In this post, we will be using a selection of First Crusade Chroniclers as well as some historiography to consider whether Jerusalem was Pope Urban II’s objective for the First Crusade. Only Fulcher of Chartres, who was likely present at Clermont, claims to reproduce Urban’s exact words. However, despite his presence, it is unlikely that his version of Urban’s speech contains a word-for-word account.
The Chroniclers
Some of the versions of Urban’s speech make Jerusalem the central theme. They focus on the sufferings of the city. Baldric of Dol’s version of Urban’s speech is perhaps the best example of this:
…we refrain from recollecting the Holy Sepulchre, since some of you have seen with your own eyes how great is the abomination to which it has been surrendered. The Turks have seized violently from there the offerings you brought many times to that place for alms.
S.B. Edgington (trans.) Baldric of Bourgueil: “History of the Jerusalemites”: A Translation of the Historia Ierosolimitana, (2020), p. 46.
Furthermore, Pope Urban referred to Jerusalem as the specific target of the expedition in most versions of his speech and in letters written soon after Clermont. Robert the Monk had Urban say:
Jerusalem is the navel of Earth. It is a land more fruitful than any other, almost another Earthly Paradise.
C. Sweetenham (trans.) Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade Historia Iherosolimitana, (2005), p. 81.
Robert makes frequent mention to the Holy City during his version of Urban’s speech. In one famous passage, he describes the city as ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’. 1C. Sweetenham (trans.) Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade Historia Iherosolimitana, (2005), p. 81. Furthermore, Robert the Monk specifically refers to Jerusalem as Pope Urban II’s objective for the expedition:
Set out on the road to the Holy Sepulchre, deliver that land from a wicked race and take it for yourselves – the land which was given by God to the sons of Israel.
C. Sweetenham (trans.) Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade Historia Iherosolimitana, (2005), p. 81.
Robert the Monk could not be more explicit in citing Pope Urban II’s objective as Jerusalem. Similarly, Balderic of Dol describes the Islamic capture and desecration of the holy places in Jerusalem. Towards the end of Baldric’s version of Urban’s speech, Urban tells his audience:
It would be beautiful for you to die for Christ in that city, where Christ died for you. Moreover, should it happen that you die before you reach Jerusalem suppose you actually died on the way, even so Christ will have discovered you in His own militia.
S.B. Edgington (trans.) Baldric of Bourgueil: “History of the Jerusalemites”: A Translation of the Historia Ierosolimitana, (2020), p. 49.
Again, Baldric specifically refers to Jerusalem as the goal, as the ultimate destination for the expedition. He makes provisions for those who would die before reaching the destination.
Consider, therefore, that the Almighty has provided you, perhaps, for this purpose, that through you He may restore Jerusalem from such debasement. Ponder, I beg you, how full of joy and delight our hearts will be when we shall see the Holy City restored with your little help, and the prophet’s, nay divine, words fulfilled in our times.
Guibert of Nogent
The author of the Gesta Francorum gave little attention to the Council of Clermont. He speedily brushed over events by noting that Pope Urban had called for an expedition, but he failed to note the destination of this proposed undertaking.
Curiously, Fulcher of Chartres’ version of Urban’s speech does not refer to Jerusalem at all. He does refer to the plight of Eastern Christians who were threatened by the rapid conquest of the Christian lands by the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor. As noted by Fink, Fulcher’s account of Urban’s speech, there is a chapter entitled ‘Urban’s Exhortation Concerning a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem‘. However, the chapter makes no reference to Jerusalem. As Fink notes, it seems a later scribe made the addition of this title when copying the text. 2H.S. Fink and F.R. Ryan (ed. and trans.), Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, (1969), p. 65, n. 1.
It seems likely then that the scribe, knowing, with the gift of hindsight, that the First Crusade ended at Jerusalem, made the addition of the title. It seemed natural given the course the First Crusade took. Could the First Cruade chroniclers then, also with the gift of hindsight, writing some time after the conclusion of the First Cruade, have also written Jerusalem into their versions of Urban’s speech? Could it be possible that Jerusalem was not Pope Urban II’s initial objective at all?
Historiography
Historians have pondered over the question of whether Jerusalem was Pope Urban II’s intended objective from the outset. The absence of mention of Jerusalem from Fulcher of Chartres and the author of the Gesta Francorum has been used to support this thesis.
In 1977 Erdmann suggested that Urban’s objective for the First Crusade was rather broad – the liberation of the Eastern Church. He argued that ‘the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre’ as became the slogan during the course of the First Crusade was not Urban’s initial goal. Erdmann argued that during Urban’s tour in France in 1095 – 1096, the Pope did not place Jerusalem in the foreground of his preaching. According to Erdmann, Urban did not name a specific location, rather he wished to see the liberation of Christian peoples in the East. Therefore, the eventual destination of Jerusalem was not to say that the Crusaders veered from their objective because the liberation of Jerusalem fell under this broad aim. 3C. Erdmann, ‘Urban II and the Crusade”, in C. Erdmann, et al. The Origin of the Idea of Crusade: Foreword and Additional Notes by Marshall W. Baldwin. (1977), p. 26.
Mayer also disputed the notion that Jerusalem was Urban’s objective from the outset. Both recognise that Urban desired to aid Eastern Christians in general. However, unlike Erdmann who acknowledges that Jerusalem perhaps did form part of Urban’s preaching, Mayer argued that Urban did not mention Jerusalem at all. Mayer considered Jerusalem ‘too potent’ an idea to have been mentioned at Clermont or during Urban’s preaching tour in France. For Mayer, the mention of Jerusalem would have created a strong lure that would have distracted the Crusaders from their primary aid to assist Eastern Christians.
According to Mayer, the goal of Jerusalem was conjured up by public opinion following the Council of Clermont and Urban had no choice but to acknowledge it. 4H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade’, History, 1970, Vol. 55, No. 184 (1970), p. 180. Thus, according to Mayer, Urban altered the objective of the First Crusade as the expedition progressed.
According to this theory, the Crusade chroniclers, writing some time after the conclusion of the First Crusade and therefore with the knowledge that Jerusalem became the final destination, included Jerusalem in Urban’s speech and indeed made it the central feature of Urban’s appeal.
However, some historians have argued against this theory proposed by Erdmann and Mayer. J Riley Smith argued that the liberation of Jerusalem had been Urban’s objective from the outset. Urban, Riley-Smith contended, sought the liberation of Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslims and also the liberation of Christians in the East. Thus, Urban’s objective was twofold – the liberation of a sacred place and the liberation of people. 5J. Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, (2003), p. 18.
As Jotischky has argued, it would have been difficult to entice potential Crusaders in 1095 to go in large numbers to protect Eastern Christians against the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor. 6A. Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader States, (2017), p. 53.
Jotischky is correct in his assessment. It is unlikely that Urban would have convinced many thousands of combatants and non-combatants in the West to leave their families and property to embark on a journey to the East to liberate Eastern Christians in a war occurring thousands of miles from home. A war that did not directly concern them.
Participating in the First Crusade was incredibly costly. Although Urban may have reminded his audience at Clermont of their duty to defend their fellow Christians in the East, would they, in reality, spent so much money and time on an expedition for Christian brethren in the East? I think not. Jerusalem was the goal from the outset. The Holy City was placed at the forefront of Urban’s appeal. Jerusalem was a lure. As Robert the Monk said, ‘Jerusalem is the navel of the Earth.’ It was considered to be the centre of the world. It was a spiritual place familiar to all Western Christians. Jerusalem stirred the imagination of Urban’s audience and it was considered to be something worth fighting for. Its loss and apparent destruction and disrespect were used to full effect, to anger and rouse the crowd into action.
Furthermore, the liberation of Jerusalem was Urban’s ultimate goal. His desire to assist Alexius and the Byzantine Empire will be explored in a subsequent post. Urban’s aim of assisting Byzantium was one of his objectives, however, Jerusalem was his ultimate goal.
