Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade

Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade: The Limousin and Gascony c.970-c.1130
by Marcus Bull
Oxford University Press, 1993

As the title of his book shows, Marcus Bull takes a very specific area of southern France in which a significant amount of charter and cartulary records survive in the monastic and secular ecclesiastical communities to build a case for understanding knightly piety in this period.  In a nut shell, rather than supporting an early concept that the First Crusade had its inception in the Peace of God movement led by the church, or the more modern understanding that the Reconquista of Spain had any impact on the Christian versus Muslim world, Bull states flatly that it was at a local level in the communication between the laity and their churches that the conception of fighting for Christ was fostered.  Using the importance of benefices to the church on behalf of souls, devoting family members to the cloister including children who would pray for their kinsman, and the established idea of pilgrimage fully ingrained in the medieval mind, Bull argues that the conception of penance for sin and the fear of the interim world between earth and the Heaven or Hell awaiting, was the real force behind crusading.

While highly influential and often cited as this work may be, the weakness of the argument lie in several obvious areas that even Bull points out briefly.  First the work is in many ways reliant on a small but important part of Europe as a whole.  Motivations in one corner of Christendom can be suggested as a guide to others, but southern France holds peculiar attitudes of its own from this period, and was far more influenced by the boarder it shared with Spain than Bull wants to give credit.  Truly the records kept by the Church do not bear out the attitudes of the common or everyday man, but it seems somewhat simple to argue that the French were barely involved in the interests of their southern neighbor when it came to coming to blows with the Muslim occupancy of Andalusia.  Family connections among the lay nobility are underplayed by Bull.  The idea of an actual crusade or holy war against the Muslim communities (and Jewish) did not form until later, but it is a mistake to believe that there was no underlying influence on contemporaries just a little over the Pyrenees mountains. 

Secondly, chronicles from this period must rely to a greater and lesser extent on the nature of the writers themselves, and what they feel is important or of adequate not to compose.  Interpretation of events rests with the historian, which not all of these men were, for example Matthew of Edessa versus Fulcher of Chartres, both of whom wrote in widely divergent styles and with different analysis of events the recorded.

On the whole, Marcus Bull’s book goes a long way towards establishing a realistic view of the medieval mind set predating the First Crusade, and the influences left after the ultimately successful outcome.  His argument that the element of making a gift to God through one’s property, family or time and money, fits well with the serious commitment that crusading required if it were to get an individual on his or her way, and explains away the fallacy of a completely unexpected acclimation at the preaching of the crusade by Urban II at Clermont in November of 1095, that clerical writers tended to stress.  The inclinations were already there, and it did not take much of a spark to set a gasoline doused pile of wood on fire.

Armenia and the Crusades: Tenth to Twelfth Century, The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa

Armenia and the Crusades: Tenth to Twelfth Centuries
The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa
Translated by Ara Edmond Dostourian
University of America, 1993

This eastern based chronicle, being written by a resident of the important city of Edessa in the early period of the twelfth century, gives modern scholars a look into the political and military life of the northern Syria during an extremely hostile time.  Covering a history primarily centered on the Kingdom of Armenia and its highs and lows from 952 -1136, Matthew of Edessa is eventually succeeded in his chronicle writing by a certain Gregory the Priest who then carries the narrative forward until the year 1162.

This chronicle by Matthew is very important for many reasons, but of particular note is the fact that he reveals through prose that is somewhat exaggerated and unscrutinized by it's composer, a world that is wrought with strife and violence that is not even comparable to feudal Europe.  Between Seljuk Turks, Arabs from Damascus and Cairo, and the Byzantine and Armenian Kingdoms, the scale of violence and backstabbing is remarkable in the Middle East, even before the arrival of the crusaders in 1096-97.  Unfortunately, a western biased view of the northern Syria is popularly viewed as the battle ground of the crusaders, when in fact they were the new kids in a fray that was older than their pretensions. 

On the other hand Matthew of Edessa gives scholars a picture that can best be compared with feudal Europe, depicting the back and forth power play between opposed factions, who on occasion find usefulness in allying themselves with each other in order to not allow one power too much of a gain versus the others.  This chronicle is completely devoid of cultural or intellectual developments, other than theological disputes between the emperor of the Byzantines and the Armenian doctors.  In each case, the Armenian theologians win all debates.

Matthew of Edessa is ardently a supporter of the Armenian heritage he feels he belongs too, and is more than explicit when he feels the wrath of God is justly falling on the heads of those deserving it.  However, he has provided us with a window into the period before and after the First Crusade that is valuable for understanding the scenario that the crusaders marched in upon.  Matthew provides a counter point to the idea of the benevolent rule of the crusader's once successfully in command of the important strongholds of the holy land, but at the same time ridicules the idea that there were any "good guys" among the warring factions of the east.  Far from civil, Matthew of Edessa demonstrates in black and white the good and bad sides of the Greeks, Turks, and Arabs of his period in history.

The Debate on the Crusades

The Debate on the Crusades
by Christopher Tyerman 
Manchester University Press, 2011.


This recent work by Christopher Tyerman is unassuming in its purpose, that of writing a short crusade historiography that is accessible to both a scholarly and popular audience.  The focus on writers and philosophers from 1099 onward to the present, outlines extensively the changing views towards the crusades from contemporaries of the First Crusade to the modern world in ways that demonstrate multiple shifting attitudes.  This work is a real gem for the crusade historian who seeks an overview of all the important names in the field along with their perspectives, and is thus a must read.  Making several stops from the medieval period into the Reformation and Enlightenment, Tyerman jumps through the final centuries to the present noting each major work that moves forward the debate on how the crusades are defined.

Tyerman's warning as it were throughout the book and neatly summed up in the epilogue, is the danger of attempting to contextualize the crusade past in modern perspective which correlates to current events.  This was true for Voltaire and David Hume as much as it is true today in a post-9/11 society.  Instead of constantly asking what lessons can be learned, we must allow the facts to remain just so; facts of events that occurred in an era somewhat alien from ours some nine hundred years ago.  However, in taking this position Tyerman almost seems to exclude the possibility of using history as an instructional form at all.  His real issue addressed in the work, is the perceived moral applications that heighten tense relations between Christians and Muslims today, if not between Protestants and Catholics, and Representative versus Totalitarian government.

The Debate on the Crusades is a history about history and opens up questions about other fields of historical inquiry, demonstrating that even if Napoleon was right and "history is a myth that men agree upon", that myth is always in danger of changing because of the very human tendency to want it to conform to perceived reality.  As an intellectual history this work challenges the reader to come to grips with his own perceived notions and sometimes strongly held beliefs about the nature of history, this should be a work that is suggested reading in any class on historiography or the study of western civilization. 

-John Lowe (J. Sharp)

The First Crusader, 1095-1131

The First Crusaders, 1095-1131
by Jonathan Riley-Smith
Cambridge University Press, 1997

Perhaps one of the most commonly cited secondary works on crusader history for nearly two decades, this ground breaking work was an attempt by Dr. Riley-Smith to understand the men and women who led the first of what would become the 'crusades' idea, namely an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land, specifically Jerusalem.  Instead of focusing on the events of the First Crusade itself, this work attempts to define the development of holy war up to the preaching of the crusade at Clermont in 1095, analyzing the true cost of crusading, and discussing the importance of family connections that either aided or inhibited success for the crusaders.

Riley-Smith argues that the notion of a penitential pilgrimage to the holy land was not in itself a new thing, but the rationalization of a form of warfare to work for spiritual cleanliness was.  Riley-Smith illuminates a world in which all of society is plagued by a fear of a state of sinfulness, and more so the class that engaged in war; the nobility.  However, even though the argument is still maintained that many went to atone for sin and to utilize a means for repaying grave sins through this severe penance, the fact that most of Europe remained at home still begs for greater study on the feelings of those that remained behind.  Was all of Europe truly in a state of fear before the gates of hell?  Clearly not.

Without a doubt, Riley-Smith is very through in examining the question of cost versus material gain for those going on crusade.  The fact that a person returned at all was in itself cause for praise, and even Dr. Riley-Smith's findings in chapter six of the book, demonstrates that almost 99% of the crusaders suffered severe losses instead of gains.  The arguments made in the book also take into account the notion that Europe was getting rid of unwanted males that were making too much of a drain on the financial resources of their families.  Riley-Smith aptly points out through many examples that in fact, many a family was forced to do damage control and protect as much of the family patrimony as possible when members of the family made the financially disastrous decision to go on crusade. 

Finally, this work is a study of prosopography, the study of a relationships between various members through affiliation, friendship, and most importantly through family.  Tracing every crusader named in the primary chronicles and charters, Riley-Smith has built a base for his analysis through a frequency of common behaviors or actions, and through familial connections that suggest sometimes favoritism and self promotion and on the other hand unity amongst leaders. 

Though by the nature of the materials available, the work focuses primarily on the nobility while the commoners are obscured, the information challenges historians to ask questions of medieval society that demand answers regarding general opinion of the people of medieval Europe.  While Riley-Smith's work suggests that much of Europe was involved in an active way in the period his book covers, questions remain as to whether or not the general populous remained either skeptical or incredulous at the sight of armed men leaving wives, children, and lands for perhaps ever, to fight an enemy that was not even on their own kingdom lands.  If one thing Riley-Smith does not cover here, is the effect of faith and reason in the medieval period that rationalizes the choice to move forward when all rational reasons fail.

-John Lowe (J. Sharp)

A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095-1127

A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem 1095-1127
Historia Hierosolymitana
by Fulcher of Chartres
Translated by Frances Rita Ryan
Edited by Harold S. Fink
University of Tennessee Press, 1969


This primary source of the First Crusade, translated in 1916 by Frances Rita Ryan, covers nearly thirty years of history lived and seen by a chaplain that accompanied the armies that went east after the appeal to go forth on crusade by Pope Urban II in 1095.  Separating from his original commitment with the contingent under the command of Stephen of Blois, Fulcher of Chartres the author of the narrative, joined the party of Baldwin of Boulogne, continuing on with the latter through his election as King of Jerusalem (1100-1118) as the king's personal chaplain.  Surviving the king by another nine years into the reign of Baldwin II of Jerusalem, Fulcher of Chartres was one of the few westerners to remain in the east as a permanent resident until his death.

Fulcher's work is unique on the one hand as being the only testament to its author's life and personal experiences available to scholars.  No other information about Fulcher is known including his actual place of origins, except for an inclusion of his desire to be back in Chartres or Orleans during the heat of battle.  Later a comment on his current age during a period in which corroborating evidence helps us to determine a set year, places his age of departure on crusade at about thirty years, and his death at sixty-seven.

As a contemporary of the First Crusade, Fulcher demonstrates interests for scholars on many levels, but in particular are his observations on reform policy spearheaded by the papacy, the relative weakness of the Kingdom of Jerusalem under its first kings, and his attentiveness to the feelings and thoughts of the ecclesiastical and lay community of the kingdom.  Though not so concerned with the average day to day problems of the common people, the chaplain shows a keen interests in all levels of the society united for better or for worse in the holy land, seeing the crusade and its participants as part of a greater whole; in effect a second 'Chosen People' led by God to the redemption of His patrimony.

Though prone to poetic turns of phrase and biblical quotations in times of praise or mourning, as is common in many ecclesiastical authors of the medieval period, Fulcher of Chartres separates himself in the way that he approaches his narrative, more a free form journal than a strictly ordered history.  His curiosity and predisposition to explore, noting geography and natural science wonders, demonstrate a unique individual that suggests not all medieval educated were as myopic as is generally believed.  His lack of care on the other hand regarding the 'enemy' faced by the crusaders, fit more naturally into a mentality bound to its time and societal dispositions, not so different from perceptions directed towards German and Japanese soldiers during the Second World War.  A born communicator through the written word, Fulcher of Chartres' amazing chronicle is easily accessible to any reader interested in the voice of an actual crusader, and one who witnessed the very beginning of an event of vast historical importance.

-John Lowe (J. Sharp)

The Crusades, Christiantiy, and Islam

The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam
by Jonathan Riley-Smith
Columbia University Press, 2008

This surprisingly brief work, numbering just eighty pages in length by one the most well known authors of Crusader History, is likewise one of the clearest and most eloquent analysis of the past and present view of the crusade movement.  Taken from series of lectures that he presented at Columbia University in 2007, Dr. Riley-Smith attempts to contextualize each of his title's three subjects in a way that transcend the medieval events up to the present.

While this work covers some well known ground, addressing the connection of Christian violence justified by medieval minds in conjunction with St. Augustine's Contra Faustum Manichaeum, Riley-Smith reminds his readers of the world in which people lived, much more violent than modern day critics would like to imagine.  The focus is not on Christian Europe alone, for which an argument can be made that by far it was a Christianity not as recognizable today in modern Protestant and even Catholic circles, but that even the east and the worlds of Syria and Egypt were not so much more advanced in their ideas about war or a chivalrous outlook.

The major contribution of this work to thinking on conflicts between western and eastern people and ideas, lie in the special point Riley-Smith makes that crusading and the notion that justified violence for religious or ethical reason is dead, is simply not true.  Chapter three of the book entitled Crusading and Imperialism, address 19th century evidence that the concept of war for the right reasons, in other words a crusading endeavor focused on revitalized military orders, was not altogether dead.  Turning to the fourth chapter entitled Crusading and Islam, Riley-Smith illustrates a resurgence of perceived past crusader oppression as justification in the modern world for Islamic resistance, even acts of terrorism, based on a concept of a great civilization destroyed and humiliated by a western consortium of rival powers.

Riley-Smith is as I have said, eloquent and conveys his point easily, and this work is definitely a short and accessible read for anyone intrigued by a question demanding explanation; how doe the crusades impact today's modern world.  More than an attempt to illuminate, Dr. Riley-Smith ends with a note of warning that reminds the reader that war and atrocities of violence which seem so foreign in the modern and advanced society, are indeed not so far away as we think.  Ethical war has "manifested itself recently in wars waged in the names of imperialism, nationalism, Marxism, fascism, anticolonialism, humanitarianism, and even liberal democracy."  This work is a call for peace and rational thinking, only understood when a modern world can see the suffering caused otherwise.

- John Lowe (J. Sharp)

Saint Louis: Crusader King of France

Saint Louis: Crusader King of France
by Jean Richard
Edited and abridged by Simon Lloyd
Translate by Jean Birrell
Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Though twenty years old now, and markedly devoid of footnotes for the reader to follow the sources of information Richard draws upon unless noted by author names, this work leaves one feeling that it is fully comprehensive and authoritative.  Richard has the unenviable task of trying to bring Louis IX of France (1214-1270), into focus within his historical world, avoiding as much as possible sources of hagiography that would tend to cloud the image of the man which Richard tries so hard to bring out.  Rather than focus on the history of Louis as the crusader in the east, the book is devoted to the man who ruled his kingdom well though moderation, the upshot being that France was left with a much stronger feudal system than previously, and a monarchy more firmly place at the top.

Dr. Richard chooses an interesting way of telling the story of Louis, beginning with a youth interrupted by the death of a father at a young age, leaving Louis IX only fourteen and under the influence of his mother Blanche of Castile during his minority and early years as king.  In true biography fashion, Richard traces the youth of the king, his relationship to family and supporters in a more or less chronological pattern.  The real departure for Louis from his predecessors who strove to assert the power of the monarchy, lies not so much in the way in which he consolidated his control through skilled diplomacy, but according to Richard, it was the reputation he gain and his choice of living righteously after his involvement in the Seventh Crusade.

Louise is depicted as having benefited greatly from his mother's good Christian influence and advice, parrying a counter point of view that she was overbearing and controlling.  Richard demonstrates through acts of statesmanship, that Blanche of Castile was the best possible candidate to guide the young Louis on the road to kingship.  After his adventures overseas (12-48-1254), Louis returns on a holy mission of sorts.  Richard gives evidence through his acts as a fair and just king, advocate and ally of the the papacy, and peace seeking monarch, that Louis IX gained a reputation as the leading monarch of Europe.  While it is clear that Richard is favorably disposed to the French king, the army of good qualities and commendable acts of his reign, due tend to support a favorable conclusion by the end of the book.

On the other hand Richard fails to focus as much on the actual expense of the two crusades Louis participated in on the economic health of France.  Various figures are given throughout the text, so Richard clearly knows the sources of income for the king's wars, but except for protests by clergy and people, we never do get a close look at the financial ruin that might have been inflicted on a city to the point of breaking its oath to the king.  Tyrannical and heavy handed, like a father demanding perfection in everything, Louis runs his kingdom like a monastery, expecting austerity and unity between all individuals before God.  However, it is this very quality of the man's rule, that leaves a France more powerful and richer through good and thorough government than it had ever been before.  Richard argues in sum that it is Louis IX, and Louise the saint, which led Europe through the thirteenth century best by his exemplary policies towards justice and fair play, and his personal commitment to right living before God.

- John Lowe (J. Sharp)