gregory the Great (Gregory I, sixth century) who consolidated papal authority in his day and invested the Church with a missionary zeal. However, in reality the reformers were merely painting their acquired noble habits with an idealistic brush. The reformers never failed to be other than the same caste from which they had sprung.
The parallels between the papal court of the reformers and the courts of the secular nobility are striking. For example, the Pope’s chief assistants were the cardinals who included bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons, all of whom fulfilled tasks either similar to, or exactly the same as the tasks found among members of a secular court. The bishops stood in relation to the Pope as the powerful barons of a king--rarely involved with the day to day business of the court, but lending assistance and decisive authority on occasion. No Pope could be consecrated without the cooperation of the bishop cardinals, just as no widespread political or military decision could be made by a king without the cooperation of that king’s barons. The priest and deacon cardinals were the men of administration, and they played the exact same roles in the papal court as they would have in any secular court of a powerful baron or king. The use of papal-legates is strikingly similar to the well established practice among secular rulers who used representatives invested with their authority to establish and enforce laws throughout their domains. The papal machinery of government developed parallel to the very same administrative and judicial machinery that appeared in secular courts across Europe. The reason for this parallel is very simple, ecclesiastical authorities were of the same mind, just as they were of the same lineage, as the secular rulers of medieval European society.
While there is definitely a shift away from a blind adherence of the divine right of kingship toward a more defined authority belonging to the papacy with the Gregorian Reform, this does not necessitate a conscious or unconscious animosity between ecclesiastics and secular rulers. The investiture conflicts may seem to indicate the contrary, but even these conflicts are played out in an atmosphere where each side thoroughly understands the rights and privileges claimed by the other, and rarely are the rights and privileges of one side held according principle instead of opting for compromise. If anything the shift demonstrates a remarkable similarity in thinking between the two, especially as the ecclesiastics begin to apply secular constructs to Church governance and administration. Through the Gregorian reform the papacy took upon itself most of the trappings of the secular court, a far cry from the position held by the papacy prior to the 11th century.
What’s more, a considerable portion of the Gregorian Reform would have been enthusiastically welcomed by secular authorities. Common sense dictates that no Church reform could take place without the physical cooperation of at least a portion of those who held the temporal authority to enforce the changes. A stronger position for the papacy did not benefit only the papacy, but added a further stabilizing influence to the political landscape of Europe, a further stabilization from which many secular rulers could immediately benefit. To read the Truce of God as a dictum imposed by churchmen upon an unruly nobility is ludicrous. If there was no agreement among the nobility toward regulating and stabilizing the political situation in Europe, the Truce of God could not have been enforced to the degree that it was. The fact that milites, men belonging to the noble caste, were organized together to enforce the Truce of God, by open battle no less, indicates that there was substantial cooperation between members of the secular world and the ecclesiastics. Cultural stability was not just provided by the Church (as a means of self-interest, as is often portrayed by modern historians) in the 11th century, but it was also promoted and actively sought by a maturing secular nobility.
Thus we see Urban’s call for crusade in a new light. Pope Urban was not an ecclesiastic talking down to men he deemed on a lower moral level than himself. Rather he was addressing men he considered his equal, of the same caste and lineage, of the same mind and heart, as himself. Their aims and aspirations, both from a political and from a religious stand point, were the same. Judging from the sincere religious zeal that his call for crusade engendered in his audience, there is no reason to believe that Urban did not possess the exact same sincere religious zeal. Equally, the connection between the enforcement of the Truce of God at the urging of the papacy and the enthusiasm for crusade reveal a secular knighthood willing to cooperate with the prompting of a Pope, not because he held some real or perceived authority over them, but because he reflected their own thoughts and feelings.
Gillaume le Castlein
Oct 30 2003, 12:02 AM
So far we have taken a rather introspective look at 11th century Europe, but of equal importance is the attitudes held by Christians toward the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world.
The OIHC gives the impression that Christian and Muslim were living in perfect peace toward the end of the 11th century, making Urban’s call for crusade an apparently random decision, of course explained by Urban’s alleged ulterior motives. This is so inaccurate an appraisal that it borders on blatant falsehood and I’m inclined to believe that the editors of the OIHC are guilty of historical reconstruction in support of their primary thesis. A brief list of the conflicts between Christians and Muslims in the 11th century demonstrates a state affairs very different than the state of virtual peace presented by the OIHC:- While the Moorish kingdoms of Spain had existed with some semblance of co-existence with their Christian neighbors, in 1086 there began the Almoravid invasion of Spain from North Africa. The Almoravids were radical Muslims and threatened the whole existence of Christian Spain. Despite the political and military maneuverings of the Cid, the Almoravids were held in check by a thread at the point of Alfonzo VI’s sword.
- In 1061 Robert Guiscard begins the Norman conquest of Sicily which isn’t complete until 1091. This incredibly long and immense conflict with the Arabs of Sicily demonstrates a state of anything other than peace between Christians and Muslims in western Europe during the years immediately preceding the call of the first crusade.
- 1037 marked the year that the Seljuk Turks began their dramatic expansion in the east. By 1084 the Seljuks have sacked Armenia, subdued the Fatimids, captured Antioch and are threatening to topple the Byzantine Empire spurring the Byzantines to ask for aid from western Europe. The speed and dramatic expansion of the Seljuk Turks, and the fact that one Byzantine fortification after another fell victim to them, would have given anyone pause.
- In 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by order of Hakim, sixth Fatimid Caliph of Egypt.
Given the social and political climate of Europe in the 11th century, to view these conflicts as relatively isolated episodes that did little to affect the attitudes of most Europeans would be naive. Once again the Gregorian Reform can be used to illustrate the point. The reform movement ushered in a new international character to European politics and religion. The reformers conceived of a Church authority unlimited by feudal, national or ethnic boundaries. The utilization of papal legates for the enforcement of ecclesiastical law throughout Europe acted as a catalyst that forged strong relations between a centralized papacy and the various episcopal sees across Europe. The attitudes of the reformers did not exist in isolation, but mirrored a growing international trend among the nobility of 11th century Europe. The Norman conquest of England, southern Italy, and Sicily demonstrates a widening circle of political influence. The tradition of pilgrimage increased the diffusion of ideas and news across Europe and even into the east. There is evidence of a growing international trade in the plain of Lombardy, bringing together England and Venice, Germany and Southern Italy. Indeed, the people of the 11th century forged, in the words of R.W. Southern, a “cosmopolitan society”, a cosmopolitan society that increasingly influenced by an interconnectedness of politics, religion and culture that stretched beyond the boundaries that limited the Europeans of former centuries.
Of particular interest in the 11th century is the realities presented to Christian Europe by the Seljuk Turks threatening to topple the Byzantine Empire, and the Almoravid invasion of Spain. The Almoravids represented a radically militant strand of Islam, a strand that, no doubt, was not isolated to only Spain. While most pilgrims to the Holy Land were left unimpeded, there is good reason to believe that some were impeded, and stories telling of these instances were not forgeries. There is little doubt that such incidents would be causes of grave concern, especially coupled by the sudden and fierce advance of the Seljuks against the eastern empire, an advance that would appear remarkably similar to the initial advance of Islam three centuries prior. There is little evidence to assume that Christians of the 11th century thought themselves to be at peace with Muslims; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case.
The crusades meant many things for many different people. No doubt adventurous souls hoped to profit by increasing their lands and to benefit from a crumbling Byzantine Empire. However, contrary to the OIHC’s treatment, we can not ignore the realization on the part of most Latin Christians that Islam constituted a widespread and growing threat to Christendom, and a genuine desire of others to save Constantinople, and even more pressing, to reverse the triumph of Christ’s enemies (as they no doubt perceived Muslims) at the site of Christ’s earthly life.
Gillaume le Castlein
Oct 28 2003, 09:51 AM
The common ground shared by the ecclesiastics and the nobility can be seen clearer when we consider the relationship between Urban's call for crusade, and the Peace or Truce of God.
Once again it is important to avoid any over-simplification. While the OEC and many other modern interpretations have a tendency to over-simplify the relationship as being one of contesting principles between ecclesiastics and nobles at the time of the Gregorian Reform, it is just as dangerous to assume that there was complete agreement between individual churchmen (especially the reformers) and the nobility. Like any culture or society there was a deep and complex fabric of competing thoughts and emotions. What I am attempting to highlight is that the mindsets between the ecclesiastics and the nobility are notably similar, particularly the ways in which they envisioned the role of warriors in their Christian society and the ways they formulated political or social policy, not to place them in positions of total agreement.
Before we look at the specific responses to these ecclesiastical objectives, it is important to review the attitudes already highlighted above. The rise of Christian militancy, as we have seen, was the inevitable consequence of the historical contingencies that surrounded emerging European civilization from the late 5th century to the 11th century, and not evidence of a marginal Christian belief. Both secular and ecclesiastical authorities saw the role of soldiers as a respectable Christian calling, telling in that this notion was accepted by the soldier caste independently of official sacerdotal commission. While pre-Christian mythology provided a heroic context for the literature surrounding the profession of arms, these pre-Christian mythologies, as demonstrated by the epic poem Beowulf, well before the 11th century, and the chansons de geste, contemporaneous with Urban’s call to crusade, were thoroughly incased in Christian symbolism and a mature and sincere Christian purpose. Ecclesiastical censure and commission was not an attempt to change an already thoroughly developed Christian ideal, and to understand them they must be seen in relation to the existing cultural landscape of Europe in the 11th century.
Bearing this in mind it is impossible to characterize Pope Urban II as a kind of puppet master, who played upon the emotions of the warrior class, redirecting their bloodthirsty energies in such a way as to bolster the growing secular power of the reformed papacy. Such an interpretation as presented by the OEC gives too much credit to Urban, and insults the already developed religious expression of 11th century Europe. There were many reasons for the enthusiastic response to Urban’s call for crusade, but the chief reason was a sincere religious desire to win back the holy places of Palestine and fulfill the calling of a Christian soldier. Urban believed this just as much as his audience, and the militant religious desire of Urban II and his audience can not be taken lightly. While the crusades offered benefits from a purely secular standpoint, especially in consideration of the existing feudal and manorial systems of governance and economy, the inherent weaknesses of the primogeniture system of inheritance, to over state these purely secular benefits clouds the actual sentiments of the time.
This becomes clearer with a consideration of the Truce of God. The OEC emphasizes the Truce of God as a restrictive measure applied by the papacy on the secular nobility. While there is a restrictive element to the Truce of God, what is being passed over with no mention is the fact that the Truce of God was not a pacifist measure. The Truce of God makes allowance for military action, even between Christians. This is a significant and telling change, and can not be passed over as though it was a mere concession or compromise. Far from espousing the ideals of the penitential literature of former generations, the Truce of God actually places an ecclesiastical stamp of approval on the actions of Christian soldiers, and while Urban may have been grieved by violence between Christians, he was well aware that such a situation, given those very weaknesses of the primogeniture system of inheritance in the feudal system, was unavoidable. In fact, the papacy was willing to enforce the Truce of God by military action, itself. This should not be surprising in light of the more influential position of the papacy in the politics of Europe that the Gregorian Reform had forged, or at least was attempting to forge, and the increasing presence of secular constructs in papal government.
What should be born in mind, primarily, however, is that the Peace and Truce of God were not papal directives, and were only supported by the papacy, just like the secular magnates, when it supported their interests. The Peace of God was proclaimed by northern bishops at the Synod of Charroux in 989, a year in which the corrupt papacy under the control of the northern Italian factions, had little care for, or ability to interfere with, affairs in the north. The proclamation from Charroux reads:
Following the example of my predecessors, I, Gunbald, archbishop of Bordeaux, called together the bishops of my diocese in a synod at Charroux, ... and we, assembled there in the name of God, made the following decrees:
1.Anathema against those who break into churches. If anyone breaks into or robs a church, he shall be anathema unless he makes satisfaction.
2. Anathema against those who rob the poor. If anyone robs a peasant or any other poor person of a sheep, ox, ass, cow, goat, or pig, he shall be anathema unless he makes satisfaction.
3.Anathema against those who injure clergymen. If anyone attacks, seizes, or beats a priest, deacon, or any other clergyman, who is not bearing arms (shield, sword, coat of mail, or helmet), but is going along peacefully or staying in the house, the sacrilegious person shall be excommuncated and cut off from the church, unless he makes satisfaction, or unless the bishop discovers that the clergyman brought it upon himself by his own fault.
Peace of God is far from the penitential literature of the preceding centuries that outright condemned war, and required satisfaction for killing combatants. In the Peace of God, no satisfaction is required for killing other combatants. By setting limitations to war, the Peace of God at the same time recognized and accepted the existence and inevitability of military conflict.
The Truce of God, likewise, was not proclaimed by a pope, but by the bishop of Terouanne, Drogo, and a secular noble in the year 1063, and there is no indication that this truce was intended to be binding outside of Count Baldwin’s domain. The Truce of God reads:
Drogo, bishop of Terouanne, and count Baldwin [of Hainault] have established this peace with the cooperation of the clergy and people of the land.
Dearest brothers in the Lord, these are the conditions which you must observe during the time of the peace which is commonly called the truce of God, and which begins with sunset on Wednesday and lasts until sunrise on Monday.
1. During those four days and five nights no man or woman shall assault, wound, or slay another, or attack, seize, or destroy a castle, burg, or villa, by craft or by violence.
2. If anyone violates this peace and disobeys these commands of ours, he shall be exiled for thirty years as a penance, and before he leaves the bishopric he shall make compensation for the injury which he committed. Otherwise he shall be excommunicated by the Lord God and excluded from all Christian fellowship.
3. All who associate with him in any way, who give him advice or aid, or hold converse with him, unless it be to advise him to do penance and to leave the bishopric, shall be under excommunication until they have made satisfaction.
4. If any violator of the peace shall fall sick and die before he completes his penance, no Christian shall visit him or move his body from the place where it lay, or receive any of his possessions.
5. In addition, brethren, you should observe the peace in regard to lands and animals and all things that can be possessed. If anyone takes from another an animal, a coin, ora garment, during the days of the truce, he shall be excommunicated unless he makes satisfaction. If he desires to make satisfaaction for his crime he shall first restore the thing which he stole or its value in money, and shall do penance for seven years within the bishopric. If he should die before he makes satisfaction and completes his penance, his body shall not be buried or removed from the place where it lay, unless hi family shall make satisfaction for him to the person whom he injured.
6. During the days of the peace, no one shall make a hostile expedition on horseback, except when summoned by the count; and all who go with the count shall take for ther support only as much as is necessary for themselves and their horses.
7. All merchants and other men who pass through your territory from other lands shall have peace from you.
8. You shall also keep this peace every day of the week from the beginning of Advent to the octave of Epiphany and from the beginning of Lent to the octave of Easter, and from the feast of Rogations to the octave of Pentecost.
9. We command all priests on feast days and Sundays to pray for all who keep the peace, and to curse all who violate it or support its violators.
10. If anyone has been accused of violating the peace and denies the charge, he shall take the communion and undergo the ordeal of hot iron. If he is found guilty, he shall do penance within the bishopric for seven years.
The Truce of God is striking in two ways: first, it demonstrates close cooperation between ecclesiastical officials and the secular nobility, and second, it has only a local aspect, obviously not designed to be a universal code for the whole Church. Cooperation between churchmen and the secular nobility in this case demonstrates that the Truce was an attempt to stabilize the political and social climate in Count Baldwin’s domains by protecting the welfare of both citizens and church resources. The Truce of God shows the mutual support and dependence between the secular nobility and the Church. The Truce of God was recognized, however, outside of Terouanne, but only to serve the interests of either nobles or churchmen. For example, the instance that we have of a pope using the Truce or the Peace of God was Gregory VII who used it in his conflict against Emperor Henry IV, and even used the assistance of armed men in its enforcement. Otherwise, the Truce and Peace of God played little in papal policies throughout the 11th century.
Bearing these points in mind it becomes increasingly clear that the crusading ideal was not the product of ecclesiastical authorities attempting to redirect internal hostilities toward an external foe in order to enforce the Truce or Peace of God. There is little or no indication that Urban II’s lament, “let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully... go forth against the Infidels,” was anything other than rhetoric, let alone an allusion to the Truce or Peace of God. Thus, to posit as a primary reason for the crusades, a ploy to bring peace to Europe is unsubstantiated by the existing sources.
Gillaume le Castlein
Oct 28 2003, 05:59 PM
Medieval religiosity was greatly influenced by the notion of pilgrimage, as was rightly pointed in the OIHC, and no discussion of the crusading ideal can be approached without consideration of this important religious aspect of medieval culture. The ideal of pilgrimage in the medieval mind has a history much longer than that of Christian militancy, stretching back to the early centuries of Christianity and the cult of the martyrs.
The practice of venerating places associated with the apostles and the martyrs and other relics attached to these individuals developed early on in Christianity. Early Christians, like the Hebrews, developed no conscious distinction between physical and spiritual reality in regards to anthropology or religious practice. The very root of Christianity, the belief that God entered into the fabric of human existence, became a physical human being, attested to the fact that spiritual and religious experience was thoroughly invested in the physical world. The resurrected Christ possessed a physical body, albeit transformed and significantly different, but a physical body none the less. This “incarnational” or “sacramental” understanding of spiritual reality was a defining principle of Christianity, and remained so even in the theology of John Calvin during the Protestant Reformation. This incarnational religiosity defined early Christian ritual. The ritual of baptism was not a purely intellectual or spiritual experience, but a ritual that involved a physical action and interaction with physical things, such as water and chrism. The Eucharist was not a mental exercise of communion, but the actual eating and drinking of physical things. It was only natural that the places and relics associated with those who gave their lives for the faith and those who were recognized as particularly holy were to have attached to them great spiritual significance.
This spiritual significance was quickly translated into miracles. There is a vast collection of literature chronicling miraculous events, healing, and apocalyptic signs in conjunction with holy places and relics of holy men and women. While the veracity of these stories may be questionable from many perspectives, especially the modern perspective, there is no doubt that the veneration of holy places and relics was a very important aspect of the emerging faith as a sign indicating the genuineness of Christianity. These relics, shrines and holy places were centers of edification, attesting to average men and women that the Christian God was not some unknowable and distant being, but a loving God that deigns to stoop to the human condition and affect the lives of Christians in a meaningful and physical way. Pope Damasus in the 4th century emphasized an already well developed tradition in the west by adding stimulus to the liturgical commemoration of saints and martyrs. Damasus saw to the decoration of already existing shrines (dedicated to the saints) with hexameter epigrams, and Saint Ambrose of Milan (373-397) wrote hymns for liturgical use at the annual festivals of the great saints. Devotion to the martyrs and saints of Spain and Italy was greatly increased by the lyrics of the Spanish poet, Prudentius (348-404). The lyrical poems of Paulinus in dedication to Saint Felix of Nola demonstrate an acute interest in saints and shrines at the end of the 4th century, as does Sulpicius Severus’ treatises in honor of Saint Martin of Tours.
By the sixth century we see devotion to saints and relics spreading everywhere with Christianity. Often missionaries set out with relics in their possession. Those who were converted to Christianity by these missionaries were offered devotion to the saints and their relics as an essential, even core, aspect of the Christian faith. The foundation of episcopates and monasteries were not proper until the new episcopate or monastery could claim the relics of an important saint for whom they sought patronage. As a result various sites throughout Europe became famous owing to recorded miracles attached to the relics of a church’s or monastery’s patron saint. With a growing list of miracles there was an inevitable growing crowd of pilgrims who were seeking these visible manifestations of the divine. Shrines such as the Romanesque of Compestella became important stops along well established routes taken by pilgrims. The importance of shrines also paralleled the emergence of penitential literature, and what better way was there to do penance for one’s sins than to travel as a pilgrim to the shrine of one of Christ’s holy saints? Thus by the tenth century the connection between reparation for one’s sins and making a pilgrimage was already well established. (Note: it is important not confuse forgiveness with reparation; it was never believed that human actions could win a person’s own forgiveness, but human action could make amends for past sins by satisfying justice.)
By the 11th century we see that the reformed papacy was in the process of guaranteeing the fact that certain actions did indeed fulfill the requirements for reparation; these were (and still are) called indulgences. With the Gregorian Reform the indulgence became the primary capital of the papacy, but the extent to which this was to develop lay a couple of centuries into the future from the 11th century. However, in the 11th century we see popes granting indulgences to the milites for combating the enemies of the Church. While a facet of Urban’s call to crusade took up the language of the pilgrimage--it was to be the grand pilgrimage to the site of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection--and he used an indulgence as a kind of capital, it is important not over-emphasize this aspect. There were already examples of indulgences being granted for activities, especially the activities of soldiers, that had little to do with pilgrimages. For example, Gregory VII had promised plenary indulgences for those who took up arms against the excommunicated emperor, Henry IV, and for those who took up arms to enforce the Truce of God. The indulgence was granted, not so much because the crusade was a pilgrimage, but because the crusade was a call to arms in defense of the Church and the Christian faith.
While Urban promised that to die in the crusade would result in salvation, there is little doubt that he is only restating an already established belief on the part of the Christian soldiers to whom he was speaking. As has already been pointed out, there was a long established ethos of the Christian soldier in the 11th century, and this ethos took for granted that the Christian soldier was as much a soldier of Christ as he was a soldier of his earthly lord. All the indulgence did in reality was provide an exclamation point for a sentence already well written and established in the hearts and minds of the milites. Thus, while the notion of pilgrimage certainly had a role to play in the crusading ideal, it was a minor player in comparison to the Christian militancy with which it co-existed.
Gillaume le Castlein
Nov 2 2003, 12:48 AM
The Crusading Ideal of the 11th century did not exist in a political or social vacuum, and was not the brain child of a single pope. Nor can it be viewed as an attempt to hijack a religion for political gain. Such views ignore the complexity and cultural realities of the time, and are, more often than not, applications of a former generation’s prejudices and opinions. In order to treat fairly the peoples of the time it is important to avoid over-simplifying their motives and attitudes. Thus, in treating about the crusades it is crucial to keep in mind:- The crusading ideal arose in an atmosphere of Christian militancy that in turn developed as a sincere religious expression given the historical circumstances of early medieval Europe. Even though Christian militancy would not be a legitimate expression today, such a religious expression is understandable given the social and political instability of medieval Europe. At any rate, Christian militancy can not perceived as anything other than a particular Christian expression, one that does not demonstrate any evidence that people of this time still adhered to pre-Christian belief systems.
- Pope Urban II, and his predecessors and successors, shared the views and attitudes of the secular nobility. They were birds of the same feather even though individual nobles and churchmen did not always see eye to eye on all issues. Both accepted without question the role of Christian warriors and the ethos that surrounded their existence.
- The crusading ideal did not arise due to the scheming of popes or other ecclesiastics to enforce the Peace or Truce of God, but was the product of an entire culture’s view of themselves and the world.
- Pilgrimage played an important role in the religiosity of medieval people, but its role in the evolution of the crusading ideal was minimal and indirect. The notion of pilgrimage, along with a plethora of other social and political factors, served to foster an international spirit that drew together ideas and social structures across Europe. This new spirit made it possible for the reduction of the crusading ideal into practical action.
- Islam was perceived as a real threat, both to the Christian Byzantine Empire and the stability of western Europe.
It is possible and necessary to judge the moments, individual actions, successes and failures, triumphs and tragedies of the crusades in relation to these salient points, but to judge the crusades and those who participated according to modern standards or modern attitudes is to endeavor in historical reconstruction that clouds the events that unfolded. This is not to say that there were no villains or base intentions on the part of individual crusaders or churchmen, for the eventual failure of the crusades was caused by a long laundry list of both as much as it was caused by the bravery, fortitude and strategy of Muslims. But to call the crusades a folly or comedy of errors is to misunderstand the real historical and cultural setting of medieval Europe, and is entirely unfair to those who bravely gave their lives to achieve what they saw as a lofty and noble ideal.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Andrieu, M., ed. Le Pontifical Romain. Studi e Testi, 86, Rome. 1938.
Brault, G.J., ed. La Chanson de Roland. Oxford UP, 1978.
Edwin, Paul, copyist. Widukind of Corvey, Res gestae Saxonicae. Microfilm archive, University of Toronto, 1982.
*Henderson, E.F., ed. Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages. George Bell, 1892.
Henry, A., ed. Sarasin, Le Roman du Ham. Paris, 1939.
*McGinty, M.E., trans. Fulcher of Chartes’ Chronicle of the First Crusade. University of Pennsylvania P, 1941.
Mommsen, T.E. and Morrison, K.F., trans, ed. Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Century. Columbia UP, 1962.
*Thatcher, O.J. and McNeal, E.H., trans. A Source Book for Mediaeval History. Charles Scribner, 1905.
Secondary Sources:
*Bloch, M. Feudal Society; Social Classes and Political Organization. Trans. L.A. Manyon. University of Chicago P, 1982.
Chase, C., ed. The Dating of Beowulf. University of Toronto P, 1981.
Cowdrey, H.E.J. The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform. Clarendon P, 1975.
Erdmann, C. Die Enstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens. Pertinent portions translated lovingly by my wife.
Gillingham, J. “Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England; Who Was Then the Gentleman?” TRHS, 6, 5, 1995.
*Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. Yale UP, 1984.
Leyser, K.J. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony. Blackwell, 1989.
*Norman, A.V.B. The Medieval Soldier. Yale UP, 1971.
*Painter, Sidney. French Chivalry. Baltimore, 1940.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford UP, 1997.
*Southern, R.W. The Making of the Middle Ages. Yale UP, 1953.
. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages.Penguin Books, 1970.
Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. “War and Peace in the Earlier Middle Ages.” TRHS, 5, 25, 1975.
Wormald, C.P. “Bede, Beowulf, and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy.” British archaeological Reports, 46, 1978.
*Must reads.
This is, at least, the way I read the sources, but obviously there are various interpretations out there. I think it is important for the merely curious, and the serious historian, to take historical data and place that data into its proper context. For some reason few seem inclined to do so when dealing with the crusades and the culture from which it came.
Regards,
David :sheildsmile:
Gillaume le Castlein
Oct 26 2003, 12:16 AM
Let those who have been robbers now be soldiers of Christ... let those who have been hirelings for a few pieces of silver now attain an eternal reward.
--Pope Urban II
God has instituted a Holy War, so that the order of knights and the unstable multitude who used to engage in mutual slaughter in the manner of ancient paganism may find a new way of gaining salvation: so that now they may seek God’s grace in their wonted habit, and in the discharge of their own office, and no longer need to be drawn to seek salvation by utterly renouncing the world in the profession of the monk.
--Guibert de Nogent
So the propaganda went during the call for the first crusade. Most people know not to take propaganda too seriously, but for some inexplicable reason these words often feed contemporary interpretations of how the crusading ideal arose in the 11th century. I came across one such interpretation in the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (OIHC). Basically the argument runs that the crusading ideal arose from an internal struggle within western civilization, a struggle between the ecclesiastical authorities and the secular warlords. According to the OIHC the crusading ideal was a product of the 11th century, and was a political lever applied by churchmen to harness the violent and unruly temperaments of a bloodthirsty, still mostly pagan, European infant aristocracy. The political lever was intended to both bolster the Truce of God and end disputes between Europeans, and to provide the papacy with a ready at hand fighting force for material gain abroad. This seems to be the common academic opinion across the board, and I found it on more than one website.
This explanation, however, has some gapping holes that academe is simply ignoring. First, it presumes an artificial bifurcation between the aristocracy and the ecclesiastical authorities. Secondly, it ignores centuries of historical developments, both theological and cultural, that played essential roles in the emergence of the crusading ideal. The latter is easier to approach from an historical perspective, and is essential for understanding the former, thus I will briefly outline this criticism first.
The Early Church was more inclined to follow the pacifist lead of Origen that considered all killing in times of war opposed to Christian charity. Even though this attitude is adjusted with the triumph of Constantine and the emergence of an empire that was becoming more and more Christian, and Saint Augustine’s more lenient attitude of loving persecution being justified in certain circumstances, the pacifist attitude remained dominate in the west with the monastic movement. The true soldiers of Christ, the milites de Christi, were the monks who retreated from the world and waged spiritual war with the unseen minions of evil. The world without, however, was a chaotic and evil place of greed and violence, and for those doomed to live in such a world, their justification could only be assured by the constant prayers of the monks. The penitential literature of the 8th and 9th centuries attests to this general attitude. No matter the enemies fought, to kill a man in battle was homicide and required penance, most of the time a sever penance that could last up to 40 days.
This attitude, however, did little to change the realities of the time. From the late 5th century until the advent of the crusading ideal in the 11th century, Europe was immersed in violent migrations of non-Christian or Arian Germanic tribes, and in the 10th century Carolingian Europe seemed to be assailed from all sides--Vinkings in the north, Hungarians in the east, Muslims in southern Italy and Spain and along the Mediterranean shore. There were few distinctions made in the common man’s mind between Scandinavian and Muslim--both were non-Christian, and both were the origins of violent and deadly raids and long martial contests. Such a long history of struggle and conflict could hardly have failed to leave an indelible mark on the minds of Europeans. There was a constant tension between the order of Roman law behind walls, and the frightening wilderness just beyond.
This reality began to sway predominate thinking in the west away from the penitential attitude and more toward one of militancy until there is no doubt that Urban’s call to crusade by the 11th century was not something new or utterly surprising to the audience. Understandably, churchmen began to realize their dependence upon the miles for their physical security. This “order” of Christian society had to exist in such a world for the milites de Christi to continue their less militant struggle behind monastery walls. As early as the 10th century, we find liturgies for the blessing of swords, cults of the military saints, especially Saint Michael, and special prayers for the blessing of banners for use in struggles against “heathens”: “bless and sanctify this banner that is borne for the protection of Holy Church against hostile fury, so that the faithful and the defenders of God’s people who follow it may obtain triumph and victory over the enemy in your name and by the strength of the cross” (Erdmann, 333).
Within this historical context we see another hole in the OIHC’s interpretation. It is assumed that the emerging European aristocracy was marginally Christian, still thoroughly embedded in former pagan practices. This could hardly have been the case by the 11th century. This assumption primarily comes from a modern inability to recognize religious inculturation. While it may be true that the predominate Christian expression of the 11th century was very different from the expressions one might happen across in a Christian community in AD 90, or a Catholic parish in Wisconsin in AD 2002, this does not mean that this expression was any more or any less Christian than either of these other historical examples. The most enduring trait of Christianity, from an historical perspective, is its pliability, its ability to reform its expression according the cultural traits and historical contingencies of its believers.
The expression of the age in question was significantly influenced by the struggles we have outlined. The landscape of early medieval Europe was one dominated by violent struggle, and the place of the miles became a respectable one in that particular Christian society. The miles as an individual who protected the Church and the stability and order that surrounded the Church was an inevitable development within the practice of Christianity given the historical and social circumstances. There is no doubt that if we were to place modern Christians in a time machine and send them back to the 9th or 10th century, they would act no differently, and indeed they would have little choice than to react in the same manner. These medieval warriors weren’t barely Christian almost pagan men, but men who saw their Christian calling as being intimately connected with their prowess to protect the Church and the civilization that was growing around it. They found a ready at hand source of heroic inspiration in pagan mythology, but this mythology by the time of Charlemagne was already encased in Christian symbolism and Christian purpose as can be clearly seen in the epic poem Beowulf.
We see the centrality of Christianity in secular medieval culture most clearly in the founding and sponsoring of monasteries throughout Europe, projects that were undertaken, not by ecclesiastics, but by aristocratic lay people. These monasteries served to meet an actual perceived need felt by early medieval lords--the need for prayers to ensure the lord’s salvation. In turn the monasteries depended on the secular lords for their physical well being. Such a relationship would not be possible if there was no true religious sincerity on the part of Christian lay people. Another example is the religious sincerity of Charlemagne’s court, Alfred the Great, etc. These were not only warrior kings, but men intensely aware of their duties as Christian kings as well. Not least of our examples is the notion of pilgrimage, which the OIHC was willing to admit was a impetus for the crusading ideal, but not an example of a culture thoroughly steeped in a sacramental understanding of their Christian faith.
The most notable example, however, is the chansons de geste. This secular literature, existing parallel to ecclesiastical canons and pre-dating Urban II’s call for crusade, paints a very Christian picture of the medieval warrior. The archangel Gabriel stands guard over the sleeping Charlemagne and is at Roland’s side as he dies. Roland’s prayer runs thus: “Father, who raised Lazarus and who brought Daniel out of the lion’s den, save my soul from danger and despair, and forgive me my sins” (2384ff). Throughout the chansons there is demonstrated very strong religious emotion among the heroic context of the story; there is an image of the warrior as being unconsciously both a soldier of Christ and a soldier of his earthly lord, and what’s more they are such without any special commission from Church authority. While the heroic context of the story is reminiscent of pre-Christian mythology, the soldier’s Christianity was taken for granted.
I think that’s enough for now... I’ll tackle the relationship between secular lords and ecclesiastics after I get some sleep!
Peace!
--David
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 3 2003, 07:48 PM
Revisions.
Many of the above posts have been revised, especially areas involving the Truce and Peace of God. I did this because there was a lack of detail, and certain points were inconsistent with the primary sources, as a good friend of mine pointed out. Secondly, I revised the post dealing with the Truce and Peace of God due to a recurent assertion in many modern historians that I’ve come across lately that the crusade was proclaimed as an attempt to end military conflict in Europe between Christians. I hardly think that educated men of the time would see much hope in achieving peace between Christians, and I seriously doubt that those who supported the crusade were surprised that the ideal “failed” in this way... it was never an aim. At any rate, I hope that some of these details are a bit clearer with the revision and more accurate. Feel free to jump in with other criticisms or details I might have omitted or misinterpreted.
--David :sheildsmile:
Gillaume le Castlein
Apr 23 2004, 12:42 PM
After a friend of mine read the above article, she said “you just have to read Steven Runciman’s History of the Crusades, and watch the A&E documentary The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones.” She assured me that both sources would be eye-opening, and I might just change my “pro-western views.” [Note: I never realized that my views were “pro-western”, but I thought I should play it safe and humor her.]
Well, I did what she suggested, and to spare you the pain of actually having to go through this exercise in tolerance for historical revisionism, I’ll provide you a summary of the salient points made by both Runciman and the writers and producers of the A&E documentary:- The Crusaders were imperialists who sought to colonize the Holy Land to satisfy their insatiable lust for booty.
- The Crusaders and the popes who organized their efforts were power-mad religious fanatics that epitomize the evils of intolerance and racial/ethnic supremacy.
- They brought ruin and destruction upon a culturally enlightened and peaceful Muslim world.
The basic problem as I see it is a misconception of the historical circumstances of the 11th century, especially in regards to the realities of Islam at that point in history. While I did touch on this above, I think the point needs to be made with greater emphasis. Islam was a real threat to western Christendom. These popularized versions of history completely ignore the origins of Islam and how Islam helped shape the medieval, and, yes, even the western-medieval, world.
First, the religious colossus of the medieval period, the religion that influenced the most people, encompassed the greatest land mass of the known world, and effected the greatest cultural and social impact was not Christianity, but Islam. If any religion can be defined as a “medieval religion” it would have to be Islam, not Christianity. Islam was born after the fall of the western Roman Empire, and grew to immense proportions during the medieval period. What’s more, the Islamic world was technologically more sophisticated than the Christian west, and this technological sophistication was a significant impetus for western advances in military and social engineering throughout medieval western history. The Islamic world remained technologically superior to the Christian west until western innovation finally came into its own during the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution that followed.
Secondly, to characterize medieval Islam as peaceful would be absurd, no matter how you look at its history. Mohammed, himself, advocated both in thought and action the use of violence and war as the principle means of Muslim expansion. From the beginning Mohammed used violence to spread the new faith, and took an active part in raiding merchant caravans, and he waged a bloody war against the city of Mecca. His thought allowed for only two spheres in reality, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Thus, all people were either subject to Islam, or were enemies of Islam. While Muslims often demonstrated a remarkable degree of tolerance for religious differences within the Islamic state, medieval Muslims insisted that all people be subject to an Islamic state, no matter their faith. There was no room in medieval Islamic thought for a state that was not Islamic; there was no room for religious autonomy in the form of a Christian state or Jewish state (or, apropos, a secular state).
Shortly after the Prophet’s death, those who inherited the Islamic law of Mohammed seized on this principle, and quickly engulfed the weakened remnants of the once mighty Roman Empire, expanding at an alarming rate at the point of the sword. From Arabia Islam swept through Palestine, Syria, Persia and Egypt, conquering one Christian city after another. By the eighth century Islam had conquered the whole of North Africa, leaving in ruins one of the most significant centers of Christian thought and culture at the time, and had swept onto the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain) reducing the Visigoth peoples to extinction. From here the Muslims conducted frequent raids into what is today modern France well into the 11th century. The Muslim advance was undaunted by the Mediterranean Sea, and Muslims conquered the Island of Sicily. They remained a constant threat to the cities of Italy until midway through the 11th century with the Norman invasion of the island. In the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks had conquered the whole of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), that had been Christian since the missionary activity of Paul of Tarsus. The constant and bloody advance of the Seljuk Turks was no phantom menace; they truly were threatening to conquer the greatest Christian city in the known world, Constantinople, not as liberators, but as a people determined to subject all other peoples to the Islamic law.
The popes, nobles and Crusaders in the west were not paranoid religious fanatics bent on decimating a peaceful victim thousands of miles away. They were reacting to four centuries of violent unbridled Muslim expansion. The threat of Muslim expansion was not a vague shadow on the horizon, but a reality that existed right in Europe’s backyard (Spain, Sicily, North Africa, and Asia Minor). To ignore this fact is to turn a blind eye toward the whole history of Islam prior to the Crusades, and to insult the religious zeal and conviction of Muslim peoples and the remarkable effectiveness of Islamic thought, technology and military ingenuity during that epoch.
Thirdly, the characterization of the Crusaders as a blood thirsty rapacious mob bent on self-gain is equally ridiculous. Expressions of piety, self-sacrifice, etc. are presented as a front for darker designs, such as greed. To think that the Crusaders were motivated primarily by greed doesn’t account for a number of important facts that the primary sources have always made abundantly clear. Most Crusaders were already men of wealth and land, or at least men already connected with wealth and land through fealty. They were already established in the west, but nevertheless sacrificed their established position, their wealth, and their livelihood to take part in a venture that would exhaust their material resources, and probably cost them their very lives. Countless Crusaders, throughout the whole history of the Crusades, bankrupted themselves in order to finance their ventures, and the returns were meager. The booty of the Crusades was notoriously bad; only a very few ended up gaining any significant return from the Crusades due to plunder or land acquisition, and the vast majority returned to Europe with nothing, even less than what they set out with. Plunder never compensated for the costs of staging any major campaign for the vast majority of Crusaders. Yet for centuries Crusaders continued to bankrupt their estates in order to venture to the Holy Land knowing full well that they could lose everything in the process.
The best place to look for motivation is Pope Urban’s call for crusade. Here the reader is presented with two very simple and straight forward motivations: 1. the defense of Constantinople and the eastern Empire; 2. the restoration and liberation of Jerusalem. Granted these motivations existed in a complex social and cultural matrix that included the nuances of medieval Christian piety, Christian militancy, and the 10th and 11th century peace movements in Christian Europe. But to look beyond these motivations and fashion a conspiracy unsupported by the primary sources is to re-write history according to one’s own bias. The Crusades were not without violence, blunders, and crimes, because, quite simply, the Crusades were wars. It is one thing to take into serious and honest consideration the mishaps and crimes of particular Crusaders within the complex of their historical era, is quite another thing to re-write overall intentions, ignore the Church’s efforts to correct abuses, insult the dignity of Muslim religious conviction, and to fashion whimsical conspiracy theories in order to support current prejudices.
The impression that I get from both the A&E documentary and Steven Runciman is that both held a disgust or a loathing for anyone who would fight a war in the name of religion. This position is very popular, especially in the United States where people simply can not comprehend, and even find disgusting, the waging of war for the sake of religion. The fact that the Crusaders fought a war in the name of religion is enough alone to #### them in the eyes of current popular culture. However, both medieval Christians and Muslims would be equally disgusted by wars waged for the sake of secular political or economic ideologies. The co-existence of the Truce and Peace of God with Christian militancy and a call for Crusade demonstrates that medieval Christians ideally thought the only thing worth fighting, killing and dying for was faith. The dramatic expansion of Islam, and the subjection of so many thousands to the law of Islam demonstrates that medieval Muslims ideally thought the only thing worth fighting, killing and dying for was faith.
This is unfortunate, because such incomprehensibility and disgust leaves the western world in a very disadvantageous position for understanding and dealing with the threats currently posed by “Islamic fundamentalists”. This strand of traditional Islam resembles very closely medieval Islam, and these men and women truly believe that the only thing worth fighting, killing and dying for is their faith.