Download 1 The Crusades have often been viewed largely as a

The Crusades have often been viewed largely as a French affair. And rightfully so,
considering that the First and Second Crusades were initiated by the French, and blessed by Pope
Urban II and Pope Eugenius III, both of whom were French. However, other countries did make
significant contributions to the Crusades, in one way or another. England, Italy, and Hungary all
played crucial roles in the later Crusades. But it is the influence of the leadership of Conrad III
and Frederick Barbarossa, on the Second and Third Crusades that will be the primary focus of
this paper. Why did the German rulers Conrad III and Frederick Barbarossa go on crusades?
My research will demonstrate the importance of the presence of the German leaders, Conrad III
and Frederick Barbarossa, during both crusades because their presence was a military necessity
for such huge undertakings to even be considered. The traditional emphasis of superiority by the
Germans permeated their culture, and was very much a part of the crusader belief. Additionally,
German political connections in Constantinople1, as well as the knowledge of the land route to
the Latin East, from Western Europe, was essential if the Crusading armies were to make their
way from Europe to the East.
The German defeat at Dorylaeum, in October 1147, during the Second Crusade, and the
drowning of Frederick Barbarossa, in June 1190, during the Third Crusade, were disastrous
events, essentially ending any further effective German contributions to either crusade.2 What
began with the German leadership fulfilling its duties to God and the Church, by taking up the
cross in Western Europe, ended with the failure of both crusades. It was, however, the impact of
the Catholic Church on the German leadership that most influenced Conrad, and is most evident
through the preaching of the Second Crusade, by Bernard of Clairveux. Bernard traveled
throughout German provinces to recruit for participation for the Second Crusade, specifically
1 that of Conrad. Pope Eugenius III had given Bernard the task of recruiting the German king, and
those noble princes that supported Conrad.
Two obstacles that opposed Bernard’s religious agenda were Conrad’s enemies, Welf of
Bavaria, and the pagan Slavs to the north. Bernard’s task was to sway Conrad’s chief opposition
within Germany, Welf of Bavaria, in order to smooth over any fears Conrad had about leaving
for the Holy Lands, with Welf free to take control of Germany.3 An additional trouble spot for
Bernard was the unsettled pagan tribes in Northern Germany, and the threat they posed to
German Christian territories. Bernard addressed the issue with Eugenius, who included a
military expedition against the Wends as a smaller “part of the Second Crusade.”4 Essential for
any monarch to leave his kingdom during the Crusades was the knowledge that all significant
affairs were in order before going on crusade.5 To lay Conrad III’s concern to rest, Eugenius
permitted the military actions against the Slavs by Christians, stating “unequivocally that the
goal of the Wendish Crusade was to be the enemy’s conversion to Christianity.”6 Knowing that
the interior of his realm was secure, as well as the Northern borders, east of the Elbe River,
Conrad III was able to take up the cross, on December 27, 1146. Otto of Freising writes of the
event, that Bernard “persuaded the king with Frederick, his brother’s son, and other princes and
illustrious men to take up the cross, performing many miracles both publicly and in private.”7
Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, later became the king of Germany, following
Conrad’s death, in February 1152.8 Otto writes that Frederick Barbarossa was crowned king,
and not Conrad’s young son, who was also named Frederick, because of the necessity of
blending the two powerful German families to create a lasting peace. The Hohenstaufen and
Welfs of Bavaria were both represented in Frederick Barbarossa’s bloodline. Frederick was
chosen as king because of this lineage, to which Otto writes, “Frederick, duke of the Swabians,
2 the son of Duke Frederick, was sought by all. By the favor of all he was raised to the rank of
king.”9 Traditionally, the German king was crowned in Aachen, where Charles the Great was
also placed upon the throne, and then later crowned in Rome, as the Holy Roman Emperor.10 On
June 18, 1155, Frederick was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the pope. Otto of Freising
describes the event, “Then after the solemnities of the Mass had been celebrated by the pope
himself, the king, attended by his knights under arms, received the crown of the empire, with the
appropriate blessing. All who were present acclaimed him with great joy, and glorified God for
so glorious a deed.”11
The process of being crowned the Holy Roman Emperor cemented the relationship
between the German king and the Pope. Conrad III would more than likely have been crowned
by the Pope, had he lived to travel to Rome. However, for both Conrad III and Frederick
Barbarossa, the necessity of going on crusade was interwoven into their role with the Church.
The process of becoming the Holy Roman Emperor required both the permission and blessing of
the Holy See. In essence, the Pope established an element of control by the Church over the
emperor. To this point, Tal Alkopher writes:
The Papacy’s influence was especially salient from the 11th century in the context of the
struggle between ecclesial and political-military authorities over the power to determine
feudal Europe’s identity. The termination of the Investiture Controversy meant the
subjugation of the Emperor to the Pope and the codification of new laws expressing the
Pope’s superiority. The Papacy won partly because secular authority lacked the capacity
to offer an alternative “truth” at this stage. Values of courtly love, honor, and chivalry
did not supply enough purpose or meaning to enable kings and Emperors to legitimate
conduct.12
Conrad III entered the Second Crusade, along with Louis VII of France, as being the first
monarch to go on crusade. It was to become expected of the kings of Western Europe to lead a
crusade, to fulfill their duty to the Church, and increase their legacy.
3 Additionally, the very idea of a king or Emperor not answering to the papal bull issued by
a pope, calling for a crusade to the Holy Land, would quite clearly have been viewed as
“opposing the will of God. Accordingly, the function of the secular ruler was to execute the
Pope’s, this is, God’s will.”13 In Conrad’s case, he had a desire to become the Emperor, and it
therefore should be considered as a significant motivating factor for taking the cross and going
on the Second Crusade. In the case of Frederick Barbarossa, who had been the Holy Roman
Emperor for more than 30 years before going on crusade, it was simply a matter of course. For
Frederick Barbarossa, not going on the Third Crusade simply was not an option. Frederick’s
leadership on the Third Crusade, although cut short in 1190, when he drowned in the Self River,
was benefitted greatly by his experiences from the Second Crusade, as well as his knowledge of
the land route to the Holy Lands.14 For it was only the German Army during the Third Crusade
that traveled along the land route used during the Second Crusade, through Hungary, to reach the
Holy Lands.
Germany’s location in the heart of Europe required crusading armies that took the land
route to Constantinople to pass through Hungary. Thus, the French had to follow Conrad III’s
crusading army during the Second Crusade, passing through Germany. So too, the French and
English armies of the Third Crusade, had they not gone via the sea route, through the port of
Vienna. In fact, without the land route through Germany, the only other viable options were the
Italian ports of Venice, Pisa, or Genoa. Subsequently, the matter of a less than pleasant
relationship between the Germans and Hungarians played significantly. The German attitude
towards the Hungarians were frequently hostile. Otto of Freising had little positive to say about
the Hungarians, writing that they were “a thoroughly savage race.”15 Continuing in his dislike,
Otto states, the “Hungarians are of disgusting aspect, with deep-set eyes and short stature. They
4 are barbarous and ferocious in their habits and language. One seems justified in blaming fortune,
or rather in marveling at divine patience, that has exposed so delightful a land to such-I will not
say men, but caricatures of men.”16
Otto was clearly a voice for his generation, and his relative, Conrad III. Likewise, the
organizers of the Second Crusade focused on the Hungarians as a potential obstacle for a land
route to Constantinople. Furthermore, Otto of Freising writes, “A great conflict is expected
between our kingdom and that of the Hungarians.”17 Historian Jonathan Phillips writes of the
fighting between the Germans and Hungarians, in 1146, and the brokered peace between them
that would allow the crusading armies to pass through Hungary. It was, says Phillips, at the
personal request of Bernard and Louis VII to the king of Hungary that made the land route a
possibility.18 Once secured, the land route through Hungary provided a course that followed
along the shores of the Danube River, leaving Regensburg, and flowing south through Hungary,
into Bulgaria.19 As a result of Conrad’s leadership, in addition to the familiarity that German
crusaders had of the land, they reached Branitz in late July 1147, with the French army, under
Louis VII, following that route.
What can also be gathered from the necessity of Conrad III going on the Second Crusade
was the manner in which Frederick Barbarossa also led the Third Crusade. The Hungarians,
under the reign of King Béla III, accepted Frederick Barbarossa’s use of Conrad III’s land route
during the Third Crusade with much friendlier terms.
Hungary served as a “transit area and
provisioning ground, just as earlier it had provided safe passage for Christian pilgrims making
the journey to the East.”20 The fact that the French and English armies did not pass through
Hungary was of little matter. The overall charge of a crusade to the Holy Lands in 1188, along
with the alliances between the Hungarians, the French, and the English, through marriage, made
5 Frederick’s passing much easier.21 What can be gleaned from that passage, and the easing of
tensions between the Germans and Hungarians, as compared to that of the Second Crusade, was
a closer relationship between the Western kings, and the focus of a common purpose. Frederick
Barbarossa’s leadership was a necessity for going on crusade because he was able to utilize that
common purpose, which was to restore the Holy Lands to its rightful, Christian owners. The
difference between Frederick and Conrad III must be seen as a shift not only in Hungary, which
was a strategic necessity, but also from the standpoint of the Christian faithful. The idea of
crusading had become a religious agenda for Western Europe, on a much larger scale. For the
Third Crusade and Frederick Barbarossa, it simply meant that Béla III of Hungary was in line
with the fundamental ideas of going on crusade.
Fulfilling his vows to the Catholic Church on the Third Crusade, Frederick Barbarossa
also had his son, Henry VI, “occupying the Norman Kingdom of Southern Italy and Sicily.”22
When Frederick Barbarossa died in 1190, Henry VI went to the Holy Lands to take command of
the German army, or at least what was left of it. Regardless of the utter failure of the Third
Crusade, Henry’s decision was a reflection of what was expected of the new German king.
Joining the Third Crusade was merely a continuation of the style of leadership modeled for him
by his predecessors, Conrad III and Frederick Barbarossa.23 The German mentality towards
crusading, by this point, was part of a warrior ethos that had embedded itself into the mindset of
kings and nobles. Further evidence for the necessity of German leadership on crusades was
found in that warrior mentality of its leaders. Len Scales writes, “Under the Hohenstaufen, the
imperial mission of warfare for the Faith had crystallized in the belief that it was the emperor’s
duty to lead the crusade against the heathen.”24 It was an overwhelming sense of duty that
6 prompted Conrad and Frederick Barbarossa to take up the cross and go on crusade, thus making
the German effort one of necessity.
A sense of duty, however, was not specific only to German crusaders. Certainly several
noted examples of French, English, and Italian crusaders claimed the same attributes as Conrad
and Frederick Barbarossa. What made the German presence on crusade a necessity was the
belief that Germans were of nobler stock that other Europeans. Contributing to that belief was
the knowledge that Germans were responsible for the election of the Holy Roman Emperor,
given to them by the papacy, during “the time of Charlemagne.”25 Otto of Freising mentions that
the power of the Romans was also a German responsibility, stating, “Hence the government of
the Romans, which from Constantine down to this time was centered in the royal city — that is,
Constantinople — was transferred to the Franks.”26 The power deferred to a German Holy
Roman Emperor by the pope, established not only a link between the glory of the Roman
Empire, and the Germans, but also between God and the Germans.
Much of what the Germans realized about God and his representatives on Earth was
founded less on biblical fact and more upon the political ambitions of the Church. The belief of
the Hohenstaufen rulers, like Conrad III and Frederick Barbarossa, in “a direct blood tie between
Romans and Germans,”27 further explained why a warrior ethos, commonly seen in the Roman
Empire, was apart of the German crusaders thought. Supplemental to that type of superiority, as
misguided though it was, was the traditional German view of other Western European peoples,
specifically the French and Italians. Conrad and Frederick looked upon their neighbors from an
elevated position, and it certainly leant to their decision to go on crusade. To stay back in
Europe, while Louis VII, Philip II, or Richard I, went to the Holy Lands would have reflected
signs of weakness and inferiority. Len Scales explains that the Germans viewed the French as
7 “an effeminate people, calling for tutelage and a firm hand.”28 It was, therefore, a necessity for
Conrad and Frederick Barbarossa to crusade, quite simply because they would have lost that
appearance of superiority, if only to themselves.
It is clear from their military decisions that Conrad and Frederick Barbarossa made a
steady progression outward, further from German lands. Conrad and Frederick both had to
contend with the Normans of Sicily, for example, and part of the German identity with warfare
required that kings and nobles were to wage war. The crusades offered both German leaders the
perfect opportunity to fight, while at the same time, keeping their sense of warrior superiority
alive. The longstanding concern with the Norman territories of Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia,
within the larger context of impacting Conrad and Frederick, was that the king of Sicily, Roger
II, was both a political and military thorn in their side. The greater conflict, as it relates to the
Second Crusade, was further viewed through the German alliance with the Byzantines. Otto of
Freising describes the alliance between the two emperors, Conrad and Manuel Comnenus,
against Roger II of Sicily, stating, “And just as this custom was frequently observed between
these two emperors, for various considerations, after transference of the imperial title to the
Franks, so at this time also this compact was entered upon between John, the father of this
emperor [Manuel], and Conrad, against Roger who had invaded both empires.”29 As mentioned
previously, the “compact” included the marriage between Manuel and Conrad’s sister-in-law,
which occurred in January 1146.30
As Conrad certainly understood it, Roger II posed a significant threat not only to the
Greeks, but also to his own sovereignty.31 The provinces Holy Roman Empire included Italy and
all its territories, and under that, Conrad also included the Norman territories of Southern Italy
and Sicily. Roger II had established his own kingdom in Sicily, and with a powerful navy, was
8 able to extend his influence into North Africa, Greece, and Venetian controlled areas in
northwest Italy.32 Otto explains that with the start of the Second Crusade, Roger sent his navy
against the Byzantines, in 1147, in an effort to disrupt the German and Greek alliance.33
Conrad’s ally, Louis VII of France, took a less aggressive posture towards Roger II, but did not
allow for a direct anti-Byzantine alliance to develop during the Second Crusade. However, as
Helene Wieruszowski writes, for Conrad to turn his back on his alliance with the Greeks, in
favor of Roger II, would have undermined his own potential standing as the next Holy Roman
Emperor. Wieruszowski explains, “If Conrad had joined the Franco-Sicilian, anti-Byzantine
coalition, he might not only have helped to undermine one of the twin pillars of world order as
he had been impelled by circumstances to see it; he would also have sanctioned the usurpation of
imperial rights in southern Italy by the ‘tyrant of Sicily.’”34 The further necessity for Conrad to
go on crusade was made even stronger by Roger’s actions in the Adriatic, against the Greeks.
Frederick Barbarossa’s policies towards the southern Italians, as mentioned previously,
were similarly aggressive. His son, Henry VI, was married to Roger II’s daughter, Constance,
and was sent to reclaim southern Italy by Frederick Barbarossa as possessions of the Empire.35
In that effort, Otto explains that Frederick also established an agreement with Emperor Manuel
to overthrow Roger II’s son, William of Sicily. Frederick’s use of the land route to
Constantinople during the Third Crusade adds even greater evidence to the alliance with the
Greeks, which coincided with Frederick’s military campaigns in Italy.36 In the midst of those
campaigns, Frederick went to Rome and “received the crown of the empire, with the appropriate
blessing,” from Pope Hadrian.37 For Frederick, the necessity for going on the Third Crusade was
found in that role as emperor. With his son, Henry, securing southern Italy, Frederick was free
to take up the cross, and go on crusade.
9 The German leadership of the twelfth century was tested by the problems presented from
crusading. For Conrad III, to go on crusade meant making sure that the domestic opposition
presented by Welf of Bavaria, and those of the northern Slavic tribes, were secured beforehand.
Frederick Barbarossa’s reign saw a more secure Germany, with friendlier relations with
Hungary, making travel to the Holy Lands significantly easier during the Third Crusade. For
both German kings, however, it was the role of the Church, and their imperial obligations, that
made crusading a necessity. The existing alliance with Constantinople required each German
king to be faithful to the Greeks, despite the manipulative behaviors exhibited by the Byzantine
emperors. To be sure, both Conrad and Frederick Barbarossa had to go on crusade because they
were obligated to the relationship between political and religious ideals that simply came with
the job. Added pressure, too, came from the belief in the warrior ethos that was woven into the
fabric of German tradition. The very idea of crusading presented the Germans with an
opportunity to wage a war of good versus evil. Having been given a religious authority, from
God, and through the pope, established a certain license to conduct unlimited war against the
enemies of Christianity. Subsequently, the religious agenda established by the Church included
not only their family name, but, more importantly, created a sense of urgency within Conrad and
Frederick Barbarossa to make their leadership an essential part of both the Second and Third
Crusade.
10 Endnotes
1 Otto
of Freising, The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1994), 54. In order to solidify the bond between the Germans and Byzantines, Conrad
III gave the sister of his wife, Gertrude, in marriage to the son of the Byzantine Emperor John II Comnenus, Manuel
I.
2 Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy, 1016-1154, (New York: The Knickerbocker
Press, 1912), 230-231.
3 Jonathan P. Phillips, The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom, (London: Yale University
Press, 2007), 95.
4 Pegatha Taylor, “Moral Agency in the Crusade and Colonization: Anselm of Havelburg and the Wendish Crusade
of 1147,” The International History Review 22 (December 2000), 770.
Curtis, Roger of Sicily, 238. 6 Taylor, “Moral Agency,” 758.
5
7 Otto, Deeds, 74-­‐75. 8
9
Otto, Deeds, 111. Otto, Deeds, 115-116. 10 Len
E. Scales, “German Militiae: War and German Identity in the Later Middle Ages,” Past and Present 180
(August 2003): 48
11 Otto, Deeds, 150.
12 Tal
Dingott Alkopher, “The Social and Religious Meanings That Constitute War: The Crusades as Realpolitk vs.
Socialpolitik,” International Studies Quarterly 49 (2005): 725.
13 Alkopher,
14
“Social and Religious,” 725.
Alkopher, “Social and Religious,” 727.
15
Otto of Freising, The Two Cities, Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1928), 381.
16 Otto,
Deeds, 66.
17 Otto, Two Cities, 444. 18
Phillips, The Second Crusade, 132. 19 Phillips,
The Second Crusade, xxi.
11 20 James Ross Sweeney, “Hungary in the Crusades, 1169–1218,” The International History Review 3 (October
1981), 468-469.
21 Sweeney,
“Hungary in the Crusades,” 470.
22 Alkopher,
“Social and Religious,” 727.
23 Alkopher,
“Social and Religious,” 729.
24 Scales,
“German Militiae,” 52. 25 Scales,
“German Militiae,” 49.
26 Otto,
Two Cities, 353.
27 Scales,
“German Militiae,” 53.
28 Scales,
“German Militiae,” 64.
29 Otto,
Two Cities, 438.
30 Helene
Wieruszowski, “Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus, In the Twelfth-Century Political Thought,” Speculum
38 (January 1963), 61. 31 Hubert Houben, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler Between East and West, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002), 90.
32 Wieruszowski, “Roger II of Sicily,” 60.
33 Otto, Deeds, 69.
34 Wieruszowski, “Roger II of Sicily,” 64.
35 Alkopher,
“Social and Religious,” 728.
36 Otto,
Deeds, 125-142.
37 Otto,
Deeds, 150.
12 Bibliography
Alkopher, Tal Dingott. “The Social and Religious Meanings That Constitute War: The
Crusades as Realpolitk vs. Socialpolitik.” International Studies Quarterly 49 (2005):
715-737.
Curtis, Edmund. Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy, 1016-1154. New
York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1912.
Houben, Hubert. Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler Between East and West. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Otto of Freising. The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa. Translated by Charles
Christopher Mierow. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.
Otto of Freising. The Two Cities. Translated by Charles Christopher Mierow. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1928.
Phillips, Jonathan P. The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom.
London: Yale University Press, 2007.
Scales, Len E. “German Militiae: War and German Identity in the Later Middle Ages.”
Past and Present 180 (2003): 41-82.
Sweeney, James Ross. “Hungary in the Crusades, 1169–1218.” The International
History Review 3 (1981): 467-481.
Taylor, Pegatha. “Moral Agency in the Crusade and Colonization: Anselm of Havelburg
and the Wendish Crusade of 1147.” The International History Review 22 (2000): 757784.
Wieruszowski, Helene. “Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus, In the Twelfth-Century
Political Thought.” Speculum 38 (1963): 46-78.
13