To what extent was religion merely a fig leaf for Crusader activities?

“If anyone wants to come with me, he must forget self, carry his cross, and follow me.”
(Matthew, 16:24)

It is this statement made by Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible that has
become iconic with the crusades. Passages such as this fuelled the religious fervour of the
west as people gave up their everyday lives to take up arms in the holy war against the
“barbaric”, “Byzantine-slaying” Muslims. Throughout the course of 300 years, the cross
clashed with the crescent moon in the name of Christ to save their Christian “brothers”
and to “liberate” Jerusalem to prepare for their messiah’s anticipated return. However,
there are numerous factors indicating that, perhaps, there was more to the crusades than
mere religious piety. Were there hidden agendas amongst the crusaders? Did the
peasants, nobles, knights and princes have other reasons for travelling to the east, or were
they mere pawns used by the Vatican in a deadly game of politics? Just how influential
was religion on crusader behaviour? That is indeed the question.

The best place to start is, obviously, right at the very beginning with the initiation of Pope
Urban II in 1088 – the man who preached the crusades. Urban became Pope during hard
times at the Vatican. The church was struggling to maintain a significant role in politics
due to the rebellions of secular princes, the strained relationship with the Orthodox
Church in Constantinople and the poor papacy of Urban’s predecessor, Pope Gregory
VII. According to historian Blah Bay, medieval Popes were “scheming, manipulating,
intriguing…they were basically the politicians of the Church”1. Already this implies that
the religious requirements of the Church may have faced competition with the Popes’
own temptations to rule continents in their own particular ways. Gregory for instance
made a number of enemies. In 1075, he banned the powerful secular German king Henry
IV from Church affairs. When Henry put up a resistance, Gregory simply
excommunicated him from the Church.2 Instances such as these made the Vatican few

1
“Episode 1: The First Crusade”, The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross, TV Producers, Company, 200?
2
T. Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford, 2004) p. 13
friends thus giving Urban the task of re-establishing papal dominance over Christendom,
whatever it may take. Urban also had the issue of dealing with those who would not
simply bow down to his religious authority: how would he deal with the violent ruffians
warring amongst each other and the church? His prayers were answered in the form of a
plea for reinforcements from Emperor Alexius Comnenos in order to counter Muslim
expansion in the Middle East. This was perfect for Urban: not only could he use this
crusade to gain political leverage but he could also send the violent warriors to fight with
infidels which, through the thinking of Augustine of Hippo, would be fully justified3.

Urban subsequently delivered his famous sermon in November 1095, stressing how,
according to Fulcher of Chartres’ version, the Muslims “killed and captured many, and
have destroyed the churches and devastated the [Byzantine] empire.”4 His sermon
cleverly masked his political intentions by calling for Christians to defend their
“brothers” in Byzantium from this Muslim “threat”. That alone should raise eyebrows
about the Crusade’s true intention seeing as relations between the Latin and Orthodox
churches were strained and, in the grand scheme of things, there was no genuine hostility
amongst Orthodox Christians and Muslims themselves.5 What made Urban’s speech so
enticing for recruits was a promise that a Christian simply couldn’t resist: remission from
sin, thus a ticket directly to heaven. Urban managed to allow the Latin Christians to
continue fighting but gain a completely different outcome. Whereas crusading would
violate a key commandment, thou shall not kill, the Pope stated that infidels were not
bound to this commandment and, therefore, they could be killed. If a crusader died, his
sins were renounced and he went straight to heaven – avoiding time in purgatory.
However, if a crusader wished to leave the crusade then he would face the penalty of
excommunication from the church: a notion that was unthinkable for the most pious of
Christians.6 These factors indicate that Urban exploited peoples’ religious anxieties in the
hope of spurring them to take up arms for, in their eyes, the name of their Lord. Although

3
C Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (London, 2006) p. 34
4
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
5
J France, The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000-1714 (London, 2005)
p. 31
6
S Runciman, A History of the Crusades: The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem (London, 1990) p. 109
it would be unreasonable to assume that Urban wanted to consistently abuse his position
as the Holy Father, there are a number of factors that indicate he did have motives
beyond simply helping his Eastern “brothers”.

When it came to the crusaders themselves, there were a number of instances that
indicated that they had objectives out with simply reclaiming the Holy Land. Obvious
factors included the pursuit of riches, land and titles which are best shown through the
princes of the expedition. An early example could be seen through the actions of Baldwin
of Boulogne, the younger brother of Godfrey. Early in the crusading journey, his wife
Godehilde died. This was a problem for Baldwin for as well as the obvious pain of losing
his wife it meant losing out on her financial support as all her wealth would be entitled to
her parents – not her husband.7 It could be argued that from then on, his focus changed
from religious to personal objectives. This theory is strengthened when he, along with
another prince named Tancred, were the first crusaders to leave the expedition in
September 1097. He went on to take the city of Tarsus from Tancred, resulting in the first
occurrence of conflict amongst the crusaders themselves. Professor Thomas Asbridge
remarks that “greed and ambition had brought discord to the crusade”8. Baldwin would
then go on to rule Edessa and, in 1100, become the first King of Jerusalem. 9 However,
this was not the only occurrence of greed amongst the princes. Another source of unrest
came after the successful siege of Antioch – a powerful, prosperous city. Prior to the
crusade, most of the princes swore to Emperor Alexius that any reclaimed cities would be
returned to the Byzantines. Bohemond of Taranto, the prince who had not only
masterminded the downfall of Antioch (by negotiating with a traitor within the city
named Firuz) but had warred with Byzantines in the past, felt that he was fully entitled to
the city and, as such, was not under any obligation to hand it over. Raymond of Toulouse,
another prince, argued on behalf of Alexius. If it wasn’t for the increasing dissent

7
TV Company, Crescent and Cross
8
Asbridge, First Crusade, p. 147
9
Although Godfrey was the first ruler of Jerusalem, he refused the title of King as he believed that only
Jesus could be given this title. The fact that Baldwin took it is another indication that he used the crusade
for personal glory.
amongst the crusader army due to the prolonged stay in Antioch, the whole crusade may
have halted as a result of the princes’ petty squabbling.10

Another person whose actions raise questions about crusading motives was a knight
named Reynald of Chatillon. He was active during the Third Crusade when the Latin
Church was attempting to regain Jerusalem from an Islamic force rejuvenated by the
influential Sultan Saladin. Reynald is portrayed as a villain amongst Eastern sources:
historian Amin Maalouf for instance states that the knight “thirsted for gold, blood and
conquest”11 – again conveying the image of a greedy crusader putting religious motives
on the sidelines. For instance, it was Reynald who broke a Latin-Muslim truce solely for
gaining riches from traders travelling between Cairo and Damascus. However, what
made Reynald so unique for questioning crusader motives was not so much the typical
motive of greed but his sheer arrogance and cruelty towards others - especially during his
rule over the city of Kerak in Jordan during which he was reputed to catapult not only
prisoners of war but innocent Muslim hostages to their deaths.12 This brings a serious
question about the influence of the Bible in Reynald’s activities: were Jesus’ teachings
about loving the weak meaningless if he was not only killing infidels (who of course
were exempt from thou shall not kill) but their families too? Reynald’s offensive
approach made Saladin himself swear that he would kill the knight with his own two
hands, which he did in 1187 after successfully winning the Battle of Hattin.

The average crusader also participated in acts of greed, hence undermining the whole
purpose of the Crusades. For instance, when Peter the Hermit’s People’s Crusade arrived
at Constantinople in 1096, a Latin witness remarked that “those Christians behaved
abominably, sacking and burning the palaces of the city, and stealing the lead from the
roofs of churches and selling it to the Greeks.”13 It is ironic that the crusaders, taking up
arms for the Latin Church, would go on to steal from Orthodox churches. However,
putting the occaisional acts of greed aside, it can be argued that the general crusaders
were mere pawns being manipulated by the royal and papal hierarchies. One must
10
Tyerman, God’s War, p. 150
11
A. Maalouf, The Crusades through Arab Eyes (London, 2006) p. 156
12
B. Hamilton, The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon (Oxford, 1978), p. 106
13
Asbridge, First Crusade, p. 101
remember that to most crusaders, liberating Jerusalem was not only a military task, but a
pilgrimage – whole families were taken to undertake this.14

Key crusades that illustrate the exploitation of the crusaders’ religious devotion include
the German Crusade of 1095 and the Fourth Crusade which culminated into the sack of
Constantinople in 1204. The German Crusade was led by a Count named Emicho. He
persuaded Christians to murder European Jews due to being “Christ Killers” as a result of
their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. However, the more likely reason was because of the
debt that some crusaders had to pay to Jewish businessmen in their daily working
lives.15This Crusade certainly portrays religion as a fig leaf, for what did European Jews
have to do with Urban’s speech about Islamic barbarians situated in the Middle East? 108
years later, the Orthodox Church themselves felt the force of the crusaders when they
launched an attack on the city of Constantinople in 1203. This time, crusaders were
influenced by the notion that the Orthodox Christians were heretics due to their rejection
of the papacy whereas in reality, Pope Innocent III and the princes were attracted by the
handsome offers of wealth, extra manpower and, most crucially of all, more political
power for Christendom. Alexius III, the prince who felt he had more right to the city than
his son Alexius IV, knew that the notion of a united East-West church would be too
irresistible for the papacy to ignore.16 Thus, when the city was overrun in April 1204, the
crusaders went wild. Professor Jonathan Phillips summarised that “so focussed were the
crusaders on the desire for loot that many no longer seemed capable of reason.”17 Their
lust for loot, Phillips argues, may explain why so many Byzantines ranging from peasant
to priest were murdered. However, one must remember that the crusaders may have been
influenced by papal propaganda: if the Pope said that the Lord permits war, then
crusading – in their eyes - is a fully justifiable cause (including the looting of towns and
cities).

14
France, Catholic Christendom, p. 57
15
Runciman, History of Crusades, p. 135
16
J Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (New York, 2004) p. 128
17
Phillips, Fourth Crusade, p. 263
It is worth taking into account the writings of non-Latin contemporaries to see how they
perceived crusader behaviour. Muslim chronicler Baha ‘al Din recalls how he saw
crusaders passionately swear vengeance on Muslim infidels after being subjected to a
religious piece of propaganda commissioned by Conradt of Montferrat, a knight. The
picture depicted a Muslim knight trampling the tomb of Jesus while his horse was
urinating on it.18 This event demonstrates how those in power were able to manipulate
crusader armies to fight on their behalf by playing on their religious emotions. Another
Muslim chronicler, Usamah Ibn Munqidh, recalls a time in 1140 when he went to pray at
a mosque in Jerusalem when “a Franj, [eastern name for a westerner] threw himself
upon me, grabbed me, and turned me toward the east, saying, “Thus do we pray.” 19 This
event tells us that foreign religious customs were alien to the crusaders, thus indicating
that throughout the crusading period they maintained a sense of religious identity that, to
a degree, undermines the idea of religion being a mere fig leaf in their activities. A more
serious tone can be found in the chronicles of Ibn al-Athir, a Muslim contemporary active
from the start of the crusades until his death in 1146. His 1099 chronicle bitterly reflects
on the siege of Jerusalem, stating that “a tale was told of the killing of men, the
enslavement of women and children and the plundering of property that had fallen upon
the Muslims in that revered, august place.”20 It is evident that al-Athir pictures the
crusaders as greedy, murderous thugs although his emotions may have got the better of
him when making this entry seeing as the passage is titled “How the Franks (God curse
them) took Jerusalem”.21 From these sources at least, one can deduce that the Muslim
world thought of crusaders as being ignorant, greedy but not completely dismissive of
their religious sense of duty.

The Byzantine had emphatic views. A particular contemporary of the crusading period
was Princess Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexius. She is constantly referred to
18
Morris, C, “Picturing the Crusades”, J. France and W. Zajac (eds.), The Crusades and their Sources
(Hampshire, 1998) p. 197
19
Maalouf, Arab Eyes, p. 129
20
Richards, D.S, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for The Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l Ta’ rikh. Part
1: The Years 491-541/1097-1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response (Aldershot, 2006)
p. 22
21
Richards, Ibn al-Athir, p. 21
when describing the crusaders as she considered them devious, (particularly Bohemond
of Taranto) with a “consistent desire to subvert and occupy the Byzantine empire”.22 It is
very likely, therefore, that Anna believed religion had no role whatsoever in crusader
activity. Another interesting Byzantine perspective can be seen through the study of a
poem written during the Second Crusade by a mysterious person going by the name of
Manganeios Prodromos. In one of his poem’s stanzas, he describes Conrad of Montferrat
as a “dedicated Crusader taking no account of God, his armies hymn the cross but
destroy the faithful.”23 Prodromos is likely to be commenting on the contradiction of the
crusades: how is violence a justifiable action for a religion that appears to promote
pacifist behaviour? However, one must take these poems with a pinch of salt as the
authors of the essay emphasise that Prodromos’ poems may have been another
propaganda tool to benefit Emperor Alexius. A final Byzantine contemporary worth
taking note of is Patriarch Theodore Irenikos of Nicaea who wrote a letter to
Constantinople in 1214. In a period when Orthodox Christians were considering whether
to rebel or submit to the Latin Church, Theodore asked them a compelling question: “for
how would your faith be preserved and safe-guarded, if you should agree to be one of the
pope’s faithful?”24 It is evident that Theodore considers the crusaders as oppressors; to
attack infidels was one thing, but to order around their Christian “brothers” was
something else entirely. To summarise the Byzantine view of the crusaders, they appear
to be more judgemental and biased compared to the Muslims’. The crusaders according
to the Byzantines are greedy, hypocritical and oppressive thus making them appear to
have little or no devotion to their religion.

To conclude on how much of a fig leaf religion was in crusader activity, the answer
appears to depend on the status of the crusader. In theory at least, the lower the status of
the crusader, the more influential religion was on his activities. To the typical crusader,

22
Tyerman, God’s War, p. 111
23
Jeffreys, E and Jeffreys, M, “The Wild Beast from the West: Immediate Literary Reactions in Byzantium
to the Second Crusade”, A. Laiou and R. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspectives of
Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington, 2001) p. 110
24
Kolbaba, T.M, “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious “Errors”: Themes and Changes from 850 to
1350”, A. Laiou and R. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspectives of Byzantium and the
Muslim World (Washington, 2001) p. 129
the Crusades were emotive calls from the Lord; the Crusades gave him a sense of duty
but also a sense of adventure and thus, possibly, a new, successful life. Although religion
would also hold some relevance to the motives of the Vatican and royals, the attractions
of conquest, political authority and personal glory blurred the sole target of liberating the
east of Muslim influence thus making religion a fig leaf for their motives to a
considerable - but not complete - extent.

Words: 2547

Bibliography

Books
Asbridge, T, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford, 2004)

France, J, The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000-1714 (London,
2005)

Hamilton, B, The Elephant of Christ: Reynald of Châtillon (Oxford, 1978)

Maalouf, A., The Crusades through Arab Eyes (London, 2006)

Phillips, J, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (New York, 2004)

Runciman, S, A History of the Crusades: The First Crusade and the Foundation of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem (London, 1990)

Tyerman, C, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (London, 2006)

Essays

Morris, C, “Picturing the Crusades”, J. France and W. Zajac (eds.), The Crusades and
their Sources (Hampshire, 1998)

Jeffreys, E and Jeffreys, M, “The Wild Beast from the West: Immediate Literary
Reactions in Byzantium to the Second Crusade”, A. Laiou and R. Mottahedeh (eds.), The
Crusades from the Perspectives of Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington, 2001)

Kolbaba, T.M, “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious “Errors”: Themes and

Changes from 850 to 1350”, A. Laiou and R. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the
Perspectives of Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington, 2001)

Periodicals/Internet Sources/Other

Richards, D.S, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for The Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l
Ta’ rikh. Part 1: The Years 491-541/1097-1146: The Coming of the Franks and the
Muslim Response (Aldershot, 2006)

“Episode 1: The First Crusade”, The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross, TV Producers,
Company, 200?

Fulcher of Chartre’s version of Pope Urban II’s Speech.

Link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html