The Crusaders and Their Motives

Some time ago I explored the negative theology of The Crusades, the holy wars when Medieval knights sowed crosses on their tunics, and went to fight for the Holy Land. While I have major issues with the Crusader Indulgence (an antichrist document: replacement of Christ's sacrifice document created by the Papacy that violates the simplicity of Gospel in John 3:16, John 6:40, Romans 10:9-10), there is something noble to admire about the Crusaders. Firstly, the Crusades were not a vendetta or campaigns to capture lands for greedy barons. The Muslims in 632-750 A.D. had conquered Palestine, Antioch, Southern Italy, Spain, and swaths of Africa. The First Crusade was not launched until 1095-1096 A.D., 350-400 years after the holy warriors of Islam invaded Europe (that's a long time to wait for revenge). Secondly, most people fail to understand the zeal of the Crusader to capture Jerusalem. The reasoning wasn't just piety, but a profound sense of duty to protect the very places Christ had been Crucified, Risen from Dead, Ascended, and would Return to. Few historians mention that a mad Caliph who had captured Jerusalem destroyed the Holy Sepulchre, the Church and location of Jesus Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection in 1009 A.D.. The mad caliph whose name was Fatmid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, not only raised the Holy Sepulchre to the ground, he destroyed the Tomb of Christ, even hammering into the rotunda stone slab and removing chunks of it. This sacrilegious assault on the holiest site to us Christians would have been equivalent of someone destroying the Kaab in Mecca, or the Tomb of Islam's Prophet Muhammed. This was a serious insult to Christendom and to all Christians at large. It is perhaps ironic that the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre in 1099 A.D., exactly ninety years after the mad caliph had destroyed the Church of Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection.

The First Crusade was no a vendetta, and the desire to reclaim Jerusalem was with precedence, the mad Caliph making any Christian uneasy about the Holy Sites of Christ being under Crescent control. Thirdly, the Crusaders we actually obeying Scripture. The Byzantine Christian Empire, lead at the time by Emperor Alexios Commenus I had requested aid to route the invading Seljurk Turks. Pope Urban II and Princes of Europe responded with 100,000 strong, more than Byzantine Emperor had hoped. The Crusaders were following Christ's own words, "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13). Granted the European Crusaders and Byzantines may not have been closest of friends, they had many divisions from language, Europeans using Latin Rites and Byzantines using Greek rites, and the schism of Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D. Still it cannot be disputed that the Crusaders were laying down their lives, risking everything to help the Byzantine Christian brothers when they took Antioch, a Byzantine City. Regardless of the ensuing misunderstandings and broken trust that happened between the Crusaders and Byzantines, majorly because Count Stephen II of Blois fled the Siege of Antioch with some cowards and they informed Emperor Alexios I and his army not to come to the relief of the Crusaders as was planned. Stephen's misinformation would create a tear in the already fragile relationship between Byzantine and Frankish Crusaders that would reach its Apogee in the Fourth Crusade.

Fourthly, the Crusaders did not make great dividends. Most of the Crusaders sold all their property in Europe: lands, treasuries, and more to fund their voyage and stint in the Holy Wars (Asbridge, Riley-Smith, and Jonathan Harris). This bankrupted many of them, and prospect of surviving the Crusade was bleak at best, so the risks were much higher than any potential gains. What really motivated these men in white mantels, was piety and love for the Sepulchre, and the City of Jerusalem. The Crusade was like the ultimate quest, something from Grail Legends of Camelot, where knights could go on an adventure that had both spiritual and earthly rewards. Should a Knight of Christ survive the perilous road from Europe to Palestine and back, he would enjoy renown that would set him apart from other knights, and his enemies would fear him. The Crusade was steeped in romance, the songs of the Crusades (hymns, and Chasions de Antioch) tell of harrowing exploits, and tests of the men of Europe. The popularity of Crusading must be owed to piety and prestige, because the fiscal rewards were limited. For many it was Crusader Indulgence (total absolution of sins, no purgatory ever), and the renown of being considered Crusignatius/Crucinatia (signed with cross) was step higher in chivalry than the more secular adventures. After all, only the Crusader was blessed by clergy and considered to be doing a holy cause, their murder not a sin but a service to God, so it was also gratification from the Church that made it stand out from other adventures; in case of Crusade everyone praised you from churchmen to chambermaid.

We must understand the Crusaders lived in Feudal Society, in fact the Mujahedeen of Islam were feudal as well, and much was made of feats of glory, strength, and prowess in wars. Unlike today where pay and patriotism are fuel for fighting, the Medieval soldier was motivated by piety (faith), liege lord (love of their lord or king), ecclesia (love of the church), chivalry (honor), and hubris (pride, renown for doing great deeds in battle). The gains of risking your life in combat in Crusader times was much more than pillaging, it was respect and knowing you are defending eternal (church) and temporal things. Love was chief motivator, love of God, love of kin, love of king, love of church, and love of fighting. It is fact that families often supplied the Crusaders, with notable families being the Ibelins, Balian of Ibelin being Defender of Jerusalem (seen in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven). Think of it like this, you join the Crusade or any war because of spiritual reward system of Indulgences, you join because family members are going to that war, you join because of your love fo your leader, and you join because of potential earthly rewards of prestige and perhaps some pillaging. These are much higher motivator than today's armies, because the Medieval Warrior is compelled by religion, family ties (most of his family joining the war), and duty to the State (king, baron, and etc).

The Crusades because of their spiritual rewards, renown, and family ties made them popular for one-hundred and ninety-two years, ending when last bastions of the Crusader States fell in 1291 A.D. The Crusaders motivated by faith, family, and fame. Powerful motivators in a time when all three along with funds was the chief cornerstones of society. We may not agree with the spirituality of the Crusades, contesting the Indulgence with Immanuel (Jesus) own words, "This is will of the Father, that everyone look to the Son and believe in him will have eternal life, and be raised at last day." (John 6:40). Jesus Christ alone cleanses our sins and His sacrifice on cross was enough to cover all transgression. However, the Crusaders and their motives are not beyond understanding. How many of us motivated by family, our piety, and desire for fame can sympathize with these warriors who weren't so different than people today and motivated by same reasons many are today. I am not saying you should blanket approve the Crusades, but perhaps this post can serve to help us better understand one of most controversial chapters in the history of the Church. Amen.