Critical Analysis of the First Crusade as a Response to the Church Reform in the 11th Century - Research Paper Example

Critical Analysis of the First Crusade as a Response to the Church Reform in the 11th Century Critical Analysis of the First Crusade as a Response to the Church Reform in the 11th Century Introduction The Crusades, primarily, can be considered as the European nations’ responses to the Christian authority’s call for expeditionary war against the Muslims. In response to the Christian religious authority’s call, the European nations organized themselves and led a number of invasions on the Muslim army in the Holy Land. Almost all of the crusades took place between 1095 and 1291. The Crusaders fought those wars mainly in Asia Minor and the Levant. Scholars commonly attempt to mark crusades as the Europeans’ military expeditions against the Muslims who were then occupying the holy places in Jerusalem. In this sense, there were about four major crusades which were led during this period. But the most successful one of all these crusades was the First one in which the Crusaders could successfully occupy Antioch and Jerusalem, two most important cities of the Muslims.1 But the First Crusade was important not only for its success but also for its historical, sociopolitical and cultural background. Indeed, though on the surface level, it was a response to Pope Urban’s (II) call, it was, in reality, the reflection of an age which had experienced heavy conflict between Monarchy and Church. During the 11th century, the conflict between the State and the Church began with the Investiture Controversy which was a “dispute between King Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII concerning who would appoint bishops”2. Beside this state-church conflict, the whole religious system got divided into a number of groups and subgroups. But the most important religious schism was the East-West Schism. Scholars claim that along with other socioeconomic and cultural factors, the state-church conflict and the East-West Schism played a crucial role in preparing the plot of the First Crusade. Moreover, this was the only one successful whereas all of the following crusades ended in smoke. In this paper, I will discuss what factors work behind the materialization of the First Crusade and why it became successful whereas the Second Crusade failed. Though it is commonly believed that the first Crusade was mainly the result of Common Europeans’ spontaneous response to Pope Urban’s (II) call, it was basically the outcome of the reformist soul of the early 11th century as well as a reaction to other contemporary sociopolitical and religious events of that era.3 A close scrutiny of the historical contexts of the First Crusade will necessarily show that it was related to the sociopolitical and religious zeal and the state-church conflict in a number of ways. So, the First Crusade was more of a sociopolitical event than a pure spiritual response of the common people. In fact, Pope Urban’s religious stance tends to hide other sociopolitical aspects of the First Crusade. This religious trend of the crusade further tends to hide the fact that though Pope Urban could motivate common people by manipulating their religiosity, his call for the Crusade was not purely religious. Rather it was Pope Urban’s attempt to consolidate his power over the state.4 In fact, due to the lack of any primary document on Pope Urban’s intention behind the First Crusade, the event remains open to interpretation. Historians’ interpretations about the drives of the First Crusades are based mainly on three points: a. the 11th century religious reform movement, b. the Seldjuk’s or the Muslims’ threat which the Eastern Roman Orthodoxy was facing during those days, c. consolidation of Papacy’s hold on the state’s power as well as on entire European Christendom. A critical analysis of the factors behind the First Crusade will show that all of these three causes had played equal role in organizing the First Crusade. Seldjuk’s Threat in the East as a Primary Cause of First Crusade Some historians often attempt to underestimate the Seljuk threat which the Eastern Christendom was facing during the second half of 11th century. They argue that Seljuk threat was a cause, of secondary importance, of the First Crusade. They further say that it was a mere excuse which the Papal authority manipulated to move eastward. The Seljuks who were frequently leading seasonal offensives on the Byzantine Empire can be considered as a factor which was strong enough to unite the religious Christians under the papal authority. The Seljuk threat as a psychological motivation is not less important than other causes. There is the possibility that the Seljuk threat was not serious enough to be considered seriously. But the religious façade of the Seljuk threat was so important that using it, the papal authority could easily usurp the commoners’ sacrificial zeal against the Muslims.5 The Seljik’s attack on the Byzantine Empire could easily be upheld as the infidels’ attack on the Christendom. This tendency to characterize the Seljuk threat as a threat to Christendom is evident in a “Letter of Alexius to Count Robert of Flanders”: The holy places they desecrate and destroy in numberless ways, and they threaten them with worse treatment…For almost the entire land from Jerusalem to Greece, and the whole of Greece with its upper regions…and now almost nothing remains except Constantinople.6 Indeed, the First Crusade was the result of the common European Christians’ zeal for a holy war against “the infidel and the unfaithful that were commonly considered to be the Seldjuk during the late 11th century”7. During the 11th Century, the commoners’ extreme religiosity, their intention to attain ablution for sins, Popes’ superiority over the State’s authority, etc- all these religious factors worked together to boost up the common people’s religious ardor to fight for the Holy Land and to save the Eastern Christendom against the invading infidels. In an article, Paul Crawford describes the crisis as following: “In 1071 the Turks met and crushed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert, near Armenia. As a result the entire heartland of the Empire, in Asia Minor, lay open and defenseless”8. Thomas Asbridge’s claims that the Muslims and the Christians cohabited peacefully on the east shore of the Mediterranean Sea for more than three hundred years before the Crusaders reached and captured Antioch. But the increasing conflict of the Byzantine Empire with the Seljuk, the subsequent defeat of the Christians in Manzikert in 1077, Turkish invasion and conquest of Anatolia, etc together prepared the plot of the First Crusade. During the 1060s, the Papacy’s conflict with the Holy Emperors of Rome reached the zenith. Subsequently, the Popes began to justify, in theological terms, the use of arms against the political enemies of the Church. So, gradually it became publicly acceptable that the pope would be able to use the Knights to defend Christianity at home and abroad. Simultaneously, The Roman Church was competing for superiority over the Eastern Orthodoxy. During those years of papal conflict with the Emperors, the defeat of the Byzantine Army in the Battle of Manzikert and the subsequent request of the Byzantine Emperor created a scope for Pope Urban II to use his new power of leading armed expedition against the Muslim threat in the East.9 This scope to lead expeditionary war against the Muslims would consolidate the Church’s power over the Emperors but to prove the Roman Church’s superiority over the Eastern Orthodox Church for being able to defend the entire European Christendom. East-West Schism as one of the Causes of First Crusade In the context of growing conflict between the “Eastern Orthodox Church” and the “Roman Catholic Church”, Byzantine Emperor Alexius’s request for assistance was a great scope for Pope Urban II to urge the common Christians to march eastward with a view to strengthening the relationship between the Western Union of Churches with the Eastern churches. Referring to this intention of Pope Urban II, Cowdrey says, “Ever since he had become Pope in 1088, he had been anxious to improve relations with the Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Comnenus, and to promote the union of the Eastern and Western Churches”10. Sitting at the helm of the Roman Catholic Church soon after the most noteworthy dispute between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, Pope Urban had been well-aware of the negative impact of the schism superiority over the Emperors. So his primary concern was to consolidate his hold on a unified Christendom under the papal authority. Moreover, since the Investiture Controversy endowed the Catholic authority with the supremacy over Henry and in general, over the state, during the papal authority of Pope Gregory VII, Pope Urban had to turn his attention to the defense of the Christendom from foreign enemies. Indeed, he rightly perceived that “the papal authority was more vulnerable to the threat of East-West schism than to the threat of Emperorship”11. So, the first and foremost imperative that Pope Urban had to comply with after his appointment were to heal the rift within the Christendom. Thus by strengthening the solidarity of the church authority, he further attempts to eradicate the threat from the Emperorship. Indeed, in the name of religious war, Pope Urban could have been able to organize a pro-papacy arm forces, as Crawford says in this regard, Urban probably had something a little more elaborate than that in mind--among other things, he probably hoped that an expedition to the East, carried out under papal leadership and comprised of noblemen from across Western Europe, would boost his position in the ongoing Investiture Controversy with the Holy Roman Empire.12 In fact, Pope Urban walked on the path of his predecessor, Pope Gregory to consolidate the papal authority through the rise of a pro-papal armed force. Gregory “called upon the military classes to take part in a ‘militia Christi’, or ‘militia sancti Petri’, in which they placed themselves at the service of the vicar of St Peter”13. But Pope Urban II did not commit the same mistake which failed Gregory to mobilize the ‘militia Christi’ against the Emperorship. Gregory failed to recognize the true nature of the commoners’ reverence for the religious authority. Unlike military classes, the Christian commoners were not prepared to take arms to defend papacy against the Emperorship as well as the Seljuks. Cowdrey says in this regard that Gregory failed “to mobilize them to help the Eastern Churches in face of Seldjuk attacks; and he expressed the hope that those who took part might, perhaps, also go on and reach the Holy Sepulcher”14. On the other hand, Pope Urban had been successful in motivating the Europeans to take arms against the invading Seljuks. He had been able to do so by redirecting the religious sentiment from the internal conflict to fight for Holy Land. Breaking with the “age-long reluctance of Christians fully to recognize the licitness of the procession of arms”15, Pope Urban was able to hide the military enterprise under the cloak of armed pilgrimage. Church Reform and the Birth of First Crusade The revival of the Monasticism and the papal church reform has played an important role in preparing the plot for the First Crusade. The Seldjuk’s frequent raids into Byzantine Empire provide Pope Gregory and Pope Urban II with an excuse to redirect the common Christians’ attention to the East. Since both Pope Gregory and Pope Urban II were two of the most important figures, of the papal reform, who were directly involved in the Investiture Controversy, their call for participating in ‘militia Christi’ and the subsequent expeditionary war against the Muslims will provoke one to believe that the First Crusade was the direct result of the papal reform of the 11th century. Indeed, the concept of a Holy War against the infidels or the pagans was an exceptional event which was initiated by the papal authority during the late 11th century. It was exceptional in the sense that in Christianity as well as in the European Christendom the concept was unprecedented. But during the late 11th century Church Reform, the papal authority became so strong that it had been able to win the commoners’ faith by resolving some doctrinal problems. Referring to this strong position of the church in 11th century political system, Pascovici says comments, In a very religious world as the medieval society, in which - at least in theory - the only purpose of life was seeking absolution for sins, and this way securing a place in heaven, the influence - essentially spiritual - of the successor of St. Peter went beyond the restrictive limits of faith and religion….in the XI-th century Papacy was, probably, stronger than ever.16 Pope Leo IX, a staunch supporter of the Benedictine Monastery at Cluny largely prepared this plot for the following Pope, Gregory VII, to go into conflict with Emperor Henry IV in term of supremacy. Consequently the end of Gregory’s conflict with the Emperor put the Church at a position superior to monarchy. This strong position of the church further prepared the plot for Pope Urban II to call for the First Crusade. The idea of a theocratic nation which the Church reformers of the 11th century had struggled for was one of the root-causes of the First Crusade. During the second half of the 11th century, the dream of a theocratic nation was haunting the mind of the papal authority. The idea of a theocratic nation in the Holy Land was the legacy of the conflict between the Church and the Emperor. By the end of the 11th century the tension between the Monarchy and the Church reached its peak. Since Pope Gregory failed to attain theocracy within the country, it was easy for Pope to lead the Christian commoners towards the dream of Theocracy in the Holy Land.17 Indeed the religious zeal of the mediaeval society seems to assign the challenging power to the religious authority. Indeed, this dream of theocracy in the Holy Land, later, gave birth to the First Crusade. Church in Need of Armed Devotees and the Introduction of Crusade It has been said earlier in this paper that Pope Gregory called for organizing a religious militant group. He further called for the participation of the Knights in his proposed “militia Christi”. Indeed, papacy’s clash with the emperor as well as the simultaneous restructuring of the church in the prototype of a state forced the Papal authority to feel the need of an armed force which could lessen the threat of the emperor’s martial power. As it had been hard to construct such a pro-papacy militia against the emperor on any biblical doctrine, Pope Gregory IV was not successful in including the knights in his ‘militia Christi’, or ‘militia sancti Petri’.18 But Pope Urban II effectively commandeer the commoners’ zeal for a Holy War against the Muslims. Moreover, the term, ‘infidel’ or ‘unfaithful’ had often been used to condemn any anti-church political force to subdue it publicly. Using this term, the church authority could condemn any party, either the noncompliant “Monarch or any non-Christian force, that was against the interest of the Church and the religious doctrine, since the doctrinal infidel or unfaithful do not have any particular objective-point to be in focus”19. In fact, the notion of “Holy War” against any anti-church socio-political forces preceded the notion of ‘holy war’ against the external infidel or pagan forces like the Seljuk and Turks in the east. This war of the papal authority against the Muslims in order to retrieve the Holy Land later culminated in the term “Crusade”. Moreover, along with the decay of the monarch’s power in the late 11th century, the job of protecting the Christendom from any external intimidations growingly began to shift on the church-led knights who were motivated with Pope Urban’s idea of ‘armed pilgrimage’, as Cowdrey says in this regard, “After the waning of royal power….it was upon the knights that the task of defending Christian peoples by force of arms against their internal and external foes increasingly rested; in recognition of this, the Church began to bless their weapons of warfare…..the notion of the holy war against the infidel gained currency”.20 Instead of constructing a papacy-led armed force, the easiest option which Pope Urban could manipulate was to inspire the common Christians to take arms against the infidels. Yet some critics argue that regaining Jerusalem the Holy Land was not Pope Urban’s primary objective. Rather the Holy Land was the face value of a religious goal to which the armed people could be redirected.21 At the same time, it was the face value of the Church’s goal, reaching which could help Pope Urban to achieve other ends as well. Failures of the First Crusade: A Critical Evaluation Though the warriors of the First Crusade had been able to the capture the Holy Land, critics often claim that it was badly and so what the crusaders achieved was very little. The crusaders had been able to establish a crusader state in Edessa and capture Antioch in 1098. Eventually, they captured Jerusalem in 1099. In spite of these successes, the leaders of the First Crusade and others are often criticized for their lack professionalism, moral duplicity, thirst for power, etc. Most of the crusaders of the First Crusade were common people from different European countries. These people were led by Christian preachers who usurped their longings for divine reward and deliverance from sin.22 So, they did not have the military skill what was necessary for an expeditionary war. In the face of staunch defense of the Muslim Army, these people who rigidly believed in divine help in the battlefield could do little to help themselves. Moreover, the Christian religious leaders themselves were driven by their worldly interests such as fame, greed for wealth, power and religious ranks, etc. Both the church authority and the monarch’s officials endeavored to manipulate the crusaders to attain their goals.23 So, there was not any organized and unified effort in the battlefield. Therefore, in most cases, the common crusaders were ill-trained and sometimes they were not trained at all. The preachers’ promise of divine help was proved to be hollow in the real battlefield. Their lack of practical knowledge of war severely affected the result of the First Crusade.24 Even if Urban II discouraged the participation of the non-trained, non-military civilians, women, children, sick people, and the elderly- all of them, being motivated by a pure religious cause, massively took part in the crusade. Consequently the First Crusade and other crusades had to undergo mass starvation, mismanagement, self-destructive disorderliness and corruption in the camps.25 Such experiences of the lacks of the crusaders in both the first and the second crusades inspired the crusaders to be more vigilant in focusing more on their professionalism during the crusades. The preachers of the First Crusade were criticized mostly for their lack of knowledge of the reality of war. They “seduced the Christians with empty words”26. After the Second Crusade, the preachers were accused of the misleading the common people on the basis of exaggeration. They upheld the Crusade as “pseudo prophets, sons of Belial, and witnesses of anti-Christ”27. Indeed this exaggeration almost blurred the necessity of professionalism in the battle field. An anonymous analyst of Wurburg notes that it was “so enormously influential that the inhabitants of nearly every region, by common vows, offered themselves freely for common destruction.”28 During both the First and the Second Crusades, the moral duplicity of the preachers and the immorality of the crusaders were two crucial factors behind the defeat of the crusades.29 Though the preachers inspired the common on the basis of religious zeal, one of their intentions was to boost up the supremacy of the church over the state. Consequently they became involved in power scrambling and conflict with the states. These conflicts rather damaged the solidarity among the leaders of the crusades.30 In fact though the religious authority appeared to be in conflict with the monarch in the question of religious and moral superiority, this dispute finally turned to be destructive for the crusaders. Both of the sides of this divergence tried to provide a response to the question whether the church or the monarch was the right authority to lead the Christian Commonwealth.31 Due the power boosted up by the support of a common people the church and the religious authority emerged as an entity that forced the monarchs to keep their position intact in the political orders of the countries. Conclusion The root of the First Crusade can be found in the 11th century Church Reform. During those days, the Church began to come into conflict with Monarchy with the claim of a theocratic nation. Being provoked by this dream of a theocratic nation, Pope Gregory called for “Militia Christi” which was essentially the foundation of the crusaders’ military power. During this time, the reformers of the Church also conceived the idea of a theocratic state in the Holy Land. In fact, the sociopolitical contexts of Europe were also favorable to the birth of the First Crusade. In the face of the monarchy’s opposition, the papal authority needed to reinforce its position by possessing a military power and by mitigating the Great Schism. By responding to Alexius’s call for help, Pope Urban could get a pro-papacy armed force and reduce the Catholic Church’s distance with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Though Pope Urban responded to the call of emperor Alexius, their motives were completely different from each other. Whereas on Alexius’s side, the call for reinforcement was the diplomatic part of his emperorship, for Pope Urban II, Alexius’s call for reinforcement against the Seljuk was not a mere appeal for help to serve the cause of Christendom; rather it was an emperor’s request which was, in some way, an opportunity to reinforce the bond between the West and the East Schisms, and to which responding might prove the church’s fatherhood over the state as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore in spite of the growing antagonism between the church and the state, Pope Urban was greatly inspired by the church’s cause, not by a pure religious zeal to retrieve the Holy Sepulture, as Paul Crawford refers to Pope Urban’s (II) multifold motives for preaching the First Crusade in the following: “It is hard to know exactly what Urban had in mind when he called for expeditions to the East….Alexius had called for large contingents of mercenaries….to take service in the Byzantine Army. Urban probably had something a little more elaborate than that in mind.”32 Bibliography Asbridge, Thomas. The First Crusade: A New History. Oxford. 2004 Brundage, James. The Crusades: A Documentary History. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1962, 121-122. Cowdrey, H. E. J. “Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade”, History. London: Historical Association, 55(1970), 177-188. Crawford, Paul. “Crusades: Political and Military Background”, 3 April, 2011. Available at Comnesius, Alexius. “Letter of Alexius to Count Robert of Flanders”, 3 April, 2011. Available at Holt, Peter M. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. Longman, 1989 Miller, S. Edith. Occult Theocracy. Ed. Hawthorne, California; The Christian Book Club of America, 1933, p.143 Pascovici, Epurescu. “Theological Arguments in the Competition Between Empire and Papcy for Supremacy in the Christian Commonwealth.” The Erasmus Journal. 02 March, 2009. http://erasmus.ong.ro/art2.htm Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusaders, 1095–1131. Cambridge. 1998 Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. University of Pennsylvania, 1991 Siberry, Elizabeth. Criticism of Crusading. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1985, 200 William of Tyre in,  James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press. 1962, 115-121. Read More