THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

The First Crusade and the Redemption of the Gregorian Refom

THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

Robert Lloyd

Submitted to Swansea University. Department of Medieval Studies.

In partial fulfilment of Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies

September 2013

Word Count. 20942 referenced 18552 unreferenced

1


ABSTRACT

This work attempts to answer the question of how much, if at all, did the ideology of Gregory VII influence the First Crusade. It will attempt to show that much of the conceptual groundwork upon which the success of the crusade was built was attributable to Gregory VII. First it will look at how Gregory restructured the penitential practices of the day in order to give the greatest chance of salvation to the greatest number of people. This was achieved by emphasising the concepts of service an intention. Previously sinful actions were by this action rendered meritorious. It was also evident to Gregory that those engaged in such activities should be rewarded for their selfless service to their community and the Church. He considered that this sort of action could take the place of penitential obligation. He had formulated a conception of penitential military service that formed the backbone of the call to crusade. It will then look at Gregory’s proposed crusade plan of 1074 and show the similarities of this proposal and the actual expedition preached by Urban II. Urban’s sermon will be looked at to see the similarities between the two Popes ideas and the evolutions made by Urban. Finally by analysing the crusade chronicles it will be argued that the crusaders were spiritually self-aware and ready to impose their own spirituality on the contemporary situation. The histories of the later theologically trained monastic chronicler’s show that these men introduced a conception of the crusade that promoted theocratic values and that these theocratic values were essentially Gregorian in nature.

2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4

The Penitential System and its Gregorian Evolution 8

The Proto-Crusade that Never Took Place 24

Continuity and Evolution at Clermont 30

The Crusade as a demonstration of Gregorian Principles 42

Conclusion 60

Bibliography 61

3


INTRODUCTION

Urban II’s preaching of the First Crusade in November 1095 was a seminal moment in

the history of Western Christendom. It marked the start of a Christian warrior culture

devoted to the establishment of a Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. There were several

cultural and economic spin-offs that although not directly attributable to the crusade were

certainly influenced by it such as the development of chivalry and the development of

east-west trade links. It was the holy warrior culture, developed in the Orders of the

Templars and Hospitallers and exported, like the crusade concept itself to other areas

where Christians and pagans met and fought, in Orders such as the Teutonic Knights that

was the most enduring legacy of the crusade. This warrior-monk culture demonstrated

that there was a fraternity of aims and methodology between knight and monk, a filial

relationship that until the crusade would have been hard to maintain. Subsequent to the

crusade it became impossible to maintain the Christian pacific ethic so eloquently

expressed in Peter Damian’s words that “in no circumstances is it licit to take up arms in

defence of the faith of the universal church”1 Catholicism and warfare became enduring

bed-fellows.

Despite its appearance of unchanging stability the opposite is true. The church has

survived because it has been able to adapt to the demands of society, find a position for

itself at its very heart and retain its influential position. The eleventh century was a time

of religious change, a time when the papacy, under the sponsorship of Henry III, broke

free from the restraints of Roman family politics.2 Under the papacy of Nicholas II a

process for papal elections was established.3 An important step on the road to an

independent papacy had been taken and the successor popes had no wish to relinquish

their new found independence and return to papal dependency. A period of conflict

ensued. Due to the necessity of gaining secular support the papacy had to re-evaluate its

1 Cited in H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, (London: Hambledon, 1984) chp. X, p.19. 2 C Morris, The Papal Monarchy: the Western Church from 1050 to 1250, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) pp. 83-85.3 New Catholic Encyclopaedia, (London: McGraw-Hill, 1967) vol 10, pp. 441-42.

4


attitudes to the laity and, in order to gain support in the struggle with the imperial

authorities, offer them something unique. Under Gregory VII a revolutionary politico-

theology developed that equated military service rendered to the Church with absolution,

“the cardinal spiritual need of the day.”4 It was this equation of service and salvation that

was to have its greatest demonstration in the First Crusade.

The crusade demonstrated the benefits of enlisting in the Church’s service and fighting

for God. Its success was remarkable and implied that the crusaders really were employed

in a divine mission and received providential support. It also showed that the promised

remission of sins was a reality, the crusaders had gained salvation. The crusade

chronicles told a story of high adventure, unbelievable suffering and fortitude, sacrifice

and eventually the sweetest victory imaginable. But they, especially those written by the

reform minded monastic scholars of northern France, also told another story. They told of

a new form of spirituality that was apparent during and because of the crusade. This

spirituality was the new spirituality that the reform party advocated, one that advocated

the authorised use of force and perceived the necessary military service as meritorious.

Warfare transcended its sinful reputation and became an expression of Christian duty, a

way by which a person could gain salvation. As the instigator of the Crusade it was

Urban II who received the plaudits of the chroniclers. The Church militant was largely

his creation.

Modern historians have questioned this attribution. There now seems to be an almost

universal body of opinion that recognises the importance of Gregory VII in formulating

the conceptual framework that Urban applied to the crusade. Gregory’s transformation of

the theological landscape is recognised by Cowdrey, who points to his application of

spiritual language, such as militia Christi to the military field and his willingness to

recognise as saints those who had served his cause.5 He also recognises the fundamental

part played by Gregory’s own proto-crusade plans to Urban’s expedition, concluding “it

is more likely than not that Gregory’s plans were powerfully present in Urban’s mind

4 I S Robinson, ‘Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ’, in History, 58 (1973) pp 169-92, pp. 190-91 5 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XIII pp. 19-20.

5


when he preached his sermon at Clermont”.6 This expedition was proposed twenty years

before the preaching of the First Crusade and despite never coming to fruition bears

remarkable similarities with Urban’s expedition. Riley-Smith holds the view that this

proposal was not a fully formed crusade, but does acknowledge its powerful influence.7

He also views the monastic historians as essentially supportive of the crusade and

influential in its interpretation. In his opinion they attempted to put the crusade in its

correct theological position and presented the crusade as being faithful to the tenets of

monasticism. It was nothing less than a temporary monastery in motion.8 This is an

interesting assertion, the writers in question: Robert the Monk, Guibert de Nogent and

Baldric of Bourgueil where from the free, reforming monasteries and natural allies of the

reforming popes Gregory VII and Urban II and also from the crusading heartlands. They

had a vested interest in the reception of the crusade it promoted those ideas that were of

immediate relevance to them. It was in their interests to give it the best possible gloss, the

local aristocracy may be persuaded to employ their energies and commit their resources

to the Holy Land rather than in local rapine.

Another side of the equation has recently been considered the reception of the crusading

ideology by those likely to participate in such expeditions, the lay aristocracy. They were

generally favourable after all their most pressing need, salvation, was at stake. For Bull

this meant that the response to the crusade was little different than the common

aristocratic practice of monastic benefaction. Both were aimed at gaining salvation. They

were two roads to the same destination. The aristocracy in this conception supported the

crusade out of self-interest.9 Purkis believes the crusade is one, albeit the most graphic,

demonstration of a wider contemporary spirituality, both lay and clerical, that perceived

Christo-mimesis as the most important facet of religious practice. The imitation of Christ

brought a person closer to Him. As the crusade and the ‘reconquista’ could be promoted

and perceived as Christo-mimetic they could be promoted by religious leaders and

employed by the laity as a means of gaining salvation.10 Salvation is recognised as the

chief attraction in the call to crusade by medieval and modern historians and it can only 6 Ibid, chp. X, p. 40.7 J Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002) p. 758 J Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, (London: Continuum, 2009) pp. 135-52.9 M Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993)

6


be achieved by thorough penitential practice. Without penitential purification and

transformation there could be no salvation. Gregory VII recognised penance as the best

way of achieving individual and social salvation.11 It was his decision to offer its benefits

to the knightly classes without their having to change their practices that gained papal

policies popular support.12

CHAPTER 1

10 W. J. Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia, c. 1095-1187, ((Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008)11 S Hamilton,’Penance in the Age of the Gregorian Reform’, Studies in Church History 50, (2004), pp.47-73, on p. 57.12 I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp 169-92.

7


THE PENITENTIAL SYSTEM AND ITS GREGORIAN EVOLUTION

Penance is one of the Church’s most important sacraments. Its function is primarily

preventative, it protects the eternal life against the sinful contagion of the temporal life.13

As sin is an inevitable consequence of a terrestrial existence effective penitential practice

is essential for those who believe that the goal of the temporal life is preparatory to the

eternal, heavenly life, that it is a chance to prove one’s worth. In this respect penance,

through its ability to wipe away the taint of sin provides the means by which a person can

keep their baptismal purity in tact and thus is an essential component in the process of

redemption which leads to salvation. Just as baptism cleansed the taint of original sin and

restored purity, penance by removing personal sin also restored a state of purity. It is

effectively a spiritual second baptism that helps the prospect of salvation by removing the

barrier of sin. The medieval liturgy emphasised this aspect through the ritual cleansing of

a penitent at the time of reconciliation.14 Certainty of effectiveness is therefore essential

to the perception of penitential efficacy. One must be sure that the prescribed medicine is

an effective cure. Any cause for doubt can have devastating consequences. Security in the

effects, salvation, is dependant upon a belief that the prescription, a penitential obligation,

is effective. Effective penance had one central tenet, it was transformative. It produced an

irrevocable psychological change in the penitent that meant that they could no longer

return to their pre-penance sinful practices.15 This was the key element in the salvific

effects of penance; it not only assured absolution for sins it stopped their reappearance.

EARLY MEDIEVAL PENITENTIAL PRACTICE

13 S Hamilton,The Practice of Penance, 900-1050, (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2001) p. 2.14 Ibid, pp. 118-19.15 S Hamilton, Penance in Gregorian Reform, pp.54-57, 60.

8


For Sarah Hamilton the evolution of penitential practice can most easily be explained by

reference to a tri-partite model. This model conceives of the earliest forms of penitential

practice being public ceremonies; penitents, marked out by their wearing of cilicium,

sackcloth clothing confessed on Ash Wednesday and after Lent spent in penance were

reconciled on Maundy Thursday. It was, most importantly, a once in a lifetime

opportunity and for this reason it was usually delayed until advanced age. It is easy to see

how such a system could be ineffective, it fell into disuse and a system of private penance

involving only an individual and their priest evolved to take its place. The Carolingian

period saw a period of reform, the Church attempted to reinvigorate religious practices by

promoting the benefits of penance. Public sins merited public penance, private sins

private penance. This was the so-called ‘Carolingian dichotomy’. By the twelfth century

private penance was rapidly gaining the upper-hand and by the thirteenth the public

penance was dead.16 Private penance, like its public counterpart was, in the early stage a

two stage process with separate ceremonies for confession and reconciliation.17 This led

to certain inevitable questions being raised, if one was placed under a five year penance

and was reconciled at the end of Lent or in a private ceremony were they still under an

obligation to complete their penance?18 Perhaps more relevantly was the question of

when the penance became effective in terms of redemption, was it at reconciliation or on

completion.19

During the period several regional variations of the public and private penitential liturgy

were in use at least one of which, due to a lack of an absolution prayer for Maundy

Thursday suggested that absolution followed immediately after confession.20 These rites

were originally and principally for monastic use but their use did eventually filter down

and became part and parcel of secular spirituality.21 It was therefore possible for brothers

residing in neighbouring diocese to be subjected to different penitential rites. In an age

16 Ibid, pp. 2-7.17 Ibid, p. 1818 Ibid, pp.74-75.19 J Sumption, Pilgrimage. An Image of Medieval Religion, (London: Faber and Faber, 1975) p. 100; H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs in the Gregorian Reform, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) pp. 123-24; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XV, pp. 292-93.20 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp. 136-72. see pp. 161-62 for the implication of immediate absolution.21 Ibid, pp. 171-72.

9


which perceived the imminence of the End of Days and the Last judgement as an all too

present reality the security provided by effective penitential practice was tantamount.22

Different practices and uncertainty concerning redemptive efficacy lead to the door of

doubt being opened. A third element can be added to this mix, that of commutation. A

penitential obligation could be commuted from one form to another. A common form of

obligation imposed by a confessor was fasting. Under the terms of commutation a days

fast could be commuted to the reciting of the Psalter or alternatively the obligation to care

for the poor by hands on washing could be commuted to the provision of meals and

clothing.23 At Milan Peter Damian famously offered penance and terms of commutation

simultaneously.24 For Damian commutation was not supposed to be easy, his terms were

difficult. However in other instances financial or property payments were deemed

acceptable forms of commutation. The commutation became an easy option and led to a

perception that penance had an elective element. One could choose those terms they

found most favourable. The transformative element, essential to a truly effective penance,

could be bypassed in favour of a fine. There need not be any discernible behavioural

change or any discomfort, any loss of status or humiliation that were meant to reconcile a

person with the effects of their sin. Yet the benefits could be claimed.

One of the financial implications of this modus operandi was to draw the economy of the

church further into the lay orbit. Lay donation of property and rights had always been a

feature of the relationship between the church, particularly the monasteries, and the laity.

The laity conceived of it as a meritorious action and the church as a means by which land

could be transformed from secular land dedicated to secular purposes into spiritual land

and used for spiritual purposes.25 The beginning of the concept of donation began with

Luke’s words “Give and it shall be given to you”.26 Donations were given to a

foundation’s patron saint. The donator was in effect attempting to create a relationship

that made that saint beholden to him. When the Day of Judgement came the saint would

22 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 130-32; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, pp. 121-22, 129-30; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, pp. 21-22. 23 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp. 41-43, 203. 24 Ibid, pp. 186-88; S Hamilton, Repentance and the Gregorian Reform, pp. 62-63. 25 D iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion. Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and Islam (1000-1150), G. R. Edwards trans., (London: Cornell University Press, 1998) pp. 210-12. 26 Luke 6:38.

10


use his intercessory powers and plead the donors cause with God thus ensuring a

favourable judgement.27 The gift of the church of Fredelac to Cluny by Roger of Foix,

sometime between 1049 and 1064 illustrates this concept. Roger, for himself and his wife

undertakes “For the benefit of our souls and for those of the faithful, I, Roger, and my

wife, for the gaining of eternal life grant”.28 For Roger the arrangement was undeniably a

business arrangement, it had a quid pro quo character. For a gift of property Roger

expected to obtain eternal peace and salvation. It appears, that for the lay aristocracy,

benefaction was perceived as the best option. It offered a guarantee of salvation without

any attendant disruption to their lifestyle.

Marcus Bull believes that donation had a strong reciprocal element. Even when a

donation was not made with the specific intention of gaining salvation it was still

intended to insure that the donor’s temporal and spiritual desires were realised via the

medium of the monk’s spiritual regimen of prayer, fasting and self-mortification.29

Nowhere was this reciprocity of action more evident than at the monastery of Cluny. The

interaction of an aristocracy intent on gaining salvation and a monastic brotherhood

disposed to providing the means to salvation led to a growth in the wealth and renown of

the monastery and an evolution of liturgical practices. Cluny achieved fame as the asylum

poenitentium, the refuge of the penitents, during the early part of the middle ages.30 Its

business became the provision of services, be that lay confraternity, or through offering

intercessory prayers for the living and the dead. Cluny’s fame and prosperity was based

on its ability to provide these essential services better than anyone else.31 The monastic

profession was seen as the most effective way of securing salvation. The commitment of

monks to serve God and the personal sacrifices they made were perceived as an imitatio

Christi, an imitation of Christ, it was through the adoption of Christ’s lifestyle, the

paradigm of behaviour that all Christians aspired to emulate, that salvation was

achieved.32 Lay confraternity the acceptance into cloisters of men who wished to finish

27 D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 211-1228 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. 133. The Register of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), H. E. J. Cowdrey, ed and trans., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 1:70.29 M Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 157-61.30 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. `19.31 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. 127.32 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 22-23.

11


their lives in seclusion and focus on gaining redemption, was a choice reserved for the

wealthy and although not new was particularly developed at Cluny by Abbot Hugh

(1049-1109).33 It was becoming apparent that in the lay conception donation was

replacing or supplementing penitential obligation.34 Salvation, the purpose of penance,

could be bought, be that through the donation of land, the purchase of a lay confraternity

or the payment of a fine as a commuted penitential obligation. Christ was committed to

the rights of the poor. Could it truly be said that the penitential practice that was being

practiced looked after their rights and treated them equally with the wealthy? Did they

have equal aces to salvation? In many ways short-term amelioration of the needs of the

poor was the vehicle through which the wealthy bought penitential redemption

The latter half of the eleventh century was a time of renewed and growing spirituality

which saw traditional beliefs being questioned.35 It became apparent in the search for new

forms of spiritual expression and redemptive practices but perhaps most noticeably in a

new conception of monastic function and duty. By the early twelfth-century the new

monastic orders believed in a new way of making a living. Cistercians returned to the

Benedictine idea of involvement in physical labour as a means of providing a living. The

Carthusians believed that the true monastic purpose was carried out in the contemplative

solitude of the cell not in elaborate liturgy and that to fulfil their vocation and retain their

purity they had to be free from dependence on a benefactor.36 Bernard of Clairvaux’s

attitude is enlightening, he criticised his nephew Robert for abandoning the strict

observances of the Cistercians in favour of the luxuries of Cluny. This was a retrograde

step, one akin to apostasy.37 There was an element of fundamentalism in the air that

viewed the comfortable arrangements of benefaction and all it entailed, represented most

visibly by Cluny, as unfit for purpose and in dire need of reform. There was one common

thread to this change of attitude; the desire of the reform papacy to return the church to its

pristine, pure state. No one expressed these desires more eloquently than Gregory VII and

no one did more than he to promote the spiritual well-being of Latin Christianity.

33 M Bull, Knightly Piety, p. 161.34 Ibid, pp. 177-79.35 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 22-27.36 D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 225-27.37 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 27-28.

12


GREGORY VII AND THE REFORMATION OF PENITENTIAL PRACTICE

Gregory was a man of his time. Like all men of his era he felt the imminence of the End

of Days and the need to procure salvation. In his conception the world was in a state of

disarray due to mankind’s sinful nature. The remedy for both ills and also the one that

would secure salvation was penance.38 Penance was a spiritual panacea, the miracle cure-

all of its day. The medical metaphor is apt, elsewhere Gregory advised “apply the

medication of penance to the diseases of our faults and … with the help of power from

above … holy church will receive her long-desired peace and security.”39 A host of

individual penances collectively restored the purity and pristine state of the Church and

benefited the individual. Penitential reform was essential to the health of the Church and

the eternal life of individuals. It was the only means by which the majority of people,

those unable to choose monastic withdrawal could obtain salvation.

The penitential system was, as we have seen, in a state of disarray. The certainty that

people needed to govern their lives had been lost. Worse could be envisaged, the Devil’s

influence was omnipresent, he was subtle and manipulative and his words always

contained an element of truth.40 It was possible to conceive of the devil as inveigling

himself into the process and, through his manipulation of the process causing the loss and

damnation of countless souls. True penitential practice was therefore of the highest order

to a pope concerned with raising the standard of religious behaviour and the chances of

salvation. Correct penances had to be imposed by the correct authority this meant that

they would be effective and produced a profound change in behaviour that resulted in

individual transformation, there was no chance of the sinful behaviour reoccurring.41 By

these means the chances of salvation increased.

38 S Hamilton, Penance in Gregorian Reform, pp. 56-57.39 Register 8:9, p.374.40 D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, p. 182.41 Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.

13


In November 1078 Gregory wrote “False penances we call those that are not imposed

according to the authority of the holy fathers according to the nature of the offences”.42

Elsewhere he referred to these false penances as “Unfruitful when it is so received that a

man should persist in the same fault or else in a similar one that is worse or a little less”.43

A false penance was one that placed no obligation on the penitent to make a profound

change in his life. If a penitent was still engaged in the same or similar activities post-

penance as he was pre-penance then the penance was by definition false. It had not

produced the second baptism into a world free from the pollution of the original sin.

Could it truly be said that a fine or the confiscation of property produced a profound

behavioural change for the better and as Gregory commented led a person to “revert to

the beginning of faith and … renounce the devil and all his pomps”.44 If one believes this

to be the case then how much less likely is it that a voluntary donation could produce the

desired change?

The real thrust of Gregory’s decrees on true penance was the part it played in securing the

remission of sins, an integral step on the path to salvation. It was only true penance that

had remission of sins attached to it. It was only true penance that allowed a soul to revert

to the purity of baptism and renounce the devil and all his works.45 This brought a

spiritual rebirth and the beginning of a new life untainted by the sin of the old and

allowed an inner conversion from the ways of sin to the path of righteousness to take

place. “For this is true penance … each person should so turn himself to God that, having

abandoned all his iniquities, he should thereafter continue in the fruits of doing good

works”.46 A profound change of life was therefore inevitable for the truly penitent person

who was under a true penitential obligation. Their life was brought closer to the paradigm

of virtuosity displayed by Christ, it led to a more complete imitatio Christi. This

transformative effect was one of the features that distinguished the truly penitent and true

penance. False penance and a non-penitent individual neither produced nor underwent

42 Register 6:5b, p. 284.43 Register 7:10, p. 334.44 Register 7:10, p, 334.45 Register 7:10, p. 334.46 Register 7:14a, p. 341.

14


these affirmative changes. There was no change in the state of the individual and no

chance of redemption.47

Gregory also raised the question of inherently sinful professions.48 In his conception

certain professions including those that necessitated the bearing of arms were of

themselves sinful. Early penitential practice dictated that during the penitential period

penitents could not bear arms and following the completion of their obligations were

barred from ever again using them.49 Employment in them meant transgressing God’s

laws. The truly penitent must renounce such practices in order to achieve salvation,

however for Gregory this did not entail retirement from worldly affairs and withdrawal

within the cloister. It simply entailed renouncing such a situation and resorting to good

practice once the penitential obligation had been completed. He did however offer an

exception; the innate sinfulness involved in the practice of arms could be ameliorated if

they were employed in the furtherance of justice on the advice of religious men.50 He

advised such men to do good deeds and thereby be brought closer to the will of the

Divine and the necessity of penance.51

Later his advice to the warrior-class evolved, the bearing of arms was still considered

sinful however he admitted to certain circumstances when this may not always be so such

as the promotion of justice and protection of the church. He had introduced the concept of

service into the penitential-redemptive equation. This was a critical step and one without

which crusade ideology could not have evolved. It allowed him to articulate the

relationship between service, monasticism and salvation. Monastic service was

undertaken to glorify God it involved penitential practice and insured salvation therefore

the idea that any service undertaken for the glory of God had penitential and redemptive

value could be implied. The notion of service changed the nature of the bearing of arms.

It gained a positive interpretation and could even be viewed as an imitatio Christi, as

47 Register 7:10, p. 33448 Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.49 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 193.50 Register 6:5b.51 Register 6:5b.

15


Jesus claimed “even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve”. 52 What

constituted service was however conditional on “the counsel of religious men who know

how to give with wisdom such counsel as makes for eternal salvation”.53 Cowdrey

believes that his was a novel development in the Church’s teaching on, and attitude

towards, arms and penance, “here were the essentials of a contrast between warfare

according to the purposes of man and warfare as directed by the church towards an

acceptable end”.54 The bearing of arms was thus considered sinful unless it was

conducted under the auspices of the church. This may be considered revolutionary but it

is more rightly to be understood in context with the Investiture Controversy. Gregory was

asserting the primacy of the sacerdotal authority over the regnal authority. His concern

was less with the commanding of armies and more with the conditions under which they

could be deployed. The Gelasian principle held that God had instituted two powers in the

world, the sacred and the temporal, which together provided for the correct governance of

society.55 Gelasius had implied that the spiritual authority was superior. Gregory’s papacy

was concerned with articulating this superiority for contemporary society and aimed at

returning society to a purer, more religious state, one that was more pleasing to God and

one that was worthy of salvation.56 His assertion of the need for true penances to be

imposed according to the counsel of religious men and/or bishops was part of his socio-

political ideology.57 Penance was the medication that healed society and restored it to a

pristine state of virtue, the loss of this virtue was due to imperial usurpation of the Church

and its prerogatives, therefore no imperially appointed cleric could pronounce true

penance. The question became one of authority. Only papally sanctioned bishops and

confessors could impose a true penance, one that would lead to salvation and not

damnation. In the climate of the times it was a very shrewd though potentially divisive

move.

52 Mark 10:45.53 Register 7:10, p. 334.54 H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Crusades and Latin Monasticism, 11th-12th Centuries, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999) chp. 3, p. 24.55 C Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 , (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) p. 17; I. S. Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 296-97.56 Register 8:21. Gregory first makes the argument for the primacy of the see of Rome, pp. 388-90. He then presents the argument for the superiority of the sacred authority over the temporal, p. 390. 57 Register 6:5b, p. 284; 7:10, p. 334; 7:14a, p.341.

16


For Gregory the road to salvation was simple. It involved correct penitential practice

which insured that a person underwent a profound and lasting transformation. For this to

occur the penitent had to seek the instruction of a competent and authorised confessor and

accept the obligations imposed. Ideas that the laity regarded as guaranteeing redemption,

benefaction and confraternity on retirement, were misplaced and unacceptable. They

were not an alternative to correctly imposed restitution. Most importantly for crusade

purposes he removed the stigma of inherent sinfulness attached to military vocations.

Under Church direction military action could be deemed meritorious it became a service

that did not automatically merit punishment. Restitution of Church property had always

been perceived as a virtuous act. Now it could be restored via military action. He had

found a way of integrating the work and self-interest of the warrior class into the fold of

the Church. There was a clear distinction between those who worked justly and

meritoriously for the church and those who worked outside of such restrictions. Between

those who could expect salvation and those who could expect damnation. As Cowdrey

concludes “such service ennobled, and it raised the bearing of arms above the reproach of

sinfulness. It pointed to the crusade.”58 Perhaps more important is the assertion that

Gregory’s politico-theology was revolutionary because it introduced the most pressing

contemporary need the desire for absolution into the political arena.59 He also defined

how it could be achieved this was, as the example of monasticism amply demonstrated,

through serving God. It is difficult to see how the crusade could have succeeded without

this crucial revolution that held that penitential obligation could be framed, and fulfilled,

in terms of serving the Church.

MILITARY SERVICE AS A NEW ROAD TO SALVATION

58 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp. 3, p. 33.59 I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp. 190-91.

17


Christianity is an overwhelmingly pacific religion. Medieval canon law had little to say

on the ethics of warfare and prohibited the clergy from using weapons. Apart from Leo

IX’s disastrous engagement with the Normans the major church involvement in the world

of military affairs in the century before Gregory VII’s pontificate concerned the Peace

and Truce of God movements through which the Church sort to promote peace by

limiting the use of arms.60 Gregory’s decision to call the military classes to his service

was from this standpoint a reversal of policy that can most easily be explained by his

quarrel with Henry IV. The more relevant question, and answer, is how he persuaded

members of the knightly classes to flock to his banner. It is in answering this question

that we can see how Gregory provided the basis for a new conception of salvation

through justified violence.

Gregory’s solution was the articulation of a revolutionary politico-theology that

considered the arms-bearer as belonging to a clerical rank whose duty it was to fight the

temporal enemies of the Church. In return for this service he promised them there most

pressing spiritual need absolution.61 They were, according to this logic, servants of the

church, involved in the militia Christi, the warfare of Christ, and deserving of the same

rewards as members of the other clerical order involved in this warfare of Christ, the

monks. The term militia Christi was primarily a spiritual term which had been used by St

Paul to indicate that the warfare of Christ was a spiritual battle. It had come to be applied

to those, such as monks and martyrs who had made a contribution in the battle against

Satan and in the struggle to establish Christendom on earth.62 Gregory used this phrase

regularly and was the first pope to use it in a secular sense and apply it to members of the

laity who were prepared to do the Church’s work.63 It was a religious term that like so

many under Gregory became secularised and applied to those in the military classes who

supported his aims. It is indicative of his desire to standardise the perception of those

willing to serve the church.

60 C Morris, Papal Monarchy, p. 143.61 I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp. 190-91.62 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, pp. 19-20. 63 C Morris, Papal Monarchy, p. 146.

18


Bull argues that the practice of lay donation was indicative of the laity’s dissatisfaction

with their condition; he observes “Laymen supported ecclesiastical bodies for their own

good, particularly their own welfare. Participation on crusade was motivated by the same

concerns.”64 He believes that the laity’s overwhelming expression of self-interest was the

protection of their souls through the attainment of salvation. The most efficacious way of

achieving this would therefore be seen as the most attractive. A religious layman would

have had no difficulty in accepting the new conception and making the transformation

from pious benefactor to zealous warrior. He continued as a humble servant of God

however his martial prowess, not his financial muscle, now became the spiritual

expression that insured redemption. There was no longer any need to make benefactions

or seek lay confraternity for the peace of his eternal soul.

Within this conception it is interesting to note the letter Gregory sent to Abbot Hugh of

Cluny regarding his acceptance of Duke Hugh of Burgundy for monastic admission.65

This letter can be seen as bringing into focus many of the issues that concerned Gregory

and his new interpretation of the role of military men. First Gregory admonished Abbot

Hugh for accepting Duke Hugh into the cloister. Previously Gregory had written to Abbot

Hugh expressing his dismay at the lack of quality and love for Christ displayed by Latin

Christian leaders.66 As far as Gregory was concerned Duke Hugh was one of the good

leaders who could achieve more good in secular society than he could in the cloister.

Hugh by admitting into lay confraternity men of such quality was being inconsiderate of

the needs of the Church and the poor. Those seeking admission were also failing in their

duty to the Church by seeking retirement. Hugh should realise that such men and he were

being selfish, he should consider the bigger picture and persuade such men to stay in

society were their contribution was greatest. Abbot Hugh had deprived society of a

protector, he had “Brought it about that one hundred thousand Christians lack a

guardian”.67 Christian charity, consideration of the Church, the poor and the weak alone

should have been enough to dictate his actions. Gregory reminded Hugh of the maxim

64 M Bull, Knightly Piety, p. 166.65 Register 6:17.66 Register 2:49.67 Register 6:17, p. 299.

19


“He who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law”.68 Implying that Christian virtue was

not the sole preserve of the cloister it was the duty of every person and could be fulfilled

in many ways. In this letter Gregory had argued against the old conception of retirement

from society as being a precursor to redemption. It was good work that ensured salvation

and this could be performed in a temporal setting, so long of course that the work was

acceptable to the Church. The Duke had done meritorious work in society and could have

continued this work, this was his role and it was his work in this role that gave him

redemptive kudos. Withdrawal and the granting of permission to leave secular society

had become conceivable of as selfish acts and were no longer automatically conducive to

be seen as virtue or charity. Most importantly the definition of virtue, the imitatio Christi,

and the concept of the militia Christi had undergone a profound change and

transformation. Both had been imbued with secular as well as religious overtones.

Christian excursions into the field of warfare were always presented as just; they

therefore fulfilled the Augustinian prerogative of being faithful to the tenets of Christian

charity in that they were defensive and employed the minimum force necessary and that

they were called by the correct authority in the fulfilment of its duty to protect the peace

necessary to the functioning of society. Under such circumstances Christians had a duty

to obey their leaders.69 It was possible to present those who accepted the role of holy

warriors as fulfilling the demands of Christ more fully than non-combatants. Under such

circumstances it became possible to present warriors and warfare as an imitatio Christi,

both became imbued with virtue and were no longer seen as inherently sinful.70 To the

medieval mind it was, as Sumption points out, that “Only by imitating Christ the man

could one placate Christ the judge”.71 This gave men the best opportunity of gaining

salvation and under Gregory’s stewardship the way to placate Christ the judge was

increasingly being presented in terms of physically fighting for His rights. The policies of

the Gregorian Reform put the employment of arms in the cause of Christ firmly in the

68 Romans, 13:8.69 St. Augustine of Hippo, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, H. Bettenson, trans, (London: Penguin, 1984) 19:7, pp. 861-62; 19:12, pp. 866-70.70 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusaders and Latin Monasticism, chp, 3 p. 34.71 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, p. 135.

20


public domain and rallied secular adherents to its cause eager to claim their share of the

rewards on offer.

Leo IX was the first reformist pope to call for the use of force. He called for and led an

army against the Normans of Southern Italy. Their violent and rapacious activities in

made the claim that he was defending the rights of the oppressed believable,

unfortunately the campaign ended disastrously, at Civitate, 1053, the pope suffered a

decisive defeat.72 This episode may have been influential on Urban when he called the

crusade forty years later: firstly perhaps he realised that the pope’s correct position was

not leading an army, it was preaching, providing the reasoning and psychological

stimulus.73 Secondly he knew that as the Normans “prostrated themselves at his feet with

great devotion on account of their reverence for the Holy Roman See,”74 he knew that the

pope’s position was charismatic it emanated authority and could be used to foster

obedience. Lastly the Normans had good reason to believe, or at least their chroniclers

promoted the opinion, that they were providentially chosen to rid the area of its Moslem

and Greek inhabitants and return the area to Latin Catholicism and obedience to Rome.75

The concept of preordination was shown to be a powerful motivational tool. It

automatically legitimised participation in warfare. Such a conception could be used by

Urban to justify the crusade as an international attempt to restore the correct world order

on the grounds that the advent of Turkish militant Islam had adversely affected the

divinely ordained world order.76

The defeat at Civitate can be conceived of as fostering an air of caution in papal circles.

Instead of engaging in warfare support in the form of banners was offered. These banners

were a public announcement that the papacy saw the bearers cause as just, in 1059

Nicholas II gave a banner to William of Montreuil. The pontificacy of Alexander II saw

72 Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, P. N. Dunbar, trans, G. A. Loud, review, (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004) pp. 94; 99-101. Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, K. B. Wolf, ed. And trans., (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008) pp. 61-6273 Baldric of Bourgeuil, in E. Peters, ed, The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (second edition), (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998) p. 32.74 Geoffrey Malaterra, pp. 61-62.75 Amatus of Montecassino, G. A. Loud review, pp. 23-36.76 William of Malmesbury, Chronicle of the Kings of England, (London: George Bell, 1895) p. 360

21


the issuing of no less than four banners; to Erlembald of Milan, 1063, Roger, future

Count of Sicily, 1063, the leaders of the Barbasto campaign, 1064 and William of

Normandy, 1066.77

The most graphic illustration of the effects on the laity of the Church’s acquiescence to

the use of force is to be found in the life of the crusade leader Tancred d’Hauteville.

According to his biographer he was “a zealous adherent of God’s commands”,78 yet his

only motivation was the pursuit of glory, which was most readily gained through

excellence in warfare which inevitably entailed the spilling of blood. Over time he

realised that such a lifestyle was incompatible with the commands of God, this was the

cause of psychological stress which in turn prevented him from sleeping and undermined

his bravery.79 Consequently Urban’s call to crusade was a great liberation for Tancred, his

spirits lifted as a solution to his troubles was found. “Which of the two paths should he

follow: the Gospels or the world? His experience in arms recalled him to the service of

Christ. This two-fold opportunity for struggle energized the man”.80 Tancred and many

like him had been freed by Urban’s call to pursue their chosen knightly career under

Church direction and at the same time achieve the fundamental goal of medieval man,

salvation. It was Urban’s address at Clermont that was credited with granting Tancred

this new lease of life however it was Gregory VII who made the greatest contribution to

the new philosophy.

For Gregory VII warfare was acceptable if it upheld divine law and led to the correct

ordering of society.81 Gregory’s new philosophy provided a spiritually sanitised place for

the warrior at the heart of Christian society. He was no longer condemned to performing

penance for pursuing his inherently sinful profession His profession when devoted to the

Church was indivisible from that of monasticism they formed a fraternity that shared a

common vocabulary of service and self-sacrifice. The concept of service was all

important it distinguished between those who were engaged in sinful warfare and those

77 New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol II, pp. 51-52; C Morris, Papal Monarchy, pp. 145-46. 78 Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancred (A History of the Normans on the First Crusade), B. S. Bachrach and D. S. Bachrach, review and trans, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) p. 21.79 Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancredi, p. 22.80 Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancredi, p. 2281 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, p. 19.

22


who were engaged in meritorious warfare. The former merited penitential correction in

order to secure redemption, the latter was redemptive. It secured salvation and replaced

penance.

CHAPTER 2

THE PROTO-CRUSADE WHICH NEVER TOOK PLACE 82

82 I. S. Robinson, The Papacy, p.325

23


Just how much of the groundwork for Urban II’s great idea was laid down by Gregory is

debatable. It does however appear that Urban owed his predecessor a great deal and it is

perhaps in Gregory’s conception of an armed expedition to aid the Eastern Church that

this debt is most readily noticeable.83 Cowdrey believes that Gregory’s ideas were

influential on Urban and notes that the Liber Pontificalis maintains that he decided to

imitate his predecessor’s plans.84 Whether imitate is exactly the right term is debatable,

Urban’s plans were substantially different, more an evolution of Gregory’s ideas than an

imitation.85 There was also the question of inspiration Gregory’s expedition was the

product of the human mind whereas Urban claimed that the crusade was the product of

divine inspiration.86 All the evidence points to this being accepted by the crusaders, that

they generally believed they were employed on a divine mission and that they received

God’s help in its prosecution.87 Gregory for all his claims that the proposed work was

pleasing to God and represented Christian duty fell short of proclaiming divine origins.

The expedition accrued more religious significance as it evolved but remained firmly

rooted in the temporal realm, its origins always a response to Byzantine appeals. There

were differences but the similarities are also remarkable. Gregory’s initial proposal was

not, like Urban’s, the finished article but incrementally he added concepts that can be

seen as forming the basis of the later popes call to arms. If one takes into account some of

Gregory’s other, non-crusade, letters of the period then one can see the genesis of

additional themes that Urban developed and became central to his crusading address.88

On 9 July 1073, Gregory sent a reply to Emperor Michael VII of Constantinople. It was

very enigmatic and secretive and Gregory’s answer was of such import that he refused to

send a written reply instead preferring to send a representative to discuss the matters

83 Register 1:46; 1:49; 2:31 and 2:3984 H. E. J, Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XVI, p. 178; Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp. V, p. 737.85 J Riley-Smith, What Were The Crusades?, p. 75.86 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 50.87 Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana. History of the First Crusade, C. Sweetenham, trans, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) p. 81; Guibert de Nogent,Gesta Dei Per Francos. The Deeds of God through the Franks, )Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997) p. 28.88 Register 1:75; 2:5; 2:47 and 2:49.

24


raised in the letter.89 What those matters were we shall never know. It may have been that

the emperor had issued a call for military assistance once the implications of the Turkish

victory at Manzikert two years earlier had become clear perhaps it was a call for church

unification or aid in dealing with the Normans. Gregory was a new pope and had, to a

greater or lesser degree, an interest in all these areas, if of course we take the problem of

Islamic expansion as a single entity which included the Holy Land and Spain. Certainly

these areas are referred to in his subsequent appeals. It also bore a strong resemblance to

Urban’s claim that one of his principal reasons for issuing the call to Jerusalem was to aid

Byzantium.

Gregory’s first call was to Count William I of Burgundy, he reminded him of the promise

he made to his predecessor Alexander II to be available if summoned to fight for St

Peter.90 Gregory was now calling upon him to make good this vow in order to “uphold the

liberty of the Roman church”.91 He also asked him to notify several nobles, including

Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles (Toulouse) and informed him that Godfrey of Lorraine

would also take part in the proposed venture. Similarities with Urban’s crusade call some

twenty years later are apparent in this role-call; Raymond was a leading figure in the

expedition, and possibly one whom Urban sounded out before his public announcement

of the crusade.92 The House of Lorraine was also strongly represented. This cast of

characters lends credence to the idea that Urban was influenced by Gregory, many of

their confidantes were identical or of the same lineage. Gregory hoped that this army

would help to peacefully subdue his Christian opponents. Gregory was perhaps the

greatest proponent of the papal use of force, but he was no bloodthirsty warlord

preferring the employment of peaceful or at least, non-lethal means, to achieve his ends

were possible. It must be borne in mind that his overwhelming passion was the salvation

of souls and that the outcome of this proposed journey, aiding the Christians of

Constantinople, was conceived of as an act of Christian charity.93

89 Register 1:18.90 Register 1:46.91 Register 1:46, p. 50.92 J Riley-Smith, Idea, p. 13; Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History. Vol. V. Book IX, M. Chibnall, ed and trans, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975) p. 19, claims that immediately following the sermon ambassadors from Raymond of Toulouse arrived and confirmed that the Count and his army had already taken the cross.93 Register 1:49.

25


This letter was in part written in fairly non-committal language, it was a notice to

William to be ready in case the pope did make the call. A month later Gregory issued a

general call to defend the Byzantine Empire.94 The rhetoric of this letter was much more

bellicose than the first and the themes of pagans slaughtering Christians, their being at the

walls of the city and it being a Christian’s duty to aid his oppressed brothers anticipated

those themes enunciated by Urban at Clermont.95 Gregory’s explicit mention of the word

charity indicates that he was seeking to link the proposal to the concept of a virtuous and

meritorious act. It was an important step in the conceptual process of conceiving of the

correct use of force employed within the correct boundaries and aimed at a just goal. In

this case, just as twenty years later, it was the liberation from oppression that was

meritorious. Gregory’s appeal falls short of Urban’s in that he gave no concrete payoff in

the form of salvation for those he had called to arms. For him compassion and duty were

enough motivation to call men to arms and commit to a unique and uncertain campaign.

Urban by promising his constituency a tangible benefit shows himself to be a superior

psychologist and far more able to appeal to mans innate needs.

Gregory’s third letter, addressed to the emperor Henry IV is interesting in that by

proposing that the expedition continues to the Holy Sepulchre it anticipated the great

mobilising myth of Urban’s call.96 It was a call designed to appeal to the emotional core

of western Christendom. It may be pertinent to ask why Gregory now associated the Holy

Sepulchre with his call and why at this time did he also state his intention to personally

lead the expedition? Perhaps recruitment was low, there were nine months between the

calls, and he realised the need to present a greater goal to the western princes. Did he

believe that mention of the Holy Sepulchre would stimulate the charitable and altruistic

instincts of those princes? Did he believe that he would act as a figurehead around whom

others could rally or did he conceive of leadership as being his personal responsibility?

The answers lie in the realm of conjecture, however a concrete proposal concerning the

Holy Sepulchre, one that became central to Urban’s call, had been broached.94 Register 1:49.95 For Urban’s speech see; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 42-45; Robert the Monk, pp79-82; Baldric of Bourgeuil, pp. 29-30; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 52-53; William of Malmesbury, pp. 359-63.96 Register 2:31

26


It was in his final letter that Gregory most fully anticipated the appeal of Urban.97 He

introduced the idea that it was the devil who wished to deny the Catholic Church and his

minions that were responsible for the attacks on Constantinople. The situation had

evolved from an essentially secular one to a spiritual one that incorporated the fears of

the imminent apocalypse and God’s Judgement, again anticipating themes which are

highlighted by near-contemporary monastic historians of the First Crusade.98 But it is in

the hints of eternal rewards that we can see the greatest anticipation of Urban. Gregory

writes “lest we, by giving our life for our brothers be crowned”.99 It is hard not to

conclude that Gregory is implying a martyrs crown for those who died on his expedition.

Martyrdom guaranteed salvation and martyr status was attributed to the dead of the First

Crusade.100 Gregory also wrote

“Therefore, most beloved brothers, be very strong to fight for that praise and glory which surpass all desire – you who hitherto have been strong to fight for things that you cannot keep or possess without sorrow. For through labour that is for a moment you can gain an eternal reward”101

There was an anticipation of Urban’s exhortation of the Franks to give-up their worldly

battles, to desist from civil wars and fight for Christ here. This theme had also been

applied by Gregory to the French situation, as were its root causes, the decline of French

kingship and the rise French knightly classes.102 The transformation of warfare and its

goals, from the secular to the spiritual, was, in Urban’s conception central to its salvific

effects. Most interestingly there was the connection between this work and a heavenly

reward. Gregory was hinting at gaining salvation through fighting for the Church. It may

be that his message concerning salvation may be regarded as applying to those who have

lost their earthly life in serving God but the suggestion of salvation and martyrdom is

there. It did not take a great leap of imagination to consider the strength of desire of

eleventh century man for salvation and apply this concept universally. This leap of the

imagination can be understood if one considers Gregory’s words to his supporter William

VI of Poitou. For his willingness to serve St Peter on the proposed expedition Gregory

97 Register 2:37.98 Guibert de Nogent, pp. 43-45; William of Malmesbury, pp.359-63 99 Register 2:37, p. 128.100 J Riley-Smith, Idea, pp. 151-52.101 Register 2:37, p.128.102 Register 1:75 and 2:5

27


promises “For you there has also been laid up with God a full reward for your good

will”.103 The implication is clear salvation was obtainable for those who willingly did

God’s work. When this is taken in conjunction with his promise of “an incorruptible

inheritance amongst the saints of God in the heavenly kingdom, having received the

forgiveness of sins through the inexpressible clemency of God”104 given to the citizens

and nobles of Chiusi for refusing aid in the misappropriation of Church property it seems

as though the basics of Urban’s call had been pre-empted by Gregory. Taken as a whole

there seems to be ample evidence to conclude that Gregory’s call to arms provided the

blue-print for Urban’s armed pilgrimage. It was more than a reference point, it indicated a

target that would appeal to the psychological and emotional drives of his constituency

highlighted the spiritual and religious fears that could be manipulated, it nominated

potential allies, anticipated the rhetoric used and the rewards to be offered.

Gregory’s crusading plans of 1074 were formulated early in his reign, his

pronouncements on penance were not made until much later and his ideas regarding the

acceptability of military service were on-going throughout his papacy. When one

considers that he had touched upon many of the issues fundamental to Urban’s crusade

plans and had provided much of the groundwork, particularly that which led to the

equating of military service with Church service and also affirming that such service,

under the right circumstances far from being inherently sinful was, in fact, meritorious. It

is interesting to ask how close he may have come to Urban’s conception if his ‘crusading’

opportunity had come in the last two years of his reign. Any attempt at an answer would

be highly speculative. He showed no conception of associating his expedition with

pilgrimage or promoting it as the work of God, yet one can’t help thinking that the link

between the meritorious use of force and its equation with salvation may have received

greater stress, that the two notions may have coalesced. At least one observer believes his

politico-theology was revolutionary because it involved absolution.105 This implies that in

the right temporal framework Gregory’s crusade would have gained the prize of

absolution.

103 Register 2:3, p. 95.104 Register 2:47, p. 138.105 I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp. 190-91.

28


There was close contact between the two men. Urban was a keen supporter of Gregory’s

reforms who saw as his duty to carry on his mentors work. In 1080 Gregory promoted

Urban to the cardinal-bishopric of Ostia which was seen as the senior cardinalship in the

Church. From this position he served as a papal legate in 1085 and he was nominated by

Gregory as a potential successor.106 This implies that the two men were philosophically

close and shared many of the same goals. As the self-proclaimed heir of Gregory it is

inconceivable that he would not have shared his dreams of influencing the events in the

east, studied and thought of ways of improving on Gregory’s proto-crusade.

CHAPTER 3

CONTINUITY AND EVOLUTION AT CLERMONT

106 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, pp. 58, 169-70; C Morris, Papal Monarchy, pp. 120-21.

29


Gregory VII and Urban II had a close working relationship and were philosophically

compatible. Urban’s pontificate can, in a certain sense, be considered as a continuation of

Gregory’s. This was certainly how Urban

Saw it, he wrote “Believe about me just as about the blessed Gregory. I want to follow

wholly in his footsteps … Whatever he deemed right and catholic, I affirm and

approve”.107 History has proved the truth of this assertion. Urban continued the reform

policies of Gregory and, with the advent of a call for aid from Byzantium, had the chance

to resurrect his predecessor’s plans.108 It was an appeal to justice inherent in aiding

Byzantium and the Eastern Church that underlay the development and orientation of the

crusade, it was the promotion of justice that entitled the use of force to be conceived of as

virtuous. Aiding Byzantium also afforded Urban the chance to institute and evolve

Gregory’s politico-theological theories. Urban added the idea of pilgrimage but the basics

of his plans had been articulated by Gregory. Urban stressed certain ideas more than

Gregory, particularly those of Christo-mimesis and the idea that such service could return

the Church to a state of apostolic purity.109 But the core of crusade ideas and the terms of

reference remained unequivocally Gregorian. The crusade offered the opportunity to

promote these ideas. The success of the crusade saw these ideas, particularly those

linking salvation and military service in God’s name, become fixed in the western

religious consciousness.

POPE URBAN’S SERMON

There can be little doubt that the crusade was a product of the reform papacy, what its

exact function was however is still hotly debated. Somerville believes that the Council of

107 Cited in H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp. 1, p.p. 80-81.108 C Tyerman, God’s War. A New History of the Crusades, (London: Allen Lane, 2006) p. 61. The initial approach was via a Byzantine embassy at Piacenza, March 1095. Most of the chronicles refer simply to an appeal from the east.109 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 30-58.

30


Clermont was one of the most important councils of the medieval period even without the

calling of the crusade. For him the amount of space given to it by Giovanni Mansi,

testifies to its importance as a council of the first rank.110 That it was overwhelmingly a

reform council can be seen from the reports of its business and the canons it instituted in

the crusade histories.111 Its reformist credentials are perhaps most succinctly stated by

Orderic Vitalis, “The Church shall be catholic, pure, and free; catholic in faith and in the

communion of the saints pure from every taint of evil, and free from every secular

power”.112 The position of the Church as pure and free from evil implies that its decisions

and their implications are free from evil. Therefore the crusade and all it entails was free

from evil. The assertion of Church purity is enough in itself to raise the council’s

offspring, the crusade and the bloodshed it implies free from the inherent evil that was

attached to warfare in the pre-Gregorian period. The claim that the Church shall be free

from secular power demonstrates not only the reformist’s main aim but also implies the

spiritual nature of its outcomes such as the crusade. The crusade is worthy as, following

the conception of Gregory VII, it lies firmly within the remit of the Church. It is untainted

by secular interest.

The crusade chronicles that report on Urban’s crusade sermon all, to a greater or lesser

degree place the calling of the crusade within the confines of the Council of Clermont. It

may have been extra-curricula business, but it was still council business, and for one eye-

witness, Fulcher of Chartres, who completed his work a generation after the event, the

most important business of the council.113 It is interesting that Fulcher, Orderic and

another later commentator William of Malmesbury devoted a large amount of their

commentary to the canons of Clermont; it was roughly equivalent to the space devoted to

Urbans speech.114 The earlier commentators who give an account of Clermont focus

almost exclusively on Urban’s sermon and its effects on those in attendance. The

110 R Somerville, The Councils of Urban !!. Volume !. Decreta Claremontensia, (Amsterdam: Adolf M Hakkert, 1972) p. 7.111 Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 50-52; Guibert de Nogent, pp41-41; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-15; William of Malmesbury, pp. 356-58. Also R Somerville, Decreta Claremontensia, pp. 143-50, provides a list of the 61 known canons of the council.112 Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-13.113 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 52. E Peters, introduction to Fulcher’s chronicle for date of completion, p.47.114 Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 49-53; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-19; William of Malmesbury, pp. 356-63.

31


implication is that a generation after the crusade it had succeeded in establishing the

Church as the dominant partner in the Church in the Church-State relationship. It had

realised Gregory’s political ambitions. For the earlier chroniclers the council

contextualised the crusade temporally, for those later the crusade contextualised the

council politically.

What Urban said at Clermont will never be known, the recordings of it vary. This can

however be seen positively, it indicates what each chronicler thought was important or

what he thought the pope should have covered. It may also serve to indicate what themes

and concepts became important in the immediate aftermath of the crusade. Its success

may have coloured the reports of its initiation.115 In 1074 the Byzantines, in need of

assistance possibly due to Turkish incursions, had approached Gregory. The Turkish

advance had not abated, now Byzantium once again looked west. Urban had the chance

to assume Gregory’s mantle and realise those ideas his predecessor had articulated. Those

that concerned the defensive use of force in the pursuit of justice and the reward of

absolution for the sacrifices made in the pursuit of such service were deemed particularly

relevant to the eastern situation.

The chroniclers agree on the fundamental position of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre

in Urban’s appeal at Clermont.116 The idea of Jerusalem meant that it held a place in the

medieval imagination like no other city. It was the only place where true Christo-mimesis

could take place and the call to free it was an invitation to partake in the greatest of all

Christo-mimetic actions.117 An appeal to free it from the yoke of Turkish oppression was

therefore likely to elicit an unsurpassable emotional response. The intimate connection of

the city with Christ assured it of a status and a place in the conscience like no other.118 It

was the “navel of the Earth”,119 the connecting point between this world and heaven, the

115 J Riley-Smith, Idea, p. 16.116 Anonymous, Gesta Francorum. The Deeds of the Franks and the other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, R. Hill, ed., (London: Thomas Nelson, 1962) p. 1; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 49-53; Robert the Monk, pp.79-82; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 42-45; Baldric of Bourgueil, pp. 29-33; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 15-19; William of Malmesbury, pp. 358-63.117 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp, 30-47.118 Robert the Monk, p. 81. Also D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 165-66.119 Robert the Monk, p. 81.

32


earthly image of the celestial paradise, the epicentre of Christianity.120 For Urban’s

purposes the emotional appeal of Jerusalem was an added benefit, an aid to recruitment,

the fundamental issue was Turkish occupation and oppression.

It was undoubtedly true that Jerusalem belonged to the Christian people and housed many

of its most important monuments therefore it was on the grounds of justice and the

defence of those unable to defend themselves that Urban could, within the Gregorian

conception, issue a call to arms. Christian warfare was in the Augustinian conception

altruistic, he argued, “it is the injustice of the opposing side that lays on wise men the

duty of waging wars”121 by their actions the Turks had proved themselves unjust, duty

demanded that this injustice was remedied. Those heeding this summons would, by

definition, be involved in a meritorious act and one that lay outside the framework of

penitential censure. The self sacrifice they were prepared to make in serving the needs of

justice would in fact allow their work to be brought within the penitential realm and

viewed positively as an act of penance itself which ameliorated previous sin. William of

Malmesbury added an extra dimension to this conception of justice. He argued that the

pagan races, the Turks and Saracens, had by their expansion laid hold of parts of the

world that by divine ordination belonged to others. Their removal was therefore just and

those that undertook it upholders of the principles of justice.122 William was one of the

later chroniclers, writing some forty years after Clermont. There can be no doubt that this

appeal was designed to legitimate the on-going warfare waged by Christians in their

attempts to regain lands lost to the nations of Islam. The crusade, the divinely inspired

war to relieve Jerusalem and restore the Eastern Church, legitimated far more Christian

aggression than its origins claimed to.

The tenth and eleventh centuries were as we have said a time of unparalleled belief in the

imminence of Divine Judgement. This belief underlay Gregory VII’s desire to repair the

penitential system and prepare men to face their maker with confidence. Jerusalem was

the scene of the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgement.123 William of 120 Baldric of Bourgueil, p. 31.121 St Augustine, City of God, p. 861.122 William of Malmesbury, p. 360.123 Revelation, 14:1.

33


Malmesbury focused on the transience of the earthly life and the eternity of life after

death. For him it was simple; it was better to choose the pleasures of eternal paradise than

those of a temporal earthly existence.124 The crusaders were fortunate in that they had

chosen a path which would lead them to salvation and eternal life. There was in William

an inference of the imminence of divine judgement, his plea to accept the role of crusader

is intimately tied to his love of the eternal life, it was therefore a means by which a man

ould escape the horrors of damnation. Robert the Monk’s assertion that the crusade, as an

event, ranked third in importance behind the creation and the resurrection can also be

seen as implying that the crusade was preparatory to the Second Coming and the

establishment of an eternal paradise on earth for those worthy of salvation.125 It was

therefore a means by which Judgement Day was brought closer and a means by which the

crusaders could prove themselves worthy of a place in paradise.

It was Guibert de Nogent who did most to contextualise the crusade and its importance in

historical terms. In his history Urban does not appear until the beginning of the second

chapter, the first is an attempt to explain the crusades historical context and the book is

divided into seven chapters, this suggests that he was following the dominant

Augustinian model which divided the history of the world into seven providentially

ordained historical epochs. The contemporary age was considered to be the sixth age, the

seventh and final age was believed to be ushered in by the Second Coming of Christ and

his apocalyptic victory over the forces of darkness which would result in an age of

heavenly purity on earth.126 The Augustinian model was a theological approach and

interpretation in which God’s will was the epicentre of historical events. He believed that

“It is beyond anything incredible that he should have willed thee kingdoms of men, their

dominations and their servitudes, to be outside the range of the laws of his providence.”127

In his speech Urban introduced the idea of the Antichrist whose presence was a necessary

precursor to the apocalypse that culminated in the Last Judgement. 128 For him, writing as

he did several years after the fall of Jerusalem, the crusade had not resulted in the

124 William of Malmesbury, pp. 362-63.125 Robert the Monk, p. 77.126 St Augustine, p. 1091.127 Ibid, p. 196.128 Guibert de Nogent, pp. 43-44.

34


apocalypse but as he shared the commonly held belief that “with the end of the world

already near”129 there was still every reason to believe that, as the start of the Christian

fight-back, it marked the beginning of the process of re-establishing the Christian empire,

a necessary first step in the apocalyptic process. In his conception the crusade was

preordained to carry out this work. 130

Guibert spent a great deal of effort in putting the crusade in its correct historical context.

There were two main reasons for this. The first was to show that

“God ordained holy wars in our time, so that the knightly order and the erring mob, who, like their ancient pagan models were engaged in mutual slaughter might find a new way of earning salvation. Thus without having chosen (as is customary) a monastic life, without any religious commitment, they were compelled to give up this world; free to continue their customary pursuits, nevertheless they earned some measure of God’s grace by their own efforts”131

The crusade was, in effect, God’s vindication of Gregory’s assertion that the use of

violence could, under the correct circumstances, be considered virtuous and lead to

salvation. It also indicates that the monastic profession can no longer be considered as the

sole means of gaining salvation. New ways with new parameters now existed. The

second reason was to define the enemy. In Guibert’s conception Islam was little more

than a diabolically inspired heresy whose main function was to undermine Christianity.132

The conflict was therefore part of the on-going struggle between God and Satan, of good

against evil. It was a spiritual battle, a manifestation of the militia Christi which required

the participation of spiritual warriors. The traditional spiritual warriors of Christianity,

the monks, were forbidden from travelling to the Holy Land.133 They were deemed

unsuitable for the proposed work. Their role was to stay behind and pray for victory.

From the outset a fraternal bond was created between the crusaders and their monastic

counterparts. Moreover the crusaders were, due to the nature of their commitment and the

sacrifice it entailed, granted the remission of their sins for their service.134 This was the

129 Guibert de Nogent, p. 44.130 Guibert de Nogent, p. 44.131 Guibert de Nogent, p.28.132 Ibid, pp. 30-36. 133 Robert the Monk, p. 82.134 Robert the Monk, p. 81; R Somerville, Decreta Claremontensia, p. 74.

35


expected reward for a life of self-sacrifice in monastic service, payment for the two

professions was standardised.

Gregory had drawn a distinction between the times when the use of force retained its

inherently sinful nature and times when it transcended this nature.135 He had distinguished

between the legitimate and illegitimate use of force. War for justice and the defence of

the rights of the church, the poor, the dispossessed and those faced with oppression was

legitimate, all other forms illegitimate. Gregory had suggested that the sin of illegitimate

warfare could undergo a penitential transformation by the warrior agreeing to only

engage in the legitimate type.136 Urban took this concept and applied it on a corporate

level. The Franks to whom his appeal was mainly directed were employed in many and

various temporal crimes that had evolved from their love of conflict.137 This was

damaging to them as a nation and a distraction from the realities of life.138 William of

Malmesbury maintains that Urban offered the Franks a means of escape, a means by

which salvation could be snatched from the jaws of damnation. Their present criminality

was sinful and “The wages of sin is death, the death of sinners is most dreadful”,139 their

employment of arms in the cause of Christ however transformed this vice into virtue, the

work which was essentially the same, became virtuous and charitable, and therefore

worthy of reward.140 His was a Gregorian attitude. The intention transforms the nature of

the action. Guibert de Nogent and Baldric of Bourgueil also believed in the

transformative effect of intention in the employment of arms. In an attitude reminiscent

of Gregory VII Baldric stated that in order to overcome the sinfulness of warfare the

Franks had a choice; they could either put down their weapons or employ them in the

defence of the Eastern Church.141 For Guibert it was simple, it was a choice between

martyrdom and damnation.142

135 Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.136 Register 7:10; 7:14a. 137 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 53; Robert the Monk, pp. 80-81; Guibert de Nogent, p. 43; Baldric of Bourgueil, pp. 31-32; William of Malmesbury, pp. 359-61.138 Robert the Monk, p. 81139 William of Malmesbury, p. 359.140 William of Malmesbury, p. 359.141 Baldric of Bourgueil, pp. 31-32.142 Guibert de Nogent, p. 43.

36


When it came to warfare Urban followed the Gregorian concept of transformation of the

nature of an action by the change of intent. He did it on a much greater scale and whereas

Gregory merely hinted at the possibility that the action could be deemed meritorious

Urban by stating “not I but the Lord – exhort you … Christ commands it. Remission of

sins will be granted to those going thither”,143 claimed that correct military service was

work of the highest order and as pleasing in God’s eyes as the devoted service of the

monastic community. The crusaders were as “soldiers of Christ”.144 The term that had

been brought out of the cloister by Gregory VII and applied to those willing to undertake

what he conceived of as the Lord’s work was now firmly applicable in a military sense

and specifically to those who fought for the Lord and for the Lord’s pay. The ideas that

equated warfare with sinfulness and monastic seclusion as the only certain means of

gaining salvation had undergone drastic revision. Devotion of ones life to the service of

God became the defining standard of salvation. This did not entail withdrawal from the

world, rather withdrawal from the desire to accept temporal rewards. The crusade would

demonstrate further the evolution of the secular holy warrior. He would enter “into that

bargain with God, and devotes himself as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable”.145 Like

his monastic counterpart he would become cleansed and purified by a regime of

confession and penance. There would therefore be no need for the successors of Hugh of

Burgundy to seek monastic retirement and seek atonement at the end of his career and no

need for the monastic communities to accept such men for the salvation of their soul.146

The claim by Fulcher that Urban was inspired by God found favour with the chroniclers.

The preordination of the crusade became a standard motif for the historians. There was

also a more utilitarian purpose. The crusade was a papal appeal for support,

overwhelmingly reformist in character and aim that had as its unique selling point a new

and hopefully more attractive way of gaining salvation that was directed towards the

military personnel of Europe. Gregory VII’s overtones to the same class was couched in

the language of St Peter and claimed to be legitimate due to Petrine authority. But

Gregory had largely failed implying that Petrine authority either did not support this 143 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 53.144 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 53.145 Robert the Monk, p. 82.146 Register 6:17.

37


cause or else the sacerdotal claims to superiority that stemmed from this doctrine were

not strong enough to overthrow the regnal claims of the imperial party.147 Attributing the

crusade to divine inspiration effectively bypassed these criticisms. No-one could argue

with the claim that God ordained the crusade particularly given post-event success. The

attribution of the crusade to divine inspiration underlined the Gregorian principle that

those involved in just warfare deserved to have their actions viewed as meritorious whilst

in no way denigrating the concept of apostolic succession that stemmed from the Petrine

doctrine and was so useful to the pope in matters of dogma.

The monastic chronicler’s attitude towards the Peasant’s Crusade and its leader, Peter the

Hermit indicate their desire to attribute the crusade and its lessons to the official Church.

Peter the Hermit was, according to Albert of Aachen, the prime motivation behind the

crusade. Whilst in Jerusalem on pilgrimage Peter met with the city’s patriarch who

convinced him of the need for the west to send aid to Jerusalem. It became Peter’s

mission to bring the plight of Jerusalem to the West’s attention and organise relief for the

city.148 Such a conception provides an antithesis to the reformist chroniclers approach to

the origins and aims of the crusade by raising the possibility that Urban’s divinely

inspired preaching was not the originator of the crusade. Perhaps this is why Peter the

Hermit’s role in the promotion of the crusade idea was, wilfully neglected by these

writers. Any major change in the Church’s position that effected such fundamental truths

as the penitential path to salvation had to come from the successor of St Peter himself, it

could not be countenanced as emanating from a popular movement. The idea of the

change of gaining salvation was Gregorian, the realisation of this new way was the

crusade, therefore its origin had to be divine or at the very least papal. The fact that the

intended action was portrayed as defending the liberty of the Holy Sepulchre, the place

where Jesus overcame death, and redeemed man from Original Sin, underlined the pre-

eminent position of the pope to be called upon by God to do His work, the papal duty to

147 J Riley-Smith, ‘The First Crusade and St Peter’, in b. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail, eds., Outremer. Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982) 41-63, pp. 49-52.148 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana. History of the Journey to Jerusalem, S. B. Edgington, ed. And trans., (Oxford: Clarendon, 2007) p. 3-7.

38


defend the liberties of the oppressed and his right to prescribe the appropriate payment

for such undertakings.

Urban’s greatest evolution of the Gregorian ‘proto-crusade’ was to conceive of the

journey as a pilgrimage. Pilgrimage had a penitential aspect it could be prescribed as part

of a redemptive obligation and aid in the transformative process. Pilgrims were

considered, by no less authority than St Jerome, to temporarily gain monastic status. They

had voluntarily turned their back on the world and their former life, committed to

something greater and would undergo an irrevocable spiritual transformation making

them unable to return to their former lifestyle.149 Pilgrimage was also recognised as

another form of imitatio Christi.150 The system of pilgrimage had, in its penitential

incarnation, evolved to provide a parallel means of expiating sins. From the ninth century

onwards the idea of associating a pilgrimage to a specific shrine with the remission of a

specific sin began to emerge.151 A penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem was considered to

be particularly effective at expiating the guilt of heinous crimes such as murder.152 There

was a synchronicity between the sacrament of penance and the institutions of penitential

pilgrimage that under the right conditions produced a redemptive synergy. This was fully

utilised by Urban in his call to aid Jerusalem. To receive the full penitential benefits of

the pilgrimage it was vital that the ritual formalities were adhered to. Prospective

crusaders needed to get clerical permission, confess their sins and gain absolution before

they could undertake the expedition.153 They needed to enter into a state of contrition and

maintain this state throughout the expedition otherwise their sacrifices would be of no

avail. The conclusion that in Urban’s conception the behaviour of the Frankish

Knighthood meant that they were tainted by sin which necessitated ritual penitential

purification and that the crusade was the means by which this could be achieved and

provide them with redemption, seems difficult to escape.

149 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 94-95.150 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 92-93.151 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 102-04.152 J Flori, ‘Ideoogy and Motivations’, in H. J. Nicholson, ed., Palgrave Advances in the Crusades, (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) p. 21.153 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 54; Robert the Monk, p. 82; Baldric of Bourgueil, p. 32; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 17-19.

39


The similarities between Urban’s ideal for the crusader and Gregory’s for the penitent is

obvious, the penitential pilgrimage was the obligation, the vehicle through which

transformation could be effected. Perhaps this is why the chroniclers rejoice so much in

the deprivation and degradation of the campaign. It was an integral part of the spiritual

purification of the crusaders, a lesson in humility without which they would not have

undergone the necessary transformation from secular criminal to spiritual hero.

Pilgrimage also allowed for confession to be given to a priest other than ones local parish

priest.154 In the deadly and penitentially demanding environment of the crusade this was a

great boon, it allowed for the continuation of the on-going transformation. There was also

an added dimension to Urban’s pilgrimage; the symbolism of the cross. Pilgrims were

identified by their wearing of cilicium, Urban urged the crusaders to wear a cross as a

symbol of their commitment to the cause.155 It highlighted their pilgrim and penitent

status.They thus took the cross. Previously taking the cross was the preserve of the monk.

It symbolised a commitment to withdraw from the temporal life and devote oneself to

God.156 Gregory’s use of the term ‘militia Christi’ had appropriated monastic language

for the use of spiritually sanctioned warfare, now Urban in a similar vein appropriated

monastic symbolism for such warfare.

Urban’s speech therefore is crucial to the conception of the crusade. It confirmed that as

judged by the contemporary situation and by providential historical design the campaign

was defensive. It was aimed at upholding a divinely ordained world order and

confounding the old enemy and therefore conformed to the Augustinian standards of just

war, which maintained that not only was it acceptable, but also an individual’s duty, to

fight in such a cause when called by the right authority. Therefore the Gregorian precept

that those involved in such a war should be considered as undertaking meritorious work

was highlighted and upheld. What could be more just, spiritually motivated and worthy

of divine approval than campaigning against the forces of darkness. The conception of a

154 J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 11-12.155 Fulcher of Chartres,p. 54; Robrert the Monk, p. 82; Guibert de Nogent, p. 45. 156 W J Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 32-33; J Riley-Smith, Idea, p.114. Interestingly with reference to note 148, Orderic Vitalis, p.17 does not mention that the cross was Urban’s idea he merely states “that they took the cross”. It was from this moment that they, as penitents, became eligible for absolution. Is Orderic also implying that they voluntarily became temporary monks with all the attendant benefits?

40


penitential pilgrimage that ensured spiritual transformation harked back to the primitive

purity so beloved of Gregory and by confirming that God desired adequate recompense

for those employed in his work is also a continuation of Gregory’s work that sought to

provide salvation through ensuring that penitential standards were adequate.

CHAPTER 4

THE FIRST CRUSADE AS A DEMONSTRATION OF GREGORIAN PRINCIPLES

41


According to Riley-Smith “the First Crusade, moreover, was the culminating act of a

period in which the popes and the churchmen who supported them, engaged in a

campaign to enlist western knighthood to the papal cause.”157 For him the crusade and the

objectives of the reformists were inextricably linked, it was a means by which the papacy

could demonstrate the benefits, which were of course spiritual in nature, of choosing the

new way. To serve the church was the means of gaining salvation. The Liber Pontificalis

emphasised the links of the crusade and the ideas of Gregory VII stating that it was

fought under St. Peter’s leadership, terminology intimately associated with Gregory.158

The crusade was essentially a military campaign and, for a successful prosecution,

needed the participation of military men. However the history of the crusade as it was

recorded by skilful historians evolved into something more than a military campaign. It

became a “Christian drama”.159 Whilst it retained its historical basis as a record of events

it also transcended these bounds and became allegorical. The allegorical crusade on one

level portrayed the campaign as a providentially inspired battle between good and evil

and, on another more subtle level, transformed the nature of its protagonists. The

crusaders became the embodiment of Christian virtue. Perhaps more importantly it was

not simply their participation which granted them such status. It was their acceptance of

reform principles which enabled this transformation to take place and facilitated their

evolution from mere soldiers into fully-fledged soldiers of Christ and let them gain the

benefits of salvation that accrued.

Gregory VII decreed that warfare conducted under certain conditions could be deemed

meritorious and that those who partook in such warfare were not automatically engaged

in a sinful activity. The crusade was the supreme example of this just war concept. The

intention of the participants changed the prosecution and representation of the war. Acts

that would ordinarily be seen as sinful became expressions of the highest Christian virtue.

Warfare and the warriors themselves were characterised and written about in language

that was previously the preserve of the religious professions. Finally the crusade as

selfless and voluntary service for the benefit of the oppressed and the Church fulfilled the

157 J Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and St Peter, p. 49. 158 Ibid, p. 52.159 Guibert de Nogent, p. 145.

42


Gregorian conception of penitential and redemptive labour. It was the ultimate

expression, and its overwhelming success only added to this conception, of salvation

gained through service and self-sacrifice and through the just and authorised use of force.

VIRTUE AND MERITORIOUS WARFARE

The fundamental role of the allegorical crusade was to present crusade activity as

virtuous. The gospels presented Jesus as the paradigm of Christian behaviour and

elucidated on his moral, ethical and religious teaching. The remaining books of the New

Testament, apart from the Book of Revelation, expanded on these teachings. Through

these the Christian conceptions of virtue and vice became available to a wide audience.

The path of virtue was desirable as it led to salvation and an afterlife of eternal joy. A life

devoted to vice on the other hand led to damnation and an eternity of torment. Christian

morality was overwhelmingly pacific. On his arrest Christ commanded his disciple “Put

your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.160 Even

when threatened, Christ prohibited the use of violence to save his life and indicated the

dangers inherent in violent action. Arguably this was a demonstration of his argument to

trust in the law however this and many other such statements have been used to show the

pacific nature of Christianity and the inherent sinfulness of using force. Gregory VII as

we have seen demonstrated that there was a distinction between the just and unjust

employment of force and that the necessity of just war should not stigmatise those

involved. The crusade was a demonstration of just warfare and the merit that was

attached to those who served in such a war. It brought the concepts and benefits of such

service to the attention of Western Europe. It popularised the newly articulated Gregorian

position.

The basis of Christian virtue lies in the beatitudes enunciated by Christ in the Sermon on

the Mount.161 The virtues of faith, humility, justice and especially charity when conceived

of as agape or Christian love are all visible. It was an appeal to these virtues that formed 160 Matthew 26:52.161 Matthew 5:3-10. This version will be used here. Luke 6:20-23 also gives a somewhat different version.

43


the backbone of Urban’s speech at Clermont and, as a life led in accordance with these

virtues was perceived of as an imitatio Christi was eligible for rewards, it was these

rewards that formed the payment for crusade service. In short those crusaders who

undertook to go on crusade were invested with the qualities and rewards of Christian

virtue. It was through the display of virtue that the crusaders could most easily be seen as

imitating Christ and could be held up as exemplars of Christian behaviour for others to

emulate. Therefore in the chronicles a powerful triumvirate of imitatio existed which

further intimated the providential nature of the crusade. Displays of Christian virtue

within the highly charged atmosphere of a penitential pilgrimage highlighted the

sacrifices made by the crusaders for the love of God and the rewards granted by Him.

They also underlined the importance of intention, when they acted well the crusaders

were rewarded, when they acted poorly they were upbraided and brought back to virtue

by a loving God.162 Once again it was the monastic chroniclers who, being generally

supportive of the aims of the reform movement, underlined most clearly the connection

between crusade, virtue and salvation. Guibert’s new path to salvation which owed so

much to Gregory VII was accepted, justified and in the process of becoming

institutionalised.163

The fundamental crusade virtue was justice. It was the notion of justice that allowed

Gregory VII to distinguish between just and unjust war, and the promotion of justice that

enabled Urban to call the crusade. The cause of justice is enshrined in the beatitudes;

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. For they shall be filled.”164

Justice is an active principle, it must be worked for. Perhaps this is one reason why

Gregory could point to those who fought for justice as being engaged in meritorious

work. It is also, as the maxim maintains its own reward. Those who work towards the

establishment of justice will receive secular and spiritual justice. Robert the Monk’s

description of the taking of Antioch is revealing. He asserts that the Christians “delivered

162 Perhaps the best example of this are the instructions received via the vision of Stephen of Valence; Gesta Francorum, pp. 57-59; Raymond d’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. and trans., (Philadelphia. The American Philosophical Society, 1968) pp. 55-56;Robert the Monk, pp. 161-62; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 99-100; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 99-101.163 Guibert de Nogent, p. 28.164 Matthew 5:6.

44


it from its invaders at the point of a sword”.165 For him there was no incongruity between

justice and warfare. Warfare was a legitimate means by which justice could be

established and those subjected to unlawful oppression liberated. The crusaders cause

was just; God and the pope had confirmed this. However the crusaders as paragons of

justice had to be seen to offer justice to their enemies as well as to those they had come to

liberate. Besieged in Antioch they made one last attempt to dissuade the Turkish leader

Kerbogha from pressing forward with his attack. This attempt to persuade Kerbogha to

see reason was presented as a case of natural justice the land was Christian and belonged

to them and God.166 At this juncture the crusaders having been promised aid by God had

come into the possession of the Lance of Longinus, a relic which guaranteed them

victory.167 It was the concept of justice enshrined in the beatitude “Blessed are the

merciful. For they shall obtain mercy”168 that determined that they must give the Turks a

final chance of clemency. This episode was also a concrete demonstration of the virtue of

faith. The crusaders had undertaken their mission in the knowledge that God had

ordained the restoration of Jerusalem and chosen them to be the agents of that goal. The

crusade was a demonstration of the power and rewards of faith and of course the dangers

inherent in misplaced faith. It was on the surface a simple demonstration of Christian

virtue and morality, but on a more subtle level it underlined the as of yet undefined

principle of papal infallibility. Following the rulings of the pope, the temporal successor

to Christ himself, led one to a greater share of providential benefits.

Two of the accounts, again from the pens of reform-minded monastic scholars, of

Urban’s crusade sermon mention the crusade as a charitable undertaking.169 There are

many examples of the crusaders sharing their belongings and giving alms to the poor,

perhaps most tellingly it is Adhemar’s last request that the crusaders remember and care

for the poor.170 Robert the Monk has the bishop praise the effects of charity, as a

165 Robert the Monk, p. 147.166 Gesta Francorum, pp. 65-66; Robert the Monk, p. 165; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 107-08; Orderic Vitalis, p. 109.167 Gesta Francorum, p. 65; Raymond d’Aguilers, p. 57; Robert the Monk, p. 163; Guibert de Nogent, p. 107; Orderic Vitalis, p. 109.168 Matthew 5:7.169 Baldric of Bourgeuil, p. 32; William of Malmesbury, p. 359.170 Gesta Francorum, p 74; Robert the Monk, p.178; Guibert de Nogent, p. 113.

45


demonstration of agape, stating “Nothing will guard against death as much as charity

does: it protects better than a shield and pierces enemies more effectively than any

lance”.171 Again we see a connection between martial practice and virtue. It is the correct

observance of Christian virtue that proves superior and more valuable than martial skill.

The crusade as an incarnation of the militia Christi or spiritual warfare is confirmed. The

crusade may be fought on the physical plane but it was the war fought on the spiritual

plane that was fundamental. It was success on this plane that ultimately decided the fate

of the crusade and its participants, the allegorical crusade underlined the spiritual

imperatives of the crusade. The internal, psychological contest that results in the

transformation of an ordinary, temporally focussed man into one that is spiritually aware

and acceptable for salvation through service to a greater good, the fundamental tenet of

Gregorian spirituality, was again emphasised.

The essence of charity is to be found in the conception of agape or Christian love. This is

an active concept of love, it entails following the example of Christ and putting the needs

of others on a par or above ones own personal needs. This entails the practice of two

further virtues humility and self-sacrifice. Jesus stated “This is my commandment, that

you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, to lay down

his life for his friends.”172 Sacrificing ones life for ones brethren constituted the supreme

instance of imitatio Christi. Such a sacrifice is easier to make on a battlefield than in a

cloister and is an example of an act that proved the veracity of the Gregorian conception

of warfare as not being inherently sinful. It was the intention that was the root of the sin.

Warfare offers the opportunity for men unable to withdraw to the cloister to make a

positive contribution to society. It was the willingness to serve God that was meritorious,

how the service was performed is largely irrelevant. Orderic Vitalis observes “Many died

there … and won, we believe, the crown of blessed martyrdom, since they offered their

lives for the sake of their brethren.” 173 The crusade demonstrated in the most visible way

the virtue and reward of being prepared to die in God’s cause. The chronicles seldom

171 Robert the Monk, p. 178.172 John 15:12-13.173 Orderic Vitalis, p. 57.

46


refer to crusaders as heroic they are simply Christians. Therefore the implication is that it

is characteristic of a Christian, not a hero, to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Virtue has its counterpoint in vice and while it is expected that the Turks would be

riddled with vice it is all together less likely that one should come across examples of

Christian vice in a divinely inspired army. Two examples of this type of aberrant

behaviour are particularly noteworthy. The first is the defection of Stephen of Blois and

the effects it had on those who were indirectly involved in the crusade.174 Stephen was

convalescing outside Antioch when it was invested by Kerbogha. Perceiving the situation

to be hopeless he withdrew his troops and compounded his sin by convincing a relieving

Byzantine army that the situation was hopeless and that it was best to turn back.

Stephen’s actions were those of a coward and provide a counterpoint against which the

sufferings of the virtuous and faithful crusaders can be compared to. Stephen, like the

other defectors, had not undergone the spiritual transformation that service to God

produced in the faithful. In the Gregorian conception his commitment was false which

meant he had not spiritually evolved and remained bound to the temporal world.

However the worst outcome of Stephen’s cowardice was the despair and loss of faith it

caused in the Byzantine army, particularly in Bohemond’s brother Guy. This loss of faith

was a step away from apostasy, the worst crime imaginable for a Christian, it was totally

damning. Peter Damian told of a priest who accepted a cloak as alms in lieu of penance

from an evil, and therefore non-contrite, man. Due to the lack of contrition, the false

intention, of the penitent the priest contracted leprosy from the cloak.175 This is a graphic

illustration of the contagion of vice and it was intention that was central to the action as

being conceived of as a vice this too can be seen in the episode of Stephen of Blois, as

virtue begets virtue so to vice begets vice, both are contagious. Given the choice virtue

was the wise option and it was a Gregorian contention that a wise religious counsellor

could lead a man to the path of virtue and redemption.176

174 Gesta Francorum, pp. 63-64; Fulcher of Chartres, p. 64; Raymond d’Aguilers, p. 59; Robert the Monk, pp. 158-60; Guibert de Nogent, 104-06; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 107-09.175 S Hamilton, Penance in Gregorian Reform, pp. 54-55.176 Register, 7:10, p. 334.

47


The second and perhaps more revealing major instance of aberrant behaviour concerns

the Peoples Crusade.177 Called to serve by the charismatic preaching of Peter the Hermit

the Peoples Crusade operated outside of the influence of the official army and it is here

that the main interest lies. All commentators agreed that the army experienced

disciplinary problems, even their main commentator, Albert of Aachen, admits they

became “licentious and unruly”178 and “fired with greed for pillage”.179 This popular

army, disparagingly described as being made up of “the dregs of our own people”,180 like

the official army was cosmopolitan, but unlike the papal army suffered from ill-

discipline, weak leadership, ethnic insularity and was destined for failure. The contrast

with the papally sanctioned army could not be more profound. The monastic chroniclers

emphasised the official sanctioning of the expedition, it indicated apostolic succession

and correct authority and it was due to their willingness to adhere to these ideas that the

crusaders enjoyed the spiritual benefits of the expedition. The break-up of the Peoples

Army into ethnic groupings is indicative of the regionalism found in penitential practices

during the era.181 Gregory VII’s conception of true penance was an attempt to standardise

penitential practices and ensure salvation was open to all, the official army’s acceptance

of papal leadership implies the acceptance of this regime. They remained unified, become

victorious and earned the spiritual rewards of their labours. The monastic chroniclers

admit that the dead of the Peoples Crusade were martyred.182 They were after all

committed to the service of God and paid the ultimate price; concerning those that

survived, apart from Peter who joined the official army, they were quiet. The implication

that it is only through official channels that salvation can be earned was again

emphasised. The popular army earned the distrust of men. It was men that showed them

the folly of their presumption and taught them humility. This is not the case with the

official army. In their case everything was divinely orientated. Their poor behaviour

earned God’s displeasure and chastisement, yet His love was so great that after teaching

177 Gesta Francorum, pp. 2-5; Albert of Aachen, pp. 9-45; Robert the Monk, pp. 84-88; Guibert de Nogent, pp48-52, Orderic Vitalis, pp. 29-41.178 Albert of Aachen, p. 33.179 Ibid, p. 33. See also pp. 21; 23-25; 33; 35-37.180 Guibert de Nogent, p. 48.181 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp, 136-72. 182 Robert the Monk, p. 86-87; Guibert de Nogent, p.51.

48


the army humility, He instructed them on how to regain his favour and achieve

salvation.183 The story of the Peoples Crusade is in many ways reminiscent of the un-

reconstructed behaviour of the Franks before they bowed to Urban’s appeal and accepted

his leadership, it emphasises the contrast between sacerdotal and other forms of authority.

The lesson of the crusade is that obedience to the sacerdotal authority is in itself a form of

virtue and like adherence to the commands of other Christian virtue earns the approval of

God and provides the best way to earn salvation.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF WARFARE INTO A SPIRITUAL PROFESSION

Gregory VII maintained that warfare could be a source of meritorious action for those

engaged in such labour. The important point being that it was the justness of the cause

and the legitimacy of the authority which called for the action and the intention of the

combatants that were critical. Gregory began the transformation of war from an

inherently sinful profession deserving of censure to one in which the reasons for going to

war became the defining parameters of its justness. The crusade evolved this theoretical

development. There was no doubting the justice of the crusades aims, they were after all

providentially sanctioned, it was virtuous and its Christian combatants assumed the

mantel of virtuosity. The combatants undertook the expedition for the right reasons; they

wanted to serve God and were willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to do so.

This willingness to devote ones life to the Lord and sacrifice ones liberty for spiritual

ends indicated a shared sense of purpose between crusaders and monks.184

Riley-Smith believes that the monastic chroniclers were essentially supportive of the

aims of the Gregorian Reform and that their histories subjected the crusade to a

“theological refinement”185 that saw them cast the crusade as a “monastery in motion”.186

He concludes that “almost every point they made was in tacit comparison to monasticism

183 For the vision of Stephen of Valence; Gesta Francorum, pp. 57-59; Raymond d’Aguilers, pp. 55-56; Robert the Monk, pp. 161-62; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 99-100; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 99-101184 J Riley-Smith, Idea, pp. 47-48.185 Ibid, p.135. Chapter 6, pp. 135-52 bears this title and provides a discussion of his argument.186 Ibid, p. 150.

49


… Renouncing wives, children and earthly possessions they sought voluntary exile for

the love of God adopting temporary poverty and chastity.”187 Purkiss believes that the

chroniclers were not necessarily redefining the crusade but rather tapping into a current

of contemporary belief that equated the spiritual benefits of both professions.188 It was

this equating of the benefits that insured such massive recruitment. If Purkiss is correct it

suggests that the equation of the two professions may not have been post-event but during

or shortly after Urban’s preaching of the crusade or might even have been present in the

spiritual consciousness of the laity in an embryonic form. Was this equating of the two

professions due to Gregory VII? It is possible; in 1074 Gregory had anticipated many of

the major crusade themes and many of the concerns of his papacy are discernible in the

crusade.

Perhaps the most revealing link between crusader and monasticism comes in the person

of Godfrey de Bouillon. According to Robert the Monk Godfrey, despite his martial

prowess, gave “the impression of being a monk not a warrior,”189 and Guibert de Nogent

highlighted “his remarkable humility and modesty, worthy to be imitated by monks.”190

After the liberation of Jerusalem Godfrey became the first secular ruler taking the title of

Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre.191 Did this title indicate that the Holy Land was to be

ruled as a theocracy or was it a convenient fiction that paid lip-service to papal desires

and disguised his true position? The chroniclers refer to him simply as king, but as we

can discern if he was ‘king’ he demonstrated the spiritual attributes that the reformist’s

demanded of a king and was willing to defer to the pope and show obedience to the

apostolic see.192 Monastic metaphor was not confined to the crusade leadership, Orderic

Vitalis observed that “Glorious in arms, the Christians were even more seemly in the

comeliness of their morals … Mindful of their souls’ salvation they renounced all the

illicit desires and delights of the flesh.”193 There is here both an echo of monastic practice

and something extra, the abstinence that was characteristic of penitential practice.

187 Ibid, p. 150.188 W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 20-22. 189 Robert the Monk, p. 84.190 Guibert de Nogent, p.149.191 Gesta Francorum, p. 92 note 2; Robert the Monk, p. 202 note 21.192 J Riley-Smith, First Crusade and St Peter, p. 43.193 Orderic Vitalis, p. 55.

50


Penance was the means by which Gregory VII aimed to raise the standards of European

behaviour, as a contemporary popular practice it was, to his mind, somewhat less than

satisfactory and in need of overhauling. It was only in a monastic setting that private

penance, dependant upon spiritual, psychological and emotional contrition could be

performed adequately. The crusade enabled the laity, as temporary monks, to practice this

new form regularly. As the crusade was a public event that contained a strong element of

public penitential rituals it breached the gap between the old and the new. It presented a

blue print that pointed the way to a new order whereby privately undertaken penitential

obligations based on service took the place of public displays of atonement. Crusader

commitment transformed him from a mere soldier into a soldier of God and demonstrated

that religious service could be performed in many ways. It was this service to God that

was the defining characteristic of a true Christian and the true road to redemption. The

twinning of a lay profession with monasticism took service out of the cloister and into the

realms of everyday life. The ability to earn salvation was open to more people.

Gregory VII applied the monastic term militia Christi to those involved in what he

considered to be just warfare, at Clermont Urban appropriated the sign of the cross with

all its attendant symbolism for the crusaders. A powerful linguistic and symbolic

terminology was being appropriated by the reformists and applied to those, principally

arms bearing, members of the laity that responded favourably to their ideology. The

crusade presented further opportunity for this process to continue and further the

transformative process that saw the equating of the military classes and the value of their

work with the monastic classes and their work. The crusade was just because it sought the

liberation of Jerusalem and its inhabitants from a diabolical enemy. It was, in this

context, no more than another chapter in the eternal struggle between good and evil. St

Paul wrote “we don’t struggle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against

powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of

wickedness in the heavenly places.”194 This is an apt summation of the crusades

providential purpose, the eradication of diabolical power in a holy site. Perhaps more

interestingly this verse appears in a section of his letter entitled “The Whole Armour of

194 Ephesians 6:12.

51


God”195 in which armour and weaponry are given symbolic meaning. The breastplate

symbolises righteousness196 (justice), a shield faith,197 a helmet salvation and a sword the

Holy Spirit.198 The symbolic importance of this passage for the transformation of warfare

into a holy profession is profound.

Guibert de Nogent applied this symbolism to the crusade army, he wrote of “the fame of

all France dressed in the breastplates and helmets of knights.”199 This may seem an

accurate observation of the dress of military men but when one considers that mail was

the most common form of contemporary armour it suggests that Guibert is using a

symbolic language to indicate that these knights through the pursuit of justice were

attempting to gain salvation. Robert the Monk took the symbolism one stage further,

instead of using the generic term armour when describing a battle he wrote that the

crusaders were “protected by their shields, breastplates and helmets.”200 Faith, justice and

salvation are inextricably linked. Virtue brought salvation and offered protection in death

as well as in life, for the crusaders. Writing about Godfrey de Bouillon he continued in

the same vein, “God looked after his soldier and defended him under a protective

shield.”201 In the battle Robert is describing Godfrey is engaged in combat with “another

Goliath,”202 it seems that the first ‘king’ of the new Jerusalem was, like his famous

biblical counterpart, protected by his God. At the pivotal battle of Antioch Bishop

Adhemar is described as “wearing breastplate and helmet”203 additionally he is holding

the Lance of Longinus, the relic that symbolised victory, thus it is possible to infer that

Robert is stating the Gregorian conception that service in the fight for justice brings the

victory of salvation. Guibert provided the counterpoint which strengthens the argument

for the Christian faith, he wrote, ”desperately afraid the pagans judged that they could not

protect their lives with their shields” the implication is that Islam cannot offer the

195 Ephesians 6:10-20.196 Ephesians 6:14.197 Ephesians 6:16.198 Ephesians 6:17.199 Guibert de Nogent, p. 63.200 Robert the Monk, p. 130201 Ibid, p 133.202 Ibid, p. 133.203 Ibid, p. 173.

52


protection that Christianity can. It is an inferior faith, unworthy of possessing the holy

city.

The Great Battle of Antioch at which Adhemar carried the Lance of Longinus and saw

the army, desperately weakened by starvation and greatly outnumbered defeat a superior

Turkish force was the seminal moment of the campaign. It was achieved with the aid of

the lance and with the support of a miraculous celestial army.204 Experience of the

miraculous was by no means unknown in the medieval period, it symbolised a direct

connection with the divine and implied providential favour. The miracles experienced by

the crusaders demonstrated that God was supportive of both their cause and its means of

prosecution. Therefore the implication is that God viewed warfare as a spiritual

profession. The celestial army witnessed at Antioch bears a huge similarity with the

heavenly army of the apocalypse that aided in the victory over Satan.205 In this case it was

led by St George and in imitation of the religious professions the crusaders later made

George their Patron saint, they believed he had assumed the leadership of the army and

would intercede with God on their behalf.206 It is from these episodes that George

assumed his role as a warrior-saint and evolved into the paradigm of knightly

behaviour.207 At Ramla, George’s birthplace the crusaders established a bishopric and

dedicated the cathedral to St George.208 In short they established a cult dedicated to the

worship of St George.

Brian McGinn has argued that the experiences of the crusaders during the expedition

were so intense and that evidence of divine aid was so apparent that the crusaders

developed and practiced their own rituals on crusade. These rituals then became a feature

of the religious practices of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem.209 The salient point is

204 Gesta Francorum, p. 69; Robert the Monk, pp. 171-72; Guibert de Nogent, p. 110; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 113-15.205 Revelation 19:14.206 Raymond d’Aguilers, p. 115.207 Butler A., The lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and other Principal Saints, B. Kelly, ed., (London: Virtue and Company) p. 413208 Gesta Francorum, p. 87; Robert the Monk, p.194; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 125-26; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 155-57.209 B McGinn, ‘Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of The First Crusaders, in B K Lackner and K R Philp eds, Essays on Medieval Civilization, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978), pp. 33-54.

53


that the crusaders self-perception was dominated by the spiritual and religious

implications of their quest. They imposed the familiar religiosity of the west on their lives

in the east and became central to its development. Several years before the monastic

chroniclers promoted the idea of the crusaders as an itinerant monastic army they held a

perception of themselves as religious people undertaking a religious calling and provided

themselves with the familiar trappings of western Christianity. They and their profession

were indivisible from their conception of Christian spirituality; the practice of warfare

was a central tenet of their faith. The monastic chroniclers used the crusade as a vehicle

to promote this new conception of spirituality, first articulated by Gregory VII, that under

the correct circumstances, the use of force could be conceived of as virtuous and

beneficial to Christendom. No doubt they convinced many of the idea that monasticism

and crusading held several goals in common and that the difference between the two

professions as an expression of Christian virtue lay ultimately in how these goals were

obtained not the goals themselves. The commonly held notions of service and sacrifice

for Gods sake united the two professions and it was these concepts, central to Gregory’s

teaching on penitential practice that opened the road to salvation. They thus presented a

compelling argument that the practice of just warfare was a religiously orientated

profession.

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SALVATION THROUGH PENITENTIAL WARFARE

Penance was the process through which an errant Christian could recognise their sins and

make recompense for their unjust actions. It was a spiritual cleansing that allowed

Christians to feel more confident on the Day of Judgement. It was proactive prevention; it

protected the immortal life against the contagion of the mortal.210 The crusade was

revolutionary. A military expedition became the source of penitential protection rather

than an event which obliged its proponents to seek the security of such protection.211

These perceptions were not the preserve of modern commentators, the crusade 210 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 2.211 J Flori, Ideology and Motivation, p.17.

54


chroniclers were also aware of this change in martial orientation. It was as if “God

showed a new way to repent,”212 and that “For those who needed expiate their sins, the

outpouring of blood alone was the most potent way to purge their guilt.”213

Purkiss believes that the crusade as an example of a penitential pilgrimage was unusual in

two ways; it permitted the bearing of arms and conceived of the use of those arms as part

of the devotional process.214 It was unusual but it was not in his opinion unique, Gregory

VII’s 1074 proto-crusade, the Genoese and Pisan Mahdia campaign of 1087 and the

Taragona Campaign of 1089 all contain some element of the linking of meritorious

action, pilgrimage and penance that was characteristic of the First Crusade.215 The

crusade can also be considered unusual in that when one takes the participants pre-

expedition penitential requirements into account it takes on the appearance of being a

very public expression of a privately entered into obligation. It therefore straddles the

boundary of the older public penitential rituals and newer, more contemporary private

penitential practices that, in the Gregorian conception placed a high value on the relief of

contrition through service. One aspect of the crusade as a penitential act that is

particularly worthy of note is the lack of commutation. Once entered into the obligation

was fixed, failure to see it through to completion whether through poverty, family

commitments or simply fear of the consequences brought humiliation, even

excommunication.216 There is an important implication to this point, and that is the

Gregorian ideal, that it is the intention of the penitent and the transformative element of

the obligation which are vital and key to the success of the penance itself. If one was

allowed to commute such a service, no matter how demanding the commutation might

be, the process could not be the same yet the reward would be. The humiliation, sacrifice,

service, charitable, justice, faith and fraternal elements inherent in the crusade conception

would be replaced by something inferior. True devotion to God, the type of devotion that

entailed the prospect of making the ultimate sacrifice could at one and the same time be

212 Guibert de Nogent, p. 155.213 Ibid, p. 85.214 W J Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, p. 18.215 Ibid, pp. 18-19.216 Fulcher of Chartres, p. 54; Robert the Monk, p. 82; Baldric of Bourgueil, p.32; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 17-19.

55


claimed by the crusader without being concretely demonstrated. One could claim the

crusade indulgence without providing the actual service. The crusade therefore became a

very effective demonstration of the reformist principles of the value of the transformative

element of penance through the purity of intention and of redemption through the

performance of service to the Church and especially to the see of St Peter.

Perhaps the greatest crusade example of the penitential process and its benefits is

provided by the vision of Stephen of Valence.217 Stephen’s vision provides a good

example of the medieval approach to penance and the part it played in the securing of

salvation. Christ revealed his displeasure at the crusaders poor behaviour, there was

saintly intercession, here performed St Peter and the Virgin Mary, due to this there was

reconciliation between the deity and the sinner, an obligation was imposed and a tangible

benefit was received on successful completion of the obligation. It is interesting that at no

time was their any mention of the campaign or the actions undertaken in its prosecution

as being sinful or the cause of Christ’s anger with them. His anger was due to the

crusaders lack of personal morality in consorting with loose women. In fact it was quite

the opposite; it was on the grounds of the crusaders warfare against the Turks, which

allowed for the reestablishment of Christian worship, that Peter could intercede and plead

for the crusaders. Warfare had become virtuous. Christ by his deferral to Peter’s

argument and his instructions “Go and say to my people that they shall return unto me,

and I will return unto them, and within five days I will send them a mighty help”, 218

suggests that it was the crusaders turning to womanising and not remaining focussed on

their mission that was the problem. The present war had found favour with Christ it was,

as Peter makes clear, a service to God and it was the interruption in its prosecution that

was the fault which merited repentance.

The chronicles reported extremely minor differences in the prayers to be sung for the

penance but much more importantly they were unanimous in asserting that Christ ordered

reparation and that the promised help duly arrived with the discovery of the Lance of

217 Gesta Francorum, p.57-59; Raymond d’Aguilers, p. 55-56; Robert the Monk, pp. 161-62; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 99-100; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 99-101.218 Gesta Francorum, p. 58.

56


Longinus. Conscious of the power of penitential action to earn providential aid Adhemar,

prior to the pivotal Great Battle of Antioch ordered a three day fast, the singing of

masses, the giving of alms, a series of processions around Antioch’s churches, and

confession, absolution and communion.219 “They spent those three days in complete

humility and purity of heart,”220 observed Robert the Monk. In the darkest hours of the

deadliest siege penance provided the crusaders with a refuge from their daily troubles and

prepared them for the sacrifice and service that lay ahead, they became “The soldiers of

Christ” who “marched out against the acolytes of the Antichrist.”221 However it was

Guibert de Nogent who painted the most vivid picture of the penitentially transformed

crusade army. He pictured the crusaders more as ascetics, who had voluntarily undergone

the most debilitating observances and self-denial for the love of God, than as warriors. It

was devotion and self-sacrifice that motivated these men and spiritual, not physical,

prowess that defined them.222 He concluded, “Good God, what could you have denied to

such devotion when you saw them … preparing to undergo martyrdom”.223 The

impression one gets from both these writers is that the drama of the event was more akin

to the drama of a solemn mass than the drama of a battle; the Great Battle was a great

display of ecstatic religious devotion. There are also echoes of the public penitential

described by Hamilton.224 The crusaders had confessed and shown contrition and in the

presence of the priesthood who maintained their prayers for the penitent were ejected

from a sanctuary, here a fortress as opposed to a church, in order to fulfil their penitential

obligations. Therefore involvement in warfare had become a penitential obligation with

the attendant redemptive benefits. Earlier Robert had written of the crusaders as “our

men, completely without fear of death in order to gain life”,225 and described them as

charging headlong into the Turkish lines so that they would sooner gain salvation.226 Now

it seemed they were eager to savour every last second of the process that brought about 219 Gesta Francorum, pp. 67-68; Robert the Monk, p.167; Guibert de Nogent, pp.108-09; Orderic Vitalis, p.109. Raymond d’Aguilers, p. 60 does not tell the story in the same way. In his version St Andrew, the subject of Peter Bartholomew’s visions, commands the crusaders to offer five alms, one for each of Christ’s stigmata. It is still however a penitential imperative. 220 Robert the Monk, p. 167.221 Ibid, p. 167.222 Guibert de Nogent, p. 109.223 Ibid, p.109.224 S Hamilton,Practice of Penance, pp. 108-117.225 Robert the Monk, p. 104.226 Ibid, p.105.

57


their spiritual rebirth and guaranteed their salvation. Salvation through death in battle was

a moment to savour for the audience also. It confirmed the truth of the papal indulgence

and of the Gregorian concept that just war could be seen as a source of merit and that the

casualties could achieve redemption through their actions.

This penitential approach to battle was effective it was repeated a year later at

Jerusalem.227 We can detect the origins of McGinn’s crusader ritual of confessio,

concordia and procession in these episodes and their successful conclusion. Interestingly

it seems to be a penitential ritual and bears some striking resemblances to those described

by Sarah Hamilton.228 The interesting question is whether the crusaders viewed this as an

act that cleansed them of their past sins or was a ritual intended to fortify and prepare

them for the coming battle and perhaps went some way towards ameliorating those sins

they were about to commit. The idea that one could make amends for acts not yet

committed seems difficult to uphold but not untenable due to the novelty of the situation,

the idea of a preparatory ritual is normal. The idea that the crusaders were preparing to

make reparations for sins already committed is intriguing. It opens the door to the

possibility that killing in the name of Christ was their penitential obligation. Such a

conception was after all only an evolution of the Deus Vult229 idea and was the fulfilment

of their duty to liberate the oppressed peoples and Churches of the east. The fulfilment of

this duty was in itself a penitential obligation. Crusader salvation was thus achieved by

the slaughter of countless Moslem infidels. This was on the one hand an entirely novel

idea but on the other nothing really new. Islam was, like sin, a contagion of the devil and

the function of penance was to combat the effects of this contagion.

227 Gesta Francorum, p. 90; Robert the Monk, p. 199; Guibert de Nogent, p. 129; Orderic Vitalis, p. 165.228 S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 109.229 Robert the Monk, p.81.

58


CONCLUSION

The First Crusade redeemed the ideas of the Gregorian Reform Party, without restoring

the reputation of Gregory VII himself. His loss of reputation is all too evident from

Urban’s lack of reference to him in his crusade sermon and in his contemporary

correspondence. The echoes of Gregory’s politico-theological reorientation process are

all too evident. It was the quest for salvation that led members of the laity to accept a role

as crusader. It was Gregory, a man whose chief concern was the salvation of society, who

first removed the stain of sin from the defensive, or justified use of force and then

suggested that those involved in such actions were performing virtuous work that, under

the right direction, may be deemed as having penitential value. Gregory who, through his

use of language, drew the connection between the service and self-sacrifice of the

59


military profession engaged in God’s work and the identical practice of the monastic

profession. Without this Gregorian inspired fraternity it would have been impossible for

the Monastic chroniclers to redefine the spiritual significance of the crusade in the way

they did. The crusade and its participants would in all likelihood have stood as a

testament to providential design, not as a demonstration of providence’s active

participation in the affairs of the earth.

Perhaps the greatest testament to Gregory’s input lies in the aftermath of the First

Crusade. The monastic chroniclers used their histories to promote the reform position and

present the crusade as a demonstration of the success that could be achieved through self-

sacrifice and penitential service. Most pointedly was the post-crusade emergence of the

Military Orders dedicated to a regime of military service and sacrifice for the glory of

God. They based their institutions on monastic models and their service on military

models. It was a profound transformation of the norms of contemporary service and an

equally profound echo of Gregory’s conception of penitential service in a just military

cause.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana. History of the Journey to Jerusalem, S. B.

Eddington, review, ed. and trans., (Oxrord: Clarendon, 2007)

Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans. G. A. Loud, review, P. N. Dunbar,

trans., (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004)

60


Anonymous, Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum (The Deeds of the Franks

and the other Pilgrims to Jerusalem), R. Hill, review and ed., (London: Thomas Nelson

and Sons, 1962)

Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger and of His Brother Duke Robert

Guiscard. K. B. Wolf, ed. and trans., (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008)

Guibert de Nogent, Gesta Dei Per Francos (the Deeds of God through the Franks). R.

Levine, review and trans, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997)

Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, G. Ryan and H. Ripperger, trans., (New York:

Arno, 1969)

Otto, Bishop of Freising, The Two Cities. A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year

1146 A.D., C. C. Mierow, trans, A. P. Evans, and C. Knapp, eds., (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2002)

Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History: Book IX, M. Chibnall, ed. and trans.,

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1975)

Peters E., ed., The First Crusade. The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source

Materials. (First Published, 1971), (Second Edition. 1998 used), (Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998)

Ralph de Caen, The Gesta Tancredi (A History of the Normans on the First Crusade), B.

S. Bachrach and D. S., Bacharach, review and trans., (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)

Raymond d’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, J. H. Hill and L.

L.Hill,. eds. and trans., (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968)

Robert the Monk. Historia Iherosolomitana (History of the First Crusade), C.

Sweetenham, review and trans, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)

61


St. Augustine of Hippo, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, H Bettenson,

trans, J O’Meara, review, (London: Penguin, 1984)

The Holy Bible. New King James Version. (British Usage Text First published as Revised

Authorised Version. London: Samuel Bagster, 1982), (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982)

The Register of Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085, H. E. J. Cowdrey, ed. and trans., (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2002)

William of Malmesbury, Chronicle of the Kings of England. From The Earliest Period to

The Reign of King Stephen, J. A. Giles, ed, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1895)

SECONDARY SOURCES

Albu E., The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth and Subversion

(Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2001)

Blake E. O. ‘The Formation of the Crusade Idea’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 21,

(1970) 11-31

Bull M., Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade. The Limousin and

Gascony, c. 970-1130, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993)

Butler A., The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and other Principal Saints, (London: Virtue)

Cole P. J., The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land 1095-1270, (Cambridge

Massachusettes: The Medieval Academy of America, 1991)

Constable G., Cluny from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000)

Cowdrey H. E. J., The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970)

Cowdrey H. E. J., Popes, Monks and Crusaders, (London: Hambledon, 1984)

62


Cowdrey H. E. J., The Crusades and Latin Monasticism, 11th-12th Centuries, (Aldershot:

Ashgate, 1999)

Clark J. G., The Benedictines in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2011)

Daly L. J., Benedictine Monasticism. Its Formation and Development Through the 12th

Century, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965)

Delaruelle E., ‘The Crusading Idea in Cluniac Literature of the Eleventh Century’, in N.

Hunt, ed, Cliuniac Monasticism in the Central Middle Ages, (London : MacMillan, 1971)

191-216

Flori J. ‘Ideology and Motivation in the First Crusade’, H. J. Nicholson, ed., Palgrave

Advances in the Crusades, (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005)

France J., The Crusades and the expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1174,

(London: Routledge, 2005)

Hamilton S., The Practice of Penance 900-1050, (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2001)

Hamilton S., ‘Penance in the Age of the Gregorian Reform’ in K. Cooper and J. Gregory,

eds., Studies in Church History. 40. Retribution, Repentance and Reconciliation,

(Woodbridge, Boydell, 2004)

Hays D., Annalists and Historians. Western Historiography from the eighth to the

Eighteenth Centuries (London: Methuen, 1977)

Iogna-Prat D., Oreder and Exclusion. Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and

Islam (1000-1150), G. R. Edwards, trans., (London: Cornell University Press, 1998)

Jostischky A., ‘The Christians of Jerusalem, The Holy Sepulchre and the Origins of the

First Crusade’, Crusades, 7, (2008), 35-57

63


Loud G. A., ‘Anna Komnena and her Sources for the Normans of Southern Italy’, I. I.

Wood and G. A. Loud, eds., Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages. Essays presented

to John Taylor, (London: The Hambledon Press, 1991)

Loud G. A., The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest,

(Harlow: Longman, 2000)

B McGinn, ‘Iter Sancti Sepulchri: The Piety of The First Crusaders, in B K Lackner and

K R Philp (Eds), Essays on Medieval Civilization, (Austin: University of Texas Press,

1978), 33-54

Morris C., The Papal Monarchy: the Western Church from 1050 to 1250, (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1989)

Philips J., ‘The Crusades: Sources, Impact and Content’, and J. Rubenstein, ‘How or

How Much to Reevaluate Peter the Hermit’, S. J. Ridyard, ed., in The Medieval Crusade

(Woodbridge: Boydell , 2004) 1-13 and 53-69

Purkis W. J., Crusading Spirituality in The Holy Land and Iberia, c. 1095-1187,

(Woodbridge, Boydell, 2008)

Riley-Smith J. ‘The First Crusade and St Peter’ in B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer and R. C.

Smail eds., Outremer. Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem,

(Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982)

Riley-Smith J., What Were the Crusades?, 3rd edition, (London: Palgrave MacMillan,

2002)

Riley-Smith J. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, 2nd edition, (London:

Continuum, 2009)

64


Robinson I. S., ‘Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ’ History. The Journal of the

Historical Asociation, 58 (1973) 169-92

Robinson I. S., The Papacy 1073-1198. Continuity and Innovation, (Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 1990)

Somerville R., The Councils of Urban II. Volume 1 Decreta Claremontensia,

(Amsterdam: Adolf M Hakkert, 1972)

Sumption J., Pilgrimage. An Image of Medieval Religion, (London: Faber and Faber,

1975)

Tyerman C., God’s War. A New History of the Crusades, (London: Allen Lane, 2006)

Ward B. Miracles and the Medieval Mind. Theory Record and Event. 1000-1215

(London: Scolar Press, 1982)

Wolf K. B., Making History. The Normans and Their Historians in Eleventh-Century

Italy, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995)

REFERENCE WORKS

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 17 volumes, (London: McGraw-Hill, 1967)

65

THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

Documents

Transcript of THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM