Misguided Lives? : A look at the decline in support for the Latin Crusades to the East, 1095-1274
by Erica Boehme
It seemed like a wonderful idea; declare a defensive war against an enemy of both earth and Heaven, encourage those warriors who make trouble at home to go use their skills on the enemy abroad, and then, to top it all off, offer those who participate the chance to cut down the time they will spend in purgatory for their sins committed on earth. The cry of “Dieu le leut - God wills it!” would rise gloriously up to the Kingdom of Heaven. A perfect plan…or so it seemed. When Pope Urban II preached the idea and enthusiasm of the First Crusade in 1095, he was preaching to a congregation in need of something. They were, at that time, in need of a unifying cause- a mobilization which could bring together countries, give aid to those Christian brothers being set upon by the “pagan hoards” in the East, and give meaning and purpose to the lives of nobles who had nothing better to do than fight their own neighbors. But throughout the crusading era, and more specifically towards the end of the thirteenth century, there were many who did not believe that the crusades were necessary, profitable, or even moral.
The fall of lands and cities that had been under Christian control since the First crusade in 1095 could be disheartening when it came to sending loved ones off to fight in the crusades for the Holy Lands. The destruction of Frankish Christian settlements and the many Christian lives lost could have been yet another factor of the declining support for the crusading cause. This decline is evident in the constant lack of knights, after the Second Crusade, that were needed to garrison fortresses that had been won, and to protect cities that had been taken from the Saracen forces. To say that there was a blatant lack of royal support in the later crusades, as compared with earlier ones, is correct, but is to be blind to the other events that were taking place in Western Europe in that period. Internal strife and “bad blood” between many Western monarchs, particularly those of England, France, and Germany, caused the forces that might have been added to crusade armies to be placed in garrisons fighting for their kings and lords on the home front. There were also the many so-called “political” crusades against other Christians and enemies of the Church, which, it as said, were simply in defense of the Church and the Christian people. These arguments were all well and good for many of the medieval masses but led to a course of criticism of the crusades, and the Church’s practices and involvements in them.
Before delving into the subject of crusade criticism, the modern reader must first acknowledge that the idea of the crusades today is very different from what it was in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. The reality is that a great majority either openly supported, or at least did not openly criticize, the crusades as an institution. After the vigor and victory of the First Crusade in 1095, the idea of crusading as a way of life and belief became indoctrinated into the minds and hearts of the followers of Christ. Much like the commonly accepted practice of persecution against those peoples and countries who followed communism so many centuries later, so too was this furtherment of the Kingdom of God on Earth and the “just war” against non-believers who threatened the Christian way of life easily accepted by almost every class of people…at least in the beginning. The crusades were also a popular way of gaining fame, fortune, land, and praise, in addition to serving God’s cause and furthering His kingdom. War itself, though not entirely agreeable, was considered a popular pastime, if not a duty, among the nobility. But just as every movement has its great orators and progenitors, so does each one have its critics and rebels.
The greatest criticism of the crusades comes in the form of ecclesiastics; those of the Word of God who did not see this violence as an act that the Church should condone, let alone encourage. Much criticism was based on the concept that violence, war, and vengeance were not the ways that Jesus had taught his followers to be. The Bible even makes specific those teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in the Book of Matthew when Jesus is being taken away by soldiers, and one with him draws his sword to defend Jesus, he says to this man, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” It was this very passage in Matthew that inspired many of the pacifist arguments of the crusading era.
The subject of pacifist arguments against the crusade has a problem at its very roots. For it is impossible to ascertain from historical documentation just how many of those professing a pacifist view against the crusade were truly non-violent, or if they had simply “seen the light” after a warrior’s life of violence or the perceived wrath of God against them for wrong-doings. It was not an uncommon practice for an aging knight or lord to retire to the quiet and non-violent life in a monastery. But entering the monastic cloister did not automatically imply a pacifist attitude, for some of these retired warriors could be persuaded out of the habit by family situations, or even by violence against their monastery.
There was one group of pacifist believers, who called themselves Cathars, or “pure ones,” who gained instant infamy with the Christian Church. The Cathars saw the angry, vengeful God of the Old Testament as associated with Satan, and Christ as an angel who came to Earth to free trapped souls. They also believed that anyone could reach God through prayer, thus ousting the clergy from their powerful position of interim. Their initiated perfecti “renounced sexual intercourse, violence, and all animal food.” The perfecti, as well as the non-initiated Cathar believers, also refused to pledge oaths, which caused them to be blacklisted as heretics even before their theological and pacifist views came into play. Groups like the Cathars, and those similar to them (Waldensians, Humiliti) where a major voice against the crusades.
Outright criticism of the crusades is not as common as would have been thought, and is most often found in the speeches and writings of members of the clergy or lay preachers. Additionally, some of the modern evidence comes today filtered through any number of sources, including those that hold the original documents; i.e. letters and primary source documents still held by the Catholic Church. Further, some of the best evidence of contemporary criticism of the crusades can be found in writings and arguments of those defending the stand-point of the church, such as Humbert of Romans, the Master General of the Dominican Order in the year 1172.
At the request, either direct or indirect, of Pope Gregory X, Humbert of Romans wrote a treatise on crusade preaching and criticism completed for the Second Council of Lyons in1174. The treatise Humbert wrote provides an excellent source of evidence as to what kind of criticism was being placed on the Church and its crusading practices in the late thirteenth century. In his Opus tripartitum, Humbert of Romans breaks down this criticism into seven parts, or types of men who criticize the crusades. Humbert first offers to defend against the stance of the critics who say, “It is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way.” The other forms of criticism evidenced by Humbert’s defense of crusades are the arguments that: Christians should defend themselves, but not attack; if Christians attack one group of non-believers, why not all the others; the attack on Muslims will not convert them, but only anger them; and if the crusades were God’s will, he would protect his children. The only difficulty with the arguments made by Humbert is that he turns every ounce of criticism around to defend and also to condone the crusades as a violent, yet necessary means of the survival of the Church, and the Christian faith and followers. All in all, the pro-crusade arguments made by Humbert of Romans do resonate with a kind of rational that would be accepted even by today’s modern, politically correct reader. The style of “argue/defend” writing in Humbert’s Opus almost makes the criticism itself look like pieces of crusade propaganda.
And yet, in trying to defend the crusade principles so enthusiastically, Humbert discusses some insights into the reasons why many men in this age will not take the cross, providing another, more subtle type of crusade criticism. Firstly, he says these critics are men embroiled in sins of drunkenness, sensuality and avarice. Secondly, they are afraid of injury and/or death. Thirdly, they love their own countries more than they love the Mother Church. They are also given to taking worldly and bad advice. But what Humbert considered worst, and what is one of the most interesting insights into the mind of the general public, was that most people no longer believed that spiritual merit could be gained by crusading.
This sentiment is echoed in the mocking songs of troubadours such as Austore de Segret, who musically questioned whether the disastrous crusade to Tunis, in which Louis IX lost his life, had been led by Christ or by the Devi; and Guillem Daspols, ‘who composed a tenzone that asked why God honored the Saracens, allowing the Christians to fall.’ Even some of those who actively participated in the crusades became disillusioned and suspicious of the value and motives of the crusading institution. One anonymous annalist of Wurzburg reflected common attitudes of the West towards the crusades in his own personal experience:
“God allowed the Western Church, on account of its sins, to be cast down…. The intentions of various men were different. Some, indeed, lusted after novelties and went in order to learn about new lands. Other there were who were driven by poverty…these men went to fight, not only against the enemies of Christ’s cross, but even against the friends of the Christian name, wherever the opportunity appeared, in order to relieve their poverty. There were others who were oppressed by debts to other men or who sought to escape the service due to their lords, or who were even awaiting the punishment merited by their shameful deeds. Such men simulated a zeal for God and hastened chiefly in order to escape from such troubles and anxieties.”
To give set date on which began the decline in support for the crusade would be difficult to pinpoint, but it is the opinion of the author that an approximate event can be provided instead. The fall the County of Edessa in 1144 was the beginning of the end, as it was the result of the new unification of the Muslim world to fight the invading infidel, and the end to the misconception of Western military prowess. But it would be the failure and devastation of the Second Crusade that caused many to re-think their support for the crusades. Even Aymeric, the patriarch of Jerusalem expresses anti-crusade, and anti-occupation sentiments in a letter to King Louis VII of France in 1164.
Near the end of the twelfth century, an abbot named Joachim provided a very rational criticism against the crusade on basis of Divine Will. Though he did not voice his pessimism about the crusades until after the fall of the Horns of Hattin in 1183 and the rise of Saladin in power, Joachim became a critic of crusading because he felt it was a “futile enterprise.” Joachim believed that the end of Christian history would soon come to a close and saw the Muslim ruler Saladin as preceding the Antichrist’s coming. In Joachim’s mind, the Day of Judgment was near, so it was needless to spill the blood of Christians, who should have been looking to their own faith, readying themselves for the Coming of Christ. Such beliefs, though radical in the eyes of many provide yet another diversion from the crusading effort.
Through the beginning, height, and decline of the Christian Crusades, there was always someone ready to condemn, hate, fear, or fight the crusading ethos and ideas. And though there were many more who were willing to fight for the Church’s (and thus Christ’s) cause, there can be seen a dissenting voice and a decline in the enthusiasm, and, at the least, physical support needed to bolster and maintain crusade armies of good standing. It was because of this lack of volunteer pilgrim manpower that religious military orders were founded, sealing the fate of the crusades as a militaristic expedition. In the end, even the last great religious military Order of the Hospitallers would be struck down, with the crusades themselves lost in the political and bureaucratic depths of the new monarchs of the West. The religious zeal with which the crusades first began can still be seen in modern times, though now, we call them extremists, and shake our heads and smile sadly at their misguided lives.