Origins of the First Crusade

In 1095, Pope Urban II delivered one of the most important speeches in European history: the address at the Council of Clermont. This address called to action the nobility of Europe, asking them to don the symbol of the cross, and re-conquer Jerusalem from the hands of the Seljuk Turks. This speech formally began the crusading movement, but by no means can it be considered the individual cause of the first crusade. Before we delve into the actual causes, let's examine the Pope's speech itself.

Accounts of the Pope's Speech

The first thing to note about the speech is the questionable nature of our records of it. We have four significant accounts of the speech made by the Pope, as well as a letter he himself wrote about it later. The accounts vary greatly; the one perceived to be most accurate is written by a man named Fulcher of Chartres, the only writer whose presence was confirmed at the speech. The second most cited writer is Robert the Monk, who may have been at the speech; however, he wrote his account of the first crusade, including the commentary of this speech, roughly 20-21 years after the speech took place. The other two accounts are written by Baldric, archbishop of Dol, and Guibert de Nogent, neither of whom were present.

The speech as recorded by Fulcher deviates significantly from the other 3 accounts. He states that the focus of Urban's speech is twofold: Firstly, it contains strong criticism of Christian adherence to papal doctrine, and secondly, the Pope states that the Eastern Empire, or the Byzantines, needed aid to guard from further attacks by the Seljuk Turks. Nowhere in his account does Fulcher mention anything about Jerusalem, the typically perceived reason for the crusade. The other three accounts tend to focus more on the atrocities of the Muslims towards Christian brothers in the East, and each carries the significant theme of commanding Christians to re-conquer Jerusalem.

The accuracy of all four accounts are in question. Fulcher tends to be regarded as the most accurate, because he was most connected with the actual event at Clermont. We know little about him, but we do know, from church documents at Chartres, that he was not a member of the clergy there. His knowledge of Latin does indicate his likely ecclesiastical training, however. Robert the monk was (true to his name) a monk, asked to re-write the speech and the history of the first crusades by his abbot, who was appalled at the quality of previous accounts. The last two were abbots at their respective monasteries. The similarity of the message involving Jerusalem from the last three accounts may well be linked to their ecclesiastical beliefs; Christian belief about the apocalypse was centred on their possession of the city.

In actual fact, as historians know it today, the pope did not call the crusade of his own accord; Alexius I of Byzantium, under attack from the Seljuk Turks, sent an appeal to the Pope asking his aid, prompting the Council at Clermont. While this was the main reason behind the first crusade in theory, the Pope may have had alternate reasoning for giving his speech. Europe, at the time before the crusade, had many problems of its own, on both political and economic levels.

Political Organization and the Shortcomings of the Feudal System

The feudal system, much like the crusades, are portrayed in a number of different ways in modern pop-culture, some of which differ greatly from the actual events. In fact, the feudal system was not a rigid system of rules; far from it. The term 'feudal system' is actually a modern term, coined by modern historians, and it was less of a 'system' than a mutual agreement between a superior member of the warrior aristocracy and a lesser one. Moreover, the feudal system took many different forms in different regions. France's system was poorly implemented, rendering the king as a mere figurehead with no particular power; England's, on the other hand, unified the country and significantly aided its development on multiple levels.

Regardless of the various implementations and misnomers associated with the feudal system, through most of Europe in the late 11^th century, there were multiple problems with it. In the late 9^th and early 10^th centuries, a number of significant developments in agriculture made crop yields much higher than previously possible; immediately following this was a significant population boom. This stretched Europe's resources to the limits. In the feudal system, the vassals all must receive a piece of land that is large enough to supply them both agriculturally and economically; the knights had to supply their own armour and horse with the land. The population boom was in effect at this time, and we see a large influx of would-be knights looking for land claims. This relates somewhat to the concept of primogeniture (that is, the practice of the first son of a noble house receiving his father's land, and the later sons receiving nothing), which was widely accepted at this time.

However, more recent scholarship suggests that land was not one of the most significant causes of the crusades, although it certainly did contribute. The more significant political motivation was feudal war. Knights had few obligations to their lords; generally, they involved a tax and a certain commitment to the lord's military concerns (typically 40 days of fighting time). In the time not spent fighting for their lord, many knights pursued their own military ventures, occasionally aided by their own vassals. This generally took the form of fighting other Christian knights, vassals of different lords whose land was particularly appealing.

The church had already offered two documents to limit this fighting: the Peace of God, and the Truce of God. The Peace of God was a pivotal law issued to deal with assaults on clergy. It stated that armed knights could do no harm to those individuals unable to defend themselves while in the knight's land. The Truce of God, aimed more specifically at the knights themselves, stated the days in the year where fighting could not occur. This included all festival days, and Thursday evening through to Sunday night, every week. This limited the fighting to Monday through Wednesday, assuming no religious events during the week. As various accounts show, this law was rarely adhered to. It was obviously not in the Pope's interest to have Christian knights fighting amongst themselves for both practical and theological reasons; for this reason, it is often perceived that the Pope called the crusade to direct the knights' violent tendencies toward a foreign group.

Economic Reasons behind the First Crusade

The 11^th century saw a very significant shift in medieval economy: the rise of the middle class. Previously, there were only three classes in society (the number 'three' being significant in many Christian spheres for its reference to the holy trinity). Those who Pray, or the clergy, being the highest class, Those who Fight, or the warrior aristocracy, the second highest class, and, predictably, Those who Work, or Serfs. In the early 9^th century, the taxes the knights imposed upon the workers tended to be high enough that the serfs only had enough to eat, or possibly less (tax at this time being paid in kind, not in monetary units). However, with the agricultural reforms of the 10^th century, many serfs working the lords' lands found themselves making a surplus. Many began to enjoy a small modicum of economic freedom, and in some cases, bought freedom. The more likely case, however, was a rule implemented about this time, regarding escaped serfs: If a serf could escape his manor and stay hidden for one year and one day, they were officially free under the law.

Between these two situations, a new class of people began to arise, higher than the serfs, but lower than the warriors. These people typically became merchants. This significantly changed medieval society; the merchant class is typically regarded as the impetus for early towns, acting as trade centers. This eventually led to the development of guilds, and significant societal reforms. The creation of the merchant class was significant to the crusades in two ways.

Firstly, merchants need merchandise. The average merchant tended to travel town to town, buying low and selling high. However, highly regarded merchants sometimes fostered relationships with Muslims in the Middle East. The Middle East had a variety of trade goods that Western Europe didn't have, and more importantly, they had connections with the Far East. Many European luxury goods originated in the east, pepper and silk being among the most important. While in some ways, a war with the Middle East would impair the merchant's ability to get foreign luxury goods, if they were successful, it could also mean securing a Christian-held trade route to the Far East, eliminating the middle man and earning them more profit. The second reason that the merchants are significant is their lack of societal obligation. The middle class of this time are essentially freelancers, in that they work only for themselves. These people provided a ready populace for the physical act of crusading, where peasants potentially had problems because of their obligations to their lords.

Conclusions
While the technical beginnings of the crusade did, in fact, come from Pope Urban II's address at Clermont, as demonstrated above, it was certainly not the only reason. The pope likely considered at least a few of these factors when declaring the crusade, and indeed, the church stood to gain greatly from a successful war. Politically, they stood to gain land claims in the middle east. The war could also be seen as a kind of pressure valve, releasing the tension of war within Europe, and helping knights to focus their warlike ambitions on a foreign enemy, with the hope of creating a more united Europe. The church would certainly gain access to foreign, valuable resources, as well as, from a theological perspective, a large body of new converts to Christianity (albeit likely through a forced means). Ultimately, when looking at the crusades, it is important to not simply assume a single reason for their beginnings; the origins of the first crusade are highly complex, and while they may have culminated in the creation and delivery of a pivotal speech, the varied origins are absolutely significant in the analysis of these holy wars.

Sources:

Brian Tierney, "Expansion of Europe: The First Crusades", Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475.
Fulcher of Chartres, "Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II: Speech at the Council of Clermont, 1095, According to Fulcher of Chartres", Internet Medieval Sourcebook.