CRISTO RAUL.ORG ' |
MEDIEVAL HISTORY LIBRARY DOOR |
CHAPTER VIII. THE
COUNCILS OF PIACENZA AND CLERMONT
The crusade was first
proclaimed by Urban II at the Council of Clermont on November 27, 1095, So we
must believe, unless evidence of earlier publicity is found. Some have thought
that the pope preached the crusade earlier in the same year at the council
which he held at Piacenza, but if this was the case, what he said failed to
produce any widespread popular response. To be sure, contemporary writers were
not immediately impressed by the historical significance of his November
speech, and, as Chalandon has indicated, neither
Raymond of Aguilers nor the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum mentions Clermont. But, although these
early chroniclers were eager to get on with the story of the expedition in
which they participated, others, who attended the council, were careful not to
neglect it. Thus Robert the Monk, when he undertook to rewrite the Gesta soon after the turn of the century, complained that
his source did not have its proper beginning at Clermont, The glorious success
of the crusade brought fame to the council where it originated.
At first Urban was regarded as
the author of the movement that began at Clermont. Bernold, writing while the
crusade was in progress, said “the lord pope was the chief author of this
expedition”. Writing from Antioch in 1098, the leaders asked the pope to come
over and finish the war “which is your very own”, But Urban had said that it
was “God's work”, that “Christ was the leader” — and so plausible did such
propaganda seem that the success of the movement was regarded as divinely
assured. If it was “not human but divine”, as Ekkehard said, whoever started it
was merely an agent of the Lord. A legend, which was given a long life by the
popular historian of the crusades, William of Tyre, indicated that Peter the
Hermit was the divine agent who was sent to persuade the pope to initiate the
crusade, and it was believed that he carried a letter from heaven as his
credential. Not until the last of the nineteenth century did history finally
discredit this legend and restore credit to the great pope who was the author
of the plan which he proposed at Clermont.
But how much of the proposal
was originated by Urban II? Although it seems to have taken contemporaries by
surprise, the crusade was so quickly accepted that it is clear the public was
ready for it. Quite simply the author of the Gesta says
that the crusade came when “the time was at hand” for all to take up crosses
and follow Christ. The modern way of putting it is that the crusade was
preceded by a long trend of thought which conditioned minds to the idea of holy
war. Urban had only to propose carrying the holy war to the eastern
Mediterranean to show that such a proposal had an immediate appeal to the
popular imagination. Nevertheless it must be recognized that the scheme which
the pope devised to put this proposal into effect was original, not so much in
the elements of which it was composed as in the synthesis of parts which were
known and understood. The “time” for such attention to the practical problems
of organization did not come until a human mind capable of such planning was
ready to apply itself to the problem of how to raise large armies to serve the
church. Unfortunately, the antecedents of this papal plan are not evident. There
is no mention of the crusade in any source written before Clermont that is now
in existence.
His idea of carrying the holy
war against the Moslems to the eastern end of the Mediterranean (but not any
way of implementing the idea) seems to have come to Urban from his famous
predecessor, Gregory VII, who had proposed an expeditionary force to aid the
Byzantine Christians in their struggle with the Selchukid Turks. Inasmuch as Urban undertook to carry out Gregory's ideas, to be
his pedisequus, as he put it,
it may be assumed that he felt it to be his duty to put Gregory's proposal into
effect. He did so with the same remarkable success that he had in advancing
the Gregorian reform program; waging a winning struggle with Henry
IV; and, in general, restoring to the papacy the prestige which Gregory had
lost.
Just two years before Gregory
became pope in 1073, the disastrous defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert
had opened up all Anatolia to the raids of nomad Turks. In the meantime,
Byzantine rule in southern Italy had been overthrown by the Normans, and the
imperial forces were unable to deal with the Pechenegs in the Balkans. In this
desperate situation, the young basileus, Michael VII, disregarded the
controversial separation of Greek and Latin churches which followed the
so-called schism of 1054 and made an appeal to the newly chosen pope for aid.
When an imperial embassy with a friendly letter to Gregory had been well
received, Dominic, patriarch of Grado (who, as a Venetian, may have had
contacts at Constantinople), was chosen to carry a favorable reply back to
Michael. Gregory, of course, hoped to bring about a reunion of the churches
under the recognized dominance of Rome.
Although it is not known that
anything was said about military aid from the west in this diplomatic exchange
of good will, Gregory soon after proposed that some of the fideles of St. Peter should go to the help of
the Greeks. On February 2, 1074, the pope wrote to William, count of Burgundy,
asking him to fulfill the vow that he had taken to defend the possessions of St
Peter, and to notify Raymond, count of St. Gilles, Amadeo, count of Savoy, and
other fideles of St. Peter to join
the countess Beatrice and her husband, Godfrey of Lorraine, in an expedition to
pacify the Normans in southern Italy by a show of force, and then cross over to
Constantinople, where the Christians “are urging us eagerly to reach out our
hands to them in succor”. On March 1, the pope called for recruits because he
had learned that the pagans “have been pressing hard upon the Christian empire,
have cruelly laid waste the country almost to the walls of Constantinople and
slaughtered like sheep many thousand Christians”. But by September 10, Gregory
seemed to think that the urgency had passed, for he wrote William VII, duke of
Aquitaine and count of Poitou, “the report is that the Christians beyond seas
have, by God’s help, driven back the fierce assault of the pagans, and we are
waiting for the counsel of divine providence as to our future course”.
Three months later, the pope
was no longer in doubt when he wrote to young Henry IV, king of Germany; “I
call to your attention that the Christians beyond the sea, a great part of whom
are being destroyed by the heathen with unheard-of slaughter and are daily
being slain like so many sheep, have humbly sent to beg me to succor these our
brethren in whatever ways I can, that the religion of Christ may not utterly
perish in our time — which God forbid”.
With exaggerated optimism,
Gregory told the young king that 50,000 men were prepared to go “if they can
have me for their leader”, and suggested that they might “push forward even to
the sepulcher of the Lord”. Naively, he even asked Henry to protect the Roman
church during his absence. December 16, the pope followed with a general call
to fideles beyond the Alps, and at
the same time wrote to the countess Matilda that he hoped she would accompany
the empress Agnes, who was expected to go. But January 22, 1075, when he wrote
to his former abbot, Hugh of Cluny, he made no mention of any expedition to aid
Greek Christians, although he complained that they were “falling away from the
Catholic faith”.
When Gregory became involved
in the desperate conflict with the western emperor, he had to give up his hopes
of winning friends at Constantinople, and instead of helping the Greeks to
repel Turkish invaders, the pope gave his blessing to an invasion of the empire
by Normans, Although he had tried to check Norman aggression in southern Italy
during the early years of his pontificate, as the letter to the count of
Burgundy indicates, he had to reverse his policy when hard pressed by Henry IV.
In 1080, by concessions, he induced Robert Guiscard to become his ally, and
when the Normans prepared to invade the Balkan peninsula, Gregory gave his
support to this buccaneering enterprise. He had excommunicated Nicephorus III
Botaniates, who had deposed Michael in 1078, and Guiscard asserted that he
intended to restore Michael, whose son had been betrothed to the Norman's
daughter, to the throne. Although it was known that the real Michael was living
in a monastery, Guiscard exhibited a Greek monk who pretended to be the deposed
emperor. Gregory seems to have accepted this fraud, and on July 24, 1080, he
wrote to the bishops in Apulia and Calabria that all fideles of
St. Peter should aid Michael, “unjustly overthrown” and that all fighting men
who went overseas with the emperor and Robert should be faithful to them, which
obviously referred to the pretender. When Guiscard’s undertaking seemed
successful, the pope congratulated him, while trying to impress him with the
danger that threatened the Roman church, for Henry IV, subsidized by Byzantine
gold, was closing in on the city of St. Peter. Alexius Comnenus, who became
emperor in 1081 by deposing Nicephorus III, at first had asked the pope to restrain
the Normans, but when it became clear that Gregory was a “Norman pope”, he gave
his support to Henry IV. Thus, at Constantinople, the pope, who had once wished
to send military aid to the empire, came to be regarded as a hated enemy.
Thus, all Gregory’s hopes of
ending the schism between east and west were destroyed when political necessity
drove him into the Norman alliance. However, in 1085 the death of both Guiscard
and his papal ally relieved the tension, and better understanding between east
and west seemed possible. But, although the abbot of Monte Cassino, who became
Victor III, had been in friendly correspondence with Alexius, he was too
dependent on Norman support to do much to restore papal prestige. Not until the
Frenchman, Odo of Lagery, became pope on March 12,
1088, did the church have a leader capable of saving the papacy from the crisis
into which Gregory VII had precipitated it.
Odo, who took the name of
Urban II, had been a pupil of Bruno, the founder of Chartreuse, at Rheims,
where he became canon and archdeacon. Later he became a monk and prior of
Cluny, and it was on abbot Hugh's recommendation that he entered the service of
Gregory VII, who made him cardinal-bishop of Ostia, and sent him on the
difficult mission of being papal legate in Germany, where he was when Gregory
died. Odo supported Victor III, whom other reformers opposed because he was not
a strong supporter of Gregory's reform program, and it is said that Victor
nominated Odo as his successor. Certainly no one was better qualified to
restore the prestige of the papacy, which had sunk so low that Bernold relates
that only five German bishops recognized the new pope. Although the countess
Matilda of Tuscany loyally supported the rightful pope, much of northern and
central Italy was dominated by the partisans of Clement III, the anti-pope,
while the Romans, who had seen their city looted by the followers of Gregory's
Norman ally, favored the schismatics, “Guibert [Clement III], however, urged on
by the support of the aforesaid emperor and by the instigation of the Roman
citizens, for some time kept Urban a stranger to the church of St, Peter”. But,
according to Bernold, Urban would not use force to obtain possession of the
city and, except for a few months when Clement had to leave, his visits to Rome
were clandestine and brief. During most of the first five years that he was
pope, he found it necessary to wander about in Apulia and Calabria, where he
was assured of Norman protection. It is not surprising, therefore, that a few
days after being consecrated, he set out to find count Roger, Guiscard’s
brother, most influential of the Norman chiefs, who was then completing the
conquest of Sicily. There the pope held a conference with him at Troina.
One topic that the pope
brought up for consideration was the advisability of reopening diplomatic
relations with Constantinople. Geoffrey Malaterra,
historian of the Italian Normans, says that the pope asked the count's advice
about accepting an invitation to a church council at Constantinople for
consideration of the differences between the two churches. Roger urged acceptance
but, as Malaterra tells the story, Urban was
prevented from participating in such a meeting by the hostility of the
anti-pope and his partisans at Rome. It seems clear, however, from evidence
given by Walter Holtzmann that what Urban wanted to
know was whether the count had any intention of renewing the war on Alexius,
which had undone the efforts of Gregory VII to maintain close relations with
the eastern church. When the pope was able to assure the basileus that there
would be no further Norman aggression, he, not the basileus as Malaterra thought, made a move to open negotiations. He
asked that his name be put on the diptychs at Constantinople inasmuch as it was
not excluded by any synodal acts. Alexius, finding that this was true, induced
a synod to grant the request, but on condition that Urban send his profession
of faith in the customary systatic letter, and
participate in person, or through representatives, in a council to be held at
Constantinople eighteen months later for the purpose of settling the
controversial issues that divided the churches. The patriarch also assured the
pope, who had complained that Latins were not allowed to worship in their own
fashion in the empire, that they had the same freedom as Greeks in the
territories under Norman rule. Urban also made another friendly move at this
time, September 1089, by removing from Alexius the excommunication which
Gregory had imposed on Nicephorus III.
There is no evidence to show
that Urban ever sent a profession of faith, and he did not accept the
invitation to discuss the union of the churches. No doubt he knew that the
Greeks would not accept the supremacy of Rome, which the reform movement in the
west was striving to establish. On other points of difference, the Greeks may
have been more conciliatory, but here also the Gregorian program offered little
hope of compromise. Urban, usually the tactful diplomat, seems to have been
much the partisan at Bari in 1098. When the discussion held there with Greek
churchmen of southern Italy did not go to his liking, he called upon Anselm of
Canterbury to defend the Latin cause, and when this champion seemed to
overwhelm the Greeks by his dialectic, Urban exulted. Such is the report of
Eadmer, the biographer of Anselm.
There is reason to assume that
Urban did not wish to enter into negotiations about ecclesiastical matters in
1089, because controversy might have marred the friendly relations that he had
established with the Byzantine emperor. He could be well satisfied with the
significant diplomatic victory that he had won, for he had brought about a
reversal of Greek policy in the west. As long as the Normans were a serious
menace to the empire, it had been imperial policy to cause trouble for them in
Italy by subsiding Henry IV. Furthermore, as long as this alliance lasted, the
anti-pope, Clement III, had hoped to obtain recognition at Constantinople.
Urban had changed all this by being able to assure Alexius that the Normans
were no longer to be feared. By obtaining the favor of the eastern emperor, the
pope had gained an important advantage over his enemies in Italy.
It has been asserted that
Alexius was glad to have cordial relations with the pope because he hoped to
get military help from the west. Later, of course, the pope did recruit large
armies, but what military aid did the emperor hope to obtain from a pope who
was virtually an exile in Norman Italy? It was not until later, when papal
prestige had risen, that there was much possibility of obtaining such help.
“The fact that Alexius had frequently asked for aid before the Council of
Piacenza is universally admitted”. But mercenaries, not armies going forth to
holy war, was the kind of military aid the basileus wanted. Anna Comnena says that her father did all that he could to
collect a mercenary army by letters, and even indicates that he awaited a
mercenary army from Rome about 1091. It is more plausible to assume that Anna’s
statement refers to the military contingent promised to Alexius by the count of
Flanders.
Robert the Frisian, count of
Flanders, went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem about 1087 to 1090 or 1091. On his
return trip he was received with great honor by Alexius, who apparently asked
him to send mercenaries. Robert, binding himself by the sort of oath that Anna
thought was customary among the Latins, pledged himself to send five hundred
mounted warriors when he returned to Flanders. The count kept his word, and the
contingent reached Alexius with a gift of one hundred and fifty excellent
horses, and the emperor was able to purchase all other horses which were not
needed by these western horsemen. It may be that the emperor wrote to the count
of Flanders at this time, and that his letter became the basis for the
famous epistula spuria which
was used later for propaganda. Ekkehard, without saying when, tells us that the
emperor wrote “not a few” letters to the pope asking aid for the defense of the
eastern churches. Returning pilgrims, who may have been indoctrinated by
Byzantine propaganda as well as disturbed by their own experiences, added their
testimony to the requests made at higher levels. The pope, we may feel sure,
was well informed about the situation in the east. Nevertheless, there is no
evidence to show that he made any effort to send help to the emperor before the
Council of Piacenza in 1095.
In the meantime, as
contemporary sources do make clear, Urban was very busy trying to combat the
“schismatics”, and to build up papal prestige in the west. At one stage, his
position seemed so desperate that his staunchest supporter, the countess
Matilda, actually tried to negotiate a compromise peace with the triumphant
German emperor, and, although more than forty years old, she married
seventeen-year-old Welf (V) of Bavaria in order to win him over to the papal
cause. Urban endeavored to secure the support of prominent prelates by relaxing
the severity of the reform program in special instances, and in 1093 his
diplomacy was successful in inducing Conrad, Henry's heir, to rebel against his
father. By this time, as the emperor was losing support in Italy, Urban was
able to enter Rome, where early in 1094 he secured possession of the Lateran,
which the abbot of Vendome obtained by bribing a partisan of the anti-pope to
surrender it. Later in 1094, Urban moved north, visiting Pisa, Pistoia, and
Florence. “Now that he had prevailed nearly everywhere”, says Bernold, he
issued a call for a council to meet at Piacenza early the next year, 2among the
schismatics themselves and against them, to which he summoned bishops from
Italy, Burgundy, France, Allemania, Bavaria, and
other countries”. The council was in session the first week in March 1095, and
its agenda consisted of ecclesiastical matters, chiefly of measures for the
furtherance of the Gregorian reform program, and condemnation of the
“schismatics”. The presence at Piacenza of important lay personages shows how
greatly the prestige of the pope had increased, Praxeda,
the discarded wife of Henry IV, was there to make scandalous accusations
against her royal husband. King Philip of France sent representatives to argue
against his excommunication for adultery which had been imposed at the Council
of Autun the preceding year, while king Peter of Aragon became the vassal of
the papacy and agreed to pay an annual tribute. Lastly, and most impressive of
all, no doubt, was the embassy from Constantinople with a request from the
emperor that the pope urge western fighting men to aid in the defense of the
eastern church, which the pagans had almost destroyed in the regions which they
had occupied, extending almost to the walls of Constantinople. When he
preached outside the city in the open fields to a crowd too large for any
church, the pope incited many to give such help, and urged those who intended
to go to take oath that they would give faithful aid to the emperor to the best
of their ability. It has often been suggested that this means that the pope
preached the crusade at Piacenza, but all that Bernold says is that Urban urged
warriors to go to aid Alexius, which was what Gregory had proposed earlier. It
is possible, of course, that the pope had in mind much of what he proposed a
few months later at Clermont, for it does not seem probable that he thought out
all the ideas in his plan for the crusade in the short time between Piacenza
and Clermont, but what Bernold reports has little or no resemblance to the
later proposal,.
Urban stayed at Piacenza for a
month before moving on to Cremona, where Conrad, son of Henry IV, became a
vassal of the papacy. After visiting other Lombard cities, Vercelli, Milan,
Como, he arrived at Asti about June 27. A month later the papal party was at
Valence, and, although the usually reliable Bernold says that the trip was made
by sea, it seems more likely that Fulcher of Chartres, who went from France to
Italy with the crusaders the next year, was right in reporting that the pope
crossed the mountains. Urban was glad to revisit Cluny, where he had been a
monk. When he dedicated the altar of the abbatial church in the famous
monastery, he announced that his main reason for coming to France was to do
honor to Cluny, and the charters and confirmations to Cluniac houses that mark
his trail throughout southern France indicate that his desire to favor Cluny
was not mere rhetoric. There was, in fact, much ecclesiastical business to
justify the journey to France, where the condition of the church and papal
influence had greatly deteriorated during the preceding centuries of disorder,
and the Gregorian reform program and the struggle over investiture had added to
ecclesiastical confusion. Consequently, there were many jurisdictional disputes
that papal legates had not been able to settle but which might be adjusted by
the personal diplomacy of Urban himself. Furthermore, the pope, as he became
more influential, became more and more firm in urging the clergy to conform to
the ecclesiastical reform. Urban desired to have the churchmen of France
discuss and legislate in councils such as the one held at Piacenza, The
business transacted is indicated by the acts of the papal chancery and local
charters by which the itinerary has been traced. There is no reason to doubt
Urban’s statement that he came to Gaul on ecclesiastical business.
But Urban also said that he
came to France with the intention of appealing for aid to the eastern
Christians. The pope gave this explanation for his journey in his letter to the
Flemings, which was written soon after the Council of Clermont. Fulcher,
writing after the crusade, having recalled all the troubles of both clergy and laity
that the pope wished to correct, goes on to say: “When he heard, too, that
interior parts of Romania were held oppressed by the Turks, and that Christians
were subjected to destructive and savage attacks, he was moved by compassionate
pity; and prompted by the love of God, he descended the Alps and came into
Gaul; in Auvergne he summoned a council to come together from all sides in a
city called Clermont”. But there is no way for us to know how much the desire
to send aid to eastern Christians may have influenced Urban to cross the
mountains. Neither can it be determined when he prepared a plan for a crusade,
so different from what he had preached at Piacenza. It can only be suggested
that he probably found encouragement to mature his plans in southern France,
where holy war was well understood.
Feudal France, at this time,
had a considerable surplus of fighting material. Young men, trained to the
profession of arms and knowing no other, who were without prospect of
inheriting feudal holdings, turned to robbery at home or adventure abroad. The
church, especially in southern France, had endeavored to control feudal anarchy
by creating the institutions known as the Peace of God and the Truce of God.
But the mass meetings, oaths, and other means used in this eleventh-century
peace movement were not enough to check private warfare and brigandage, and it
was fortunate for French society that many young warriors went abroad to fight
for booty or lands in England, Spain, and southern Italy and Sicily. That France,
then, was an excellent recruiting ground for a crusade, we may assume Urban
understood. But, if we can believe the writers who reported his speech later,
he was also interested in bringing peace within Christendom by siphoning off
many of the troublemakers in a foreign war. Many French warriors had
participated in the reconquest in Spain, and Cluny had done much to give this
struggle the character of a holy war. As the black monks had established their
colonies in the territories recovered from the Moslems, they were much
interested in extending their holdings, and by the close of the eleventh
century, Cluny was so well established in the Christian part of the peninsula
that almost every prelate of importance there had been taken from one of her
houses. In her monasteries along the “French road” that went to Compostela, the
pilgrims heard the legends, containing much propaganda for holy war, which
provided the material for the epic poems. The monks prayed for those who went
forth to do battle for the faith, and, in gratitude, the warriors gave a share
of their plunder to the monasteries. At Cluny, and the Cluniac priories where
he stopped, Urban, who was planning to send aid to Christians who were being
attacked by Moslems in the east, found sympathetic listeners who were
interested in the holy war in Spain.
The small Christian kingdoms
in northern Spain had received much aid from France in the reconquest, and
Spanish kings had become closely connected with the noble families of southern
France. Thus Raymond of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse, was the half-brother of
two counts of Barcelona, and his third wife was the daughter of the king of
Castile, Alfonso VI. This Spanish ruler had first married a daughter of the
duke of Aquitaine, and later a daughter of the duke of Burgundy. Peter I, king
of Aragon, whose mother was a sister of the French lord, Ebles of Roucy, married another daughter of William VIII,
duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou, who headed the French expedition that
captured Barbastro in 1064, a deed which was celebrated in a chanson de geste. In 1073, Ebles of Roucy went to Spain with an army that Suger said
was fit for a king.
The disastrous defeat of
Alfonso at Zallaca, in 1086, permitted the victorious Murabits (Almoravids) to advance northward again, and
caused the Spanish Christians to send urgent appeals for help to friends and
kinsmen beyond the Pyrenees. According to one report, Alfonso threatened to
permit the enemy to pass through his territories into France if he did not
receive aid. French lords, among them the duke of Burgundy, crossed into Spain
about this time, but seem to have accomplished little in arresting the Moslem
advance. As this had happened a few years before Urban came to France, it is
evident that he found many who had recent first-hand knowledge of the holy war
in Spain.
Popes before Urban had been
interested in the reconquest. Gregory VII had insisted that Spain was from
ancient times subject to St. Peter in full sovereignty and “it belongs to no
mortal, but solely to the Apostolic See”. In 1073, he announced that Ebles of Roucy had agreed that
all conquered territory in Spain was to be held in fief of St. Peter, and he
forbade anyone to take part in his undertaking unless this was understood.
In his younger days, before he
left France to serve Gregory VII, Urban, we may be sure, had learned much about
the reconquest, especially when he was a Cluniac monk and prior. No doubt he
had observed French interest in this peninsular war, and could have known about
the expedition of Ebles of Roucy at first hand. Soon after becoming pope, while the papacy was in rather
desperate straits. Urban revealed his interest in the holy war in Spain. In
1089, he assured all who would participate in the rebuilding of the frontier
post of Tarragona that by so doing they would secure the same help toward
salvation as from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or other holy places.
The pope left Italy
accompanied by an entourage of distinguished prelates. In addition to four
cardinals, there were two archbishops (one of whom, Daimbert of Pisa, was to become patriarch of Jerusalem), several bishops, and John of
Gaeta, the famous papal chancellor. Other ecclesiastical dignitaries joined
along the way, to assist in affairs that concerned their own jurisdiction as well
as to enjoy the opportunity of being with the pope and his influential
associates. The party found lodging and entertainment in wealthy monasteries,
where Urban had conferences with influential persons, ecclesiastical and lay,
from the regions about. One is naturally inclined to assume that the pope was
eager to sound out public opinion in regard to interest in the sufferings of
the eastern Christians before he undertook to recruit important lay leaders for
the expedition that he was planning to organize. Bat the sources tell only of
ecclesiastical business, and only one bit of evidence gives a clue to any such
effort to interest anyone in the crusade. Baldric of Dol says that after the
pope had delivered his famous oration at Clermont, envoys from Raymond, count
of Toulouse, appeared and announced that their lord had taken the cross. If
this is a fact, it is clear that Raymond knew what the pope intended to do at
Clermont, and, no doubt, had been solicited by Urban. If the count had been
enlisted, it is very probable that others had been approached, and possibly
recruited. Such a shrewd politician as Urban would not have ventured to launch
his undertaking without having assurances of adequate human support, even
though he believed it all to be “God’s work”.
The pope was at Le Puy when he
issued his call for the council at Clermont. Here he had opportunity to confer
with the bishop, Adhémar of Monteil,
who came from a noble Valentinois family. A good
horseman, trained in the use of arms, he had defended his church from
neighboring lords with vigor, and, according to one rumor, he had been on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Inasmuch as Urban was to make Adhémar his papal legate for the crusade some three months later, it may be assumed
that the matter had been under discussion at Le Puy. Fliche,
without any evidence, surmises that Adhémar proposed
that the pope go to consult with the count of St. Gilles. At any rate, after a
stop at the monastery of Chaise-Dieu, August 18, which seems to have been
frequently visited by Raymond, the papal party moved rather rapidly southward
and arrived at St. Gilles about the end of August.
Fliche thinks it is probable that Raymond was in the vicinity of St. Gilles at
the time of Urban’s weeklong stay at this famous monastery. In June he had
attended the marriage of his son, Bertram, to a daughter of Odo, duke of
Burgundy. Having recently inherited the county of Toulouse and other family
holdings on the death of his brother, Raymond had become the greatest lord in
southern France, as he was count of Rodez, Nimes,
Narbonne, and Toulouse, as well as marquis of Provence. Although he had been
excommunicated for a consanguineous marriage, and had supported simoniacal
prelates, he had been suggested for an expedition overseas as one of the fideles of St. Peter by Gregory VII in his
letter to the count of Burgundy, and probably the reforming papacy had found
him as cooperative as any of the great lords of the time. He had formed
matrimonial alliances with two rulers who were at war with the Moslems; his
second wife was a daughter of count Roger of Sicily, and his third, who
accompanied him on the crusade, was a daughter of king Alfonso VI of Castile.
It has been suggested that Raymond had the very natural ambition to be chosen
leader of the crusade, but there is no proof to indicate that the pope ever
entertained this idea. Certainly, if the pope had desired a lay leader, he
would have considered the count, who, as far as we know, may be regarded as the
first crusader.
It has also been intimated,
again by Fliche, that Urban may have hoped to enlist
the support of Odo, duke of Burgundy, who had fought in Spain, although the
prospect that Philip I, king of France, might be induced to join the expedition
could not have been seriously entertained as Philip seemed to be so enamored of Bertrada of Montfort, wife of Fulk Rechin, count of Anjou, that he was prepared to defy all
ecclesiastical discipline. At the Council of Autun, in 1094, where Hugh of Die,
archbishop of Lyons and papal legate, presided, the sentence of excommunication
had been imposed on the king, who had appealed his case to the pope at
Piacenza. Urban had reserved decision until he should be in France, hoping to
induce the king to mend his ways. No doubt this was the matter discussed at a
meeting between Philip and Hugh at Mozac, which is
near Clermont, not long before the council met. The duke of Burgundy was
present at this conference, and it is the guess of Fliche that the crusade was discussed and that Odo was so loyal to his suzerain that
he would not support the pope's plans unless the king's adultery was condoned,
If so, it is a most unusual example of loyalty to a king when the great lords
of France had so little respect for Capetian weakness.
After a leisurely journey up
the Rhone valley, with stops for dedications, consecrations, and ecclesiastical
affairs, the party reached Cluny about October 18, and remained at the famous
monastery, where Urban had once been a monk, until the end of the month. It has
been said that Cluny, which had promoted pilgrimages to Jerusalem as well as to
Compostela, and had encouraged holy war in Spain, contributed much to the
initiation of the crusade. But surely the pope had the very mature plan, which
he presented at Clermont a month later, well prepared by this time. No doubt he
asked his former abbot, Hugh, for advice, because he certainly wished to have
the support of Cluny, but there is no evidence to show that Hugh had anything
to do with initiating the plan that Urban was to propose. But the abbot did
accompany the pope on his long journey through southern France, and may have
done much to arrange the itinerary so that the papal party would be entertained
at Cluniac houses, and the pope rewarded such hospitality by favors in the form
of grants of privileges which often included exemption from secular control.
By November 14, the party had
reached Clermont, and the pope opened the council on the 18th. The
responsibility of arranging for the entertainment of the delegates in his city
seems to have been too much of a strain on bishop Durand, who died that night.
The estimates of how many churchmen were there vary from one hundred and ninety
to four hundred and three. Fulcher of Chartres and Guibert of Nogent put the figures at three hundred and ten and four
hundred bishops and abbots, but the bull dealing with the primacy of Lyons, a
controversial affair on which some may not have cared to be counted, was signed
by twelve archbishops, eighty bishops, and ninety abbots. This, Chalandon thinks, may be regarded as a sort of official
roll call of the members. In his letter to the faithful of Bologna, Urban made
a much more extravagant claim, when he said that the plenary indulgence decreed
at Clermont had been endorsed by nearly all the archbishops and bishops of
Gaul.
It was southern France, as
Crozet has shown, that was best represented in the council; the Burgundies,
Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine, and Languedoc sent large delegations. On the other
hand, there were only two bishops from the Capetian sphere of influence,
although we have Urban’s statement that king Philip did not prevent others from
going. William II of England did forbid his clergy to go, and only three
bishops and one abbot represented Normandy, although it is not reported that
duke Robert interfered in the matter. A few came from regions farther north,
including the bishops of Toul and Metzt while an
archbishop, two bishops, and an abbot came from Spain. The hardships and
dangers of travel and infirmity may have prevented some prelates from attending,
and a few sent excuses. Lambert, bishop of Arras, was kidnapped near Provins by a robber lord named Guarnier Trainel, and the pope had to threaten to
excommunicate the offender in order to get Lambert released.
Although the Council of
Clermont became famous for initiating the crusade, it devoted so much of its
time and energy to ecclesiastical business that, at first, contemporaries seem
to have regarded it as not very different from Piacenza, or the synods at Tours
and Nimes which came after. There were various controversial issues, some of
long standing, that came up for decision. Thus, the archbishop of Sens, who
took the side of the king in his efforts to keep his mistress without being
excommunicated, would not recognize the primacy of Hugh of Die, archbishop of
Lyons, and was suspended. But as the count of Anjou had made formal complaint
about his wife's being, as everyone knew, the royal mistress, and as Philip
would not promise to give her up. Urban could no longer find pretext to postpone
action, and excommunicated the guilty pair. Nevertheless, Hugh, the king’s
brother, did take the cross and lead a contingent on the crusade.
The legislation passed by the
council consisted chiefly of reform measures passed by earlier councils, with
further definition and provision for better regulation. Only two canons can be
regarded as having any bearing on the crusade. The first canon, which
proclaimed the Truce of God, might be regarded as papal confirmation of the
peace movement, which up to this time had been a matter of regional action,
but, although he believed that the crusade would promote peace in the west, the
pope must have realized that peace at home might make men more willing to
enlist in an expedition which would take them far away for a long period. The
second canon was obviously intended to stimulate recruiting, inasmuch as it
promised plenary indulgence to all who would go to liberate the church of God
in Jerusalem. If they were animated by devotion and not by the desire for fame
or money, the journey (iter) would take the
place of all penance.
On November 27, when the
ecclesiastical business of the council had been completed. Urban went outside
the city to address an audience which was too large for any church. It is
understandable that the prospect of listening to a pope and seeing so many high
prelates had drawn many people from the neighboring region. In a letter from
the archbishop of Rheims to Lambert, bishop of Arras, in which the papal
summons to the council was transmitted, it was suggested that the bishop bring
Baldwin, count of Mons, with him, and Urban wrote to the Flemings shortly after
the council that he had urged the princes of Gaul and their followers to
liberate the eastern Christians. From these slender bits of evidence it might
seem that Urban made some effort to have lay lords in his audience, but later
writers have given greatly exaggerated estimates of such attendance. Passing
over Ekkehard’s one hundred thousand (for which a loudspeaker would seem
necessary), we have Baldric reporting “innumerable powerful and distinguished
laymen, proud of their knighthood ... from many regions”, Robert mentions
bishops and lords from France and Germany, but qualifies his statement by
adding that no lay lord qualified to be chosen leader, was there. Chalandon thinks that the failure of both Raymond of Aguilers and the author of the Gesta to
mention Clermont indicates that this council did not seem very different from
any of the others that Urban was holding to promote church reforms. Such vague
references do not tell us how many of the “great multitude” that departed in
1096 may have been the first fruits of the papal oratory. But, after all, the
number of immediate recruits was not significant if many could be enlisted
later, and the assembly at Clermont provided a favorable opportunity for the
pope to give publicity to his plan. It was not to laymen but to ecclesiastics
that Urban entrusted the task of promoting the enterprise, and immediately
after the main address, or possibly the next day, we are told that he urged the
bishops to proclaim the crusade in their churches, “with their whole souls and
vigorously to preach the way to Jerusalem”. The crusade had such popular appeal
that Urban would have conferred fame on any place where he decided to announce
it.
The idea caught popular
imagination and the undertaking soon inspired an outburst of writing. The deeds
done overseas seemed to provide the only contemporary material heroic enough
for the chansons de geste, and the
chronicles written about it have much of the epic spirit. Writing the history
of the expedition was started by participants — the anonymous author of
the Gesta Francorum (completed
by 1101), Raymond of Aguilers, and Fulcher of
Chartres. Of these, Fulcher is the only one who tells of what happened at
Clermont, where it is generally assumed he was present. Three other writers,
who were there, wrote accounts of the assembly soon after the turn of the
century when the undertaking was known to be a glorious success, and all three,
Baldric of Dot, Robert the Monk, and Guibert of Nogent,
used the Gesta as their main source, endeavoring to
rewrite the simple story of an eyewitness in the stilted Latin then regarded as
the mark of good style. Nevertheless, all three added, what the Gesta had omitted, an account of the beginning at Clermont.
Robert says that an abbot Bernard showed him a history (the Gesta)
which displeased him because of its literary crudity, and because it did not
have the beginning of the story at Clermont. He suggested that Robert, who had
been there, should do it over, and put "a head on such acephalous
material." The story of Clermont, as first told by these four writers, was
to be used again and again by later chroniclers and modern historians.
Although it is probable that
all four were present, they relate what happened after the oration somewhat
differently. Robert says that the emotional enthusiasm awakened by the pope
culminated in a great shout of Deus lo volt (God wilts it),
and Baldric recalled how many applauded by stamping on the ground, while others
were moved to tears, and that discussion soon became animated. Then Adhémar came forward, knelt before the pope, took the vow
to go to Jerusalem, and received the papal blessing, all of which seems so
dramatic that it may have been prearranged. Urban then commanded all who were
going, to obey Adhémar as their leader (dux).
He also directed all who took the vow to go to sew cloth crosses on their
shoulders as a symbol or badge of their profession to follow Christ, who had
said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his
cross, and follow Me”. Fulcher says: “O how fitting it was, how pleasing to us
all to see these crosses, beautiful, whether of silk, or woven gold, or of any
kind of cloth, which these pilgrims, by order of pope Urban, sewed on the
shoulders of their mantles or cassocks or tunics once they had made the vow to
go”. To Baldric it seemed to be the mark of an honorable profession like the
belt of knighthood. Thus Urban initiated a most effective advertising device,
for everywhere people would want to know about these cruce signati. Finally, after the cardinal Gregory had
led the crowd in the Confiteor, Urban dismissed his audience
with his blessing. He had launched the crusade. What had he said to do that?
All four chroniclers, Fulcher,
Baldric, Robert, and Guibert, tell what they claim they had heard the pope say
at Clermont, but, as they were trying to recall it all several years later, it
is not surprising that their speeches differ. Chalandon suggests that what they wrote must be regarded as just rhetorical exercises;
and medieval chroniclers, in the manner of classical historians before them,
often made up imaginary speeches. Naturally Urban’s oration, which had
initiated the glorious crusade, seemed famous enough to deserve the very best
rhetorical treatment, and these writers were not inhibited by any appreciation
of the importance of accurate reporting. In fairness to them, however, it must
be noted that they frankly say that they are not giving the exact words of the
pope. Furthermore, whenever they agree, as they frequently do, there is a fair
probability that they are recalling ideas that Urban used in his speech.
According to Munro, the pope
seems to have made at least three speeches about the crusade. Fulcher first
reports what must have been the pope’s inaugural address with which he opened
the council. “When these and many other things were well disposed of, all those
present, clergy and people alike, gave thanks to God and welcomed the advice of
the lord pope Urban, assuring him, with a promise of fidelity, that these
decrees of his would be kept”. He spoke of the evils in society, denounced
simony, and urged the clergy to stay free from secular control. In short, this
was an appeal for conciliar action on church reform, and it ended with
insistence on the Truce of God. “Let him who has seized a bishop be considered
excommunicate” must have sounded timely to prelates who probably knew that the
bishop of Arras had just been kidnapped by a robber baron. Fulcher next goes on
to the main speech, and under the heading, “the pope’s exhortation concerning
the expedition to Jerusalem”, he says: “Since, 0 sons of God, you have promised
the Lord to maintain peace more earnestly than heretofore in your midst, and
faithfully to sustain the rights of Holy Church, there still remains for you,
who are newly aroused by this divine correction, a very necessary work, in
which you can show the strength of your good will by a further duty, God’s
concern and your own. For you most hasten to carry aid to your brethren
dwelling in the east, who need your help, which they have often asked”.
The purpose of the address was
to persuade fighting men to enlist in this holy war, and to induce the bishops
and abbots of the council to promote the undertaking. Consequently, it seems
clear, the pope used what he believed were convincing arguments, the sort of
propaganda that came to be called excitatoria, and
the ideas attributed to Urban were to be used over and over by popes and
crusading preachers. But it must not be forgotten that the reports of the
speech that we have were written several years later and were most certainly
colored by what the chroniclers knew about the ideas and emotions which had
actually inspired the great popular movement. It is possible to make some check
on the speeches written by the chroniclers by comparing them with Urban’s
letters to the people of Flanders and Bologna. But in the letters, as in the
speech, there were the arguments, the propaganda by which the pope wqs trying to persuade people to take the cross, He was not
trying to give historical causes.
No doubt Urban began by
appealing to the Franks, as Robert puts it, a “race chosen and loved by God”,
whose epic hero, Charlemagne, had overthrown the kingdoms of the pagans.
According to Fulcher, the pope asked these valorous Franks to go to the aid of
the eastern Christians in the Byzantine empire because the Turks had “advanced
as far into Roman territory as that part of the Mediterranean which is called
the Arm of St. George”. Fulcher, of course, had verified this when he went on
the crusade, but Robert, who stayed at home, also refers to the losses of the
eastern empire. “The kingdom of the Greeks is dismembered by them [Turks] and
deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march
of two months”. Although Guibert recalled only that the pope lamented the
sufferings of the pilgrims, Baldric, who does not mention the Greeks, has the
pope emphasize the religious unity that should exist among all Christians, who
were all blood-brothers, “sons of the same Christ and the same church. It is
charity to risk your lives for your brothers”. That Urban did plead for aid to
eastern Christians, as reported by the chroniclers after the crusade, is made
certain by the pope himself in his letter to the Flemings written soon after he
spoke at Clermont.
But much as Urban wished to
aid fellow Christians in the east, he likewise intended that the crusade should
benefit the people of the west by substituting foreign war for private warfare
at home. As reported by the chroniclers, he was brutally frank in condemning
internecine war and brigandage. “You, girt about with the belt of knighthood, are
arrogant with great pride; you rage against your brothers and cut each other to
pieces. You the oppressors of children, plunderers of widows; you, guilty of
homicide, of sacrilege, robbers of another’s rights; you who await the pay of
thieves for the shedding of Christian blood as vultures smell fetid corpses”.
So Baldric reports. Robert’s version indicates a plea for peace: “Let,
therefore, hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease,
and let all dissensions and controversies slumber”. The crusade, then, was
intended to supplement the Truce of God which the council had already endorsed,
and Fulcher says: “Let those who have been accustomed to make private warfare
against the faithful, carry on to a successful conclusion a war against
infidels, which ought to have been begun ere now. Let those who for a long time
have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who once fought
brothers and relatives now fight against barbarians as they ought.”
Was it possible to interest
men who committed such crimes against their Christian neighbors in the
sufferings of far-away eastern Christians? Did Urban expect to arouse western
warriors and robbers-by such appeals to altruistic sentiments? Gregory VII, it would
seem, had tried to arouse interest in the troubles of the Greeks by a similar
appeal without results. But Urban went on to tell of the desecration of
churches and holy places, perhaps knowing that injuries to sacred places or
things seemed greater atrocities to his contemporaries than the sufferings of
human beings. Many feudal lords had made the pilgrimage to Compostela; others
had made the long, hard journey to Jerusalem; the count of Anjou, Fulk Nerra, had atoned for his many crimes by making the trip
three times. Such men, who had slight regard for human life or human suffering,
seem to have felt that it was a shame that the most sacred of all Christian
shrines, the Holy Scpulcher, should be in the
“defiling” hands of “infidels”. Guibert’s report of Urban’s speech
consists largely of a learned disquisition on the religious significance of
Jerusalem, and Robert has the pope declaim that it “is the navel of the world;
the land is fruitful above all other lands, like another paradise of delights”.
In Baldric’s summary, we read that it was intolerable that the place sanctified
by the presence of Christ should be subjected to the abominations of the
unbelievers. Gregory VII had made a casual suggestion about going on to
Jerusalem, but Urban preached holy war for the recovery of the holy city, which
became the goal toward which the crusaders directed their march. Contemporary
writers called them the “Jwrosalemites” (Hierosolymitani), who followed the way to the Holy
Sepulcher, or the “Jerusalem route”.
Bohemond was told that the
crusaders appearing in Italy were going to the Lord’s Sepulcher. Urban told the
people of Flanders that he had urged war to liberate the eastern churches and
“the holy city of Christ, made illustrious by his passion and resurrection”. He
wrote another letter because he was pleased to know that citizens of Bologna
had decided to go to Jerusalem.
To go to pray at the Holy
Sepulcher was the best of all Christian pilgrimages. The crusaders were
fighting pilgrims who set out to open up the route to Jerusalem, which had been
obstructed by the Selchukids, and to
liberate the holy city. Previously pilgrims had not even been armed for
defense; the milites Christi were
pilgrims undertaking a war of offense. To liberate Jerusalem, the crusaders did
much lighting and endured extreme hardships, and when they finally got inside
the holy city, they all went weeping to pray in the church of the Holy
Sepulcher. Soon after, the purpose of their journey fulfilled, most of them
turned their faces homeward. It would seem that Urban found the pilgrimage to
be the most effective means of sending armies to the cast. But Villey thinks that we must not fall into the error of
believing that Jerusalem was the fundamental end of the expedition for Urban;
the chroniclers, he suggests, made it into what it was not originally—a war for
the Holy Sepulcher. If the pope did send crusaders to Jerusalem, as he did, in
order to get them to aid the Greeks, it seems obvious that cither he was guilty
of deliberately deceiving all those who went, or he was misunderstood. There is
no reason, however, to assume that he did not have as strong a desire to
recover Jerusalem as the men who actually did liberate it, and, after all, it
is only conjecture that he was more interested in sending aid to Byzantium than
in recovering the holy city.
The pope did not neglect to
hold out the promise of material gains which would be derived from holy war
against the Moslems, stronger incentives to his feudal contemporaries than any
altruistic suggestions of fighting and dying for the eastern “brethren”. In
Baldric’s version, Urban held out the prospects of loot, which had made the
reconquest in Spain so attractive to French warriors. “The possessions of the
enemy will be yours, too, since you mil make spoil of his treasures”. To
plunder, according to Robert, was added the hope of conquest: “wrest that land
(terra sancta) from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves, that
land which, as the scripture says, floweth with milk
and honey...”. Urban seemed to believe that the French needed Lebensraum for
colonization. Their land, Robert quotes him as saying, “is too narrow for your
large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely
enough food for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one
another”. And, of course, migration, especially of landless troublemakers,
would relieve pressure and promote peace in the west.
Plunder, conquest, and
adventure were strong incentives to unemployed fighting men, but the pope
emphasized the religious gains to be obtained in the undertaking. Unlike other
wars, recruiting for the crusade was carried on by preaching. Urban strove to
awaken enthusiasm for the liberation of eastern Christians and the holy places
by urging enlistment in the holy war, which was God’s work, in which He was the
omnipotent leader, and, according to the chroniclers, the crusaders believed
that God was always with them, aiding them in battle, withholding such support
when their sins demanded. Their feudal wars were sinful, but robbers could
become soldiers of Christ by taking the cross. Guibert argues that wars for the
protection of the church arc legitimate, and because men had become so filled
with greed that both knights and common folk were engaged in mutual slaughter,
God instituted this new way of salvation “in our time”. By becoming crusaders
it was possible to obtain God’s favor without leaving the world as was
necessary in taking the vows of a religious order, and giving up liberties or
lay garments. Thus the pope offered the opportunity for a new kind of religious
service, in which, without giving up their customary pursuits of fighting and
brigandage, knights could obtain moral and spiritual rewards. The privileges
that Urban offered were definite and precise.
It later became customary for
popes to grant such privileges in a bull of the crusade. But, although Eugenius
III, in his bull for the Second Crusade, said that he was reissuing what Urban
II had enacted for his expedition, there is no record that such regulations
were incorporated in any bull for the First Crusade. As already indicated, one
very important privilege is to be found in the list of canons adopted by the
Council of Clermont, namely, that an indulgence was to be granted to all who should
go to liberate Jerusalem, provided they were motivated not by desire for honor
or money, but by devotion only. This was not “remission of sins”, although
Urban used the phrase in his letter to the Flemings. It was remission of the
penance which the church imposed for sins, as the pope makes clear in his
letter to the faithful of Bologna, in saying that the pilgrimage would take the
place of penance for all sins for which they would make “true and perfect
confession”. Just what the religious value of pilgrimages had been before is
not clear, although when Urban offered those who would rebuild Tarragona the
same advantages that were attached to the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, it would
seem he assumed that whatever religious gain this might be was generally
understood. At any rate, what was granted in precise terms by the canon at
Clermont was something more. Pope Eugenius III, in his crusading bull of 1145,
says this form of indulgence was originated by Urban. Villey says it is the first instance of plenary indulgence to be found in canon law.
Inasmuch as the canon
specified that the indulgence should be granted to those who went to liberate
the church at Jerusalem, it may be asked whether unarmed pilgrims, of whom
there were many on the crusade, obtained full remission of all penance.
According to Robert, the pope had said: “We do riot command or advise that the
old, or the feeble, or those unfit for bearing arms, undertake this journey...
For such are more of a hindrance than an aid”. In his letter to the pilgrims of
Bologna he said that neither clerks nor monks should go without the permission
of their bishops or abbots, and he further directed that bishops should see to
it that priests and clerks did not go without their knowledge and approval.
“For this journey would profit them nothing if they went without such
permission”, writes Robert. Evidently the pope intended that the clergy should
screen out unarmed pilgrims who were not qualified to be milites Christi.
Urban intended that the clergy
should have control of enlistment by requiring all recruits to take a solemn
vow to pray at the Holy Sepulcher, and the cross was put on as the sign that
they had taken such a vow. According to Robert, Urban proclaimed that whoever
decided to go on the pilgrimage, after making this promise and offering himself
“as a living sacrifice”, should “wear the sign of the Lord’s cross”. For
Guibert, putting on the cross was somewhat similar to joining a religious
order. “He (Urban) instituted a sign well suited to so honorable a profession
(vow) by making the figure of the cross, the stigma of the Lord’s passion, the
emblem of chivalry, or rather what was to be the chivalry of God”. Fulcher says
that the cross was put on after taking “the vow to go2. In 1099, Manasses, the
archbishop of Rheims, said, “those who have taken the vow of pilgrimage have
put on the sign of the cross”. Urban, therefore, intended that the act of
joining the array of the Lord should be a sort of solemn initiation, which the
clergy could use to eliminate those who were unfit to go. That crowds of
unarmed pilgrims followed the armies is proof that the papal injunctions were
not carried out.
As the way was long and beset
with peril and hardship, and the pope knew that the initial enthusiasm, aroused
by preaching, would not last, the vow to pray at the Holy Sepulcher was
intended to hold the “wearers of the cross” to their task. Furthermore, the
“sword of anathema” threatened all who became fainthearted and turned back.
Guibert says: “He commanded that if anyone, after receiving this emblem, or
after openly taking this vow, should shrink from his good intent through base
change of heart, or any affection for his parents, he should be regarded as an
outlaw forever, unless he repented and again undertook whatever of his pledge
he had omitted”. Writing from Antioch, in 1097, Adhémar said that all wearers of the cross who had stayed home were apostates and
should be excommunicated. In 1099, Manasses, archbishop of Rheims, urged
Lambert, bishop of Arras, to round up all who had failed to fulfill their vows
unless sickness or lack of means had prevented them from making the journey. In
December of the same year, pope Paschal II wrote to the clergy of Gaul to raise
more recruits for the aid of the crusaders in the east. Those who had put on
the cross, he said, should be compelled to go, and all who had deserted the
army at Antioch were to remain excommunicate until they went back to finish
their pilgrimage. This was no idle threat as Stephen, count of Blois,
discovered. Since he had run away from Antioch and returned home, either public
opinion, or his wife, or both, forced him to join the crusading armies of 1101
and complete the journey to Jerusalem. Thus, to the attractive offer of plenary
indulgence, Urban added the vow to complete the pilgrimage, and it seems that
violation of this vow was regarded as desertion from the militia
Christi, to be punished with severe ecclesiastical penalty.
For the many who died before
reaching the Holy Sepulcher to obtain the “remission of sins”, it was generally
believed that their souls would go to heaven. Guibert reports that Urban said,
“We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom”.
Baldric quotes Urban’s exhortation thus: “... and may you deem it a beautiful
thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall
you to die on this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal
value, if Christ shall find you in his army”. Fulcher’s version of Urban’s
words is: “And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way
by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be
remitted. This I grant to those who go, through the power vested to me by God
... Let those who have been hirelings at low wages now labor for an eternal
reward”. The chroniclers are sure that this promise was fulfilled. The author
of the Gesta said that those who
died at Nicaea obtained martyrdom, and even the poor folk who died of famine in
Christ’s name triumphantly assumed the mantle of the martyrs in heaven. Stephen
of Blois wrote his wife that the souls of Christians who had been killed had
entered the joys of paradise. From Antioch in 1098, the leaders reported that
three thousand of their followers were dead in peace, “who without any doubt
glory in eternal life”. Spiritual rewards seemed certain to all who
persevered.
The pope offered temporal as
well as religious privileges in his drive to win recruits to his enterprise.
Inasmuch as the crusaders were soldiers of Christ engaged in a war sponsored by
the church, not only were they taken under ecclesiastical protection, but the
church also undertook to protect both their families and property so that they
would not leave wives, children, or holdings to the uncertainties of feudal
society. In a sense this was the Truce of God which had been approved by the
Council of Clermont, but the pope seems to have made it especially applicable
to crusaders for three years, or as long as they were absent. Fulcher says that
Urban urged the clergy to enforce the Truce, and Guibert reports that Urban
“condemned with a fearful anathema all those who dared to molest the wives,
children, and possessions of these who were going on this journey for God”. In
December 1099, pope Paschal II ordered that their property should be restored
to the returning crusaders just as Urban himself had established “by synodal
definition”. In 1122, pope Calixtus II granted such protection to crusaders,
“just as had been done by pope Urban”. It seems clear enough that Urban
initiated the “Privileges of the Cross”, and that it was an innovation is
indicated by the request made by Ivo of Chartres, a famous canon lawyer, for an
interpretation of this “new institution”, inasmuch as he was not sure that he had
jurisdiction in a case which involved the loss of his holding by a crusader.
What the pope was asserting
was that the possessions of crusaders, milites Christi, were to be temporarily as exempt from secular control as the
property of the church. Obviously this was a very considerable extension of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Temporal rulers were to be deprived of the
services and payments of vassals who enlisted in the papal armies for an
indefinite period of service overseas. Once William the Conqueror had punished
a vassal, than whom he knew of no better warrior, by taking away his fief
because he went off to fight Moslems in Spain without permission. But so
popular was this holy war that neither kings nor feudal lords seem to have made
protest against the invasion of their feudal rights.
Pope Urban II, then, had come
to Clermont with a well-prepared scheme for raising an army with which to make
holy war on the enemies of Christianity. It was a method of recruiting that
worked so well that popes were to continue to use the same method of launching
crusades at home as well as abroad. It does not seem reasonable to assume that
so effective a plan had been conceived quickly, say in the period between
Piacenza and Clermont, and it may be noted that there is no trace of it in
anything that Gregory VII had proposed. Urban assumed responsibility for this
new form of holy war which he was initiating. Unable to go himself, he said
that he had appointed a churchman “in our place”. Bishop Adhémar,
he said, was to be the leader (dux), and all who went should obey his
legate’s commands as they would his own. There is no evidence that the pope had
any intention of selecting a layman to head the forces he intended to recruit
by offering religious inducements for military service. To be sure, the legate
was a fighting bishop who marched at the head of his own contingent and led his
men into battle. But the legate associated himself with the much larger army of
the count of Toulouse, and it was the news that Raymond, the greatest lord in
France, had taken the cross that gave Urban assurance that there would be a
crusade. Perhaps Urban did not realize that his preaching and the religious
incentives which he had proclaimed would result in a widespread popular
movement, and it may be, as Fliche suggests, that he
did not anticipate that Adhémar would have the
difficult task of controlling several lay leaders. At any rate, he suggested
that Flemings who wished to go should join Adhémar’s forces before the date of departure. That the bishop of Le Puy was regarded as
their head was so stated by the leaders, when after Adhémar died, they wrote from Antioch asking the pope to come and finish his war. There
can be no doubt about its being Urban’s war.
Urban stayed in France for
more than eight months after the Council of Clermont. The records of the
dedications, confirmations of grants, and privileges with which he rewarded the
monasteries where he was entertained, and the records of other matters of
ecclesiastical business, naturally do not refer to the crusade. Other sources
tell little more. There is, of course, the letter that the pope himself wrote
to the Flemings not long after Clermont, and there is evidence that the pope
preached the crusade at Limoges, where he celebrated Christmas, and at Angers
in February. He held two more councils, and we are told that at Tours, as at
Piacenza and Clermont, he preached in the open air. We may assume without
authority for doing so that he urged his hearers to take the cross. As for the
synod held at Nimes in July, the only suggestion that the crusade was
considered is the probability that Raymond, count of Toulouse, was there.
Nevertheless, it must be assumed that Urban used such gatherings to arouse
enthusiasm and spread knowledge of his undertaking. Surely, as a later
chronicler said, wherever he went he endeavored to induce men to go and free
Jerusalem from the Turks.
The papal party moved on into
the Limousin after leaving Clermont on December 2, instead of going northward
into Capetian territory. Possibly, as has been suggested, the pope assumed that
he would not be able to promote either crusade or ecclesiastical business
successfully where the king was excommunicate and was supported by high
churchmen. After successful preaching at Limoges, the pope moved on to the
pleasant city of Poitiers, where he may have found that obdurate young man,
William IX, the troubadour, count of Poitou and duke of Aquitaine, son of the
old Spanish campaigner Guy-Geoffrey. But, although the pope visited Poitiers twice
and spent some time traveling through Aquitaine, there is no evidence to show
that this early troubadour, who had little respect for the clergy, ever met the
pope. Certainly he did not decide to atone for his sins by becoming a crusader
till later. In fact, he seems to have deliberately waited until Raymond was
safely on his way to the Holy Sepulcher to move in and take over Toulouse, to
which his wife had a claim, being the daughter of the former county Raymond’s
elder brother. Neither do we know whether Urban conferred with Fulk, count of
Anjou, whose wife had deserted him for the king of France. However, it was at
Angers, where he preached the crusade, that the pope commissioned Robert of Arbrissel, who later founded the Order of Fontevrault, to preach the crusade in the Loire valley. No
doubt it was at the pope’s urging that Hélie, count
of Maine, took the cross, and at Le Mans, Urban commissioned Gerento, abbot of St. Bénigne of
Dijon, to promote the crusade in Normandy and England. Then, without entering
Normandy, the pope turned southward for the council at Tours, and another visit
in Poitiers before moving on through Aquitaine.
During the month of April 1096
the party visited monasteries in Aquitaine, where the pope consecrated the
cathedral at Bordeaux on May 1. Moving on through Gascony into the lands of
count Raymond, after a brief stop at Toulouse, where he arrived on May 7, Urban
went northward to visit the famous Cluniac monastery of Moissac,
where he found much interest in Jerusalem as well as the holy war in Spain.
Returning to Toulouse he had opportunity to discuss plans for the crusade with
count Raymond, who was present when Urban consecrated the church of St. Sernin, and it is possible that Raymond accompanied the
pope as he traveled through Languedoc, with stops at Carcassonne and various
monasteries. It may be that when Urban preached at Maguelonne, on June 28, he
persuaded William of Montpellier, who was present, to take the cross. At Nimes,
where he opened the council on July 5, he dedicated the cathedral with count
Raymond and important prelates of the region present. In a grant made at this
time Raymond specified that he was going to Jerusalem. Before the council ended
on July 14, the pope was informed that the brother of the king of France would
lead a contingent of crusader, and that Philip had repented and agreed to give
up his mistress. Although the king’s repentance turned out to be short-lived,
it seems certain that Urban could be satisfied that his plan for an
expeditionary force to invade the Moslem east would be carried through. As he
prepared to return to Italy, he sent two bishops to Genoa, where they preached
so successfully that many prominent citizens took the cross, and the city
prepared a fleet of thirteen vessels which eventually set sail in July 1097.
After a second visit to the
monastery of St. Gilles, the pope prepared to leave France, and he was crossing
the Alps by August 15, the date that he had set for the departure of the
crusaders. A month latter, while at Pavia, he wrote
his letter of explanation to citizens of Bologna who were interested in the
pilgrimage to Jerusalem. By November 1096 crusaders from France, the duke of
Normandy and the counts of Flanders and Blois, stopped long enough to obtain
his blessing at Lucca as they marched toward the ports on the Adriatic. The
sight of their armies on the way to rescue the Holy Sepulcher assured Urban
that his carefully prepared plan for the crusade was going to be carried out.
CHAPTER IXTHE FIRST CRUSADECLERMONT TO CONSTANTINOPLE
|