The Glory of the Crusades (5 page)

The danger grew for native Holy Land Christians and the Byzantine Empire in the middle of the eleventh century with the arrival of a new group of people onto the world stage: the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks were nomadic people from the Asian steppes who converted to Sunni Islam and consolidated their power in the Abbasid caliphate based in Baghdad. The Seljuks mistreated indigenous Christians by destroying churches, killing priests, and harassing European pilgrims to the Holy Land. One example of Seljuk brutality is found in the story of Günther, bishop of Bamberg, who led a group of 12,000 pilgrims to the Holy Land in 1065. The group managed to survive great trials in Hungary, mistreatment by the Byzantines, and the general discomfort and hardship involved in such a journey, but they were not to survive their encounter with the Seljuks, who massacred the entire group on Good Friday; only two days march from Jerusalem.
69

The Seljuks were not content to control Armenia, Syria, and Palestine, and soon set their sights on Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), a very important province of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, the arrival of the Seljuks occurred at the worst possible time for the Byzantines, who were ruled in the later eleventh century by a series of incompetent emperors who allowed the army to decline. This decline in readiness was manifested in the result of the Battle of Manzikert on August 19, 1071. The news of the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia reached Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068–1071), who gathered a force of 60,000, including Western mercenaries, to fight the Turks. The fighting was intense but the numerically superior Seljuks were victorious when they succeeded in wounding and capturing Emperor Romanus.

Manzikert was a disaster for the Byzantines. The imperial army was in shambles, the emperor had been captured, and the province that provided the bulk of military recruitment and economic prosperity was in enemy hands. The Seljuks would consolidate their power in Anatolia, establishing it as the Sultanate of Rum with its capital in the ancient Christian city of Nicaea—site of the first ecumenical council in 325 and within striking distance of Constantinople. By all accounts, the disaster of Manzikert was the “shock that launched the Crusades.”
70

The Byzantine Empire began to recover under the vital leadership of Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (r. 1081–1118). Alexius knew the threat posed to Byzantium by the Seljuk Turks was so dire that it required extreme measures and more manpower than he could raise or afford, so he decided to seek help from the West. He sent ambassadors to the pope, the one person with the universal authority required to organize and recruit a rescue effort of such immensity.

The Call to Arms

Many men give speeches; some are memorable, others are forgotten; few speeches are world changing. The speech given by Bl. Urban II at the council of Clermont in November 1095 changed the world.

Urban was born into a northern French noble family and, although he entered the service of the Church, he understood the martial class and how to motivate it.
71
He used this knowledge to great effect at Clermont. The main event of the council occurred on November 27 when Urban spoke to a large assembly in the open air.

Urban’s speech, which inaugurated the Crusading movement, focused on three main themes: the liberation of the Holy City of Jerusalem, the violent activities of the Turks, and an exhortation to Western warriors to take up arms.
72
The central element in his speech was the cross, and it is clear that Urban intended the journey to the east to be penitential.

The liberation of Jerusalem was paramount for Urban and he knew this focus would resonate with the assembled French nobility and knights. There was much devotion to the Holy City in France, which spread due to the influence of the great monastery of Cluny, and pilgrimages were very popular even among the nobles, many of whom had taken to naming their daughters “Jerusalem.”
73
The Holy City was considered the center of the world, and its occupation by the Muslims was distasteful to the citizens of Christendom. Urban’s call was focused on rousing warriors from their slumber and their selfish interests, to valiantly march to the East to restore ancient Christian lands, most importantly Jerusalem, to Christ and the Church:

This royal city, therefore, situated at the center of the world, is now held captive by his enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God... She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid.
74

Urban’s preaching also focused on the plight of Christians in the Holy Land, who were subject to cruel tortures and punishments at the hands of the Turks. His graphic description of Turkish atrocities was designed to elicit a visceral response from his hearers in order that they might take up their arms to liberate their Christian brothers and sisters.

Since participation in the Crusades was voluntary, it was necessary for Urban to find ways to motivate the assembled warriors at Clermont to travel thousands of miles from home and risk certain death. Urban knew that few knights would undertake the arduous journey simply to help the Byzantine Christians, since they were schismatics who rejected the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. So, Urban appealed to the military adventures of the great warriors in French history in order to exhort his listeners to join the Crusade:

Let the deeds of your ancestors move you and incite your minds to manly achievements; Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degenerate, but recall the valor of your progenitors.
75

Finally, Urban offered the spiritual incentive of a plenary indulgence, which was unique and provided the main motivator for those who undertook the journey. Through the power and authority of the Petrine Office, Urban decreed: “Whoever goes on the journey to free the church of God in Jerusalem out of devotion alone, and not for the gaining of glory or money, can substitute the journey for all penance for sin.”
76
Urban repeated this spiritual incentive in his letter to the clergy and people of Bologna where many were considering taking the cross. Urban exhorted them to do so: “[I]f any among you travel, not for the desire of the goods of this world, but only those who go for the good of their souls and the liberty of the churches, they will be relieved of the penance for all of their sins, for which they have made a full and perfect confession.”
77

Urban announced the departure for what came to be known later as the First Crusade for the Feast of the Assumption of Mary: August 15, 1096. He appointed Bishop Adhemar de Monteil as leader of the expedition and the official papal representative.

The Church and War

Pope Bl. Urban II asked soldiers to volunteer to utilize their martial skills, and this call to arms is one thing many modern-day Catholics and secularists find distasteful about the Crusades. Critics believe the Crusades highlight the hypocrisy of Christians, who, on the one hand, profess to follow Jesus who willingly accepted his passion and death, and on the other participated in and supported an armed expedition to violently recover the Holy Land.

Ignoring the historical context of the Crusades or applying modern-day sensibilities and political conditions to events in the past produces a gross misunderstanding of the Crusades and those who participated in them. The answer to this objection, then, lies in understanding the Church’s teaching on warfare and its application in various historical periods.

The Church’s teaching on violence is a combination of the understanding and purpose of warfare from two traditions: the Jewish and the Greco-Roman, with both influenced by the teachings of Christ.
78
The Old Testament is replete with examples of legitimate warfare undertaken by the Jewish people and sanctioned by God. The Lord rescued the people of Israel by drowning Pharaoh’s crack troops as they chased the Israelites through the parted Red Sea. Witnessing the destruction of their enemy, the Israelites shouted in joy, “The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name.”
79
Additionally, the Israelites were commanded by God to fight the tribes inhabiting the Promised Land in order to remain pure in their worship to God and not succumb to pagan practices. Once in the Promised Land, warfare did not cease as the Israelites throughout their history were ordered by God to fight their enemies.
80

The justification for warfare in the New Testament is more nuanced than in the Old Testament, for the teachings of Christ demand more deliberation concerning the use of violence. On one hand Jesus seems to discourage the use of violence, as when he rebuked Simon Peter for cutting off the ear of Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane;
81
on the other hand, Jesus acknowledged division in the world and the possibility of violence when he said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Elsewhere in the New Testament the military profession is shown in a positive light. Centurions (Roman officers) are presented as examples of great faith in several episodes, including at the Cross.
82
The conversion of the centurion Cornelius is a defining moment in the Acts of the Apostles and justifies the missionary outreach efforts to the Gentiles.
83
John the Baptist also influenced Christian understanding of the warrior when he instructed soldiers to “rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14). Since his admonition did not repudiate the military profession, the Church acknowledged the legitimacy of soldiering.

However, the question of whether Christians could serve in the imperial Roman army was greatly debated in the early Church. This is understandable given the historical situation of a Church under persecution by the state, whose instrument of persecution was the army. Some early Christian writers believed members of the Faith could serve in the army while others disagreed.
Although the nascent Church wrestled with this question, soldiers embraced the Faith and even gave the ultimate witness of their faith through martyrdom.
84

Once the Emperor Constantine legalized the existence of the Church in 313, it grew in membership and began to see itself as part of rather than separate from the empire. As such, the Church used elements of Greco-Roman thought in explaining its understanding of violence and when it can be used, drawing mostly from Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), Livy (59 B.C.–A.D. 17), and Cicero (106–43 B.C.).

Aristotle provided the basic Greco-Roman understanding of violence in his work,
Politics
, where he focused on the ends of warfare. War, for Aristotle, should be waged for the sake of peace and not for its own sake. In other words, there should be a just end for engaging in combat, such as self-defense, to obtain an empire to benefit the state’s citizens, or to enslave non-Greeks.
85

The Roman writer Livy added to Aristotle’s “just ends” by also focusing on the need for a “just cause” to enter into combat, which could include the breaking of an agreement or retribution for an injury. Such reasons illustrate that an understanding of what constitutes “just cause” can be influenced by the historical situation and by those responsible for making the determination. Modern sensibilities recoil at any mention of a “just cause” in a holy war, but those who participated in the Crusades did not share that sentiment.

The Roman thinker Cicero further enhanced Greco-Roman thought on warfare by placing it in a legal context, requiring a formal declaration of war by the state, an expressed purpose to the conflict, and by allowing for the recovery of lost goods or punishment as “just causes” to go to war.
86

The major influence in Christian thinking on the causes of and purposes for warfare is St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430). In his work,
City of God
, Augustine consolidated the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions into a Christian understanding of legitimate warfare. The modern world sees violence as inherently evil, but Augustine believed violence could be used for
legitimate reasons including the restoration of order and property. In special circumstances, war could be a holy undertaking. Using Augustine’s writings, the Church identified four criteria that must be satisfied: a just cause, which can involve past or present aggression; proclamation by legitimate authority; defense or recovery of rightful possessions; and right intention or pure motives of the participants. Additionally, war should be undertaken only as a last recourse and the violence unleashed must be proportionate to the threat.
87
In the eleventh century the writings of Augustine on religious war and the secular concerns for just war merged to form a holy just war in the Crusades.
88

This Christian understanding of holy war differs greatly from the Muslim teaching on
jihad
.
Jihad
is incumbent upon all Muslims and is a foundational teaching of Islam. Christian holy war is not incumbent on every believer; indeed, participation in the Crusades was always voluntary, and violence is seen as a necessary evil that can only be entered into for serious and just reasons. Christian teaching even places restrictions on the nature of warfare and on the intentions of those who participate;
jihad
harbors no such limitations. The main purpose of
jihad
is offensive through the conquering of territory in order to spread Islam throughout the world; Christian holy war is defensive and primarily involves the recovery of territory lost to an aggressor.