Many historians consider the sermon that was preached by Pope Urban II at
Clermont-Ferrand in 1905 to be the spark that fueled the fire of the First Crusade. He gave a
speech stating that Western Christians need to give aid to the Christians to the east because they
were being attack by the Muslim Turks. Pope Urban II also called for Jerusalem to be liberated
from Muslim control after 400 years. He set August 15th, 1096 as the official date of the
beginning of the Crusade [7]. Although there were a total of eight crusades, this paper will focus
on the First Crusade and whether the Christ was the reason behind trying to recapture Jerusalem.
The papacy was highly instrumental in the directions of the recovery of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem had to be removed from the hands of the Muslim invaders. At one time, Jerusalem was
in under the control of Muslims [4]. This was not what Pope Urban II wanted because this is
where Jesus is buried and he believed that history had to be protected and preserved. He felt
disrespected and force to try and regain the territory [5].
The Medieval Crusades have shaped the Christian and Muslim communities for almost
1000 years. The First Crusade was the start of this period which makes it a very critical historical
event that ultimately define the relationship between Islam and America today. The interaction
between the Franks and the Saracens during the First Crusade continuously developed the clash
of the cultures that began when Islam invaded Western Europe in the 8th century. Both cultures
define the First Crusade in different ways which caused controversy in itself.
Peter Frankopan provided a fresh perspective on a topic that has attracted a large amount
of popularity and scholarly attention in the last few years. He challenged the concept that it was
principally the religious ideologies of the Latin West that provoked the Christians to fight the
Muslims in the Holy Land at the turn of the 12th century. He finds the “real origins” of the First
Crusade in the skillful policies that Emperor Alexios I formulated to save his empire from
numerous of external threats [9].
Emperor Alexios I could have possibly had a clear strategy in mind when he requested
the military assistance from the West, but he need troops to expand the campaign of reconquest
that had already started in Anatolia. Also he wanted to regain as much of the territory that was
lost since the battle of Manzikert as possible. Unfortunately the Crusader host that arrived
outside of Constantinople were not what Alexios had in mind. They were not mercenaries or
even military volunteers that were willing to serve under Byzantine command [6].
Frankopan acknowledges that Pope Urban II and the reforming traditions of the 11th
century Latin Church shaped the way Christians understood the expedition that captured
Jerusalem in 1099, but he argues that neither the papacy nor the reform movement could
have
launched the Crusade without the initiative of Alexios [9]. Emperor Alexios I, came to the
conclusion that Byzantium’s own military and diplomatic efforts in order to regain lost territory
in Anatolia were severely inadequate. He asked the Christian states of Western Europe for
support. This became the genesis of the First Crusade [6].
Instead they were a potential threat to the strength of the Empire. While fearing their
trouble-making potential and soon 28 suspecting that several leaders intended to seize territory
for themselves rather than winning it back for Byzantium, Alexios used his political, diplomatic
and military skill to channel the Crusaders’ potential in useful directions. In this he was at least
partially successful [6].
The Crusades were Christian military expeditions that were taken between the 11th and
14th century. There were centered on the recapture of the Holy Land from Muslim control. When
the word crusade is mention, the word is derived from the Latin word “crux” which means cross.
This is a reference to the biblical command that Christians carry their cross [7]. Crusaders wore a
red cross that was sewn to their tunics in order to indicate that they has assumed the cross and
were soldiers of God. The cause of the First Crusade is many and far more complex, but
preserving religious beliefs was clearly a major importance [2].
Political considerations were also important during the Crusades. They were a response to
appeals for help from the Byzantine Empire who were threatened by the advance of the Turks. In
1071, there were captures of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Byzantine army. This
created
widespread fear of the Turks furthering in victories. Many of the participants were lured by the
riches of the East [2]. This became a justifiable war because it was fought to recapture the place
that was sacred to Christians. Pope Urban II was certainly the primary agent in starting The
Crusades. It was his drive that fueled the religious fervor of the people of Europe, and the
original push to reclaim Jerusalem. The Pope justified the Crusades as being sacred in nature,
and divine in importance: It was God’s Will and that was all the justification he needed. But what
most of his followers didn’t realize at the time was that Urban II hoped to gain much more than
the Holy Land in his conquest [8].
According to an article in, The Muslim World, the idea of converting to Islam helped to
influence the acts and attitudes of at least some of those who went on the First Crusade. This
raised a lot of questions regarding what the crusaders expected to happen to the Muslim
population of the lands they conquered, and this brings up an even more general problem of Pope
Urban II’s intention in starting the First Crusade [1]. It cannot be proved that Pope Urban II
really intentionally wanted to make the conquests to the East and it is possible that Jerusalem
was never mentioned in his appeal at Clermont. According to John France, if the Pope intended
nothing more than to raise an army for Alexios, then clearly there was no need to define a policy
towards the Islamic populations. Pope Urban’s intentions in this matter is very limited in
understanding so it can very well be misunderstood. There is positive evidence of Pope Urban’s
interest in the conversion of the Muslims of Spain but the only references to that in the crusading
context happened in less trustworthy accounts of his speech [1].
Here it is worth noting that at the start of Alexios’ reign the Byzantine army was
desperately short of cavalry horses, so the new Emperor bought remounts in Islamic Syria,
probably from the Fatimid ruled coastal region. This is further evidence of a close and generally
friendly relationship between the Fatimid Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire, both of which felt
threatened by the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine army of the late 11th and 12th centuries consisted
of two main forces, one in the European and one in the Asian provinces under the overall
command of the ‘Grand Domestic’ [5]. Infantry and cavalry were still divided into light and
heavy regiments, these largely organized according to ethnic origin. The army was further
divided into central and county forces. Another senior officer called a sebaste commanded
‘foreign’ troops, probably meaning those not fully integrated into the Byzantine military
structure. However, Byzantine provincial forces never recovered from the disasters of the late
11th century [7].
The popular misconceptions about the crusades are that these were aggressive wars of
expansion fought by religious fanatics in order to evict Muslims from their homeland, and force
conversions to Christianity. Those who really believe any of that betray their ignorance of
history. The First Crusade wasn’t about religion but it was about a reclaiming land that the
Christians wanted. The crusades carry a legacy of their own. In modern times, there seem to be
hardly any groups or individuals that support of the activities that occurred labeling the extreme
campaigns as slaughter trails that have defamed the name of Christ and Christianity. Many non-
Christians today refuse to attend church as a result of the crusades, stating that Christianity has
a bloody and violent history that cannot be forgiven. What occurred to cause such a disgusting
taste? Just as one awakes in the morning to find the morning mouth syndrome of stagnant and
dead cells causing distaste and odor that drives others away and makes the owner wish for
cleaner times, the crusades have had a negative effect in the modern world, leaving churches
and their operators wishing that they could rewrite history. But did any good come of the
crusades? Why did they occur? History channels paint a colorful picture, adding much thrill and
decor to the mix, that it is hard to separate fact from fiction. We will briefly examine the crusades
the motivations, the results what actually occurred, and weigh for ourselves whether or not they
advanced the cause of Christ and if they represent a biblical Christian worldview.
Work Cited
1.France, John. 'The First Crusade and Islam'. the muslim word 67, no. 4 (1977): 247-257.
2.Rubenstein, Jay. 'Armies Of Heaven: The First Crusade And The Quest For Apocalypse'.
church history 14 (2011): 959-962.
3.Riley-Smith, . Jonathan. 'The Crusaders A History'. yale university press 2 (2005): 29-33.
4.peters, Edward. 'The First Crusade The Chronicle Of Fulcher Of Chartres And Other
Sources Materialls'. university of pennsylvania press 2 (1998): 47-92.
5.Reilly, Kevin. Worlds Of History. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010.
6.Nicolle, David, and Christa Hook. The First Crusade, 1096-99. Oxford: Osprey, 2003.
7.jones, robert. 'The Crusades: A Brief History (1095-1291)'. the crusades and the
inquisition (2004): 1-26.
8.Howard, Adam, Jeremy Kibby, Daniel Robertson, and Alex Scanlon. 'The Evolution Of
Arms And Armors During The Crusades' (2013): 1-79.
9.Peter frankopan
