9010
Master Sage
The year is 1095 CE. Before a great crowd of Christians in what came to be known as “the Council of Clermont”, Pope Urban II delivers a rousing speech!
“…Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. 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. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! On this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let him eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide.“[1]
These words and their implications have been resonating for nearly a millennium now, in the minds of Christians and Muslims alike. And what truly started with this speech has developed into a far greater notion, rich in connotation, which has crept into the minds of all people. Crusade! What does it mean? What can properly be referred to as a crusade?
To a historian, the answer to this question becomes more elusive as one learns ever more about the long history of this concept. There are four main schools of thought on what it actually means – or meant – to crusade; the traditionalists, the pluralists, the generalists, and those who favor a more spiritual/psychological approach.
Now as much as they would make a case for their position, it becomes clear with a brief explanation of each that all of these schools are guilty of thinking too narrowly. Why does the idea of a crusade have to be crammed into one definition? It is apparent when looking at the facts that the term has two basic meanings; the original crusades, and the modern concept of crusades as a romantic ideal. This concept blends a few of the schools together, to create a more adaptable approach.
To a historian, the answer to this question becomes more elusive as one learns ever more about the long history of this concept. There are four main schools of thought on what it actually means – or meant – to crusade; the traditionalists, the pluralists, the generalists, and those who favor a more spiritual/psychological approach.
Now as much as they would make a case for their position, it becomes clear with a brief explanation of each, that all of these schools are guilty of thinking too narrowly. Why does the idea of a crusade have to be crammed into one definition? It is apparent when looking at the facts that the term has two basic meanings; the original crusades, and the modern concept of crusades as a romantic ideal. This concept blends a few of the schools together, to create a more adaptable approach.
The Traditionalists
The traditionalists take the most narrow, literal approach to the crusades. They ask “where a crusade was going”, and believe that “a true crusade must be directed towards the east.”[2] This limits the scope of what can be called a crusade to events between the 11th and 13th centuries. It would include only the crusades to the Levant starting with Pope Urban’s speech in 1095, and ending with the fall of the Crusader stronghold Acre in 1291.
Central to this idea is the holy land, especially the prize of Jerusalem itself. It also has to be sanctioned by the pope and supported by the Catholic Church. Naturally then much is left out in this definition, including the Reconquista, as well as persecution of pagans and heretics.
The Pluralists and Generalists
“If one accepts that the crusading movement transcends the conquest of the holy land, then there is no reason its history should abruptly end in 1291.”[3] This is the reasoning of the pluralists. Perhaps the most famous historian that holds the pluralist view is John Riley-Smith, who defined a crusade as “…a holy war authorized by the pope, who proclaimed it in the name of God or Christ…a defensive reaction to injury or aggression or as an attempt to recover Christian territories lost to the infidels, it answered the needs of the whole church or all of Christendom…rather than those of a particular nation.”[4]
Even still, this definition is excluding much of the crusades. What about the so-called “Children’s crusade of 1212”[5] that was not sanctioned by the pope? What about the men that fought in the first crusade for the Byzantine Empire? They were authorized by Emperor Alexius, not the Pope.
The generalists, in turn, “broadly identify the crusades with holy war and the justification for fighting in defense of the faith, emphasizing the importance of the concept of just war.”[6] There is a religious institution involved, but it doesn’t have to be Christian, let alone Catholic.
Broadening Definitions
Some have taken a more psychological approach, which is rather interesting, and really encapsulates what the crusades have become to so many people across the world.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York, President George W. Bush freely used the word “crusade” in response. Did he ask permission from the pope? No, he isn’t even Catholic. Did the soldiers sent to Iraq “take up the cross” in defense of Christianity? No, they weren’t even all Christians.
So what does a “crusade” mean in this context? That is what the psychological approach is attempting to explain. Every motivation for crusading is taken into account, not just religious. They “regard crusading as a popular movement rather than an institution-led one.”[7] So this even opens up the idea that there can be individual crusades, not sanctioned by any institution, an incredibly liberal thought.
We note that each approach became progressively more holistic. Tackling a subject holistically, in other words trying to bring in the entire picture to explain phenomena, is often a much more accurate way to present history.
As an example, when historians began exploring the idea that diseases such as small pox were a huge factor in Cortes’ victory over the Aztecs, it led to a much more realistic understanding than simply that the Spanish were more advanced and had God on their side.
So while the traditionalist and pluralist views add structure and stability to the term “Crusade”, they fail to encompass what it has become. This reasoning also fails to explain everything else that was going on in the church at that time; pope-sanctioned attacks on heretics and others considered a threat to the church. Meanwhile the generalists are so broad in what could be a crusade, it merely has to be. Further, to the psychology/spiritual advocates, religion doesn’t even have to be involved.
So what is a Crusade?
In response to all of these views, the present author feels compelled to explain the crusades in terms of two separate entities in order to understand what it really means to “crusade”. The crusades were a whole system of events with many different motivations and causes, and remain part of our lexicon to this day. This system is most appropriately broken into two parts.
First, the original crusades can be described by the etymology of the word itself. “The word ‘crusade’ is derived from the cross that those who took the vow to join one of these expeditions sewed on to their garments… The terms ‘to be signed by the cross’ or ‘to take the cross’” originated from “crux suscepit, crux accepit or crucizo in medieval Latin.”[8] Therefore, in context it is simply referring to any time the pope sanctioned a holy war, and Christian men fight for this cause. This fits in fairly well with the pluralist view. But the word “crusade” has come to mean so much more over the years.
Language is by nature an ever-changing thing. The same word used in the Middle Ages for “crusade” is not the same as used today. So historians must take this into account when creating a definition for something that has evolved for so long. The common usage today is a product of centuries of legends and stories that have all contributed to a romantic concept; A concept of good and evil, of us against them, of dragons and chivalrous knights.
Nowadays people use the crusades to mean any noble quest or struggle that people go through for what they consider to be a good purpose. For many, it has nothing to do with religion. For George Bush, mentioned earlier, it was the noble United States and their righteous democracy against the chaos in the Middle East, and a group of terrorist “barbarians” who would harm innocent civilians for no good reason.
Conclusion
It can be concluded, then, that the word crusade has two main definitions. Literally, it means any quest sanctioned by the pope. This can simply be referred to as the “original crusades”. Over the years it has developed a second meaning encompassing any quest that people go on for what they believe to be a good cause. There doesn’t need to be an institution behind it. The term has been romanticized, and therefore it can be referred to as “the modern romantic ideal of crusading.”
In this dual narrative, the term “crusade” is rather unique. The Punic wars between Rome and Carthage were quite epic in scope, and the legend of Hannibal is truly a highlight of military history. But no one today says “I’m going on a Punic!”
The crusades have become something so much bigger than any struggle in history, and are therefore largely misunderstood. Historians in the last half century have been researching the crusades more than ever before. But even as more research is done in the following decades, perhaps they will never come to an absolute conclusion to the most fundamental question of all. “What were the crusades?”
[1] Thatcher, A Source Book for Medieval Historys, 513-17.
[2] Nicholson, The Crusades, 7.
[3] Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, ix.
[4] Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades, 12.
[5] Nicholson, The Crusades, 9
[6] Nicholson, The Crusades, 7.
[7] Nicholson, The Crusades, 7
[8] Nicholson, The Crusades, 7.
Works Cited
Madden, Thomas F., The New Concise History of the Crusades. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005.
Nicholson, Helen, The Crusades. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, What
Were the Crusades? London: MacMillan, 1977.
Thatcher,
Oliver J., and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds., A Source Book for Medieval History,
New York: Scribners, 1905.
So What Do You Think?
Please share your thoughts below! What do you think of when you hear the term “Crusade”? What is your favorite Crusading legend? Do you have your own personal “Crusade”?
From Athens’ forum to ours. Live wisely my friends.
Archie the Sage