77 The First Crusade, Chapter 1: Holy War

This is the story of a pilgrimage, a mission and a war. Of a pope looking to reunite a church torn asunder. Of an emperor yearning to save what was left of a once-glorious nation and reconquer what had been lost. Of great nobles desperate for honor and salvation. Of their many vassals who followed them. Of zealots and heretics. Of atrocity and slaughter. Of legend and infamy.

The First Crusade was a momentous happening in human history. Historians debate, as they do with everything, whether the first holy war sanctified by the Papacy was a catalyst or a culmination. One school argues that the crusade was a novel event that laid a foundation for religious conflict between two of the world’s largest faiths. The other contends that this was a culmination of a millennia-long process in which a religion whose central figure was a peacemaker developed a theology that justified unrestrained warfare.

The First Crusade was an inherently French affair. Its theological underpinnings developed from centuries of religious conflict both within the land we now call France and on its ever-changing borders. Pope Urban II was born in Lagery and spent his formative years at Cluny Abbey. After becoming the Bishop of Rome, he returned to his native land and delivered a speech calling for holy war at Clermont. Five of the seven great magnates who led the armies of the First Crusade were Frenchmen born and raised in France. The first of the two exceptions was Bohemond, who hailed from Italy, though he was a Norman whose father had left the homeland and conquered the southern end of the peninsula. Bohemond grew up in the mercenary Norman culture and French was his mother tongue. The other exception was Robert II of Flanders. While Robert II was culturally and linguistic Flemish, the County of Flanders was then part of the Kingdom of France, making him politically French. Thus, even the ‘exceptions’ had their roots in France.

Future crusades were far more international in character. Kings and emperors from across Europe led soldiers speaking dozens of different languages. For that reason we will not dwell on those wars in future episodes. But the First Crusade was a French one. What it unleashed upon Europe, the Middle East and the world is the epic told here.

Chapter 1: Holy War

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God…

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

-Matthew Chapter 5, Verses 7-9, 38-39 [King James Version]

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

-1 Samuel Chapter 15, Verse 3, [King James Version]

“And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them…But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”

-Deuteronomy Chapter 7, Verses 2 and 5 [King James Version] [quotes read by Bry Rayburn of Pontifacts]

In retrospect, it is perhaps unsurprising that Christianity underwent an entire millennia before its leaders developed theology justifying war. This is because Jesus Christ, as written in the New Testament, is a figure of peace. That is not to say Jesus was a pacifist; he did drive out the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip. Yet, Jesus’ core message was that there are two worlds: one physical the other spiritual. The physical is temporary while the spiritual is eternal. Jesus preached pursuit of what was morally right, regardless of what physical suffering it might cause. To the dismay of many Jews who hoped he would lead a revolution against the Romans, Jesus said to obey government authority. He told his followers to pay their taxes and accept conscripted labor from legionaries rather than spend the effort to resist. In Matthew 22:21 he said, “…Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” For Jesus, money and earthly service amounted to nothing while righteous actions reverberated throughout eternity.

The Apostles followed Christ’s example, with Saint Paul declaring in Romans 13 that a Christian must obey government authorities, writing, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Early Christianity was fundamentally apolitical. Christians widely believed that they should not engage in civic disagreements which might distract from their spiritual calling. Only when the government banned their practices did they take action, and this in the form of passive resistance. These actions led to regular martyrdom. Christian acceptance of painful death stunned many Romans, leading to more conversion.

The growth of Christianity within the Roman Empire proved ideologically problematic for the religion and the government. Christians largely refused military service based on their opposition to violence or because of the pagan rituals within the military. During the 4th century Christianity became the majority religion of the empire, having been made legal under Constantine’s 313 Edict of Milan and the official state religion under Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica. How was a Christian empire to defend itself from consistent attacks on its borders?

In the early 5th century one of the most influential Christian scholars of all time, Saint Augustine of Hippo, released a series of texts which codified the church’s position on violence. Contrary to our modern conceptions, Augustine did not believe that anyone had the right to kill another in self-defense. Augustine took the 6th Commandment extremely literally. Yet, Augustine argued that there was a loophole to the order “Thou shalt not kill.” He argued that the sin of killing was not in the act itself but in the motivating force behind the act. Killing in defense of oneself was an act of desire, that being the desire to live. If one killed another out of desire, even for self-preservation, that was a sin. However, Augustine argued that a Christian could kill so long as he did so without any desire. He contended that soldiers do not exhibit desire in the act of killing because they are not committing the act for themselves but as a fulfillment of the law. Augustine’s judgement rested on the belief that the law was an abstraction; to act on the command of an abstraction was not an expression of desire but of duty. Thus, he concluded that it was permissible to kill if ordered to do so by the government, but not in any other circumstances.

From our vantage point it is clear that there were some philosophical problems with Augustine’s thinking. Like the Sith, and many Greco-Roman-inspired philosophers, he worked in absolutes. He held that soldiers could kill without desire, ignoring that desire to kill or refrain from it was always part of a soldier’s decision. Moreover, Augustine’s theories rested on the idea of the law as an abstraction; ignoring the fact that laws are inherently responses to actual occurrences. Augustine himself was not exempt from current events altering his religious thinking. From his position in Africa, Augustine believed that he had to convince his fellow believers to take up arms against invaders. When the Roman general Marcellinus asked Augustine if his life of war was a sin and if he should retreat to a monastery, Augustine convinced him to remain at his post. He stated that so long as his heart remained pure his actions were without sin. Thus, Marcellinus could follow Christ’s order to love one’s enemies and simultaneously kill them. Moreover, Augustine provided the theological justification for orthodox Catholics to violently suppress the breakaway Donatist sect.

Finally, Augustine defended the use of wars as a means of bringing about peace. He argued that it was a good act for soldiers to fight against foreign invaders to protect peaceful Christians. While Augustine denounced violence for its own sake, he concluded that it could be just. After all, God commanded the Israelites to launch wars of conquest in Canaan, and even wars of extermination against the indigenous populations, to seize the territory. He concluded that since God is all good and he ordered wars then therefore some wars can be good. Since God would not lead his own children to commit immoral acts then soldiers must be justified in waging war if it were a war for absolute principles, such as upholding the law or enacting divine judgement.

Augustine’s concepts of just war had a huge impact on Catholic dogma. However, this had little practical effect for many centuries. In the 5th century the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Vandals seized North Africa. The Lombards took Italy. The Visigoths settled in Iberia while the Franks conquered Gaul. Gradually, each conquering group converted to some form of Christianity to ingratiate themselves with the locals. Yet, these warlords often acted as they wished since the Catholic Church was relatively weak. Their wars for land, gold and vengeance were squarely part of Germanic traditions.

Religion and war violently came together during the early 8th century. In the midst of a civil war Charles of the Pippinids became the leading magnate of France. After defeating his Frankish rivals this great military leader won a major victory against a Muslim army at the Battle of Poitiers 732. For years afterwards Charles led the Franks to war in the Muslim-controlled southern territory of Septimania. While Charles was by all accounts a pious man, his military decisions were political. When Aquitaine rose up in revolt he abandoned the siege of Septimania’s capital to war against his fellow Christians. Yet, Charles effectively posed as a defender of Christendom against a heathen threat, taking the moniker ‘Martel,’ ‘The Hammer.’

Charles Martel had a profound impact on the concept of religious warfare. In his propaganda, if not quite in reality, he claimed to unite Christians against a foreign threat. Charles depicted his military campaigning as defensive maneuvers against further Iberian expansion. Even his conquests in Septimania could be justified as defensive, given that the territory was used to launch assaults into Provence.

Charles Martel’s grandson Charlemagne inaugurated a new era of religious warfare when he invaded Saxony. The war began under the secular pretext of countering Saxon raiders. However, it soon gained a new justification as a holy mission to save Germanic souls from paganism. In 772 Charlemagne led an army to Eresburg, a fortress on a hill. When the Franks breached the defenses they found a sacred grove. At its heart was Irminsul, a great tree used for pagan worship. Charlemagne ordered the holy tree burned. He then forced the captured Saxons to renounce their gods Odin, Thor and Saxnot, be baptized and convert.

Charlemagne believed that he could bring about peace by uniting the Germanic peoples under one religion. Yet, the Saxons did not abandon their ways easily. What followed was Charlemagne’s most brutal war. Every Saxon raid was met with an even harsher Frankish campaign. When the rebel leader Widikund defeated a Frankish army, Charlemagne ordered the massacre of 4,500 Saxons at Verden. When the Saxons still resisted Frankish dominance Charlemagne ordered mass deportations, placing small groups of Saxons in areas where they were surrounded by Franks.

The Saxon Wars dramatically shifted ideas surrounding Christian warfare. First, these were offensive wars, which is not to say that politicians and theologians acknowledged them as such. Like many wars of conquest, these were justified as defensive. Yet, Charlemagne’s armies penetrated so deep that anti-raiding rhetoric was insufficient. Instead, Charlemagne and his councilors proposed the idea that Christian security was dependent on eradicating non-Christian belief. The theory was that Christians properly following the true faith would not war against each other as readily as pagans. Thus, offensive wars against non-believers were justified as defensive measures to protect peaceful Christendom.

The second major development in Christian religious warfare was the creation of a set of practices for mass conversion. Charlemagne was not the first to try converting pagan peoples, as the Franks had been warring against the pagan Frisians for over a century, leading many to the faith. Yet, Charlemagne’s actions set down traditions for how to convert non-believers, something which the Franks replicated in Pannonia and elsewhere. Conquered peoples had to renounce their false gods, be baptized, declare their acceptance of Christ and take a Christian godfather who would guide them in the ways of the faith. These four steps became a standard program for converting non-Christians. While this program was novel, forced conversion was not. Christians did not see a problem with forcing their beliefs on others; in fact, quite the opposite. During the Roman Empire, when slavery was common, Christian slavemasters were obligated to convert slaves.

The theological debates surrounding holy war centered on the combatants. Scholars lauded Christians who converted pagan soldiers. They justified the killing of those who would not convert, blaming them for their death and damnation. Yet, many of Charlemagne’s victims during the Saxon Wars were not enemy soldiers but peasants, women, children and elders caught up in the punitive campaigns. Slaughter and abuse of non-combatants was generally viewed as a byproduct of war, and not the most immediate concern for the church. Indeed, the idea of combatants and non-combatants was largely undeveloped in the medieval period, as peasant farmers often took up arms during wartime. Anyone that the Christian soldiers encountered could potentially be an enemy. If God permitted any amount of violence against the enemies of the faith, then a Christian soldier could do whatever they wished with the non-believer under their power, could they not? This was a theological grey area, whose moral questions were largely ignored by military commanders looking for plunder for themselves and to satisfy their soldiers.

Following Charlemagne’s death and the dissolution of his empire Christendom was again on the defensive, this time against Viking raiders. The most dramatic moment came when the warlord Ragnar hanged 111 Franks as a sacrifice to Odin before sacking Paris. The Franks followed Charlemagne’s example, leading non-believers to renounce old gods, accept baptism, convert and adopt a Christian godfather, though when swords failed them they resorted to bribes. This was the case with Charles the Simple and the Viking Rollo. Rollo agreed to convert, accept the Frankish king as his godfather and protect northern France from Viking raiders in exchange for the County of Rouen.

While Vikings attacked from the north, Muslims from Al-Andalus assaulted Provence. In 887 the Andalusians took the fortress of Fraxinetum. From there they established a sizeable state, from which they could raid across Western Europe. Local Christians violently resisted Islamic overlordship. Yet, the state of Fraxinetum lasted for 85 years because the nearby Christian Frankish lords prioritized their own power over repelling those of a rival faith. On two separate occasions Christian forces nearly vanquished the mujahedeen, only to abandon their campaigns to deal with other matters.

Fraxinetum’s swift and dramatic end came about in 972. That summer, mudahim, raiders, captured Bishop Maiolus, the abbot of Cluny, the most important church in all of France. This was too much for the southern Franks. It was bad enough that there was a heathen state within their country ruling over Christians. The mujahadeen regularly pillaged holy sites and now had captured a man many considered to be a living saint. Guillaume I of Provence led a coalition which included soldiers from Provence, Septimania and northern Italy. The Christians overwhelmed the mujahedeen and seized their fortresses. Then they slaughtered every Muslim in the territory who refused to convert, regardless of age or sex.

The conquest of Fraxinetum was an important step towards the First Crusade. Perhaps it was the First Crusade. Soldiers from different regions banded together to liberate Christians and reestablish Christian overlordship in a territory controlled by Muslims. The lords who led the campaign justified it as an act of faith. When they arrived they saved whichever souls they could and massacred those Muslims who refused to turn apostate. Finally, they seized territory and wealth, something which became an integral component of every crusade.

The holy war in Provence had a significant impact on France’s most influential church. Cluny Abbey’s prestige soared. What other church could claim it was the catalyst for a successful holy war? Around 1048 the Italian Ildebrando di Soana joined Cluny Abbey. After going back and forth between Italy and France he was elected Pope in 1073, taking the name Gregory VII. Following the one-year papacy of Victor III, another Cluniac, Odon of Châtillon, became Pope Urban II.

Urban II was well-versed in the holy war in Provence, given its centrality to Cluny Abbey’s identity. Yet, that was not the only conquest of Islamic territory by Christians that later inspired him to call the First Crusade. At the time of his ascension, Norman mercenaries were completing their conquest of the island of Sicily. The island had been under Islamic control for over a century; pirates based in Sicily raided the peninsula and even sacked the center of Catholicism, St. Peter’s Basilica, in 846. For two centuries Sicily had been a threat to Italian Christendom. Then Norman mercenaries left their home in search of gold and glory, conquering the island and the southern half of the peninsula.

Urban II and many of his contemporaries looked to the Norman conquest of Sicily as a stunning example of Christian warriors rolling back Muslim advances, freeing persecuted Christians and establishing godly rule in their newly-seized territory. The propaganda was far from the truth. It is possible that the majority of regular soldiers in the Norman campaign were Muslims who allied with the Normans against their rivals. The leader of the campaign, Roger Bosso, invaded the island for wealth and power, because those things are awesome to have, and because he wanted a powerbase of his own so that he would not depend on the patronage of his older brother, Robert Guiscard. When Roger Bosso assumed control of the island he practiced tolerance towards the Muslims, Jews and Greek Christians who lived there. He allowed high-ranking Muslim lords to retain their positions and he did not force anyone to convert to Latin Christianity.

Despite all this, Urban II viewed events in Sicily as a watershed moment for Christendom. One of the richest territories in Europe was once again under Christian rule. Moreover, while the Normans did not force conversion at the point of a sword they did reverse the gizya tax, imposing a levy on all non-Christians. If Roger Bosso used the law to gather funds from the rich Muslims, Urban II seems to have interpreted it as a reasonable means to pressure Sicilians to convert. Even though the wars in Fraxinetum and Sicily were largely fought for secular reasons, politicians propagandized them as acts of faith to justify their conquests while religious figures used them to promote Christian warfare against Muslims. Following hundreds of years of continual defeat, humiliation and subjugation by Islamic forces, soldiers from France won major victories and began turning the tide for Christendom.

Augustinian theology justified holy war. Frankish, French and Norman military victories over hostile non-believers provided examples for how to successfully wage a holy war. Yet, there was one final major component needed before the First Crusade could be called: Christian peace. Before Christians could leave their own territories to fight against heathen they had to be assured that their property and kin would be left unmolested by any of their fellows.

In the medieval period violence between Christians was constant. Petty lords contended with petty lords over scraps of territory. The great magnates warred with each other for larger prizes. Kings and emperors fought with their subjects over power relations. Leaders of nations led their countries to war with other countries. If only Christians could put aside their earthly differences they could form a mighty force, though accomplishing this was a daunting task.

Two Christian peace movements emerged in France during a particularly brutal time in its history. When the Carolingian House failed and the Capetians seized power the king of France was weak and the kingdom fractured into virtually autonomous territories. Countless small-scale battles pockmarked the land. In 975 Boso, count of Périgord and La Marche [roughly modern day Creuse] assaulted the castle of La Brosse, held by Géraud I viscount of Limoges. Violence spilled over into the nearby lands held by the monastery of Saint-Benoit-du-Sault. Géraud I repulsed Boso’s forces at which point Boso renewed his offensive elsewhere. In the process, his son Elias seized the bishop of Limoges and stabbed out his eyes. Géraud I’s son then captured Elias and sent emissaries to the powerful Duke of Aquitaine, Guillaume IV, asking for permission to blind Elias in retribution. Guillaume IV granted his request, but Elias escaped. His punishment was passed on to Boso’s third son, whose eyes were removed. As if this were not bad enough, this atrocity-filled conflict devastated those least capable of defending themselves: peasants and priests.

In the wake of this brutal campaign Guy II, bishop and count of Le Puy, assembled local lords to a meeting where he made them swear an oath to uphold peace. This one event led to the Peace of God movement. This movement sought to restrict violence between believers, limiting when fighting could take place and under what circumstances. Furthermore, its leaders aimed to protect non-combatants. The movement became so popular that King Robert II supported it, in part because it brought order to his divided realm. When the Peace of God movement declined in the 1030s a similar campaign called the Truce of God emerged in Normandy.

The Peace of God and Truce of God movements did not aspire to end all wars between Christians, but to merely regulate how they could be fought. Moreover, they even failed in their limited measures. French lords continued to fight for land, wealth and power and the innocent were perennial victims of violence. Yet, these two movements had a lasting impact. They provided a prototype for regulating warfare in Christian terms. Moreover, when Urban II called the First Crusade and forbid those who remained in France from abusing the land of the departed Crusaders, the French could easily comply given their familiarity with a Christian peace.

It is no coincidence that the First Crusade was largely a French affair, as France and its people inspired the development of Catholic theology on holy war. The people of France provided real-world examples for how to win wars against non-Christian polities and how to establish internal peace based on Christian principles.

Their works were never met the Catholic ideal. They typically warred for wealth and power; for them religion was a justification for their actions, not the purpose. Their peace movements were impressive for the time, yet still failed. However, none of this mattered. What mattered to the papacy was that the French could win wars and could do so under the banner of the Cross. When the Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios I pleaded for military aid to defend Anatolia, Urban II saw it as an opportunity to draw soldiers from France who would retake the Holy Land and shift the momentum from Islam towards Christianity. What occurred in miniature in Saxony, Provence and Sicily would play out in full during the First Crusade, with all its glory, horror and madness.