The First Crusade is a multifaceted event that is often oversimplified or misconstrued as an analogy for modern-day conflicts. In the last four decades, however, the field has seen a significant overhaul when analyzing the Crusade. Instead of focusing on singular causes, historians now take a pluralist, “interdisciplinary”, approach when determining the reasons for the First Crusade. These reasons are highlighted in Pope Urban Il’s powerful speech, Speech at Clermont. His speech, in itself, is complex through its masterful call to arms.
Scholars have generally agreed that the primary catalyst to the First Crusade was Pope Urban Il’s Speech at Clermont. In the late nineteenth century, scholars overplayed the role of Peter the Hermit as the fundamental leader of the First Crusade. Munro said, “The belief that Peter the Hermit was the instigator of the First Crusade has been long abandoned. To Pope Urban II belongs the credit, or the responsibility of the movement. ” Pope Urban Il’s speech served as the pivotal point at which the crusades would begin.
During his speech at Clermont, “The Pope set the time of departure, ordered who should go and who should not go, offered privileges to the participants, and hreatened with excommunication with all who should not fulfill their vow. ” Urban’s speech contained the themes of suffering of Eastern Christians, desecration of holy sites, and absolution of sins. These appeals to ethos and pathos through religion, anger, and fear provided a convincing argument for even the peasants to take up arms on the military expedition. The reason that Pope Urban Il’s role was contested by scholars earlier is because of the People’s Crusade.
Pope Urban Il is most associated with the People’s Crusade rather than the more organized, nobility- ed, Frank Crusade. This derives from the bias of chroniclers of the People’s Crusade. “The chroniclers, with one exception, were unsympathetic and too brief when they wrote of this movement. ” laments historian Frederic Duncalf. Despite the failure of the People’s Crusade to complete objectives of the Speech at Clermont, without the unity of the Christendom between commoner and knight, the Crusade would’ve never succeeded.
Urban’s speech used contemporary trends and some innovating measures to instigate the Crusade. Peter the Hermit propelled and built upon Urban’s message, but Peter as by no means the mastermind of the First Crusade. The fact that there are five accounts of Pope Urban Il’s Speech at Clermont speaks volumes of how significant it was. In Pope Urban Il’s speech, he speaks of the impending threat of the saracens on eastern lands of Europe. Additionally he speaks of the atrocities committed against Eastern Christians and destruction of holy sites.
The validity of such claims have been both contested and defended by scholars. Most contemporary scholars assert that the claims had to a degree some merit, but, in some cases, were exaggerated. While there was “decades of mounting of Muslim aggression in Asia Minor”, Asbridge says the relationship between Christian and Muslim neighbours had “relative equanimity. ” His speech incorporated the potential threat of Islamic aggression to encourage pious- driven military conflict and thus meeting the goals of the papacy. Asbridge’s description of the relations between the Christian and Islamic world is adequate.
The first Crusade began in 1095, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies. Despite the sporadic attacks and advances made by the Muslim armies on Christian-held territories, there were no significant battles between the two for a several centuries making the First Crusade a proactive counter-offensive, delayed response, rather than defensive action.
Regardless of whether or not Pope Urban Il’s rhetoric was factual, the language he utilized invoked images of pocalypticism which of would’ve been a convincing ploy to sign on as a volunteer for Christ. This is a topic at is universally agreed on by scholars. The crusader’s would’ve have a preconceived notion of the apocalypse from the Book of Revelations. Marshall states that Urban portrayed the clash between Islam and Christianity as “good” and “evil. ” This idea causes apocalypticism to be linked with duality.
In every apocalyptic battle, there are good and evil sides, and they are distinctly different from each other. Rubenstein says since Urban was calling for an earthly battle in Jerusalem, and the iblical prophecies had predicted a heavenly battle in Jerusalem- it was impossible to not see the link between the two battles. One motivation for pilgrims joining the First Crusade was that they believed that the Apocalypse was nigh, and they wanted to be in Jerusalem when these events took place. Additionally, some crusaders believed that by going to Jerusalem, they could “set in motion the events of Apocalypse.
Essentially, scholars believe that Urban’s painting of the final battle between good and evil was more crucial to the beginning of the First Crusade, rather than greed. Characterizing the First Crusade as a money grab for the crusaders would be ludicrous, in theory, as Christianity speaks against materialism. Greed was just a distraction that plagued the crusades. While scholars dissect Pope Urban Il’s speech, they also look towards Urban’s own motives in giving the speech. For context, the Church was deeply divided. The relationship between the Greek Orthodox Church in the east and the Catholic Church in the west was strained at best.
Not only would the Crusade open up communication channels between the two churches but it would expand Latin nfluence in the Levant. Asbridge writes, “The campaign must be seen as an attempt to consolidate papal empowerment and expand Rome’s sphere of influence. ” In layman’s terms, Urban had altruistic motives but the driving force behind the First Crusade is expanding the reach of Latin Christendom. This evaluation is fair considering that leading up to the First Crusade the Gregorian reforms consolidated papal authority. The First Crusade would be the first example of the power of the papacy.
Additionally, as Pope, it would make sense for Urban to attract as many souls into his sect. The best historians try to avoid justifying the actions and behaviors of past peoples, and instead attempt to understand the rationalizations behind them. Questions of good, bad, and rightness of action are certainly relevant and important, but they assume a common standard of what constitutes a justifiable war. These standards vary not only among people today, but between the present and those in the past whose actions are being critiqued. Christopher Evans said in his book, Omega, “The hardest task for the historian.. s to consider the evidence without prejudice. We all have prior gendas and tend to find what we’re looking for while ignoring anything contrary to our expectations.
So history, because it is a human pursuit, is always partial and prejudiced no less than our own interior lives: both are just a sum of contingent memories. ” The First Crusade is especially controversial because it is relevant to today’s problems yet still unique to its time period. Notably, the First Crusade deals with religion and anything that has to do with religion can be disputed. Moving forward, it will be important to attempt to remain impartial in future writings.