The first crusade was an event launched by Pope Urban II and it started a series of crusades that were meant to recapture what was known as the Holy lands. Marcus Bull presents the first crusade as a pilgrimage even though the Crusaders carried weapons. The crusade later turned into a military expedition perpetrated by Roman Catholic. In the study of the writings of the first crusade, Bull brings out the different authors’ perspectives about the actions of the crusaders and their motivation. For example, Susanna Throop refers to the crusades as a means to commit vengeance on the basis of familial protection. The crusaders preached what Guibert calls Familia Christi. This meant that there was a need to protect the family of Christ even if it involved war and killing of nonbelievers. Vengeance against a fellow Christian was considered wrong, but that against a nonbeliever was just and fair. The understanding of the first crusade and its contribution to the making of history is an important part of the study of religious history.
According to Bull and Kempf, the first crusade is comparable to the conquest of the new world. They feel that marginalization of the crusade is based on the view that they are exotic and that there was no lasting historical tradition developed through them. The crusades however developed historical kinship between regions and developed an act of war against non-Christians, (Bull, and Kempf 29). The writings on the first crusade focus on the events that transpired and overlooked the effects of the first crusade. The understanding of the effects of the first crusade both before and after its actual occurrence is important in the study of the crusades in general. First, before the crusade generated the imagery of proto-crusade which influenced the writings of the past. The crusade also influenced the occurrence of the latter crusades and the writings about their occurrence and effect.
There appears to be a vast number of sources about the first crusade and the western society in general. The availability of this information, according to Marcus Bull, is due to the reliance on symbols and rituals. Bull points to the importance of acknowledging the role of the first crusade writings in the history of the west. Bull argues that the first crusade narratives are inherited from the past historians and points to the application of the narratives by the contemporaries. However, he is keen not to sound like he points against the occurrence of the first crusade. In fact, bull and Kempf point to the similarities of the historical writings of the first crusade including the use of children and armies in the fight against nonbelievers which is cited by several authors if the first crusade narratives, (Bull, and Kempf 32). However, Bull points to the need for breaking the paradigm of traditional narrative.
Another similarity in the writings of the first crusade is the battle of Antioch. Several history writers of the first crusade, including Guibert wrote about the battle. Speaking about battles, Crusaders also invaded Jerusalem by breaching the wall and moving in in numbers. The idea that Bull and Kempf put across is how the Crusades starting with the first developed into the history that contemporaries write and teach about throughout, (Bull, and Kempf 36). Even though the role of the first crusade is not exulted in the society as Bull puts it, most of the understanding of the history of Christianity was presented through the writings of the first crusade. It is difficult for historians to understand the motivation towards the crusades, especially because it involved large groups. However, it is understandable that the crusaders were motivated by vengeance and that the organizers of the crusade preyed on the beliefs of the crusaders by providing theological justification of inhuman actions.
The Crusades
According to Riley-Smith (15), crusading meant engaging in the act of war based on the religious beliefs. As people traveled over land and seas to rage war against Muslims, Jews, and pagans, the only common denominator was war. The war was believed to be in God’s will and therefore considered holy, (Riley-Smith 17). Crusaders and the organizers of the crusades generated leagues believed to be holy but whose aims were to act in God’s name and kill innocent people who did not share similar beliefs. The war was perpetrated by high ranking religious leaders including Pope Urban II and bishops like James of Vitry. The religious leaders preached to the knights and other laymen who had converted into soldiers through vows and commitment to the so-called holy war. The preaching were supported by the scriptures that are considered holy by Christians and which are ambivalent about any attacks against the holy people.
The Christians of the time had acted as the judge, jury, and executioner in the declaration of war against people that they viewed as sinners. A similar understanding, or misunderstanding for that matter, is happening in the 21st century but this time, round it’s the Muslims raging war against the Christians. The consideration of a group of people as the true believers, while others are seen as the sinners, is a true misunderstanding of religion. A certain group’s worldview cannot be considered to be the correct and complete worldview. It should not be forced unto others. The nine crusades may have developed a worldview that defines some as sinners while others are the believers, but the true nature of religion should be free for choice.
Work Cited
Bull, Marcus, and Damien Kempf. Writing the Early Crusades: Text, Transmission and Memory. Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2014.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The crusades: A history. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
