To what degree can the crusades be considered a “Holy War?” Though the crusades have
traditionally been considered religiously motivated endeavors, for this series of nine wars arose
as a Christian response to the Islamic threat on Eastern and Latin Christendom, many historians
have recently offered varying answers when attempting to answer this question. While many
scholars, like Arthur Jones, offer strong evidence of the religious context in which these wars
were waged, noting that “Fulcher of Chartres, priest-chaplain on the First Crusade, wrote in his
eyewitness account that this crusade was a novum salutis genus, ‘a new path to heaven,” others
challenge the assertion that these crusades can be defined as a Christian holy war at all. 1
Historian Jonathan Phillips identifies a multitude of motivating factors behind the promotion and
participation of thousands of men and women in these expeditions. As he writes, “The desire for
land was a further motive…there must also have been crusaders for whom the wish to
accumulate wealth predominated.”2
However, as neither Phillips nor Jones specifically or completely address the adequacy of
classifying the crusades as a holy war, a more developed analysis of this label may offer
clarification to modern perspectives of these endeavors. Primary evidence suggests a binary
categorization of the crusades as either religiously or secularly motivated remains inaccurate.
Rather, participation in the crusades was motivated by a collusion of political, economic, and
social interests, in conjunction with a commitment to preserve the Christian religion, with
interests varying among participants. The public rhetoric of the papacy demonstrates that the
Islamic threat in Eastern territories was the primary cause for considerations of a crusade,
1
Arthur Jones, “Memories of Crusades Live on In Today’s War,” in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World
History, vol. 1: The Ancient World to the Pre-Modern Era, ed. Joseph R. Mitchell and Helen Buss Mitchell, 4th ed.
(Dubuque, Ia: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 151-158 at 151.
2
Jonathan Phillips, “Who Were the First Crusaders?” in Taking Sides, ed. J. Mitchell and H. Mitchell, 159-165
at 163.
Giza 2
however, the social, economic, and political benefits that could be attained through such a
crusade were certainly recognized by church leaders as well. To define the crusades as a holy
war too narrowly defines this historical episode, but to remove the context of Christian
motivation disserves its legacy as well.
Pope Urban II called for the first crusade in 1095, and his speech at Clermont indicates that
waging such a war against Islamic forces would be enacted in the name of Christianity: “You
must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as
God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help…On this account, I,
or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all
people…to carry aid promptly to those Christians…Christ commands it.”3 Yet, while Pope
Urban II portrays the crusade as a religiously mandated endeavor, the framework and content of
his speech suggests that other motives were also among his considerations. In fact, most of his
speech focuses on the moral corruption throughout European society and within the church, and
he concludes by noting that, “Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become
knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a
proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay
now obtain the eternal reward.”4 Thus, Pope Urban II seems to acknowledge a crusade could
resolve social issues by occupying the public with that which would offer glory, a means of
exerting constructive aggression, and eternal reward.
3
Pope Urban II, “Speech at Council of Clermont: Fulcher of Chartres version” in The First Crusade: Chronicle
of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials ed. Peter Edwards (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1971), 42.
4
Pope Urban II, “Speech at Council of Clermont,”43.
Giza 3
Five accounts of Pope Urban’s Council of Clermont speech are in existence, each with a
slightly different recollections of the pope’s message. In another version, Robert the Monk
describes the pope’s speech as “aiming to win them over with every rhetorical persuasion at his
command,” and detailing a much more gruesome rhetoric located in an appeal to pathos: “you to
whom God has given above other nations outstanding glory in arms, greatness of spirit, fitness of
body and strength to humiliate the hairy scalp of those who resist you?”5 This version presents
the pope as a more conniving and persuasive figure, and seemingly alludes to the existence of
ulterior motives or at the least the possession more violent inclinations. However, in all versions
the crusade is primarily framed as a Christian reaction and obligation.
Yet, while religion was the publicly stated context in which a crusade was called for, other
secular interests were clearly present among its participants. Not all crusaders were pious
Christians motivated by the promise of eternal salvation, for many men were enticed by the
papacy’s promise of an absolution of debts, others were interested in accruing wealth, some
sought to avoid legal punishments or gain freedom from oppressive lords, while those more
economically-minded saw the crusades as the chance for new trade opportunities. Annales
Herbipolenses offers the most direct evidence of varying intentions of crusaders, noting that
“some, indeed, lusted after novelties and went in order to learn about new lands. Others there
were who were driven by poverty, who were in hard straits at home; these men went to fight, not
only against the enemies against Christ’s cross, but even against the friends of the Christian
name, wherever the opportunity appeared, in order to relieve their poverty.”6
5
Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade p. 79-80. Trans. Carol Sweetenham. 2005.
Ashgate Publishing Company.
6
Annales Herbipolenses, “A Hostile View of the Crusade” (ca. 1147 CE), Internet Medieval History
Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1147critic.asp (accessed November 27, 2012).
Giza 4
Crusaders’ interest in acquiring wealth often resulted in un-Christian behavior; as Robert the
Monk writes, “Moreover, these men, lacking as they did a wise prince to lead them, were
engaging in reprehensible activities: they were destroying the churches and palaces in the city,
carrying off their contents, stripping the lead from the roofs and selling it to the Greeks.”7 Robert
the Monk also portrays the participation of Bohemond, Duke of Apulia’s, in the crusades as
motivated by the army’s alluring armor, its terrifying weaponry, and inexpensive provisions,
suggesting that this “shrewd and immensely wealthy” duke used religious rhetoric to win the
favor of pious pilgrim crusaders to attain leadership and profit.8 As Anna Comnena, daughter of
Byzantine emperor Alexios, writes of Bohemund, “As we said above, there were among the
Latins such men as Bohemund and his fellow counsellors, who, eager to obtain the Roman
Empire for themselves, had been looking with avarice, upon it for a long time. Seeing an opening
for their plans in the expedition which was promoted by Peter, they stirred up this huge
movement; and, in order to deceive the more simple, they feigned a crusade against the Turks to
regain the Holy Sepulchre and sold all their possessions.”9
The unordered conquest of the Christian city of Constantinople and temporary abandonment
of interests in Jerusalem by fourth crusaders challenges the notion that the crusades was
considered a holy war by its participants. The papacy, however, was outraged by this action, as
Pope Innocent III’s demonstrates in a letter to Peter, Cardinal Priest of the Title of St. Marcellus,
in 1204: “It was your duty to attend to the business of your legation and to give careful
consideration, not to the capture of the Empire of Constantinople, but rather to the defense of
7
Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, 84-85.
8
Robert the Monk, Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade, 92.
9
Anna Comnena, Alexiad (ca. 1148) Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.asp (accessed November 26, 2012).
Giza 5
what is left of the Holy Land and, with the Lord’s leave, the restoration of what has been lost.
We made you our representative and we sent you to gain, not temporal, but rather eternal
riches.”10 Anna Comnena also attests to the aggression of western Christians upon their Eastern
brethren at Constantinople, writing that, “the Latins were so far from yielding to him that they
closed their ranks and threw missiles in such profusion that they struck across the chest one of
the men standing near the Emperor's throne.”11
The argument that the crusades can be considered a holy war is further complicated by the
slaughter and cruelty imposed upon thousands of Jews by Christian crusaders; while Judaism
remains ideologically in contention with Christianity, the choice to attack this non-threatening
religious group suggests that the surface objective to eradicate Islamic threats to Christianity was
not the only interest of crusaders; many were simply looking for outlets for aggression against
any group of “Others” and the attainment of wealth. As Albert of Aix writes, “I know not
whether by a judgment of the Lord, or by some error of mind, they rose in a spirit of cruelty
against the Jewish people scattered throughout these cities and slaughtered them without
mercy…and divided among themselves a very large amount of money.”12
Furthermore, Muslims had occupied Jerusalem centuries prior to Pope Urban II’s call for a
crusade; it was only when the Seljuk Turks threatened the stability of the lucrative Byzantine
Empire that objections to Muslim rule were voiced. In fact, peaceful coexistence and thriving
trade endured for the most part long before the crusades among Christians, Muslims, and Jews
and interestingly, even during periods of conflict, such as when Muslim forces conquered Spain
10
Pope Innocent III, “Reprimand of Papal Legate”(ca.1204), Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1204innocent.asp (accessed November 28 2012).
11
Anna Comnena, Alexiad.
12
Albert of Aix and Ekkehard of Aura, “Emico and the Slaughter of the Rhineland Jews” Internet Medieval
History Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1096jews.asp (accessed November 26 2012).
Giza 6
in 711 (an invasion arguably more threatening in proximity than those during the crusades), there
were no Christian calls for crusade.13 Such may give clout to the argument that the actual
purpose of the crusades encompassed more than simply objections to Muslim occupation of
Christian holy lands.
However, the fact that Christianity was highly pervasive and influential during the medieval
ages and practiced by many with great fervor offers support that the crusades can be considered a
holy war. The emphasis on the redemption of sin in primary documents reveals a guilt-ridden
consciousness of Christian Europeans who likely would have perceived a threat on their religion
as reason for war in the name of God. Crusaders like Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres,
reveal the perspective held by many that such war was indeed holy, writing to his wife that
fellow soldiers were “prepared to die for Christ” and that those who had been killed were given
to “the glory of God,” while describing the Turks as “enemies of God.”14 Pope Eugene III’s call
for a second crusade in 1154 in response to the fall of Edessa to Muslims, is abundant with
persuasive religious rhetoric as well, as he implores that “Whereby how a great danger threatens
the church of God and the whole of Christianity…We exhort therefore all of you in God, we ask
and command, and, for the remission of sins enjoin,” again, suggesting that religious ideology
was at the central purpose of the crusade.15 Yet, much like Pope Urban II, Pope Eugene III offers
the resolving of debts to crusaders as incentive to take arms.16 The Order of the Knights Templar
is often cited as further evidence that the crusades was a holy war, for its knights were called
13
Anon Arab Chronicler, “The Battle of Poiters,” (ca. 732), Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/arab-poitiers732.asp (accessed November 30 2012).
14
Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres, “Letter” (ca. 1098), Internet Medieval Sourcebook,
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Cruslet.html (accessed November 29 2012).
15
Pope Eugene III, “Summons to a Crusade” (ca. 1154), Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/eugene3-2cde.asp (accessed November 27 2012).
16
Ibid.
Giza 7
forth to “repel the foes of the cross of Christ” and to “rejoice, if you live and conquer in the lord;
but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord.”17
Furthermore, the nature of the crusades changed throughout its history; after the failures of
the Second Crusade, the proceeding crusades were more exclusively military endeavors and
lacked participants interested in pilgrimage and nonviolence. Thus, it seems that at its onset, the
crusades were likely much more rooted in an idea of a “holy war” and the preservation of
Christianity than they were in later years. Yet at the same time, even during the Sixth Crusade,
many still considered the war one of religion, as a knight by the name of Guy wrote of his
“Christian army” that was reinforced by “Templars and Hospitalers and pilgrims newly arrived”
and further added that “A few infidels were converted to Jesus Christ and up to the present time
remain with us.”18 Such conflicting evidence concerning if and when the crusades lost their
religious purpose only strengthens the argument that the crusades were never exclusively
religious or secular, for evidence for both motivators can be found among participants
throughout the entirety of the crusades.
Historical evidence thus suggests that the crusades were wars fought by those both pious and
self-serving in nature; while some were motivated by the lure of eternal salvation and pilgrimage
to the Holy Land, for others the crusade represented a means through which to acquire wealth,
freedom, and glory. While the papacy advocated the crusades as holy wars for the preservation
of Christianity, evidence also indicates that church leaders were cognizant of the social,
economic, and political benefits such war could incur. The nature of the crusades itself,
17
St. Bernard of Clairvoux, “Military Orders: In Praise of the New Knighthood” (ca. ), http://www.the-
orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/bernard.html (accessed November 29 2012).
18
Guy, a Knight, “Letter from the Sixth Crusade”(ca. 1249), Internet Medieval History Sourcebook,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1249sixthcde-let.asp (accessed November 29 2012).
Giza 8
expansive in time, location, and purpose, only further complicates definitions of these endeavors
as either religious or secular. It therefore seems inaccurate to label the crusades a “Holy War”
without considering the multitude of other causal factors, just as it remains inaccurate to focus on
the political, social, and economic factors of the crusades while ignoring the piety of many of its
members. Perhaps the adoption of a new modifier for this tumultuous period of conflict is in
order.