Were the Motives of the Crusades Justified in that They Advanced the Cause of Christ?

28 February 2009

Were the Motives of the Crusades Justified in that They Advanced the Cause of Christ?

Still today, after almost 1,000 years, many people are fascinated with the series of events called the crusades, in which literally thousands of people either marched, rode horseback or sailed to Jerusalem shouting” Dieux el volt,” which, in Latin, means “It is the will of God.” The crusades were waged as a means to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. They clearly had many benefits, which came as a result, such as the envisionment and outcome of new trade, consolidation of power, technological developments, military expansion and the knowledge of art, education and manufacturing, but did they truly do anything to benefit the advancement of the cause of Christ? Let us now examine the motives, and events carefully to see.
It all started when a French monk of Ameins, small in build, but with fiery eyes and passionate oration, who went by the name “Peter the Hermit,” rode to Jerusalem to purpose a pilgrimage, and witnessed the condition of the Holy City and the way in which the Turks treated the stranger in such a cruel manner. Repulsed at what he saw, he traveled to Rome to report his findings to Pope Urban the Second, who encouraged Peter to begin a mission of liberating the Holy Land, and Peter began to ride throughout Italy and France advocating the need to free the tomb of Christ from the adversaries. Traversing through towns, wearing the course robe of the monks’ mode of dress, carrying a crucifix, he called all to repent and to take up the cause of rescuing their Savior’s sepulcher from defilement. Many obliged, and an unorganized army was formed.
In the meantime, Pope Urban II called a council to meet at Clermont, in southern France, which was attended by Cardinals, priests, lords and knights. At this convention, Pope Urban II made an emotive oration, stirring up the hearts of all who heard. He narrated a list of situations, which ultimately needed action: a new tribe of Turks had risen up and forced the milder Arabs from their land and were spreading panic, they had overtaken the holy city of Jerusalem and turned it into a blood bath, they had taken the bishop of Jerusalem and had pulled him through the roads by his tresses and thrown him into prison, they had defiled the churches there, martyred Christians who had been on pilgrimages to the Holy Sulpucher, and Constantinople was in danger of these events spreading there. And after hearing these atrocious things, all stood up and said, “It is the will of God” or in Latin, “Dieux el volt!” Pope Urban II, in response, yelled out “It is indeed the will of God, and let this memorable word be forever adopted as your cry of battle to animate the devition and courage of the champions of Christ. His cross is the symbol of salvation; wear it, a red, a bloody cross, as an external mark on your breast or shoulders, as a pledge of your sacred and irrevocable engagement.” The idea was adopted, and the crusade was dated to begin on the date of the Catholic holy day, Assumption, August 15, of the following year 1096. The Pope declared that all who should be procured for the cause should be pardon for the whole of their sins, and be free from performing all penances due to the church.  In fact, his exact words were, “Set forth on this expedition with eagerness, that your sins may be forgiven you, and that ye may be assured of the reward of imperishable glory in the kingdom of Heaven,” as recorded by Alice M. Atkinson.
By the following spring, Peter the Hermit and a man named Walter the Penniless had rounded up 250,000 men, women and children under his command. Since Peter worked so tirelessly, ate so little drank so scantily and slept even less, many people believed him to be a saint. Charles Mills writes that even the fur which fell from his mule were considered to be sacred relics. However, as mentioned above, his crowd was completely unorganized, consisting of those wanting to escape punishment for their crimes, those who just wanted to go on an adventure, those who wanted to make their homes in the “land of milk and honey,” as the Israelites did, and only a mere few for genuine religious zeal. But on their journey the lawless crowd assailed a settlement of Jews, since they had left with little money, food and provisions, and the Turks and Hungarians retaliated against them, leaving the majority of them lifeless and many of the rest perished hopelessly from hunger and exposure. Only twenty thousand even succeeded in reaching Constantinople. The residents welcomed them there, but soon the crowd had offended them by means of their fighting and thieving. Peter the Hermit became fed up and went alone to Constantinople, leaving the followers with Walter. However, the army, which had been arranged by Rome, went in armors and with shields and helmets, equipped with battle axes, lances, swords, clubs and bows. They began their journey, and in step they attacked many towns in between their starting point and their destination of the Holy City; however, as the Turks gained word many emptied their towns and left, leaving the warriors hungry, thirsty and exhausted. Through the turmoil of the trip, the army had been reduced from hundreds of thousands to sparsely over twenty thousand. This, according to John Lord, is also due to lack of strategy, lack of discipline and fighting amongst their groups. However, Richard Horchler says that the Saracens had satiated the wells surrounding Jerusalem with poisonous water, damned the streams coming into the city and filled up the springs. Finally, the combatants reached the Holy City, and after a forth day battle, with Godfrey of Bouillon leading, captured Jerusalem. When inside the walls, the Catholic knights and other fighters slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims as they fled down the streets, with the Crusaders following after them smashing everything in their path; men, women and children were not spared as the Catholic soldiers trampled them with the hooves of their horses. Likewise, they burnt and reduced many Jew to ashes, while still in their synagogues. Afterward they traveled to see the tomb of the Messiah, and proclaimed the north and south of the city the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem. Thus, the abrupt outcome of the First Crusade was an immense increase in territory, belonging to the Eastern Empire.
The Catholics ruled Jerusalem for about fifty years, and endured sporadic attacks from the Mohammedans, but finally a time came, in which they required assistance in the fight. Additionally, the Catholics held a province in Mesopotamia, called Edessa, which had been attacked and seized by the Turks, leaving many Christians dead. The people in Europe, upon hearing this news, were brought to anger, and thus a second crusade was organized. Saint Bernard instigated it. An army of over three hundred thousand, consisting of lords, light-armed troops, women, children, priests and monks was formed. They were led by Conrad III of Germany and Louis of France, as they either marched or were blessed enough to be carried on the back of a horse. The Greek Emperor, Manuel Comnenus, having knowledge and dealings with Conrad, sabotaged their efforts by delivering foul rations for the troops to consume and also by informing the Turks of their coming. Thus, Conrad’s entire army was almost shattered, and the campaign was an absolute catastrophe. Besides the betrayal of Emperor Manuel Comnenus, Richard Horchler attributes the victory of the Muslims to the squabbling and contention of the Christian barons, their mistakes and their greed.
In the next forty years, the Mohammedans had time to increase in strength, and a new authority had also appeared from Egypt, by the name of Saladin. Saladin was a brave and great warrior, mighty and wise, both on and off the battlefield, yet the Christians decided to match his wits in an attempt to retake Jerusalem yet again. Richard the Lionheart, of England, Fredrick Barbarossa of Germany and Philip Augustus of France commanded this battle company, and they led brilliantly and fiercely, yet many perished from hunger and hardships, and the commander, Fredrick I was accidentally drowned while attempting to ford an Asiatic
River, and so the German mission was essentially quashed. The French and English Crusaders, which had begun with one hundred thousand in number, sailed by a fleet of ships to the Holy Land, yet when they arrived they were in no condition to fight, as Richard had stopped in Cyprus, and had battled there with the Cyprians, however conquering it, and his army had severely thinned out, as additionally several suffered shipwreck, and Phillip’s fleet had battled a dose of the plague on the journey. Charles Dickens reports that when the Crusaders arrived they acted in a manner of drinking, gaming, quarreling and general unholy conduct, and that everywhere they stayed they acted in a decadent manner toward the people, debasing every tranquil location. The English and French kings were invidious of each other, as were their troops, and each agreed on little. After some confrontations, King Phillip became disgusted with King Richard’s behavior, and became ill from the hot, sandy climate, and returned him with his men. King Richard battled on shouting, “Save the Holy Sepulcher!” however, the troops were exhausted, quarrelsome and in a case of resentment, and the company ended in a three-year truce, with the Mohammedans promising Richard the Lionheart that the major seaports would remain in Christian hands, and that pilgrimages to Jerusalem should be met with peace. Many of the soldiers then traveled to see the holy sites of the city, but King Richard never entered the Holy City, nor did he visit the Holy Sepulcher while he was in attendance of Jerusalem, as legend has it that he held the hallowed spot with disdain and contempt, but rather he left in search of more adventures.
Now switching the tune from actual historical events to the point, of which it was written, the purpose of the assignment and the actual paper itself, is to evaluate the motive of the crusades, and to determine if they were profitable in advancing the cause of Christ. However, this writer felt it was very important to include more historical accounts than merely motivational descriptions, though they are very much included in the weight of this paper, as well. Now, please allow the essayist to opine her beliefs per the study of the survey contained herein, compared in light of scriptural commands.
The motives of each of the three crusades, of which the writer has given sparse accounts of here, are very clear. The motive of the First Crusade was to free Jerusalem from the hands of unruly, violent and unholy men, whom had no regard for the precious locations, which Jesus walked on, touched or was even buried on, and they had no respect for Him either, as He was only viewed by their religion as a mere man and semi-important prophet. They were persecuting the faithful worshippers, even to their deaths on some occasions, and Jerusalem had become a scene of carnage. The motive of the Second Crusade was to regain the city of Edessa, which the Christians had lost to the Mohammedans. This location was a loss in the totality of the Eastern Empire. The motive for the Third Crusade was just another attempt to retake the Holy Land, once again.
As the reader has witnessed in this essay, most accounts, left by highly revered historians, including novelist Charles Dickens, leaves the impression that the crusaders, whether knights in shining armor, or peasants looking to make a home in the “land of milk and plenty, led very unholy, cantankerous lives, drinking, merry making, gambling, stealing, quarreling amongst themselves, and the reader is also able to remember that even King James and King Phillip had fits of profound envy and abhorrence toward each other, even to the point that Phillip became disgusted and departed from Acre, before the battle at Jerusalem even began.
The crusaders said that they were doing these acts, because they were the will of God, or “Deus vult”, as they often cried. They allowed that they were marching off to war for the cause of Christ. When one investigates what the cause of Christ is, most often it is based on the verse Philippians 1:29, which states, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” When one looks at this verse, and determine that is what the cause of Christ is, which in this instance is to suffer, then he or she can further evaluate if the crusades follow this standard. However, also mentioned along with suffering is believing. James said in James 2:19 that even the demons believe and tremble, so that doesn’t assure anyone that the crusaders were working to advance the cause of Christ. One must look deeper into what believing is. The word believe in the Greek language is pisteuo, which basically means to trust or to entrust, but when one looks into the root of that word, pistis, it means “conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the New Testament of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it,” according to the Strong’s Concordance. This puts Paul’s verse in Philippians 1:29 in a new light since conviction and relationship has been added to the picture, which takes us to Christ’s own words in John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
Taking all of this into consideration, it is very unlikely that the crusades did much to advance the cause of Christ in this sense, since it is so obvious that none, or at best, the majority, kept His commandments, especially if we looked past the first three crusades into the latter ones, wherein the crusaders raped and murdered the innocent in the name of Christ. If one considers the cause of Christ to mean for the spreading of the Gospel – yes, it was spread, especially in the First Crusade, wherein the crusaders gained the Eastern territories for their kingdom, but those who were converted did so by force, and it would not seem they were truly converted in their hearts for the love of Christ and the conviction of their sins, but only for a nominal purpose. It seems more likely that the crusades did more harm in advancing the cause of Christ, as those involved shared such bad testimonies. They were not the quiet, amiable Christians of those mentioned in the early, early church. They were violent, lawless perpetrators of iniquity. Charles Mills states that in the siege at Constantinople, wherein Peter the Hermit became disgusted and left, that the Frenchmen “destroyed children at the breast, and scattered their quivering limbs in the air.” Here he is quoting the Grecian historian, Alexiad. That is not surprising that he also quotes Ordericus Vitalis just pages before as saying, “Murderers, adulterers, robbers, and pirates quitted there iniquitous pursuits, and declared that they would wash away their sins in the blood of infidels.” Where was the Blood of Christ even mentioned in this expedition?

© 2010 Kimberly Padilla, A.A Religion