LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE FIRST CRUSADE: INCITING AGENTS AND RETROSPECTIVE

PRESENTED TO DR. RODNEY M. NICKENS CHHI 302 D02 201240 HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

BY Michael Wright L23893877

SPOKANE, WASHINGTON DECEMBER 2012

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION SITUATION IN THE EAST SITUATION IN THE WEST THE INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT AND BEYOND JUST WAR AND THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 3 5 7 10 11 16 19

ii

INTRODUCTION In 1095 A.D., Western Christians of every station mobilized into armies and marched towards the Jerusalem looking to liberate the holy places from the tribes of Islam under the proclamation of Deus vult; God wills it. The first four-year campaign resulted in temporary victory in the Holy Land, establishing Crusader States and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as well as increased authority and power to the Western Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. However this victory came at a high cost; both sides suffered heavy casualties, Jews and Muslims alike were massacred, and crusaders committed other violations, trespass, and destruction of private property. A disorganized mob inspired seven more Crusades. The legacy of the Crusades only widened the schism between the Roman and Greek churches, and left centuries of believers and non-believers asking how a Christian nation could allow this to happen. How could Jesus Christ and His teachings inspire such radical violence? In examining the inciting factors that led to this First Crusade and holding them to the Christian Worldview, it will be established that nothing about this campaign could have been inspired by God. The Crusades were by no means the worlds introduction to the concept of a holy war. In centuries past, any action taken by a nation in the name of their patron deity could in that sense be considered a religiously motivated action. Whether it was the Jewish conquest of Canaan, the Jewish-Roman wars that ended the Second Temple Period or the Muslim conquests that preceded this Crusade, these wars were considered holy merely by precept of the communal action of the sacred peoples engaging in them. Despite many known factors involved in the years leading to the Crusade, Historiographers have had difficulty identifying the one defining its causes and justifications. The German historian Carl Erdmann in 1935 theorized that a progressive transformation of Christian ethics, the closing gap between the powers of Church 1

and State, the moral decay of the papacy and priestly seats collided with 11th century reform movements as both the military and ruling class were fully rooted in Western Christianity.1 As the West moved towards a consolidated Christendom, the Byzantine Empire to the East was in a state of downfall. Soon after the long schism between the Eastern and Western churches ended with mutual excommunication, the Empire began to fall into decline.2 With the rapid spread of Islam and the threat of the Seljuq Turks advancing across the Byzantine frontier, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos appealed to Pope Urban II for assistance. Despite the divide in the church, this may have been seen as an opportunity for reconciliation, but Urban saw it as an opportunity to quiet the war-like unrest in the West.3 He began a campaign of preaching that the Holy Land must be reclaimed, the infidel defeated, and that through this enterprise their sins would be forgiven. The response was so great that Peter the Hermit prematurely led his own crusade into the Holy Land before the nobles could assemble. In examining the issues that led to the First Crusade, it is only natural to categorize these events by their Eastern and Western perspectives. Additionally since political and church reform played heavily into the Western side, it is helpful to appraise some of those prominent motivations, such as the Investiture Controversy. Through retrospective analysis, it will be necessary to review the tenants of a Christian Worldview, and in holding these motivations to that standard, examine their consistency.

Carl Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), 3-

15, 57.
2 Gordon M. Patterson, Medieval History: 500 to 1450 Ce, 112 vols. (Piscataway, NJ: Research & Education Assn, 1995), 15. 3

Clifford R. Backman, The Worlds of Medieval Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 221-

222.

SITUATION IN THE EAST For hundreds of years the divide between Eastern and Western Christianity grew wider. Ecclesiastical and theological disputes frequently erupted on everything from whether or not to serve leavened or unleavened bread at Eucharist, to the Western Papal claim to universal authority over the church. While the Eastern Orthodox Church (as it came to be called) had its roots in Greek philosophy, most of Roman Catholic theology was formed from Roman law. This conflict came to a head in 1054 AD with the mutual excommunication of Pope Leo IX of Rome and Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. Despite numerous attempts to reconcile, these churches have not come to terms since.4 After this the Byzantine Empire fell into discord, as civil war followed with foreign invasions for twenty-four years. A weak emperor was replaced by ambitious generals who for various reasons were incapable of holding the throne. The State fell into disrepair and a considerable portion of its army was disbanded. Safety of the realm was guarded by a select national guard, who stood no chance at defending the Empire against the incursion of the Seljouk Turks.5 The Seljouk Turks were a branch of Persian Muslims who, reinforced by kindred clans, with fanatical agression conquered much of the East, from India through the Persian Gulf to Byzantine Anatolia. This was a fierce enemy reinforced by a heavily armed and well-trained military structure, with legions of bodyguards, assasins, light horseman, and expert bowman. They conquered new territory by flooding into encampments and breaking organized resistance into disorganized fighting fragments by targeting military commanders. The Turks preferred

Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 2nd ed. (Penguin Adult, 1993), 43-50.

5 Charles William Chadwick Oman, The Byzantine Empire, 3rd. Kindle ed. (London: Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (G. P. Putnam's Sons), 1902; reprint, Amazon Kindle), 249-253.

making slaves of their enemies, but did not hesitate to slaughter and loot the treasuries in their invasion. When refugees were discovered they were routed to their next target, driving fear into the hearts of their next ambition.6 The greatest disaster came in 1071 as Emperor Romanus was drawn by Seljouk plunderers to Manzikert where he found himself confronted by the full host of the Seljouk Empire, led by Sultan Alp Arslan himself. With an army of exausted soldiers and two missing divisions, and despite being completely out-flanked by the Turks Romanus ordered the attack on Manzikert. Even with the odds against them, poor military strategy led to a decisive defeat of the Byzantines and Romanus himself taken captive. While Arslan showed Romanus a great deal more mercy than expected, Romanus was replaced by coup, then ransomed back only to be murdered to prevent his return to the throne. This marked the ultimate turning point in Byzantine history.7 As the Seljouks continued their conquest nearly unopposed, another threat to the South emerged. At nearly the same time as the Battle of Manzikert, the Fatamids, an Islamic state claiming descendance from Muhammads daughter Fatima invaded Palestine and took Jerusalem. In doing so all pilgramage routes from Europe to the Holy Land dried up as any traveler was now at the mercy of marauders and merciless privateers.8 As Emperor Alexios I took power, the Seljouks conquered the entire Anatolian Plateau with the securing of Nicaea in 1081. While they established their new capitol there, Alexios grudgingly reached out to Pope Gregory VII of the Holy Roman Empire for support. Indeed Gregory was anxious to see the Holy Sepulcher back in Christian hands; unfortunately he was far
Previt-Orton Charles William, The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History: In Two Volumes, 2 vols., vol. 1 (London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1955), 278-81.
7 8 6

Oman, 251-56. Mike Paine, The Crusades (Harpenden: Pocket Essentials, 2005), 28.

too embroiled in the Investiture Controversy to effectively marshal support.9 It was not until the Council of Clermont in 1095 that Alexius sent envoys to Pope Urban II to officially request military assistance against the forces of the Seljouk Turks.10 SITUATION IN THE WEST When one considers the nature of Christianity in the West at the time of the Crusades, it is helpful to note that a thousand years earlier France and other barbarian territories were in a constant state of warfare and absorbption with Rome. The Romans brought a measure of peace and stability to the region but not for long, as less than a hundred years later the Empires supremacy began to waver. But the Western Empire did not implode overnight; it progressively eroded and was replaced by the barbarian nations. While eventually united again by the Frankish Carolingian Empire of Charlamagne, peace was soon inturrpted by Viking incursion. By the time of the Crusades the Caroligian dynasty was long evaporated, but hundreds of years of squabbles between the nobles conserved the image of a Christian warrior class.11 Since the early Seventh Century the Reconquista, or reconquest of the Iberian peninsula against the Moores had been a long, ongoing struggle. The first victories were won by Pelagius of Asturias, a Visigoth nobleman who founded the Kingdom of Asturias. Eventually aid came from the Franks with Charles Martel at the lead, followed by Pepin the Short and his son Charlemagne, who brought the area into the Carolingian Empire and the influence of the church.12 Though the fighting continued, this conflict was never considered a religious endeavor,

Jonathan Howard, The Crusades: A History of One of the Most Epic Military Campaigns of All Time, Kindle ed. (North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012), 11.
10 11

Paine, 31-33. Thomas S. Asbridge, The First Crusade : A New History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 3-

4.
12 Viscount James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, Kindle ed. (Chicago, IL: Acheron Press, 1906; reprint, 2012), Location 833-856.

but a battle to regain the lands of Spain. That is until Pope Urban II altered the tone of the conflict. After Charlemagne and before Urban, the remnant lordship fell into a series of petty fuedal struggles against each other. In an effort to pacify the nobles, the clergy established the Pax dei (the Peace of God); they developed sanctified peace assemblies, collecting as many religious relics as possible, bits of bone, vials of blood, pieces of clothe from the clothing of saints, generally anything that was said to have been touched by a venerated saint. They would collect them in a field and invite any knights and nobles in the area, gaining their cooperation in maintaining peace in the West. The idea was the use the fear of the saints, the desire of the aristocracy to seek out shrines to obtain cures and obtain advice about the future. While not initially sucessful it would set the stage for later cooperation amongs the meieval community. 13 Then in France around 1033 after a terrible famine resulted in murderous spree, the bishops and abbots released a united resolution that forbade violence on specific days of the year on threat of excommunication. This spread to Italy and Gaul, forming the Treuga Dei (the Truce of God). The Truega Dei was sanctioned and confirmed by nine Synods before it was signed into general law of the church by Pope Urban II.

13 Richard Landes, "Peace of God, Pax Dei," Berkshire Encyclopedia of Millenian Movements Vol. (1999). http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/paxdei.html (accessed 12/7/2012).

THE INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY Emperor Alexios petition for help came as a welcome distraction for Pope Urban, the opportunity to temporarily put to rest a controversy that endangered the primacy of the church. From the time of Charlemagne large amounts of land were donated to and put under the care of the church. Since the church was not in the business of governing land, it fell upon the ecclesiastical order to appoint lords and vassals, even kings with the obligation of protecting the lands and vassals under their care. As close to half the land came under the ownership of the land, the secular lords saw it as their right to appoint and invest in the clergy. The appointed bishops became vassals of the lords, swearing oathes of fealty to them with the implied duties of serving the court and drafting soldiers for the defense of the land. And when that bishop died the lords often held up the appointment of their successor to take advantage of the coffers of the church. This came to be known as simony, and greatly offended the people of the church, particularly Pope Gregory VII.14 The turning point came in 1075 when the Germanic Emperor Henry IV appointed his chaplain Tedald, a German archbishop to the bishopric seat of Milan, giving German control and income from a diocese he likely never visited. Tedald was a member of the layity with no real experience or influence in the church, and his appointment was seen as an outright power grab by the Empire to control the church. In response Gregory issued the Dictatus papae, a collection

Philip Schaff, "The War over Investiture.," in History of the Christian Church Vol. V, Medival Christianity : From Gregory I to Gregory Vii, A.D. 590-1073, ed. Tim Perrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1997), 44.

14

of 27 affirmations of Papal license giving him the authority to excommunicate Henry IV from the church, effectively deposing him as Emperor.15 In an ironic twist Henry accused Gregory of being not the pope but a false monk, and appealing to the bishops in an attempt to depose Gregory. Gregory had already secured the support of the German aristocracy, princes and nobels eager to secure their liberty from the oppressive Emperor. To Henrys dismay the bishops declined to support him and marshaled support for Gregory. As a result Henry was forced to prostrate himself before Gregory, barefoot and penitent outside the gates of Canossa. Gregory lifted the excommunication but not restore his position, allowing the German Aristocrats to install Rudolf von Rheinfeld as his successor. While the fueds between the popes and Roman Emperors continued will into the Twelth century, the repercussions of this event conferred upon the Papacy total sovereignty over the Western kingdoms.16 Gregorys actions at Canossa, while significant to the papacy, proved to be detrimental to his own legacy. The German lords who had supported Gregory felt betrayed by his decision to lift the excommunication of Henry. The appointment of Rheinfeld was made without Gregorys council, and Gregory was forced to support his rule and excommunicate Henry again three years later after Germany fell into civil war. Unfortunately by then it was too late, as Henry had slain Rheinfeld on the battlefield. Gregory was blamed for the resulting discord, and Henry used the momentum to elect Clement III, a formerly excommunicated archbiship, in his place. Gregory appealed to the Normans for help, who repelled Henrys forces but cuased one of the worst

15 16

Ralph Keen, The Christian Tradition (Upper Saddle River (N.J.): Prentice Hall, 2004), 159-161. R. Scott Appleby, "How the Pope Got His Political Muscle," U.S. Catholic 64, no. 9 (1999).

sackings of Romes history. While the Normans withdrew, Gregory was forced into exile, where he died as one of the most despised popes in history.17 Gregorys successor Clement III emerged with strong support of the people and the majority of the cardinals. Against expectations however Clement acted independantly, continuing to fight for the measures Gregory did, legislating the end of simony and clerical marriage. As a pope he turned out to be far more assertive than the Aristocracy preferred, and in 1086 with the help of Countess Matilda of Tuscany was replaced by Victor III. Unfortunately for the cardinals, Victor died four months after his consecration. Pope Urban II was elected in 1088, just as committed to Gregorys reforms but far less confrontational. The atmosphere of the West at this point was precarious, with Countess Matilda and the Normans as allies, a suspicious German people, and a relentless war continuing in Spain, Urban adopted the attitude of a realist. Henry IV still opposed the church, but Urban used the discontent of his army and Henrys damaged marriage to his advantage.18 At the Synod of Piacenza in 1095, Urban was able to re-assert authority of the church and victory over Henry and the Investiture Controversy bny using Henrys ex-wife and son public testimony to Henrys participation in the Black Mass to evaporate any remaining support. Having previously excommunicated Phillip I of France for illegally divorcing his wife, Urban used Phillips appeal to solidify Clement IIIs removal from office. Also in attendance were Emperor Alexius ambassadors, pleading for military assisstance. In the hopes of quelling all Western hostilities and longing to undo the earlier East-West Schism that broke apart the church,

John W. O'Malley, History of the Popes : From Peter to the Present, Adobe Digital ed. (Sheed & Ward, 2010), 101-109.
18

17

Ibid. 110-112.

Urban lifted Alexius Western excommunication and began asking for Christians to assist their Eastern neighbors.19

THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT AND BEYOND Of all the precipitating factors to the First Crusade, the Counsel of Clermont is considered to be the catalyst for the Crusader avidity. Soon after Piacenza Urban traveled to his home country of France to deliver an impassioned speech to 300 clerics from around France, charging Christians to take up the divine enterprise of retaking the Holy Land. He reported the conditions of attacks on Christian pilgramages that outraged Christendom, probably reported from Peter the Hermit, who was in attendance. Urban called for the princes and barons to give up the petty infighting and unrighteous wars in the West, motivated by material rewards, for a holy war against the Arab infedels who plundered and desecrated Jerusalem. Further, Urban offered indulgances, promises that all who died in the Crusade would have their sins forgiven and granted immediate access into Heaven. When Urban finished the crowd began shouting Deus Vult (God wills it).20 The message at Clermont was carried by the clergy throughout Europe. People of every class were so excited by the prospect of the endeavor that while the Nobles had agreed to depart on August 15th, the Feast of Assumption, several armies of peasants, including those organized by Peter the Hermit departed months earlier in the Peoples Crusade. Another band attacked

19 Richard Butler, "Pope Bl. Urban Ii," The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 15(1912). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm (accessed 8 Dec. 2012). 20 Schaff, "The Call to the Crusades.," 185-89; Munro Dana Carleton, "The Speech of Pope Urban Ii. At Clermont, 1095," The American Historical Review 11, no. 2 (1906).

10

Jewish settlements across France and Germany, looting and killing in what some called the First Holocaust.21 JUST WAR AND THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW In analysis of the factors leading up to the First Crusade to see if they represent the Christain wordview, we must consider that the ethics of War have been philosophically scrutinized for centuries. Because the Crusades happened in a different era, it is necessary to first define the ethics by which the Crusaders justified their actions. This doctrine is known as Just War, at from the time of Charlamagne through the Crusading Papacy the primary influence of this philosophy came from Augustine. However unlike his contemporary Thomas Aquinas, Augustine did not approach the topic systematically. The principles of his approach were scattered through his many assorted works.22 There are essentially two criteria behind Just War Theory, jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the right to conduct war). Under jus ad bellum there are eight subsets of principles, just cause, comparative justice, competent authority, right intention, competent authority, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. Under jus in bello there are three subsets, distinction, proportionality, and good faith. The Following table explains Augustines positions in all these principals. Jus ad bellum: The Right to go to War Just Cause To defend the state from external invasion. To defend the safety or honor of the state, with the realization that their simultaneous defense might be impossible.

21

Schaff, "The First Crusade and the Capture of Jerusalem.," 189-192.

22 John Mark Mattox, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War, Continuum Studies in Philosophy (Continuum, 2006), 2-4.

11

Comparative Justice

Right Intention

Competent Authority

Probability Of Success

Last Resort 12

To avenge injuries; to punish a nation for failure to take corrective action for wrongs (legal or moral) committed by its citizens. To come to the defense of ones allies. To obey a divine command to go to war (which, in practice, issues from the political head of state acting as Gods lieutenant on earth). To gain the return of something that was wrongfully taken. The nation which claims to have just cause to wage war must have a cause which is at least more just than the other nations cause. War must not be fought for territorial expansion. Those who wage war must not delight in the wickedness of potential adversaries. Those who wage war must view war as a stern necessity. Those empowered to wage war must never act in a way that would provoke war. The sovereign ruler of the state has authority to wage war. Those subject to the authority of the sovereign are duty-bound to fight in the sovereigns wars (perhaps even in those which are unjust). God can, with perfect justice, direct wars to be fought. A war justly entered into still can be held to have been just even if it is lost. Disputes should be resolved by means short of war whenever

possible. Proportionality War must be fought in light of the object of the restoration of peace; and the restoration of peace will mark the attainment of a greater good than would have resulted from the continued absence of peace. Peace is the proper object of all wars. Only one acting in the official capacity of a soldier is justified in performing the acts of violence associated with the profession of arms. The clergy should not take up arms. Mercy and forbearance should be shown to captives and noncombatants. All actions taken in war should be limited by military necessity. Keep promises made to the enemy. The use of ruses and stratagems is morally acceptable in an otherwise just war.

Peace as the Ultimate Objective of War Jus in bello: The Right to Conduct War Discrimination

Proportionality Good Faith

Table 1-1: Augustines Values of Just War23

23

Ibid. 74-84.

13

Before holding the Cruades up to a Christian worldview, it may be worth asking the question; did the lead up to the First Crusade measure up to the definition of Just War as regarded in the day. If those who promoted this enterprise failed to consider their own principles, than it is reasonable to consider that the First Crusade, and possible every action after, cannot be considered a Just War. First, lets look at jus in bello; did the Crusaders have the right to conduct a Just War? Did they have Just Cause? During this time there was already a long struggle to retake land lost to the Moores in Spain However the Moors were largely Northern Africans converted to Islam, while the Selkouk Turks were in part converted Persians, but primarily Sunni Muslims with a long history of conquest. They were not precisely the same enemy but perhaps held the same agenda. The Byzentine Empire were not allies of the West until Pope Urban lifted the excommunication of Alexios, justifying the empire as an ally worth defending. The divine commandment principal is ony valid if the Pope was legitimately the political head of state acting as Gods lieutentant on earth; a case can be made that the defeat of Henry IV perceptually achieved this. Ultimately the most valid justification would be to gain the return of something that was wrongfully taken, as events in the East led to the closure of pilgramage routes, as well as the seizire and desecration of Jerusalem. (Whether Jerusalem belonged to Christian hands is another argument) Was there Comparative Justice? In this case the West must have a cause which is more just than the other nations (the Seljouk Turks) cause. While the motivation of the Turks is complex, it essentially began with early Arab rebellions and victory over the Persian Empire. Another possible motiviation was the parting words of Caliph Abu Bakr, that to turn ones back on an enemy was to earn the wrath of Allah. He also specifically issued the decree to refrain 14

from attacking monks and monastaries, but to kill all other Christians until they submit to Islam. It is difficult to conclude whether the Western case was more just, considering Charlemagne engaged in similar behavior; however the Carolingian wars were short compared to the hundreds of years of constant Muslim conquest. Did the Western Crusaders posess the Right Intention? While the First Crusade resulted in the formation of Crusader States and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the acquisition of territory was never a motivating factor in the conquest. It is debateable whether or not the Crusaders delighted in the wickedness of potential adversaries, as commentary of the day regards the killing as a holy mercy. There are two considerations that the Crusaders may have regarded the war as a stern necessity. First, Pope Urbans passionate argument that it was the divine will of God to retake the Holy Land is a legitimate motivation. Second, Urbans offer of Indulgances, forgiveness of sin and immediate access into Heaven would have resonance in the chaotic fuedal world. As to the last, acting in a way that would provoke war would not seem to apply, as it seemed the divine duty of the Turks to murder Christians. The principle of Competant Authority might be a convoluted subject considering Pope Urban incited the Crusade, and while the Pope had gained some authority over the military, this was largely restricted to the protection of the papal office. However if one considers that it was the princes, lords, and various leaders inspired by Urbans plea who waged the war, competant authority is met. Probability of Success seems to not apply since under Augustine a Just War can be considered Just regardless of success, and the First Crusade at least met the objective of retaking Jerusalem. The last three principals of Jus ad bellum can be said not to have been met as they

15

regard peace as the point and objective of a war; due to the motivation of the Turks, these are principles that could not have been met. To examine Jus in bello, the first consideration is Discrimination. Here it can be said that only some armies were partially justified as acting in official capacity as soldiers; they all fail on the principal that the clergy should not take up arms, and mercy and forebearance should be shown to captives and non-combatants. Captives were rarely taken and non-combatants on their own side were slaughtered. Under proportionality, actions being limited to military necessity, there are several factors where the Crusaders failed. One began with the indescriminate killing of Jews in Europe before the campaign was even launched. Another is reports of cannibalism by the Crusaders at Ma'arrat al-Numan. Lastly the indescriminate murder of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem who were promised safed passage if they surrendered, and having done so were killed anyway. Good Faith fails for many of the same reasons stated previously, as promises to the enemy were not kept. In evaluating whether the Crusades measured up to their own standards, an interesting dichotomy comes into play. They met nearly all principles of Jus ad bellum; the right to go to war. However they failed every regard of Jus ad bello; the right to conduct war. One might say that in the analysis the Crusaders had every right to engage in the First Crusade, but perhaps they lacked the discipline to actually carry it out. CONCLUSION This First Crusade changed the course of history in the known world, for better and for worst. Crusader States were established in Antioch, Edessa, Jerusalem, and Tripoli. Alexios made the Crusading Lords swear fealty to him as they passed through Constantinople, bringing a 16

temporary alliance with the West and momentarily reuniting the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The returning Crusaders were seen as heroes, inspiring a mass of poetry and literature on their deeds. There were many negatives, at times so many criticisms that the Crusades become the defining hallmark of a polemic against Christianity. The indulgances offered were never particularly clear, and eventually led to Luthers Reformation which further divided the church. In the end the Holy Land was never recovered, and the advance of Islam was never fully stopped. The schism between the East and West while temporarily set aside, were eventually only driven further apart by insolent popes. The primary objectives, while achieved in the First Crusade, were in the end completely lost. Many evils were committed during this time, for which many falsely claim were committed in Gods name. Many considered the fight over an earthly city ignored the larger Christian purpose of attaining the Heavenly Kingdom of God. Further the hatred between Christians and Muslims, as well as the persecution of Jews were advanced to a near incurable level. Ultimately the Crusades, particularly through Pope Urban II, changed the motives of war in such a way that conquest of land was no longer the real, percieved motive. Instead wars of personal conscience were now considered acceptable.24 Further, the justifications of the Crusades failed to meet their own standards. While the Christians were warranted in engaging in warfare against the Muslim conquest, they were not disciplined in a manner that would allow them to meet the requirements of carrying out such a war. This is possibly the fault of the then living concept of Christendom, a theocratic society led by imperfect humans using the justification of being led by God to govern their society.

24

Schaff, "Effects of the Crusades.," 232-235.

17

The Crusades are perhaps the ultimate evidence that such a government, absent the direct and probably physical presence of Jesus Christ, will always result in failure.

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY Appleby, R. Scott. "How the Pope Got His Political Muscle." U.S. Catholic 64, no. 9 (1999): 36. Asbridge, Thomas S. The First Crusade : A New History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004 Backman, Clifford R. The Worlds of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003 Bryce, Viscount James. The Holy Roman Empire. Kindle ed. Chicago, IL: Acheron Press, 1906. Reprint, 2012 Butler, Richard. "Pope Bl. Urban Ii." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 15 (1912). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm [accessed 8 Dec. 2012]. Charles William, Previt-Orton. The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History: In Two Volumes. Vol. 1. 2 vols. London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1955 Dana Carleton, Munro. "The Speech of Pope Urban Ii. At Clermont, 1095." The American Historical Review 11, no. 2 (1906): 231-242. Erdmann, Carl. The Origin of the Idea of Crusade. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977 Howard, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History of One of the Most Epic Military Campaigns of All Time. Kindle ed. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012 Keen, Ralph. The Christian Tradition. Upper Saddle River (N.J.): Prentice Hall, 2004 Landes, Richard "Peace of God, Pax Dei." Berkshire Encyclopedia of Millenian Movements Vol. (1999). http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/paxdei.html [accessed 12/7/2012]. Mattox, John Mark. Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War Continuum Studies in Philosophy: Continuum, 2006 O'Malley, John W. History of the Popes : From Peter to the Present. Adobe Digital ed.: Sheed & Ward, 2010 Oman, Charles William Chadwick. The Byzantine Empire. 3rd. Kindle ed. London: Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (G. P. Putnam's Sons), 1902. Reprint, Amazon Kindle Paine, Mike. The Crusades. Harpenden: Pocket Essentials, 2005

19

Patterson, Gordon M. Medieval History: 500 to 1450 Ce. 112 vols. Piscataway, NJ: Research & Education Assn, 1995 Schaff, Philip. "The Call to the Crusades." In History of the Christian Church Vol. V, Medival Christianity : From Gregory I to Gregory Vii, A.D. 590-1073, edited by Tim Perrine, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1997. ________. "Effects of the Crusades." In History of the Christian Church Vol. V, Medival Christianity : From Gregory I to Gregory Vii, A.D. 590-1073, edited by Tim Perrine, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1997. ________. "The First Crusade and the Capture of Jerusalem." In History of the Christian Church Vol. V, Medival Christianity : From Gregory I to Gregory Vii, A.D. 590-1073, edited by Tim Perrine, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1997. ________. "The War over Investiture." In History of the Christian Church Vol. V, Medival Christianity : From Gregory I to Gregory Vii, A.D. 590-1073, edited by Tim Perrine, 5. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1997. Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. 2nd ed.: Penguin Adult, 1993 Wisconson, University of, "Thesis and Purpose Statements", University of Wisconson http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Thesis_or_Purpose.html (accessed 12/6/2012).

20