THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

The First Crusade and the Redemption of the Gregorian Refom
THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE
GREGORIAN REFORM
Robert Lloyd
Submitted to Swansea University. Department of Medieval Studies.
In partial fulfilment of Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies
September 2013
Word Count. 20942 referenced
18552 unreferenced
1

ABSTRACT
This work attempts to answer the question of how much, if at all, did the ideology of
Gregory VII influence the First Crusade. It will attempt to show that much of the
conceptual groundwork upon which the success of the crusade was built was attributable
to Gregory VII. First it will look at how Gregory restructured the penitential practices of
the day in order to give the greatest chance of salvation to the greatest number of people.
This was achieved by emphasising the concepts of service an intention. Previously sinful
actions were by this action rendered meritorious. It was also evident to Gregory that those
engaged in such activities should be rewarded for their selfless service to their
community and the Church. He considered that this sort of action could take the place of
penitential obligation. He had formulated a conception of penitential military service that
formed the backbone of the call to crusade. It will then look at Gregory’s proposed
crusade plan of 1074 and show the similarities of this proposal and the actual expedition
preached by Urban II. Urban’s sermon will be looked at to see the similarities between
the two Popes ideas and the evolutions made by Urban. Finally by analysing the crusade
chronicles it will be argued that the crusaders were spiritually self-aware and ready to
impose their own spirituality on the contemporary situation. The histories of the later
theologically trained monastic chronicler’s show that these men introduced a conception
of the crusade that promoted theocratic values and that these theocratic values were
essentially Gregorian in nature.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 4
The Penitential System and its Gregorian Evolution 8
The Proto-Crusade that Never Took Place 24
Continuity and Evolution at Clermont 30
The Crusade as a demonstration of Gregorian Principles 42
Conclusion 60
Bibliography 61
3

INTRODUCTION
Urban II’s preaching of the First Crusade in November 1095 was a seminal moment in
the history of Western Christendom. It marked the start of a Christian warrior culture
devoted to the establishment of a Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. There were several
cultural and economic spin-offs that although not directly attributable to the crusade were
certainly influenced by it such as the development of chivalry and the development of
east-west trade links. It was the holy warrior culture, developed in the Orders of the
Templars and Hospitallers and exported, like the crusade concept itself to other areas
where Christians and pagans met and fought, in Orders such as the Teutonic Knights that
was the most enduring legacy of the crusade. This warrior-monk culture demonstrated
that there was a fraternity of aims and methodology between knight and monk, a filial
relationship that until the crusade would have been hard to maintain. Subsequent to the
crusade it became impossible to maintain the Christian pacific ethic so eloquently
expressed in Peter Damian’s words that “in no circumstances is it licit to take up arms in
defence of the faith of the universal church”1
Catholicism and warfare became enduring
bed-fellows.
Despite its appearance of unchanging stability the opposite is true. The church has
survived because it has been able to adapt to the demands of society, find a position for
itself at its very heart and retain its influential position. The eleventh century was a time
of religious change, a time when the papacy, under the sponsorship of Henry III, broke
free from the restraints of Roman family politics.2
Under the papacy of Nicholas II a
process for papal elections was established.3
An important step on the road to an
independent papacy had been taken and the successor popes had no wish to relinquish
their new found independence and return to papal dependency. A period of conflict
ensued. Due to the necessity of gaining secular support the papacy had to re-evaluate its
attitudes to the laity and, in order to gain support in the struggle with the imperial
1
Cited in H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, (London: Hambledon, 1984) chp. X, p.19.
2
C Morris, The Papal Monarchy: the Western Church from 1050 to 1250, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) pp.
83-85.
3
New Catholic Encyclopaedia, (London: McGraw-Hill, 1967) vol 10, pp. 441-42.
4

authorities, offer them something unique. Under Gregory VII a revolutionary politico-
theology developed that equated military service rendered to the Church with absolution,
“the cardinal spiritual need of the day.”4
It was this equation of service and salvation that
was to have its greatest demonstration in the First Crusade.
The crusade demonstrated the benefits of enlisting in the Church’s service and fighting
for God. Its success was remarkable and implied that the crusaders really were employed
in a divine mission and received providential support. It also showed that the promised
remission of sins was a reality, the crusaders had gained salvation. The crusade
chronicles told a story of high adventure, unbelievable suffering and fortitude, sacrifice
and eventually the sweetest victory imaginable. But they, especially those written by the
reform minded monastic scholars of northern France, also told another story. They told of
a new form of spirituality that was apparent during and because of the crusade. This
spirituality was the new spirituality that the reform party advocated, one that advocated
the authorised use of force and perceived the necessary military service as meritorious.
Warfare transcended its sinful reputation and became an expression of Christian duty, a
way by which a person could gain salvation. As the instigator of the Crusade it was
Urban II who received the plaudits of the chroniclers. The Church militant was largely
his creation.
Modern historians have questioned this attribution. There now seems to be an almost
universal body of opinion that recognises the importance of Gregory VII in formulating
the conceptual framework that Urban applied to the crusade. Gregory’s transformation of
the theological landscape is recognised by Cowdrey, who points to his application of
spiritual language, such as militia Christi to the military field and his willingness to
recognise as saints those who had served his cause.5
He also recognises the fundamental
part played by Gregory’s own proto-crusade plans to Urban’s expedition, concluding “it
is more likely than not that Gregory’s plans were powerfully present in Urban’s mind
when he preached his sermon at Clermont”.6
This expedition was proposed twenty years
4
I S Robinson, ‘Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ’, in History, 58 (1973) pp 169-92, pp. 190-91
5
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XIII pp. 19-20.
6
Ibid, chp. X, p. 40.
5

before the preaching of the First Crusade and despite never coming to fruition bears
remarkable similarities with Urban’s expedition. Riley-Smith holds the view that this
proposal was not a fully formed crusade, but does acknowledge its powerful influence.7
He also views the monastic historians as essentially supportive of the crusade and
influential in its interpretation. In his opinion they attempted to put the crusade in its
correct theological position and presented the crusade as being faithful to the tenets of
monasticism. It was nothing less than a temporary monastery in motion.8
This is an
interesting assertion, the writers in question: Robert the Monk, Guibert de Nogent and
Baldric of Bourgueil where from the free, reforming monasteries and natural allies of the
reforming popes Gregory VII and Urban II and also from the crusading heartlands. They
had a vested interest in the reception of the crusade it promoted those ideas that were of
immediate relevance to them. It was in their interests to give it the best possible gloss, the
local aristocracy may be persuaded to employ their energies and commit their resources
to the Holy Land rather than in local rapine.
Another side of the equation has recently been considered the reception of the crusading
ideology by those likely to participate in such expeditions, the lay aristocracy. They were
generally favourable after all their most pressing need, salvation, was at stake. For Bull
this meant that the response to the crusade was little different than the common
aristocratic practice of monastic benefaction. Both were aimed at gaining salvation. They
were two roads to the same destination. The aristocracy in this conception supported the
crusade out of self-interest.9
Purkis believes the crusade is one, albeit the most graphic,
demonstration of a wider contemporary spirituality, both lay and clerical, that perceived
Christo-mimesis as the most important facet of religious practice. The imitation of Christ
brought a person closer to Him. As the crusade and the ‘reconquista’ could be promoted
and perceived as Christo-mimetic they could be promoted by religious leaders and
employed by the laity as a means of gaining salvation.10
Salvation is recognised as the
chief attraction in the call to crusade by medieval and modern historians and it can only
7
J Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002) p. 75
8
J Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, (London: Continuum, 2009) pp. 135-52.
9
M Bull, Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993)
10
W. J. Purkis, Crusading Spirituality in the Holy Land and Iberia, c. 1095-1187, ((Woodbridge: Boydell,
2008)
6

be achieved by thorough penitential practice. Without penitential purification and
transformation there could be no salvation. Gregory VII recognised penance as the best
way of achieving individual and social salvation.11
It was his decision to offer its benefits
to the knightly classes without their having to change their practices that gained papal
policies popular support.12
CHAPTER 1
THE PENITENTIAL SYSTEM AND ITS GREGORIAN EVOLUTION
11
S Hamilton,’Penance in the Age of the Gregorian Reform’, Studies in Church History 50, (2004), pp.47-
73, on p. 57.
12
I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp 169-92.
7

Penance is one of the Church’s most important sacraments. Its function is primarily
preventative, it protects the eternal life against the sinful contagion of the temporal life.13
As sin is an inevitable consequence of a terrestrial existence effective penitential practice
is essential for those who believe that the goal of the temporal life is preparatory to the
eternal, heavenly life, that it is a chance to prove one’s worth. In this respect penance,
through its ability to wipe away the taint of sin provides the means by which a person can
keep their baptismal purity in tact and thus is an essential component in the process of
redemption which leads to salvation. Just as baptism cleansed the taint of original sin and
restored purity, penance by removing personal sin also restored a state of purity. It is
effectively a spiritual second baptism that helps the prospect of salvation by removing the
barrier of sin. The medieval liturgy emphasised this aspect through the ritual cleansing of
a penitent at the time of reconciliation.14
Certainty of effectiveness is therefore essential
to the perception of penitential efficacy. One must be sure that the prescribed medicine is
an effective cure. Any cause for doubt can have devastating consequences. Security in the
effects, salvation, is dependant upon a belief that the prescription, a penitential obligation,
is effective. Effective penance had one central tenet, it was transformative. It produced an
irrevocable psychological change in the penitent that meant that they could no longer
return to their pre-penance sinful practices.15
This was the key element in the salvific
effects of penance; it not only assured absolution for sins it stopped their reappearance.
EARLY MEDIEVAL PENITENTIAL PRACTICE
13
S Hamilton,The Practice of Penance, 900-1050, (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2001) p. 2.
14
Ibid, pp. 118-19.
15
S Hamilton, Penance in Gregorian Reform, pp.54-57, 60.
8

For Sarah Hamilton the evolution of penitential practice can most easily be explained by
reference to a tri-partite model. This model conceives of the earliest forms of penitential
practice being public ceremonies; penitents, marked out by their wearing of cilicium,
sackcloth clothing confessed on Ash Wednesday and after Lent spent in penance were
reconciled on Maundy Thursday. It was, most importantly, a once in a lifetime
opportunity and for this reason it was usually delayed until advanced age. It is easy to see
how such a system could be ineffective, it fell into disuse and a system of private penance
involving only an individual and their priest evolved to take its place. The Carolingian
period saw a period of reform, the Church attempted to reinvigorate religious practices by
promoting the benefits of penance. Public sins merited public penance, private sins
private penance. This was the so-called ‘Carolingian dichotomy’. By the twelfth century
private penance was rapidly gaining the upper-hand and by the thirteenth the public
penance was dead.16
Private penance, like its public counterpart was, in the early stage a
two stage process with separate ceremonies for confession and reconciliation.17
This led
to certain inevitable questions being raised, if one was placed under a five year penance
and was reconciled at the end of Lent or in a private ceremony were they still under an
obligation to complete their penance?18
Perhaps more relevantly was the question of
when the penance became effective in terms of redemption, was it at reconciliation or on
completion.19
During the period several regional variations of the public and private penitential liturgy
were in use at least one of which, due to a lack of an absolution prayer for Maundy
Thursday suggested that absolution followed immediately after confession.20
These rites
were originally and principally for monastic use but their use did eventually filter down
and became part and parcel of secular spirituality.21
It was therefore possible for brothers
residing in neighbouring diocese to be subjected to different penitential rites. In an age
16
Ibid, pp. 2-7.
17
Ibid, p. 18
18
Ibid, pp.74-75.
19
J Sumption, Pilgrimage. An Image of Medieval Religion, (London: Faber and Faber, 1975) p. 100; H. E.
J. Cowdrey, The Cluniacs in the Gregorian Reform, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) pp. 123-24; H. E. J.
Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XV, pp. 292-93.
20
S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp. 136-72. see pp. 161-62 for the implication of immediate absolution.
21
Ibid, pp. 171-72.
9

which perceived the imminence of the End of Days and the Last judgement as an all too
present reality the security provided by effective penitential practice was tantamount.22
Different practices and uncertainty concerning redemptive efficacy lead to the door of
doubt being opened. A third element can be added to this mix, that of commutation. A
penitential obligation could be commuted from one form to another. A common form of
obligation imposed by a confessor was fasting. Under the terms of commutation a days
fast could be commuted to the reciting of the Psalter or alternatively the obligation to care
for the poor by hands on washing could be commuted to the provision of meals and
clothing.23
At Milan Peter Damian famously offered penance and terms of commutation
simultaneously.24
For Damian commutation was not supposed to be easy, his terms were
difficult. However in other instances financial or property payments were deemed
acceptable forms of commutation. The commutation became an easy option and led to a
perception that penance had an elective element. One could choose those terms they
found most favourable. The transformative element, essential to a truly effective penance,
could be bypassed in favour of a fine. There need not be any discernible behavioural
change or any discomfort, any loss of status or humiliation that were meant to reconcile a
person with the effects of their sin. Yet the benefits could be claimed.
One of the financial implications of this modus operandi was to draw the economy of the
church further into the lay orbit. Lay donation of property and rights had always been a
feature of the relationship between the church, particularly the monasteries, and the laity.
The laity conceived of it as a meritorious action and the church as a means by which land
could be transformed from secular land dedicated to secular purposes into spiritual land
and used for spiritual purposes.25
The beginning of the concept of donation began with
Luke’s words “Give and it shall be given to you”.26
Donations were given to a
foundation’s patron saint. The donator was in effect attempting to create a relationship
that made that saint beholden to him. When the Day of Judgement came the saint would
22
J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 130-32; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, pp. 121-22, 129-30; H. E. J. Cowdrey,
Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, pp. 21-22.
23
S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, pp. 41-43, 203.
24
Ibid, pp. 186-88; S Hamilton, Repentance and the Gregorian Reform, pp. 62-63.
25
D iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion. Cluny and Christendom Face Heresy, Judaism and Islam (1000-
1150), G. R. Edwards trans., (London: Cornell University Press, 1998) pp. 210-12.
26
Luke 6:38.
10

use his intercessory powers and plead the donors cause with God thus ensuring a
favourable judgement.27
The gift of the church of Fredelac to Cluny by Roger of Foix,
sometime between 1049 and 1064 illustrates this concept. Roger, for himself and his wife
undertakes “For the benefit of our souls and for those of the faithful, I, Roger, and my
wife, for the gaining of eternal life grant”.28
For Roger the arrangement was undeniably a
business arrangement, it had a quid pro quo character. For a gift of property Roger
expected to obtain eternal peace and salvation. It appears, that for the lay aristocracy,
benefaction was perceived as the best option. It offered a guarantee of salvation without
any attendant disruption to their lifestyle.
Marcus Bull believes that donation had a strong reciprocal element. Even when a
donation was not made with the specific intention of gaining salvation it was still
intended to insure that the donor’s temporal and spiritual desires were realised via the
medium of the monk’s spiritual regimen of prayer, fasting and self-mortification.29
Nowhere was this reciprocity of action more evident than at the monastery of Cluny. The
interaction of an aristocracy intent on gaining salvation and a monastic brotherhood
disposed to providing the means to salvation led to a growth in the wealth and renown of
the monastery and an evolution of liturgical practices. Cluny achieved fame as the
asylum poenitentium, the refuge of the penitents, during the early part of the middle
ages.30
Its business became the provision of services, be that lay confraternity, or through
offering intercessory prayers for the living and the dead. Cluny’s fame and prosperity was
based on its ability to provide these essential services better than anyone else.31
The
monastic profession was seen as the most effective way of securing salvation. The
commitment of monks to serve God and the personal sacrifices they made were perceived
as an imitatio Christi, an imitation of Christ, it was through the adoption of Christ’s
lifestyle, the paradigm of behaviour that all Christians aspired to emulate, that salvation
was achieved.32
Lay confraternity the acceptance into cloisters of men who wished to
27
D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 211-12
28
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. 133. The Register of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), H. E. J. Cowdrey, ed
and trans., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 1:70.
29
M Bull, Knightly Piety, pp. 157-61.
30
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. `19.
31
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, p. 127.
32
W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 22-23.
11

finish their lives in seclusion and focus on gaining redemption, was a choice reserved for
the wealthy and although not new was particularly developed at Cluny by Abbot Hugh
(1049-1109).33
It was becoming apparent that in the lay conception donation was
replacing or supplementing penitential obligation.34
Salvation, the purpose of penance,
could be bought, be that through the donation of land, the purchase of a lay confraternity
or the payment of a fine as a commuted penitential obligation. Christ was committed to
the rights of the poor. Could it truly be said that the penitential practice that was being
practiced looked after their rights and treated them equally with the wealthy? Did they
have equal aces to salvation? In many ways short-term amelioration of the needs of the
poor was the vehicle through which the wealthy bought penitential redemption
The latter half of the eleventh century was a time of renewed and growing spirituality
which saw traditional beliefs being questioned.35
It became apparent in the search for new
forms of spiritual expression and redemptive practices but perhaps most noticeably in a
new conception of monastic function and duty. By the early twelfth-century the new
monastic orders believed in a new way of making a living. Cistercians returned to the
Benedictine idea of involvement in physical labour as a means of providing a living. The
Carthusians believed that the true monastic purpose was carried out in the contemplative
solitude of the cell not in elaborate liturgy and that to fulfil their vocation and retain their
purity they had to be free from dependence on a benefactor.36
Bernard of Clairvaux’s
attitude is enlightening, he criticised his nephew Robert for abandoning the strict
observances of the Cistercians in favour of the luxuries of Cluny. This was a retrograde
step, one akin to apostasy.37
There was an element of fundamentalism in the air that
viewed the comfortable arrangements of benefaction and all it entailed, represented most
visibly by Cluny, as unfit for purpose and in dire need of reform. There was one common
thread to this change of attitude; the desire of the reform papacy to return the church to its
pristine, pure state. No one expressed these desires more eloquently than Gregory VII and
no one did more than he to promote the spiritual well-being of Latin Christianity.
33
M Bull, Knightly Piety, p. 161.
34
Ibid, pp. 177-79.
35
36
D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 225-27.
37
12

GREGORY VII AND THE REFORMATION OF PENITENTIAL PRACTICE
Gregory was a man of his time. Like all men of his era he felt the imminence of the End
of Days and the need to procure salvation. In his conception the world was in a state of
disarray due to mankind’s sinful nature. The remedy for both ills and also the one that
would secure salvation was penance.38
Penance was a spiritual panacea, the miracle cure-
all of its day. The medical metaphor is apt, elsewhere Gregory advised “apply the
medication of penance to the diseases of our faults and … with the help of power from
above … holy church will receive her long-desired peace and security.”39
A host of
individual penances collectively restored the purity and pristine state of the Church and
benefited the individual. Penitential reform was essential to the health of the Church and
the eternal life of individuals. It was the only means by which the majority of people,
those unable to choose monastic withdrawal could obtain salvation.
The penitential system was, as we have seen, in a state of disarray. The certainty that
people needed to govern their lives had been lost. Worse could be envisaged, the Devil’s
influence was omnipresent, he was subtle and manipulative and his words always
contained an element of truth.40
It was possible to conceive of the devil as inveigling
himself into the process and, through his manipulation of the process causing the loss and
damnation of countless souls. True penitential practice was therefore of the highest order
to a pope concerned with raising the standard of religious behaviour and the chances of
salvation. Correct penances had to be imposed by the correct authority this meant that
they would be effective and produced a profound change in behaviour that resulted in
individual transformation, there was no chance of the sinful behaviour reoccurring.41
By
these means the chances of salvation increased.
38
S Hamilton, Penance in Gregorian Reform, pp. 56-57.
39
Register 8:9, p.374.
40
D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, p. 182.
41
Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.
13

In November 1078 Gregory wrote “False penances we call those that are not imposed
according to the authority of the holy fathers according to the nature of the offences”.42
Elsewhere he referred to these false penances as “Unfruitful when it is so received that a
man should persist in the same fault or else in a similar one that is worse or a little less”.43
A false penance was one that placed no obligation on the penitent to make a profound
change in his life. If a penitent was still engaged in the same or similar activities post-
penance as he was pre-penance then the penance was by definition false. It had not
produced the second baptism into a world free from the pollution of the original sin.
Could it truly be said that a fine or the confiscation of property produced a profound
behavioural change for the better and as Gregory commented led a person to “revert to
the beginning of faith and … renounce the devil and all his pomps”.44
If one believes this
to be the case then how much less likely is it that a voluntary donation could produce the
desired change?
The real thrust of Gregory’s decrees on true penance was the part it played in securing the
remission of sins, an integral step on the path to salvation. It was only true penance that
had remission of sins attached to it. It was only true penance that allowed a soul to revert
to the purity of baptism and renounce the devil and all his works.45
This brought a
spiritual rebirth and the beginning of a new life untainted by the sin of the old and
allowed an inner conversion from the ways of sin to the path of righteousness to take
place. “For this is true penance … each person should so turn himself to God that, having
abandoned all his iniquities, he should thereafter continue in the fruits of doing good
works”.46
A profound change of life was therefore inevitable for the truly penitent person
who was under a true penitential obligation. Their life was brought closer to the paradigm
of virtuosity displayed by Christ, it led to a more complete imitatio Christi. This
transformative effect was one of the features that distinguished the truly penitent and true
penance. False penance and a non-penitent individual neither produced nor underwent
42
Register 6:5b, p. 284.
43
Register 7:10, p. 334.
44
Register 7:10, p, 334.
45
46
Register 7:14a, p. 341.
14

these affirmative changes. There was no change in the state of the individual and no
chance of redemption.47
Gregory also raised the question of inherently sinful professions.48
In his conception
certain professions including those that necessitated the bearing of arms were of
themselves sinful. Early penitential practice dictated that during the penitential period
penitents could not bear arms and following the completion of their obligations were
barred from ever again using them.49
Employment in them meant transgressing God’s
laws. The truly penitent must renounce such practices in order to achieve salvation,
however for Gregory this did not entail retirement from worldly affairs and withdrawal
within the cloister. It simply entailed renouncing such a situation and resorting to good
practice once the penitential obligation had been completed. He did however offer an
exception; the innate sinfulness involved in the practice of arms could be ameliorated if
they were employed in the furtherance of justice on the advice of religious men.50
He
advised such men to do good deeds and thereby be brought closer to the will of the
Divine and the necessity of penance.51
Later his advice to the warrior-class evolved, the bearing of arms was still considered
sinful however he admitted to certain circumstances when this may not always be so such
as the promotion of justice and protection of the church. He had introduced the concept of
service into the penitential-redemptive equation. This was a critical step and one without
which crusade ideology could not have evolved. It allowed him to articulate the
relationship between service, monasticism and salvation. Monastic service was
undertaken to glorify God it involved penitential practice and insured salvation therefore
the idea that any service undertaken for the glory of God had penitential and redemptive
value could be implied. The notion of service changed the nature of the bearing of arms.
It gained a positive interpretation and could even be viewed as an imitatio Christi, as
47
Register 7:10, p. 334
48
Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.
49
S Hamilton, Practice of Penance, p. 193.
50
Register 6:5b.
51
Register 6:5b.
15

Jesus claimed “even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve”.52
What
constituted service was however conditional on “the counsel of religious men who know
how to give with wisdom such counsel as makes for eternal salvation”.53
Cowdrey
believes that his was a novel development in the Church’s teaching on, and attitude
towards, arms and penance, “here were the essentials of a contrast between warfare
according to the purposes of man and warfare as directed by the church towards an
acceptable end”.54
The bearing of arms was thus considered sinful unless it was
conducted under the auspices of the church. This may be considered revolutionary but it
is more rightly to be understood in context with the Investiture Controversy. Gregory was
asserting the primacy of the sacerdotal authority over the regnal authority. His concern
was less with the commanding of armies and more with the conditions under which they
could be deployed. The Gelasian principle held that God had instituted two powers in the
world, the sacred and the temporal, which together provided for the correct governance of
society.55
Gelasius had implied that the spiritual authority was superior. Gregory’s papacy
was concerned with articulating this superiority for contemporary society and aimed at
returning society to a purer, more religious state, one that was more pleasing to God and
one that was worthy of salvation.56
His assertion of the need for true penances to be
imposed according to the counsel of religious men and/or bishops was part of his socio-
political ideology.57
Penance was the medication that healed society and restored it to a
pristine state of virtue, the loss of this virtue was due to imperial usurpation of the Church
and its prerogatives, therefore no imperially appointed cleric could pronounce true
penance. The question became one of authority. Only papally sanctioned bishops and
confessors could impose a true penance, one that would lead to salvation and not
damnation. In the climate of the times it was a very shrewd though potentially divisive
move.
52
Mark 10:45.
53
54
H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Crusades and Latin Monasticism, 11th
-12th
Centuries, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999)
chp. 3, p. 24.
55
C Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 , (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) p.
17; I. S. Robinson, The Papacy, pp. 296-97.
56
Register 8:21. Gregory first makes the argument for the primacy of the see of Rome, pp. 388-90. He then
presents the argument for the superiority of the sacred authority over the temporal, p. 390.
57
Register 6:5b, p. 284; 7:10, p. 334; 7:14a, p.341.
16

For Gregory the road to salvation was simple. It involved correct penitential practice
which insured that a person underwent a profound and lasting transformation. For this to
occur the penitent had to seek the instruction of a competent and authorised confessor and
accept the obligations imposed. Ideas that the laity regarded as guaranteeing redemption,
benefaction and confraternity on retirement, were misplaced and unacceptable. They
were not an alternative to correctly imposed restitution. Most importantly for crusade
purposes he removed the stigma of inherent sinfulness attached to military vocations.
Under Church direction military action could be deemed meritorious it became a service
that did not automatically merit punishment. Restitution of Church property had always
been perceived as a virtuous act. Now it could be restored via military action. He had
found a way of integrating the work and self-interest of the warrior class into the fold of
the Church. There was a clear distinction between those who worked justly and
meritoriously for the church and those who worked outside of such restrictions. Between
those who could expect salvation and those who could expect damnation. As Cowdrey
concludes “such service ennobled, and it raised the bearing of arms above the reproach of
sinfulness. It pointed to the crusade.”58
Perhaps more important is the assertion that
Gregory’s politico-theology was revolutionary because it introduced the most pressing
contemporary need the desire for absolution into the political arena.59
He also defined
how it could be achieved this was, as the example of monasticism amply demonstrated,
through serving God. It is difficult to see how the crusade could have succeeded without
this crucial revolution that held that penitential obligation could be framed, and fulfilled,
in terms of serving the Church.
MILITARY SERVICE AS A NEW ROAD TO SALVATION
58
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp. 3, p. 33.
59
I. S. Robinson, Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ, pp. 190-91.
17

Christianity is an overwhelmingly pacific religion. Medieval canon law had little to say
on the ethics of warfare and prohibited the clergy from using weapons. Apart from Leo
IX’s disastrous engagement with the Normans the major church involvement in the world
of military affairs in the century before Gregory VII’s pontificate concerned the Peace
and Truce of God movements through which the Church sort to promote peace by
limiting the use of arms.60
Gregory’s decision to call the military classes to his service
was from this standpoint a reversal of policy that can most easily be explained by his
quarrel with Henry IV. The more relevant question, and answer, is how he persuaded
members of the knightly classes to flock to his banner. It is in answering this question
that we can see how Gregory provided the basis for a new conception of salvation
through justified violence.
Gregory’s solution was the articulation of a revolutionary politico-theology that
considered the arms-bearer as belonging to a clerical rank whose duty it was to fight the
temporal enemies of the Church. In return for this service he promised them there most
pressing spiritual need absolution.61
They were, according to this logic, servants of the
church, involved in the militia Christi, the warfare of Christ, and deserving of the same
rewards as members of the other clerical order involved in this warfare of Christ, the
monks. The term militia Christi was primarily a spiritual term which had been used by St
Paul to indicate that the warfare of Christ was a spiritual battle. It had come to be applied
to those, such as monks and martyrs who had made a contribution in the battle against
Satan and in the struggle to establish Christendom on earth.62
Gregory used this phrase
regularly and was the first pope to use it in a secular sense and apply it to members of the
laity who were prepared to do the Church’s work.63
It was a religious term that like so
many under Gregory became secularised and applied to those in the military classes who
supported his aims. It is indicative of his desire to standardise the perception of those
willing to serve the church.
60
C Morris, Papal Monarchy, p. 143.
61
62
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, pp. 19-20.
63
C Morris, Papal Monarchy, p. 146.
18

Bull argues that the practice of lay donation was indicative of the laity’s dissatisfaction
with their condition; he observes “Laymen supported ecclesiastical bodies for their own
good, particularly their own welfare. Participation on crusade was motivated by the same
concerns.”64
He believes that the laity’s overwhelming expression of self-interest was the
protection of their souls through the attainment of salvation. The most efficacious way of
achieving this would therefore be seen as the most attractive. A religious layman would
have had no difficulty in accepting the new conception and making the transformation
from pious benefactor to zealous warrior. He continued as a humble servant of God
however his martial prowess, not his financial muscle, now became the spiritual
expression that insured redemption. There was no longer any need to make benefactions
or seek lay confraternity for the peace of his eternal soul.
Within this conception it is interesting to note the letter Gregory sent to Abbot Hugh of
Cluny regarding his acceptance of Duke Hugh of Burgundy for monastic admission.65
This letter can be seen as bringing into focus many of the issues that concerned Gregory
and his new interpretation of the role of military men. First Gregory admonished Abbot
Hugh for accepting Duke Hugh into the cloister. Previously Gregory had written to Abbot
Hugh expressing his dismay at the lack of quality and love for Christ displayed by Latin
Christian leaders.66
As far as Gregory was concerned Duke Hugh was one of the good
leaders who could achieve more good in secular society than he could in the cloister.
Hugh by admitting into lay confraternity men of such quality was being inconsiderate of
the needs of the Church and the poor. Those seeking admission were also failing in their
duty to the Church by seeking retirement. Hugh should realise that such men and he were
being selfish, he should consider the bigger picture and persuade such men to stay in
society were their contribution was greatest. Abbot Hugh had deprived society of a
protector, he had “Brought it about that one hundred thousand Christians lack a
guardian”.67
Christian charity, consideration of the Church, the poor and the weak alone
should have been enough to dictate his actions. Gregory reminded Hugh of the maxim
64
M Bull, Knightly Piety, p. 166.
65
Register 6:17.
66
Register 2:49.
67
19

“He who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law”.68
Implying that Christian virtue was
not the sole preserve of the cloister it was the duty of every person and could be fulfilled
in many ways. In this letter Gregory had argued against the old conception of retirement
from society as being a precursor to redemption. It was good work that ensured salvation
and this could be performed in a temporal setting, so long of course that the work was
acceptable to the Church. The Duke had done meritorious work in society and could have
continued this work, this was his role and it was his work in this role that gave him
redemptive kudos. Withdrawal and the granting of permission to leave secular society
had become conceivable of as selfish acts and were no longer automatically conducive to
be seen as virtue or charity. Most importantly the definition of virtue, the imitatio Christi,
and the concept of the militia Christi had undergone a profound change and
transformation. Both had been imbued with secular as well as religious overtones.
Christian excursions into the field of warfare were always presented as just; they
therefore fulfilled the Augustinian prerogative of being faithful to the tenets of Christian
charity in that they were defensive and employed the minimum force necessary and that
they were called by the correct authority in the fulfilment of its duty to protect the peace
necessary to the functioning of society. Under such circumstances Christians had a duty
to obey their leaders.69
It was possible to present those who accepted the role of holy
warriors as fulfilling the demands of Christ more fully than non-combatants. Under such
circumstances it became possible to present warriors and warfare as an imitatio Christi,
both became imbued with virtue and were no longer seen as inherently sinful.70
To the
medieval mind it was, as Sumption points out, that “Only by imitating Christ the man
could one placate Christ the judge”.71
This gave men the best opportunity of gaining
salvation and under Gregory’s stewardship the way to placate Christ the judge was
increasingly being presented in terms of physically fighting for His rights. The policies of
the Gregorian Reform put the employment of arms in the cause of Christ firmly in the
68
Romans, 13:8.
69
St. Augustine of Hippo, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, H. Bettenson, trans, (London:
Penguin, 1984) 19:7, pp. 861-62; 19:12, pp. 866-70.
70
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusaders and Latin Monasticism, chp, 3 p. 34.
71
J Sumption, Pilgrimage, p. 135.
20

public domain and rallied secular adherents to its cause eager to claim their share of the
rewards on offer.
Leo IX was the first reformist pope to call for the use of force. He called for and led an
army against the Normans of Southern Italy. Their violent and rapacious activities in
made the claim that he was defending the rights of the oppressed believable,
unfortunately the campaign ended disastrously, at Civitate, 1053, the pope suffered a
decisive defeat.72
This episode may have been influential on Urban when he called the
crusade forty years later: firstly perhaps he realised that the pope’s correct position was
not leading an army, it was preaching, providing the reasoning and psychological
stimulus.73
Secondly he knew that as the Normans “prostrated themselves at his feet with
great devotion on account of their reverence for the Holy Roman See,”74
he knew that the
pope’s position was charismatic it emanated authority and could be used to foster
obedience. Lastly the Normans had good reason to believe, or at least their chroniclers
promoted the opinion, that they were providentially chosen to rid the area of its Moslem
and Greek inhabitants and return the area to Latin Catholicism and obedience to Rome.75
The concept of preordination was shown to be a powerful motivational tool. It
automatically legitimised participation in warfare. Such a conception could be used by
Urban to justify the crusade as an international attempt to restore the correct world order
on the grounds that the advent of Turkish militant Islam had adversely affected the
divinely ordained world order.76
The defeat at Civitate can be conceived of as fostering an air of caution in papal circles.
Instead of engaging in warfare support in the form of banners was offered. These banners
were a public announcement that the papacy saw the bearers cause as just, in 1059
Nicholas II gave a banner to William of Montreuil. The pontificacy of Alexander II saw
72
Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, P. N. Dunbar, trans, G. A. Loud, review,
(Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004) pp. 94; 99-101. Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger and of His
Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, K. B. Wolf, ed. And trans., (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
2008) pp. 61-62
73
Baldric of Bourgeuil, in E. Peters, ed, The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials
(second edition), (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998) p. 32.
74
Geoffrey Malaterra, pp. 61-62.
75
Amatus of Montecassino, G. A. Loud review, pp. 23-36.
76
William of Malmesbury, Chronicle of the Kings of England, (London: George Bell, 1895) p. 360
21

the issuing of no less than four banners; to Erlembald of Milan, 1063, Roger, future
Count of Sicily, 1063, the leaders of the Barbasto campaign, 1064 and William of
Normandy, 1066.77
The most graphic illustration of the effects on the laity of the Church’s acquiescence to
the use of force is to be found in the life of the crusade leader Tancred d’Hauteville.
According to his biographer he was “a zealous adherent of God’s commands”,78
yet his
only motivation was the pursuit of glory, which was most readily gained through
excellence in warfare which inevitably entailed the spilling of blood. Over time he
realised that such a lifestyle was incompatible with the commands of God, this was the
cause of psychological stress which in turn prevented him from sleeping and undermined
his bravery.79
Consequently Urban’s call to crusade was a great liberation for Tancred, his
spirits lifted as a solution to his troubles was found. “Which of the two paths should he
follow: the Gospels or the world? His experience in arms recalled him to the service of
Christ. This two-fold opportunity for struggle energized the man”.80
Tancred and many
like him had been freed by Urban’s call to pursue their chosen knightly career under
Church direction and at the same time achieve the fundamental goal of medieval man,
salvation. It was Urban’s address at Clermont that was credited with granting Tancred
this new lease of life however it was Gregory VII who made the greatest contribution to
the new philosophy.
For Gregory VII warfare was acceptable if it upheld divine law and led to the correct
ordering of society.81
Gregory’s new philosophy provided a spiritually sanitised place for
the warrior at the heart of Christian society. He was no longer condemned to performing
penance for pursuing his inherently sinful profession His profession when devoted to the
Church was indivisible from that of monasticism they formed a fraternity that shared a
common vocabulary of service and self-sacrifice. The concept of service was all
important it distinguished between those who were engaged in sinful warfare and those
77
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol II, pp. 51-52; C Morris, Papal Monarchy, pp. 145-46.
78
Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancred (A History of the Normans on the First Crusade), B. S. Bachrach and D.
S. Bachrach, review and trans, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) p. 21.
79
Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancredi, p. 22.
80
Ralph de Caen, Gesta Tancredi, p. 22
81
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes Monks and Crusaders, chp, XIII, p. 19.
22

who were engaged in meritorious warfare. The former merited penitential correction in
order to secure redemption, the latter was redemptive. It secured salvation and replaced
penance.
CHAPTER 2
THE PROTO-CRUSADE WHICH NEVER TOOK PLACE 82
82
I. S. Robinson, The Papacy, p.325
23

Just how much of the groundwork for Urban II’s great idea was laid down by Gregory is
debatable. It does however appear that Urban owed his predecessor a great deal and it is
perhaps in Gregory’s conception of an armed expedition to aid the Eastern Church that
this debt is most readily noticeable.83
Cowdrey believes that Gregory’s ideas were
influential on Urban and notes that the Liber Pontificalis maintains that he decided to
imitate his predecessor’s plans.84
Whether imitate is exactly the right term is debatable,
Urban’s plans were substantially different, more an evolution of Gregory’s ideas than an
imitation.85
There was also the question of inspiration Gregory’s expedition was the
product of the human mind whereas Urban claimed that the crusade was the product of
divine inspiration.86
All the evidence points to this being accepted by the crusaders, that
they generally believed they were employed on a divine mission and that they received
God’s help in its prosecution.87
Gregory for all his claims that the proposed work was
pleasing to God and represented Christian duty fell short of proclaiming divine origins.
The expedition accrued more religious significance as it evolved but remained firmly
rooted in the temporal realm, its origins always a response to Byzantine appeals. There
were differences but the similarities are also remarkable. Gregory’s initial proposal was
not, like Urban’s, the finished article but incrementally he added concepts that can be
seen as forming the basis of the later popes call to arms. If one takes into account some of
Gregory’s other, non-crusade, letters of the period then one can see the genesis of
additional themes that Urban developed and became central to his crusading address.88
On 9 July 1073, Gregory sent a reply to Emperor Michael VII of Constantinople. It was
very enigmatic and secretive and Gregory’s answer was of such import that he refused to
send a written reply instead preferring to send a representative to discuss the matters
83
Register 1:46; 1:49; 2:31 and 2:39
84
H. E. J, Cowdrey, Popes, Monks and Crusaders, chp. XVI, p. 178; Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp.
V, p. 737.
85
J Riley-Smith, What Were The Crusades?, p. 75.
86
Fulcher of Chartres, p. 50.
87
Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana. History of the First Crusade, C. Sweetenham, trans,
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) p. 81; Guibert de Nogent,Gesta Dei Per Francos. The Deeds of God through
the Franks, )Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997) p. 28.
88
Register 1:75; 2:5; 2:47 and 2:49.
24

raised in the letter.89
What those matters were we shall never know. It may have been that
the emperor had issued a call for military assistance once the implications of the Turkish
victory at Manzikert two years earlier had become clear perhaps it was a call for church
unification or aid in dealing with the Normans. Gregory was a new pope and had, to a
greater or lesser degree, an interest in all these areas, if of course we take the problem of
Islamic expansion as a single entity which included the Holy Land and Spain. Certainly
these areas are referred to in his subsequent appeals. It also bore a strong resemblance to
Urban’s claim that one of his principal reasons for issuing the call to Jerusalem was to aid
Byzantium.
Gregory’s first call was to Count William I of Burgundy, he reminded him of the promise
he made to his predecessor Alexander II to be available if summoned to fight for St
Peter.90
Gregory was now calling upon him to make good this vow in order to “uphold the
liberty of the Roman church”.91
He also asked him to notify several nobles, including
Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles (Toulouse) and informed him that Godfrey of Lorraine
would also take part in the proposed venture. Similarities with Urban’s crusade call some
twenty years later are apparent in this role-call; Raymond was a leading figure in the
expedition, and possibly one whom Urban sounded out before his public announcement
of the crusade.92
The House of Lorraine was also strongly represented. This cast of
characters lends credence to the idea that Urban was influenced by Gregory, many of
their confidantes were identical or of the same lineage. Gregory hoped that this army
would help to peacefully subdue his Christian opponents. Gregory was perhaps the
greatest proponent of the papal use of force, but he was no bloodthirsty warlord
preferring the employment of peaceful or at least, non-lethal means, to achieve his ends
were possible. It must be borne in mind that his overwhelming passion was the salvation
of souls and that the outcome of this proposed journey, aiding the Christians of
Constantinople, was conceived of as an act of Christian charity.93
89
Register 1:18.
90
Register 1:46.
91
92
J Riley-Smith, Idea, p. 13; Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History. Vol. V. Book IX, M. Chibnall, ed
and trans, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975) p. 19, claims that immediately following the sermon ambassadors
from Raymond of Toulouse arrived and confirmed that the Count and his army had already taken the cross.
93
Register 1:49.
25

This letter was in part written in fairly non-committal language, it was a notice to
William to be ready in case the pope did make the call. A month later Gregory issued a
general call to defend the Byzantine Empire.94
The rhetoric of this letter was much more
bellicose than the first and the themes of pagans slaughtering Christians, their being at the
walls of the city and it being a Christian’s duty to aid his oppressed brothers anticipated
those themes enunciated by Urban at Clermont.95
Gregory’s explicit mention of the word
charity indicates that he was seeking to link the proposal to the concept of a virtuous and
meritorious act. It was an important step in the conceptual process of conceiving of the
correct use of force employed within the correct boundaries and aimed at a just goal. In
this case, just as twenty years later, it was the liberation from oppression that was
meritorious. Gregory’s appeal falls short of Urban’s in that he gave no concrete payoff in
the form of salvation for those he had called to arms. For him compassion and duty were
enough motivation to call men to arms and commit to a unique and uncertain campaign.
Urban by promising his constituency a tangible benefit shows himself to be a superior
psychologist and far more able to appeal to mans innate needs.
Gregory’s third letter, addressed to the emperor Henry IV is interesting in that by
proposing that the expedition continues to the Holy Sepulchre it anticipated the great
mobilising myth of Urban’s call.96
It was a call designed to appeal to the emotional core
of western Christendom. It may be pertinent to ask why Gregory now associated the Holy
Sepulchre with his call and why at this time did he also state his intention to personally
lead the expedition? Perhaps recruitment was low, there were nine months between the
calls, and he realised the need to present a greater goal to the western princes. Did he
believe that mention of the Holy Sepulchre would stimulate the charitable and altruistic
instincts of those princes? Did he believe that he would act as a figurehead around whom
others could rally or did he conceive of leadership as being his personal responsibility?
The answers lie in the realm of conjecture, however a concrete proposal concerning the
Holy Sepulchre, one that became central to Urban’s call, had been broached.
94
Register 1:49.
95
For Urban’s speech see; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 42-45; Robert the Monk, pp79-82; Baldric of Bourgeuil,
pp. 29-30; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 52-53; William of Malmesbury, pp. 359-63.
96
Register 2:31
26

It was in his final letter that Gregory most fully anticipated the appeal of Urban.97
He
introduced the idea that it was the devil who wished to deny the Catholic Church and his
minions that were responsible for the attacks on Constantinople. The situation had
evolved from an essentially secular one to a spiritual one that incorporated the fears of
the imminent apocalypse and God’s Judgement, again anticipating themes which are
highlighted by near-contemporary monastic historians of the First Crusade.98
But it is in
the hints of eternal rewards that we can see the greatest anticipation of Urban. Gregory
writes “lest we, by giving our life for our brothers be crowned”.99
It is hard not to
conclude that Gregory is implying a martyrs crown for those who died on his expedition.
Martyrdom guaranteed salvation and martyr status was attributed to the dead of the First
Crusade.100
Gregory also wrote
“Therefore, most beloved brothers, be very strong to fight for that praise and
glory which surpass all desire – you who hitherto have been strong to fight for
things that you cannot keep or possess without sorrow. For through labour that
is for a moment you can gain an eternal reward”101
There was an anticipation of Urban’s exhortation of the Franks to give-up their worldly
battles, to desist from civil wars and fight for Christ here. This theme had also been
applied by Gregory to the French situation, as were its root causes, the decline of French
kingship and the rise French knightly classes.102
The transformation of warfare and its
goals, from the secular to the spiritual, was, in Urban’s conception central to its salvific
effects. Most interestingly there was the connection between this work and a heavenly
reward. Gregory was hinting at gaining salvation through fighting for the Church. It may
be that his message concerning salvation may be regarded as applying to those who have
lost their earthly life in serving God but the suggestion of salvation and martyrdom is
there. It did not take a great leap of imagination to consider the strength of desire of
eleventh century man for salvation and apply this concept universally. This leap of the
imagination can be understood if one considers Gregory’s words to his supporter William
VI of Poitou. For his willingness to serve St Peter on the proposed expedition Gregory
97
Register 2:37.
98
Guibert de Nogent, pp. 43-45; William of Malmesbury, pp.359-63
99
100
J Riley-Smith, Idea, pp. 151-52.
101
Register 2:37, p.128.
102
Register 1:75 and 2:5
27

promises “For you there has also been laid up with God a full reward for your good
will”.103
The implication is clear salvation was obtainable for those who willingly did
God’s work. When this is taken in conjunction with his promise of “an incorruptible
inheritance amongst the saints of God in the heavenly kingdom, having received the
forgiveness of sins through the inexpressible clemency of God”104
given to the citizens
and nobles of Chiusi for refusing aid in the misappropriation of Church property it seems
as though the basics of Urban’s call had been pre-empted by Gregory. Taken as a whole
there seems to be ample evidence to conclude that Gregory’s call to arms provided the
blue-print for Urban’s armed pilgrimage. It was more than a reference point, it indicated a
target that would appeal to the psychological and emotional drives of his constituency
highlighted the spiritual and religious fears that could be manipulated, it nominated
potential allies, anticipated the rhetoric used and the rewards to be offered.
Gregory’s crusading plans of 1074 were formulated early in his reign, his
pronouncements on penance were not made until much later and his ideas regarding the
acceptability of military service were on-going throughout his papacy. When one
considers that he had touched upon many of the issues fundamental to Urban’s crusade
plans and had provided much of the groundwork, particularly that which led to the
equating of military service with Church service and also affirming that such service,
under the right circumstances far from being inherently sinful was, in fact, meritorious. It
is interesting to ask how close he may have come to Urban’s conception if his ‘crusading’
opportunity had come in the last two years of his reign. Any attempt at an answer would
be highly speculative. He showed no conception of associating his expedition with
pilgrimage or promoting it as the work of God, yet one can’t help thinking that the link
between the meritorious use of force and its equation with salvation may have received
greater stress, that the two notions may have coalesced. At least one observer believes his
politico-theology was revolutionary because it involved absolution.105
This implies that in
the right temporal framework Gregory’s crusade would have gained the prize of
absolution.
103
104
105
28

There was close contact between the two men. Urban was a keen supporter of Gregory’s
reforms who saw as his duty to carry on his mentors work. In 1080 Gregory promoted
Urban to the cardinal-bishopric of Ostia which was seen as the senior cardinalship in the
Church. From this position he served as a papal legate in 1085 and he was nominated by
Gregory as a potential successor.106
This implies that the two men were philosophically
close and shared many of the same goals. As the self-proclaimed heir of Gregory it is
inconceivable that he would not have shared his dreams of influencing the events in the
east, studied and thought of ways of improving on Gregory’s proto-crusade.
CHAPTER 3
CONTINUITY AND EVOLUTION AT CLERMONT
106
H. E. J. Cowdrey, Cluniacs, pp. 58, 169-70; C Morris, Papal Monarchy, pp. 120-21.
29

Gregory VII and Urban II had a close working relationship and were philosophically
compatible. Urban’s pontificate can, in a certain sense, be considered as a continuation of
Gregory’s. This was certainly how Urban
Saw it, he wrote “Believe about me just as about the blessed Gregory. I want to follow
wholly in his footsteps … Whatever he deemed right and catholic, I affirm and
approve”.107
History has proved the truth of this assertion. Urban continued the reform
policies of Gregory and, with the advent of a call for aid from Byzantium, had the chance
to resurrect his predecessor’s plans.108
It was an appeal to justice inherent in aiding
Byzantium and the Eastern Church that underlay the development and orientation of the
crusade, it was the promotion of justice that entitled the use of force to be conceived of as
virtuous. Aiding Byzantium also afforded Urban the chance to institute and evolve
Gregory’s politico-theological theories. Urban added the idea of pilgrimage but the basics
of his plans had been articulated by Gregory. Urban stressed certain ideas more than
Gregory, particularly those of Christo-mimesis and the idea that such service could return
the Church to a state of apostolic purity.109
But the core of crusade ideas and the terms of
reference remained unequivocally Gregorian. The crusade offered the opportunity to
promote these ideas. The success of the crusade saw these ideas, particularly those
linking salvation and military service in God’s name, become fixed in the western
religious consciousness.
POPE URBAN’S SERMON
There can be little doubt that the crusade was a product of the reform papacy, what its
exact function was however is still hotly debated. Somerville believes that the Council of
107
Cited in H. E. J. Cowdrey, Crusades and Latin Monasticism, chp. 1, p.p. 80-81.
108
C Tyerman, God’s War. A New History of the Crusades, (London: Allen Lane, 2006) p. 61. The initial
approach was via a Byzantine embassy at Piacenza, March 1095. Most of the chronicles refer simply to an
appeal from the east.
109
30

Clermont was one of the most important councils of the medieval period even without the
calling of the crusade. For him the amount of space given to it by Giovanni Mansi,
testifies to its importance as a council of the first rank.110
That it was overwhelmingly a
reform council can be seen from the reports of its business and the canons it instituted in
the crusade histories.111
Its reformist credentials are perhaps most succinctly stated by
Orderic Vitalis, “The Church shall be catholic, pure, and free; catholic in faith and in the
communion of the saints pure from every taint of evil, and free from every secular
power”.112
The position of the Church as pure and free from evil implies that its decisions
and their implications are free from evil. Therefore the crusade and all it entails was free
from evil. The assertion of Church purity is enough in itself to raise the council’s
offspring, the crusade and the bloodshed it implies free from the inherent evil that was
attached to warfare in the pre-Gregorian period. The claim that the Church shall be free
from secular power demonstrates not only the reformist’s main aim but also implies the
spiritual nature of its outcomes such as the crusade. The crusade is worthy as, following
the conception of Gregory VII, it lies firmly within the remit of the Church. It is untainted
by secular interest.
The crusade chronicles that report on Urban’s crusade sermon all, to a greater or lesser
degree place the calling of the crusade within the confines of the Council of Clermont. It
may have been extra-curricula business, but it was still council business, and for one eye-
witness, Fulcher of Chartres, who completed his work a generation after the event, the
most important business of the council.113
It is interesting that Fulcher, Orderic and
another later commentator William of Malmesbury devoted a large amount of their
commentary to the canons of Clermont; it was roughly equivalent to the space devoted to
Urbans speech.114
The earlier commentators who give an account of Clermont focus
almost exclusively on Urban’s sermon and its effects on those in attendance. The
110
R Somerville, The Councils of Urban !!. Volume !. Decreta Claremontensia, (Amsterdam: Adolf M
Hakkert, 1972) p. 7.
111
Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 50-52; Guibert de Nogent, pp41-41; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-15; William of
Malmesbury, pp. 356-58. Also R Somerville, Decreta Claremontensia, pp. 143-50, provides a list of the 61
known canons of the council.
112
Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-13.
113
Fulcher of Chartres, p. 52. E Peters, introduction to Fulcher’s chronicle for date of completion, p.47.
114
Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 49-53; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 11-19; William of Malmesbury, pp. 356-63.
31

implication is that a generation after the crusade it had succeeded in establishing the
Church as the dominant partner in the Church in the Church-State relationship. It had
realised Gregory’s political ambitions. For the earlier chroniclers the council
contextualised the crusade temporally, for those later the crusade contextualised the
council politically.
What Urban said at Clermont will never be known, the recordings of it vary. This can
however be seen positively, it indicates what each chronicler thought was important or
what he thought the pope should have covered. It may also serve to indicate what themes
and concepts became important in the immediate aftermath of the crusade. Its success
may have coloured the reports of its initiation.115
In 1074 the Byzantines, in need of
assistance possibly due to Turkish incursions, had approached Gregory. The Turkish
advance had not abated, now Byzantium once again looked west. Urban had the chance
to assume Gregory’s mantle and realise those ideas his predecessor had articulated. Those
that concerned the defensive use of force in the pursuit of justice and the reward of
absolution for the sacrifices made in the pursuit of such service were deemed particularly
relevant to the eastern situation.
The chroniclers agree on the fundamental position of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre
in Urban’s appeal at Clermont.116
The idea of Jerusalem meant that it held a place in the
medieval imagination like no other city. It was the only place where true Christo-mimesis
could take place and the call to free it was an invitation to partake in the greatest of all
Christo-mimetic actions.117
An appeal to free it from the yoke of Turkish oppression was
therefore likely to elicit an unsurpassable emotional response. The intimate connection of
the city with Christ assured it of a status and a place in the conscience like no other.118
It
was the “navel of the Earth”,119
the connecting point between this world and heaven, the
115
J Riley-Smith, Idea, p. 16.
116
Anonymous, Gesta Francorum. The Deeds of the Franks and the other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, R. Hill,
ed., (London: Thomas Nelson, 1962) p. 1; Fulcher of Chartres, pp. 49-53; Robert the Monk, pp.79-82;
Guibert de Nogent, pp. 42-45; Baldric of Bourgueil, pp. 29-33; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 15-19; William of
Malmesbury, pp. 358-63.
117
W. J. Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp, 30-47.
118
Robert the Monk, p. 81. Also D Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion, pp. 165-66.
119
Robert the Monk, p. 81.
32

earthly image of the celestial paradise, the epicentre of Christianity.120
For Urban’s
purposes the emotional appeal of Jerusalem was an added benefit, an aid to recruitment,
the fundamental issue was Turkish occupation and oppression.
It was undoubtedly true that Jerusalem belonged to the Christian people and housed many
of its most important monuments therefore it was on the grounds of justice and the
defence of those unable to defend themselves that Urban could, within the Gregorian
conception, issue a call to arms. Christian warfare was in the Augustinian conception
altruistic, he argued, “it is the injustice of the opposing side that lays on wise men the
duty of waging wars”121
by their actions the Turks had proved themselves unjust, duty
demanded that this injustice was remedied. Those heeding this summons would, by
definition, be involved in a meritorious act and one that lay outside the framework of
penitential censure. The self sacrifice they were prepared to make in serving the needs of
justice would in fact allow their work to be brought within the penitential realm and
viewed positively as an act of penance itself which ameliorated previous sin. William of
Malmesbury added an extra dimension to this conception of justice. He argued that the
pagan races, the Turks and Saracens, had by their expansion laid hold of parts of the
world that by divine ordination belonged to others. Their removal was therefore just and
those that undertook it upholders of the principles of justice.122
William was one of the
later chroniclers, writing some forty years after Clermont. There can be no doubt that this
appeal was designed to legitimate the on-going warfare waged by Christians in their
attempts to regain lands lost to the nations of Islam. The crusade, the divinely inspired
war to relieve Jerusalem and restore the Eastern Church, legitimated far more Christian
aggression than its origins claimed to.
The tenth and eleventh centuries were as we have said a time of unparalleled belief in the
imminence of Divine Judgement. This belief underlay Gregory VII’s desire to repair the
penitential system and prepare men to face their maker with confidence. Jerusalem was
the scene of the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgement.123
William of
120
Baldric of Bourgueil, p. 31.
121
St Augustine, City of God, p. 861.
122
William of Malmesbury, p. 360.
123
Revelation, 14:1.
33

Malmesbury focused on the transience of the earthly life and the eternity of life after
death. For him it was simple; it was better to choose the pleasures of eternal paradise than
those of a temporal earthly existence.124
The crusaders were fortunate in that they had
chosen a path which would lead them to salvation and eternal life. There was in William
an inference of the imminence of divine judgement, his plea to accept the role of crusader
is intimately tied to his love of the eternal life, it was therefore a means by which a man
ould escape the horrors of damnation. Robert the Monk’s assertion that the crusade, as an
event, ranked third in importance behind the creation and the resurrection can also be
seen as implying that the crusade was preparatory to the Second Coming and the
establishment of an eternal paradise on earth for those worthy of salvation.125
It was
therefore a means by which Judgement Day was brought closer and a means by which the
crusaders could prove themselves worthy of a place in paradise.
It was Guibert de Nogent who did most to contextualise the crusade and its importance in
historical terms. In his history Urban does not appear until the beginning of the second
chapter, the first is an attempt to explain the crusades historical context and the book is
divided into seven chapters, this suggests that he was following the dominant
Augustinian model which divided the history of the world into seven providentially
ordained historical epochs. The contemporary age was considered to be the sixth age, the
seventh and final age was believed to be ushered in by the Second Coming of Christ and
his apocalyptic victory over the forces of darkness which would result in an age of
heavenly purity on earth.126
The Augustinian model was a theological approach and
interpretation in which God’s will was the epicentre of historical events. He believed that
“It is beyond anything incredible that he should have willed thee kingdoms of men, their
dominations and their servitudes, to be outside the range of the laws of his providence.”127
In his speech Urban introduced the idea of the Antichrist whose presence was a necessary
precursor to the apocalypse that culminated in the Last Judgement. 128
For him, writing as
he did several years after the fall of Jerusalem, the crusade had not resulted in the
124
William of Malmesbury, pp. 362-63.
125
126
St Augustine, p. 1091.
127
Ibid, p. 196.
128
Guibert de Nogent, pp. 43-44.
34

apocalypse but as he shared the commonly held belief that “with the end of the world
already near”129
there was still every reason to believe that, as the start of the Christian
fight-back, it marked the beginning of the process of re-establishing the Christian empire,
a necessary first step in the apocalyptic process. In his conception the crusade was
preordained to carry out this work. 130
Guibert spent a great deal of effort in putting the crusade in its correct historical context.
There were two main reasons for this. The first was to show that
“God ordained holy wars in our time, so that the knightly order and the erring
mob, who, like their ancient pagan models were engaged in mutual slaughter
might find a new way of earning salvation. Thus without having chosen (as is
customary) a monastic life, without any religious commitment, they were
compelled to give up this world; free to continue their customary pursuits,
nevertheless they earned some measure of God’s grace by their own efforts”131
The crusade was, in effect, God’s vindication of Gregory’s assertion that the use of
violence could, under the correct circumstances, be considered virtuous and lead to
salvation. It also indicates that the monastic profession can no longer be considered as the
sole means of gaining salvation. New ways with new parameters now existed. The
second reason was to define the enemy. In Guibert’s conception Islam was little more
than a diabolically inspired heresy whose main function was to undermine Christianity.132
The conflict was therefore part of the on-going struggle between God and Satan, of good
against evil. It was a spiritual battle, a manifestation of the militia Christi which required
the participation of spiritual warriors. The traditional spiritual warriors of Christianity,
the monks, were forbidden from travelling to the Holy Land.133
They were deemed
unsuitable for the proposed work. Their role was to stay behind and pray for victory.
From the outset a fraternal bond was created between the crusaders and their monastic
counterparts. Moreover the crusaders were, due to the nature of their commitment and the
sacrifice it entailed, granted the remission of their sins for their service.134
This was the
129
Guibert de Nogent, p. 44.
130
131
Guibert de Nogent, p.28.
132
Ibid, pp. 30-36.
133
134
Robert the Monk, p. 81; R Somerville, Decreta Claremontensia, p. 74.
35

expected reward for a life of self-sacrifice in monastic service, payment for the two
professions was standardised.
Gregory had drawn a distinction between the times when the use of force retained its
inherently sinful nature and times when it transcended this nature.135
He had distinguished
between the legitimate and illegitimate use of force. War for justice and the defence of
the rights of the church, the poor, the dispossessed and those faced with oppression was
legitimate, all other forms illegitimate. Gregory had suggested that the sin of illegitimate
warfare could undergo a penitential transformation by the warrior agreeing to only
engage in the legitimate type.136
Urban took this concept and applied it on a corporate
level. The Franks to whom his appeal was mainly directed were employed in many and
various temporal crimes that had evolved from their love of conflict.137
This was
damaging to them as a nation and a distraction from the realities of life.138
William of
Malmesbury maintains that Urban offered the Franks a means of escape, a means by
which salvation could be snatched from the jaws of damnation. Their present criminality
was sinful and “The wages of sin is death, the death of sinners is most dreadful”,139
their
employment of arms in the cause of Christ however transformed this vice into virtue, the
work which was essentially the same, became virtuous and charitable, and therefore
worthy of reward.140
His was a Gregorian attitude. The intention transforms the nature of
the action. Guibert de Nogent and Baldric of Bourgueil also believed in the
transformative effect of intention in the employment of arms. In an attitude reminiscent
of Gregory VII Baldric stated that in order to overcome the sinfulness of warfare the
Franks had a choice; they could either put down their weapons or employ them in the
defence of the Eastern Church.141
For Guibert it was simple, it was a choice between
martyrdom and damnation.142
135
Register 6:5b; 7:10; 7:14a.
136
Register 7:10; 7:14a.
137
Fulcher of Chartres, p. 53; Robert the Monk, pp. 80-81; Guibert de Nogent, p. 43; Baldric of Bourgueil,
pp. 31-32; William of Malmesbury, pp. 359-61.
138
Robert the Monk, p. 81
139
140
141
Baldric of Bourgueil, pp. 31-32.
142
36

When it came to warfare Urban followed the Gregorian concept of transformation of the
nature of an action by the change of intent. He did it on a much greater scale and whereas
Gregory merely hinted at the possibility that the action could be deemed meritorious
Urban by stating “not I but the Lord – exhort you … Christ commands it. Remission of
sins will be granted to those going thither”,143
claimed that correct military service was
work of the highest order and as pleasing in God’s eyes as the devoted service of the
monastic community. The crusaders were as “soldiers of Christ”.144
The term that had
been brought out of the cloister by Gregory VII and applied to those willing to undertake
what he conceived of as the Lord’s work was now firmly applicable in a military sense
and specifically to those who fought for the Lord and for the Lord’s pay. The ideas that
equated warfare with sinfulness and monastic seclusion as the only certain means of
gaining salvation had undergone drastic revision. Devotion of ones life to the service of
God became the defining standard of salvation. This did not entail withdrawal from the
world, rather withdrawal from the desire to accept temporal rewards. The crusade would
demonstrate further the evolution of the secular holy warrior. He would enter “into that
bargain with God, and devotes himself as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable”.145
Like
his monastic counterpart he would become cleansed and purified by a regime of
confession and penance. There would therefore be no need for the successors of Hugh of
Burgundy to seek monastic retirement and seek atonement at the end of his career and no
need for the monastic communities to accept such men for the salvation of their soul.146
The claim by Fulcher that Urban was inspired by God found favour with the chroniclers.
The preordination of the crusade became a standard motif for the historians. There was
also a more utilitarian purpose. The crusade was a papal appeal for support,
overwhelmingly reformist in character and aim that had as its unique selling point a new
and hopefully more attractive way of gaining salvation that was directed towards the
military personnel of Europe. Gregory VII’s overtones to the same class was couched in
the language of St Peter and claimed to be legitimate due to Petrine authority. But
Gregory had largely failed implying that Petrine authority either did not support this
143
144
145
146
Register 6:17.
37

cause or else the sacerdotal claims to superiority that stemmed from this doctrine were
not strong enough to overthrow the regnal claims of the imperial party.147
Attributing the
crusade to divine inspiration effectively bypassed these criticisms. No-one could argue
with the claim that God ordained the crusade particularly given post-event success. The
attribution of the crusade to divine inspiration underlined the Gregorian principle that
those involved in just warfare deserved to have their actions viewed as meritorious whilst
in no way denigrating the concept of apostolic succession that stemmed from the Petrine
doctrine and was so useful to the pope in matters of dogma.
The monastic chronicler’s attitude towards the Peasant’s Crusade and its leader, Peter the
Hermit indicate their desire to attribute the crusade and its lessons to the official Church.
Peter the Hermit was, according to Albert of Aachen, the prime motivation behind the
crusade. Whilst in Jerusalem on pilgrimage Peter met with the city’s patriarch who
convinced him of the need for the west to send aid to Jerusalem. It became Peter’s
mission to bring the plight of Jerusalem to the West’s attention and organise relief for the
city.148
Such a conception provides an antithesis to the reformist chroniclers approach to
the origins and aims of the crusade by raising the possibility that Urban’s divinely
inspired preaching was not the originator of the crusade. Perhaps this is why Peter the
Hermit’s role in the promotion of the crusade idea was, wilfully neglected by these
writers. Any major change in the Church’s position that effected such fundamental truths
as the penitential path to salvation had to come from the successor of St Peter himself, it
could not be countenanced as emanating from a popular movement. The idea of the
change of gaining salvation was Gregorian, the realisation of this new way was the
crusade, therefore its origin had to be divine or at the very least papal. The fact that the
intended action was portrayed as defending the liberty of the Holy Sepulchre, the place
where Jesus overcame death, and redeemed man from Original Sin, underlined the pre-
eminent position of the pope to be called upon by God to do His work, the papal duty to
147
J Riley-Smith, ‘The First Crusade and St Peter’, in b. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail, eds.,
Outremer. Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi
Institute, 1982) 41-63, pp. 49-52.
148
Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana. History of the Journey to Jerusalem, S. B. Edgington, ed.
And trans., (Oxford: Clarendon, 2007) p. 3-7.
38

defend the liberties of the oppressed and his right to prescribe the appropriate payment
for such undertakings.
Urban’s greatest evolution of the Gregorian ‘proto-crusade’ was to conceive of the
journey as a pilgrimage. Pilgrimage had a penitential aspect it could be prescribed as part
of a redemptive obligation and aid in the transformative process. Pilgrims were
considered, by no less authority than St Jerome, to temporarily gain monastic status. They
had voluntarily turned their back on the world and their former life, committed to
something greater and would undergo an irrevocable spiritual transformation making
them unable to return to their former lifestyle.149
Pilgrimage was also recognised as
another form of imitatio Christi.150
The system of pilgrimage had, in its penitential
incarnation, evolved to provide a parallel means of expiating sins. From the ninth century
onwards the idea of associating a pilgrimage to a specific shrine with the remission of a
specific sin began to emerge.151
A penitential pilgrimage to Jerusalem was considered to
be particularly effective at expiating the guilt of heinous crimes such as murder.152
There
was a synchronicity between the sacrament of penance and the institutions of penitential
pilgrimage that under the right conditions produced a redemptive synergy. This was fully
utilised by Urban in his call to aid Jerusalem. To receive the full penitential benefits of
the pilgrimage it was vital that the ritual formalities were adhered to. Prospective
crusaders needed to get clerical permission, confess their sins and gain absolution before
they could undertake the expedition.153
They needed to enter into a state of contrition and
maintain this state throughout the expedition otherwise their sacrifices would be of no
avail. The conclusion that in Urban’s conception the behaviour of the Frankish
Knighthood meant that they were tainted by sin which necessitated ritual penitential
purification and that the crusade was the means by which this could be achieved and
provide them with redemption, seems difficult to escape.
149
J Sumption, Pilgrimage, pp. 94-95.
150
151
152
J Flori, ‘Ideoogy and Motivations’, in H. J. Nicholson, ed., Palgrave Advances in the Crusades,
(London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) p. 21.
153
Fulcher of Chartres, p. 54; Robert the Monk, p. 82; Baldric of Bourgueil, p. 32; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 17-
19.
39

The similarities between Urban’s ideal for the crusader and Gregory’s for the penitent is
obvious, the penitential pilgrimage was the obligation, the vehicle through which
transformation could be effected. Perhaps this is why the chroniclers rejoice so much in
the deprivation and degradation of the campaign. It was an integral part of the spiritual
purification of the crusaders, a lesson in humility without which they would not have
undergone the necessary transformation from secular criminal to spiritual hero.
Pilgrimage also allowed for confession to be given to a priest other than ones local parish
priest.154
In the deadly and penitentially demanding environment of the crusade this was a
great boon, it allowed for the continuation of the on-going transformation. There was also
an added dimension to Urban’s pilgrimage; the symbolism of the cross. Pilgrims were
identified by their wearing of cilicium, Urban urged the crusaders to wear a cross as a
symbol of their commitment to the cause.155
It highlighted their pilgrim and penitent
status.They thus took the cross. Previously taking the cross was the preserve of the monk.
It symbolised a commitment to withdraw from the temporal life and devote oneself to
God.156
Gregory’s use of the term ‘militia Christi’ had appropriated monastic language
for the use of spiritually sanctioned warfare, now Urban in a similar vein appropriated
monastic symbolism for such warfare.
Urban’s speech therefore is crucial to the conception of the crusade. It confirmed that as
judged by the contemporary situation and by providential historical design the campaign
was defensive. It was aimed at upholding a divinely ordained world order and
confounding the old enemy and therefore conformed to the Augustinian standards of just
war, which maintained that not only was it acceptable, but also an individual’s duty, to
fight in such a cause when called by the right authority. Therefore the Gregorian precept
that those involved in such a war should be considered as undertaking meritorious work
was highlighted and upheld. What could be more just, spiritually motivated and worthy
of divine approval than campaigning against the forces of darkness. The conception of a
154
155
Fulcher of Chartres,p. 54; Robrert the Monk, p. 82; Guibert de Nogent, p. 45.
156
W J Purkiss, Crusading Spirituality, pp. 32-33; J Riley-Smith, Idea, p.114. Interestingly with reference
to note 148, Orderic Vitalis, p.17 does not mention that the cross was Urban’s idea he merely states “that
they took the cross”. It was from this moment that they, as penitents, became eligible for absolution. Is
Orderic also implying that they voluntarily became temporary monks with all the attendant benefits?
40

penitential pilgrimage that ensured spiritual transformation harked back to the primitive
purity so beloved of Gregory and by confirming that God desired adequate recompense
for those employed in his work is also a continuation of Gregory’s work that sought to
provide salvation through ensuring that penitential standards were adequate.
CHAPTER 4
THE FIRST CRUSADE AS A DEMONSTRATION OF GREGORIAN PRINCIPLES
41

According to Riley-Smith “the First Crusade, moreover, was the culminating act of a
period in which the popes and the churchmen who supported them, engaged in a
campaign to enlist western knighthood to the papal cause.”157
For him the crusade and the
objectives of the reformists were inextricably linked, it was a means by which the papacy
could demonstrate the benefits, which were of course spiritual in nature, of choosing the
new way. To serve the church was the means of gaining salvation. The Liber Pontificalis
emphasised the links of the crusade and the ideas of Gregory VII stating that it was
fought under St. Peter’s leadership, terminology intimately associated with Gregory.158
The crusade was essentially a military campaign and, for a successful prosecution,
needed the participation of military men. However the history of the crusade as it was
recorded by skilful historians evolved into something more than a military campaign. It
became a “Christian drama”.159
Whilst it retained its historical basis as a record of events
it also transcended these bounds and became allegorical. The allegorical crusade on one
level portrayed the campaign as a providentially inspired battle between good and evil
and, on another more subtle level, transformed the nature of its protagonists. The
crusaders became the embodiment of Christian virtue. Perhaps more importantly it was
not simply their participation which granted them such status. It was their acceptance of
reform principles which enabled this transformation to take place and facilitated their
evolution from mere soldiers into fully-fledged soldiers of Christ and let them gain the
benefits of salvation that accrued.
Gregory VII decreed that warfare conducted under certain conditions could be deemed
meritorious and that those who partook in such warfare were not automatically engaged
in a sinful activity. The crusade was the supreme example of this just war concept. The
intention of the participants changed the prosecution and representation of the war. Acts
that would ordinarily be seen as sinful became expressions of the highest Christian virtue.
Warfare and the warriors themselves were characterised and written about in language
that was previously the preserve of the religious professions. Finally the crusade as
selfless and voluntary service for the benefit of the oppressed and the Church fulfilled the
157
J Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and St Peter, p. 49.
158
Ibid, p. 52.
159
42

Gregorian conception of penitential and redemptive labour. It was the ultimate
expression, and its overwhelming success only added to this conception, of salvation
gained through service and self-sacrifice and through the just and authorised use of force.
VIRTUE AND MERITORIOUS WARFARE
The fundamental role of the allegorical crusade was to present crusade activity as
virtuous. The gospels presented Jesus as the paradigm of Christian behaviour and
elucidated on his moral, ethical and religious teaching. The remaining books of the New
Testament, apart from the Book of Revelation, expanded on these teachings. Through
these the Christian conceptions of virtue and vice became available to a wide audience.
The path of virtue was desirable as it led to salvation and an afterlife of eternal joy. A life
devoted to vice on the other hand led to damnation and an eternity of torment. Christian
morality was overwhelmingly pacific. On his arrest Christ commanded his disciple “Put
your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.160
Even
when threatened, Christ prohibited the use of violence to save his life and indicated the
dangers inherent in violent action. Arguably this was a demonstration of his argument to
trust in the law however this and many other such statements have been used to show the
pacific nature of Christianity and the inherent sinfulness of using force. Gregory VII as
we have seen demonstrated that there was a distinction between the just and unjust
employment of force and that the necessity of just war should not stigmatise those
involved. The crusade was a demonstration of just warfare and the merit that was
attached to those who served in such a war. It brought the concepts and benefits of such
service to the attention of Western Europe. It popularised the newly articulated Gregorian
position.
The basis of Christian virtue lies in the beatitudes enunciated by Christ in the Sermon on
the Mount.161
The virtues of faith, humility, justice and especially charity when conceived
of as agape or Christian love are all visible. It was an appeal to these virtues that formed
160
Matthew 26:52.
161
Matthew 5:3-10. This version will be used here. Luke 6:20-23 also gives a somewhat different version.
43

the backbone of Urban’s speech at Clermont and, as a life led in accordance with these
virtues was perceived of as an imitatio Christi was eligible for rewards, it was these
rewards that formed the payment for crusade service. In short those crusaders who
undertook to go on crusade were invested with the qualities and rewards of Christian
virtue. It was through the display of virtue that the crusaders could most easily be seen as
imitating Christ and could be held up as exemplars of Christian behaviour for others to
emulate. Therefore in the chronicles a powerful triumvirate of imitatio existed which
further intimated the providential nature of the crusade. Displays of Christian virtue
within the highly charged atmosphere of a penitential pilgrimage highlighted the
sacrifices made by the crusaders for the love of God and the rewards granted by Him.
They also underlined the importance of intention, when they acted well the crusaders
were rewarded, when they acted poorly they were upbraided and brought back to virtue
by a loving God.162
Once again it was the monastic chroniclers who, being generally
supportive of the aims of the reform movement, underlined most clearly the connection
between crusade, virtue and salvation. Guibert’s new path to salvation which owed so
much to Gregory VII was accepted, justified and in the process of becoming
institutionalised.163
The fundamental crusade virtue was justice. It was the notion of justice that allowed
Gregory VII to distinguish between just and unjust war, and the promotion of justice that
enabled Urban to call the crusade. The cause of justice is enshrined in the beatitudes;
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. For they shall be filled.”164
Justice is an active principle, it must be worked for. Perhaps this is one reason why
Gregory could point to those who fought for justice as being engaged in meritorious
work. It is also, as the maxim maintains its own reward. Those who work towards the
establishment of justice will receive secular and spiritual justice. Robert the Monk’s
description of the taking of Antioch is revealing. He asserts that the Christians “delivered
162
Perhaps the best example of this are the instructions received via the vision of Stephen of Valence;
Gesta Francorum, pp. 57-59; Raymond d’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, J. H.
Hill and L. L. Hill, eds. and trans., (Philadelphia. The American Philosophical Society, 1968) pp. 55-
56;Robert the Monk, pp. 161-62; Guibert de Nogent, pp. 99-100; Orderic Vitalis, pp. 99-101.
163
164
Matthew 5:6.
44

THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

THE FIRST CRUSADE AND THE REDEMPTION OF THE GREGORIAN REFORM