Download The Evolution of Crusading Rhetoric

Proceedings of The National Conference
On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2012
Weber State University, Ogden Utah
March 29 – 31, 2012
The Evolution of Crusading Rhetoric
Jamin Dabkowski
History Department
Hendrix College
1600 Washington Ave.
Conway, Arkansas 72032 USA
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Sasha Pfau
Abstract
Among the key objectives of the First Crusade was the return of the Holy Land to Christian hands, and the Second
Crusade and Third Crusades sought to reclaim Crusader territory that had been captured by the native Muslim
armies. Clearly, this early crusading ideal was predicated on the conquest of territory with religious importance to
Christianity. However, beginning in the mid-twelfth century, while the Second Crusade was in progress, Christian
preachers and writers began to extend the idea of crusading to conflicts in Northern Europe. The Northern Crusades
led to a change in crusading rhetoric and allowed for a multitude of militaristic actions to be carried out in the name
of crusading, despite the actual objectives or locations being unrelated to those of the early crusading movement.
The sieges of Zara and Constantinople, key battles in the Fourth Crusade, were motivated by Venetian economic
interests and earned condemnation and excommunication from the Pope. The Seventh and Eighth Crusades were
launched by French kings, with little to no involvement from the papacy. This increased secularization of crusading
showed just how far the term had come from its origins. The word “crusade” would continually evolve from
securing the Holy Land, to securing Christian lands, to expanding Christian lands, to little more than a word used to
evoke the memory of the First and Second crusades. By looking at a variety of primary sources, including calls for
crusade and papal bulls, this paper will argue that shifts in medieval European understanding of “just war” and the
“other” can be seen through the evolution of the crusading ideal.
Keywords: Crusades, Christianity, Rhetoric
1. Body of Paper
The images of Christian knights, sweltering beneath pounds of heavy armor, trekking through barren wastes, battling
Saracen hordes to secure holy sites for Christian pilgrims have been indelibly burned into the Western collective
conscious for centuries. In the early years of the crusading movement, these descriptions would have painted a
fairly accurate portrait as Christian armies from all over Western Europe answered the call of the pope to wrest
control of the Holy Land from the malicious Muslims. Over time, however, the concept of crusading began shifting,
becoming increasingly esoteric and unknowable. As more military ventures began to be carried out in the name of
crusading, it became more difficult to determine what exactly a crusade was. Partially due to a failure of the papacy
to truly define crusade, the word evolved to take on a variety of meanings. Beginning with the Northern Crusade in
the Baltic, crusading had less and less to do with Christianity's place in the Holy Land and more to do with the
secular desires of kings and emperors and even the popes' own political ambitions. The shift in the definitions of
crusading can be seen in the rhetoric used in the descriptions and calling of the crusades. So too can the changes in
the goals of the subsequent crusades be seen as evidence of their evolution.
The move toward crusade can be seen in early 1095, when the Byzantine emperor Alexius II sent word to Pope
Urban II, requesting European aid in his fight against the Turks. The Byzantines had been using European
mercenaries to supplement their forces for quite some time, and with increased Muslim successes in Anatolia, the
eastern Christians needed more help from their western brethren. Toward this end, Pope Urban II delivered a
sermon at the end of a council in Clermont, France. While his exact words do not survive to this day, we do have
several accounts of his speech, all of which were written some years later following the success of the First Crusade.
This does present problems when looking at early crusading rhetoric, as the accounts were written in light of
Christian successes and do have some significant differences in language and focus, though the driving concepts
remain similar. The conquest of Jerusalem and other important sites in the Holy Land inextricably color the
surviving records, as they reflect the achievements of the Crusade. Someone writing before the conclusion of the
Crusade might have had a very different outlook on the event and the language used to describe crusading would
present a valuable contrast; the thrilling reclamation of Jerusalem was not a foregone conclusion.
Dana Carleton Munro detailed some of the key points of Urban II's exhortation at Clermont in an article originally
published in 1906. He analyzed the writings of Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol, Guibert of
Nogent, and William of Malmesbury, looking for similarities and differences. One of the more interesting points of
comparison regarded the remission of sins and plenary indulgences. The issuance of indulgences for those who
embarked on Crusade would come to be a defining aspect of the ideal. Munro wrote regarding the remission of sin
that “this is clear from the canon of the Council, from the statement of Pope Eugene III., and from the letters of
Urban to the princes of Flanders and to the people of Bologna”.1 The various authors mentioned above all include
this detail, to varying degrees, in their accounts, save for Guibert who makes no mention of it.
Where the chroniclers differ is on who actually receives the indulgences. In William of Malmesbury's account,
which was written some thirty years after the speech, all those who take up the cross would enjoy “by the gift of
God, and the privilege of St. Peter, absolution from all their crimes” and “obtain, after death, the advantages of a
blessed martyrdom”.2 Robert, who was at the council, also wrote that anyone who would “set out on this journey
[would] obtain the remission of sins and be sure of the incorruptible glory of the kingdom of heaven”.3 These men
interpreted the speech to mean that anyone who joins the Crusade will receive immediate remission of sin,
regardless of whether they lived or died. Baldric was more ambiguous when it came to this distinction, writing
“may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in the city in which he died for us. But if it befall you to die this
side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in his army. God pays with
the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour”.4 In this way, Baldric was not entirely clear if a pilgrim
received absolution when committing to the Crusade, or upon death. Fulcher was quite clear when he documented a
differing qualification in that “all who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans,
shall have immediate remission of sins”.5 This is an important distinction. In Robert and William's versions, one is
immediately absolved of their prior sins when they commit to the Crusade. Fulcher required the pilgrim to die while
undertaking the Crusade in order to gain remission. If someone committed to the Crusade, fought in the Holy Land,
and otherwise carried out his Christian duties, he would still not be granted the remission of sin that someone who
died at sea would have. This raises the question: at what point during a Crusading venture does one receive that
most important incentive, that of absolution?
The reward of heaven for dying in battle was not new to the First Crusade; Pope Leo IV proclaimed in the 9th
century that “the kingdom of heaven will be given as a reward to those who shall be killed in this war. For [God] the
omnipotent knows that they lost their lives fighting for the truth of the faith, for the preservation of their country,
and the defense of the Christians”.6 Leo IV was referring to the conflict with the Moors in the Iberian Peninsula,
setting a precedent for Urban II's indulgences. While Leo IV spoke specifically of that Moorish campaign, a few
decades later Pope John VIII7 extended the absolution for those who died fighting in the name of Christ. Replying
to a concern from Louis II, a French king, over whether “those who have recently died in war, fighting in the
defense of the church of God and for the preservation of the Christian religion and of the state, or those who may in
the future fall in the same cause, may obtain indulgence for their sins”, the Pope “confidently” replied that this was
indeed the case.8 This would seemingly clear up the confusion over whether one is granted remission upon death or
upon taking up the cross to crusade. However, these conflicts were not called for by the Papacy. They were
commanded, and ordered, by secular authorities concerned with the defense of their borders. It is also interesting to
note John VIII's language when he declares that the remission of sins applies to “those who may in the future fall in
the same cause”.9 He did this without fully defining the cause he was referencing. While it can be reasonably
deduced that he meant fighting for the defense of Christianity, this could describe any number of actions. Papal
failures to adequately define “just war” and the conditions for absolution would continue to obfuscate the meaning
of Crusade.
It is known that terms such as exercitus Domini (army of the Lord) and milites Christi (knights of Christ) were
used in the crusading army in Asia and it can reasonably be presumed that Urban II used similar, if not identical,
language to describe the crusaders.14 This was also echoed in Baldric of Dol's account of the speech at Clermont,
particularly his mention of “if Christ shall find you in his army” as this clearly places Christ in possession of the
1108
armed forces of Christendom.15 This is strong language indeed as it unabashedly creates a “just war”, not only
permitting but actively encouraging violence in the name of Christ. The way in which the versions of Urban II's
speech handle this rhetoric represents a reinterpretation of the Augustinian understanding of the use of violence in
the name of Christianity. St. Augustine allowed for violence in response to injury, as a means of self-defense.
Urban was a reformer as pope and saw the Crusades as a war of liberation. In his call at Clermont, Urban
proclaimed that Jerusalem “asks and longs to be liberated” and makes other mentions of returning the Holy Land to
its proper Christian hands.16 Rather than a war of conquest, in the eyes of the pope, the Crusade was a war of
reconquest. In this way, Urban turned what was, on the surface, an offensive measure into a war for the defense of
Christianity. Lands that were rightfully Christian were under the occupation of a hostile force. Europeans had every
right to defend what God ordained to be theirs. According to medieval understanding of a “just war”, that is to say
Augustinian explanations, taking the Holy Land from the Muslims was acceptable. It fit with their concept of
justified violence. This theme of defending Christianity would also be seen in later crusades.
For over four decades, the Crusaders held large swaths of the Holy Land with little interference from Muslim
armies until the fall of Edessa in 1144. The fall of this crusader state led to the calling of the Second Crusade in
1145. This Crusade was heavily promoted by the influential Cistercian abbot Bernard of Clairvaux at the behest of
fellow Cistercian Pope Eugenius III. Monks such as Bernard would travel throughout Western Europe and call once
again for the Christian defense of the Holy Land.
In a letter to the English people, Bernard stated that the fall of Edessa was part of a test from God. His letter
required the audience to look inward and ponder. He asked, “What think you, my brethren? Is the hand of the Lord
shortened and is he now powerless to work salvation, so that he must call upon us, petty worms of the earth, to save
and restore him his heritage? Could he not send more than twelve legions of angels, or even just say the word and
save his land? Most certainly he has the power to do this whenever he wishes, but I tell you that God is trying
you”.17 Any good Christian knight would surely abhor the idea of failing God. If this were a test, as Bernard
claimed, devout Christian soldiers would have essentially had no choice but to participate. The chance to fight in
the name of God and demonstrate one's devotion along with the ever-present plenary indulgences, would have
provided all the motivation needed to once again head to Palestine.
Bernard extended a similar rhetoric to Duke Wladislaus of Bohemia, even going so far as to declare the Second
Crusade a gift from God. All who took the sign of the Cross and embarked on the Crusade were given full pardon
for their sins. In hindsight Bernard's statement was ironic as he instructed Christians to “receive this proffered gift
and hasten each to outstrip the other in taking advantage of this opportunity which will not come again”.18 This socalled gift from God would ultimately end in failure, with the Crusading armies suffering a resounding defeat in the
Holy Land and failing to reclaim Edessa. These were not wars of liberation, rather they fit more in the Augustinian
understanding of the “just war” being defensive. The Second Crusade was to defend Christian lands in the Eastern
Mediterranean and retake Edessa.
It is interesting that once again, the papacy used the imagery of noble ancestors as a recruiting tool. Pope
Eugenius III used language such as “by the grace of God and the zeal of your fathers” and “it will be seen as a great
token of nobility and uprightness if those things which the efforts of your fathers acquired are vigorously defended
by you, the sons. But if, God forbid, it comes to pass differently, then the bravery of the fathers will be shown to
have diminished in the sons”.19 The emphasis placed on family honor indicates the importance of family and family
history to medieval Europeans. Sons who may be otherwise apprehensive about going on such a long and dangerous
excursion could find themselves at the forefront of an army, eager to not tarnish their family's legacy. Language
such as this could be seen as challenging a Christian man's valor and make him eager to prove not only his worth,
but to live up to the accomplishments of his forefathers which had been so highly praised. The milites Christi had
become folk heroes and Eugenius III keenly used themes of their honor and memory to aid in recruitment.20
Certainly a wise propagandist such as Bernard of Clairvaux would have realized this, which explains his similar
rhetoric. The relatively short period of time between the First and Second Crusade greatly aided in this type of
utilization of memory to recruit. The men who would go to fight on this campaign would only be a generation or
two removed from those in their family who had been the first to go over. In many cases it was possible that they
were still alive and represented a living and vivid representation of the past. The first Crusaders were living legends.
Not everyone saw the need to embark upon the long trip to Palestine however; some German crusaders, mainly
Saxons, wanted to campaign not in the Orient but against the Slavs across the river Elbe.21 The stigma attached to
those who did not take part in crusading, despite having the means to do so, created a problem for these German
princes. They could not simply refute a papal decree and so sought a fitting solution. There had been attempts to
Christianize Eastern Europe for some time with mixed results. Going eastward to subdue pagans and spread the
word of God was a large part of the crusading ideal. In order to fulfill their obligation to crusade, they requested to
be allowed to carry out a campaign against their pagan neighbors.
1109
The approval of this plan drastically increased the complexity of the crusading ideal. There was no Christian
history in the lands to the east of the Elbe, no holy sites to be defiled by pagan hordes. This was an exercise in the
expansion of Christianity. The northern Germans saw a vast land, unclaimed by any European power. Helmold, the
noted chronicler, documented this sentiment detailing how Adolph II, Count of Holstein, sent messengers offering
conquered lands to Western Europeans. He proclaimed to the Holzatians and Sturmarians, “Have you not
subjugated the land of the Slavs and bought it with the blood of your brothers and fathers? […] Be the first to go
over into a delectable land and inhabit it and partake of its delights, for the best of it is due you who have wrested it
from the hands of the enemy”.22 This was an action carried out in economic and political interests, purely offensive,
and occurred in an area with no Christian history. That this received papal approval and that “the privileges, merits
and insignia of these crusaders were to be exactly the same as those of the rest”23 presents no small problem when
trying to grasp the concept of what makes a Crusade. This was the flashpoint where the crusading ideal began its
departure from “just war” in the Holy Land. It is possible that approval for this venture came from the similarities
Bernard of Clairvaux and Pope Eugenius III saw between the present situation in Germany and the conflicts in Spain
between the Moors and Christians.24 Both existed on the fringes of mainland Europe and were portrayed as being
carried out in the defense of those Christians living under the rule of heathens.
What made the actions in North-eastern Europe a Crusade, in the eyes of Bernard, was not its location, but rather
its goal which was, as stated by the illustrious Bernard, to fight the pagans “until such a time as, by God's help, they
shall be either converted or wiped out”.26 This could be seen as a defensive conflict, as it was to secure lands for
Christians and protect the newly converted. In order to protect Christianity, converting or destroying those who held
differing views was seen as necessary. However even this defensive definition is not in line with that of the First
Crusade, just some 50 years prior. While both conflicts were made to fit under the Augustinian justification for “just
war”, the defense of Christendom in Eastern Europe was not the same as it was in the Holy Land. While there were
some Christian settlers and converts in the region, and the Crusade was ostensibly undertaken to protect their lives
and properties, the lack of Christian tradition in the area forced Eugenius III and St. Bernard to stretch the
defensive definition a bit. Certainly there were reports of Slavic rampages against Christians; Helmold wrote of
how he “saw the shackles and the diverse kinds of instruments of torture which they were wont to use on the
Christians”27 and Pope Alexander III issued a Bull in 1171 detailing how the “wildness of the Estonians and other
pagans of those parts rises up violently and rages furiously and savagely against God's faithful people and the
upholders of the Christian faith”.28
In the relatively short period of time from the First Crusade through the Early North-eastern European Crusades,
we can see the Church adapting what it means to go on Crusade. The two main points that tie them all together so
far have been the Augustinian sense of defending Christendom and the remission of sins. In his letter dated 1147,
Bernard of Clairvaux endows those who would Crusade in Europe with “the same spiritual privileges as those enjoy
who set out towards Jerusalem”.29 While he does put these forces on par with those in the Holy Land, he does not
actually mention absolution directly in the letter. The uniforms were to be the same, the privileges were to be the
same, the fact that Bernard leaves the spiritual reward part of the bargain ambiguous is noticeable. By the same
token, Alexander III was quite specific on the subject of absolution, promising to “grant to those persons who fight
powerfully and bravely against the aforesaid pagans one year's remission of their sins, for which they have
confessed and received penance, in the same way that we are accustomed to grant it to those who visit the Holy
Sepulcher. Moreover, we extend the remission of all their sins to those who die in that fight”.30 Though these two
statements were issued about 20 years apart, they regarded the same region and same purpose: defend frontier
Christians and spread the word of God. The way in which they dealt with the ever important aspect of remission
differs however. Bernard simply declared that they would have the same privileges as though they were going to the
Holy Land. Alexander III went into more detail, granting one year's remission to those who took part, and remission
of all sins to those who died in the conflict. It is also interesting to note Alexander's word choice in this passage.
By specifying that the Crusaders would receive the same absolution as the Church is accustomed to granting those
who travel to Jerusalem, he implies that by this time, 1171, granting remission of sins had become standardized.
Both St. Bernard and Pope Alexander III refer to previous acts of remission in earlier Crusades, establishing that
Urban II had, perhaps unwittingly, created a standard course of action by which to oversee subsequent Crusades.
Bernard and Alexander III described the absolution that these forces would receive as the same as those who went to
the Holy Land. Clearly the First Crusade was the guiding example that later popes would look to. Bestowing the
same privileges as those received by forces going to Jerusalem meant that no one Crusade was any more just than
another.
If the Crusades in the Baltic during the late 12th century began the changes in defining Crusade, the Fourth
Crusade of 1202-1204 utterly disrupted any chance of having a certain definition. What was originally supposed to
be an attempt at reclaiming Jerusalem by way of Egypt ended in crusading armies laying siege to, and conquering,
1110
the Eastern Christian cities of Zara and Constantinople. The Venetians were to provide the marine transportation for
the Crusaders, but when the army lacked the funds to pay for the transport, a bargain was struck. The Venetians
badly wanted to control the city of Zara, across the Adriatic Sea in modern-day Croatia. The Venetians agreed to
erase the remaining debt in exchange for help taking the city. Following this agreement, the Doge of Venice and
many of his people took the cross, the sign of a crusader. The army then proceeded to siege and occupy the city,
which was a Christian city. At this point, Pope Innocent III was furious. A Crusading army had carried out acts of
violence against fellow Christians, an act absolutely and explicitly forbidden in all Crusading rhetoric. They had
carried out the will of merchants rather than that of God and envoys were sent to ask for his absolution. Innocent III
was not without understanding of the plight of the army however, and as the chronicle of Geoffrey of Villehardouin,
a knight who took part in the Fourth Crusade, detailed: “the Pope said to the envoys that he knew full well that it
was through the default of others that the host had been impelled to do this great mischief”33 and sent them away
with his blessing and absolution.
As bad as this was however, it was the fall of Constantinople in 1203 that showed without question that the papacy
was no longer in control of this Crusade. As the Crusaders wintered in Zara, they took stock of their supplies and
realized they had neither the money nor resources to continue on with a successful campaign to the Holy Land. The
Doge of Venice, again suggests a Christian target to gather resources: Constantinople. The guiding force behind the
Fourth Crusade was a secular authority and thus the Crusade lost any religious credibility.
Upon taking control of Constantinople, the Crusading army subjected the city to three days of unchecked looting,
rape, and murder. It is hardly surprising that Geoffrey of Villehardouin makes no mention of these crimes. His
memoir of the occupation detailed the sparing of women, and the hanging of those who stole loot for their own
personal gain, rather than the agreed upon division.34 It is clear however, in his own writings, that Innocent III was
well-aware of the atrocities perpetrated by the Crusaders. Peter, cardinal priest of the title of St. Marcellus, had
absolved the offending Crusaders of their sins without consulting the pope. This was a power he did not possess and
his absolution severely undermined papal authority as these men went home to Europe, carrying with them tales and
ill-gotten spoils of their conquests without any punishment.
The Sixth Crusade marks an interesting point in the theory of crusading. Frederick II reclaimed Jerusalem among
other holy Christian sites. While this could be viewed as a successful Crusade, because of the way he accomplished
the gains, it was enormously unpopular and was part of a major conflict with the papacy. The language from the
Northern Crusades of “they shall either be converted or wiped out” still held true. Bernard of Clairvaux's views on
compromise which “utterly forbid that for any reason whatsoever a truce should be made with these peoples”36,
though originally directed at the pagans of North-eastern Europe, were still being applied to all enemies of
Christendom. After taking a crusading vow but delaying his departure by a decade, Frederick II married the heiress
to the throne of Jerusalem in 1225, giving himself a personal claim to the kingdom, and was excommunicated as a
result of his conflict with Pope Gregory IX.37
In light of his excommunication, Frederick II had no right to engage in the Crusade. However he embarked on a
crusade of his own creation, ignoring the heretofore requirement of a papal blessing. This presents a significant
problem, as the ability to declare a holy war and approve an army of Christ, until this point, rested solely with the
head of the Church. Frederick II furthered the secular nature of crusading that began in the Fourth Crusade and
claimed his own Crusade, despite having no legitimate religious authority. Not only is this the first example of a
secular authority proclaiming leadership over a crusading movement outright, but Frederick II also concluded his
Crusade in 1229 by signing a peace treaty with the Saracens. He negotiated a compromise in which both sides
received certain areas as well as a ten year truce.
The importance of this result cannot be overstated as it signals a shift in multiple aspects of medieval
understanding. First, he accomplished through diplomacy what militarily had been impossible: the reclamation of
Jerusalem. The fact that he was even willing to negotiate with the Muslims represents a significant departure from
popular Christian understanding of the “other”. Muslims had long been demonized and described in barbaric terms;
they were hardly any more civil than the bestial inhabitants of the Antipodes. Second, not only did he not act with
papal approval, Frederick II acted in open defiance to the authority of Gregory IX. While this was not the first, nor
would it be the last, time a regent defied the papacy, it was still a significant statement.
While Frederick's Crusade was, from some perspectives, a success, it was nonetheless met with disapproval by
many Europeans when the concessions he made to the Muslims became known. Frederick spent his childhood in
cosmopolitan Sicily and had been exposed to Islamic culture and practices for much of his life.38 This perspective,
foreign to most Europeans, put him ahead of his time; the view of Muslims as people of reason, while accepted
amongst those Crusaders who had stayed in the Holy Land for some time, would not gain traction for another
hundred years or so. Whereas Frederick's own account to Henry III of England focused on the glory of his
achievements and even described the lands given to the Christians as “surrender[ed]”39 by the Saracens,
1111
contemporary European accounts paint him in a much different light. The patriarch of Jerusalem, Gerold, wrote his
description of Frederick's Crusade shortly after the events took place. He detailed how “astonishing, nay rather,
deplorable, the conduct of the emperor has been in the eastern lands from beginning to end, to the great detriment of
the cause of Jesus Christ”.40 In his strongly worded letter, Gerold commented on Frederick's interactions with the
Muslims with a suspicious eye and accused him of showing preference toward the Muslims over the Christians.41
While Pope Gregory IX, the one who had excommunicated Frederick in 1240, had died in 1241, his successor
retained the hostilities toward the emperor. In 1248, Innocent IV sent out a call for Crusade across Europe,
requesting that his audience “preach a crusade against the aforesaid Frederick; and that you also cause suitable men
to preach the crusade frequently and solemnly”.42 The Fourth Crusade was shocking in its assault on the Eastern
Christian empire because the crusaders were spilling the blood of fellow Christians, which is emphatically and
repeatedly preached against and had been ever since the first council at Clermont.43 Now the pope himself is calling
for a crusade against a secular ruler who had been excommunicated because of political reasons. The similarities
between the early Crusades and this movement are few and far between. Innocent IV did “grant the remission of
sins – which was granted in the general council to those who went to the succor of the Holy Land”44 but was
advocating attacks on Frederick's European holdings. He declared this to be as legitimate as any of the earlier
Crusades. While the papacy admonished the armies of the Fourth Crusade for abandoning their quest to the Holy
Land to engage in politically and economically motivated warfare against fellow Christians, that is exactly what
Innocent IV did in this situation. Frederick had an ongoing political conflict with the papacy beginning with
Gregory IX and it continued into Innocent's reign. The two European powers were political rivals and Innocent IV
used his papal authority to declare a crusade against Frederick's empire. While the crusade never came to fruition, it
bore more resemblances to the botched Fourth Crusade than to the earlier movements.
In all of these varying conflicts collectively known as Crusades, the one unifying factor that never really changes
is the remission of sin. While the questions of whose sins are remitted and what is required for remission would
evolve over time, the defining characteristic of crusading can be said to be the promise of remission of sin. Even
Innocent IV's attempted crusade offered absolution equal to that received by those who made the pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. This was also a feature that separated the Crusades from other conflicts. The bloodthirsty dukes,
princes, emperors, and other various regents could not secure eternal life in the kingdom of heaven by spilling the
blood of their fellow Christians. Fulcher, in the context of the Crusades, even referred to this type of bloodshed as
“unjust private warfare against the faithful”45. This language, particularly the use of the word unjust, evoked the
Augustinian concept of when war is acceptable. The Crusades offered an opportunity for thousands to earn
forgiveness for their transgressions while simultaneously pursuing the various earthly rewards that a war could offer.
The varying motives, accomplishments, and explanations of the Crusades make them very difficult to define.
Over the course of the approximately 200 years they were ongoing, the Crusades varied significantly. Due in part to
failure to properly define what constituted a Crusade and in part to an overarching medieval desire to connect with
the past, a number of seemingly disparate events became a part of this central idea. The ways in which
contemporary sources recorded these happenings and represented them in the context and understanding of their
own times are what give them their identities. The First Crusade was such a wild success that later movements
wanted desperately to make that connection to the moment of triumph and become a part of it. Romanticized
memory informed the rhetoric used to describe and support the Crusades.
The enterprising Germans who secured the right to expand the Crusades into the Baltic region of Europe opened
the floodgates for the ideal to be expanded in a number of different ways. St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Popes Urban
II and Eugenius III were reformers and effective propagandists, whose broad definitions and embracing of
Crusading culture allowed the movement to become more than a footnote in historical texts and helped turn it into a
broad theme. The Crusades are held together very much by the rhetoric used to describe them, more so than the
actual events they included. Remission of sins, “just war”, and the struggle against the other are all key aspects of
Crusading and part of the broader understanding that medieval people had of their world. In many ways, the
evolution of the Crusades and the rhetoric used therein mirror the larger shifts that occurred in the middle ages.
2. Acknowledgments:
The author would like to thank Dr. Sasha Pfau and the Hendrix College History Department for their invaluable
knowledge and assistance. He would also like to thank his friends and family for their never-ending support and
encouragement.
1112
3. References
1. “Papal Proclamation of the Crusade” excerpted from Dana Carleton Munro, in James A. Brundage ed., The
Crusades: Motives and Achievements (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1964), 9.
2. J.A. Giles trans., William of Malmesbury's Chronicle of the Kings of England (New York: AMS Press, Inc.,
1968), 361.
3. “Urban II's Call for a Crusade” excerpted from Robert the Monk, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The
Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 42.
4. “Urban II's Call for a Crusade” excerpted from Baldric of Dol, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades:
A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 44.
5. “Urban II's Call for a Crusade” excerpted from Fulcher of Chartres, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The
Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 40.
6. “Pope Leo IV (847-55) to the Franks” ,in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario:
University of Toronto Press, 2003), 19-20.
7. The Crusades: A Reader by S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., credits Pope John II for this reply in 878. However,
records show John II as being head of the Church from 533 to 535. John VIII was pope from 872 to 882. These
dates also coincide with the rule of Louis II, making it more likely that it was John VIII who issued this statement.
8. Allen and Amt, 20.
9. Allen and Amt, 20. (see footnote 7)
10. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the idea of crusading (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1986), 16.
11. Allen and Amt, 44.
12. Allen and Amt, 41-46.
13. Bruno Scott James trans., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953),
461.
14. James, 464.
15. Jonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades? (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1977), 23.
16. Christopher Tyerman, The Invention of the Crusades (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1998), 9.
17. Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, 24.
18. “The Conversion and Subjugation of the Slavs” excerpted from Helmold in J.B. Ross and M.M. McLaughlin
ed., The Portable Medieval Reader (New York: The Viking Press Inc., 1949), 417.
19. Eric Christiansen, The Northern Crusades: The Baltic and the Catholic Frontier, 1100-1525, (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1980), 51.
20. Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, 24.
21. James, 467.
22. Ross and McLaughlin, 419.
23. “Bull of Pope Alexander III, 1171”, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario:
University of Toronto Press, 2003), 269.
24. “Letter of Bernard of Clairvaux, 1147”, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario:
University of Toronto Press, 2003), 269.
25. Allen and Amt, 270.
26. Sir Frank Marzials trans., Memoirs of the Crusades by Villehardouin & De Joinville, (London: J.M. Dent &
Co, 1908), 26.
27. Marzials, 64-66.
28. James, 467.
29. Allen and Amt, 285.
30. Allen and Amt, 285
31. “Frederick II on his Taking of Jerusalem”, in S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader
(Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 288.
40. “Responses to Frederick II's Crusade” excerpted from the Letter of Patriarch Gerold, in S.J. Allen and Emilie
Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 291.
41. Allen and Amt, 293.
42. “Responses to Frederick II's Crusade” excerpted from Innocent IV's Call for a Crusade, 1248, in S.J. Allen and
Emilie Amt ed., The Crusades: A Reader (Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 294.
43. Allen and Amt, 41-47.
1113
44. Allen and Amt, 294.
45. Allen and Amt, 40.
1114