Title: 13C-Crusade-art
Subject: "Putting the Thirteenth Century Crusade into Context"
Author: Mark Harris
Keywords: article, crusades, 13th C, England

13C-Crusade-art - 12/4/97

"Putting the Thirteenth Century Crusade into Context" by Nicolaa de Bracton of Leicester.

NOTE: See also the files: crusades-msg, religion-msg, pilgrimages-msg, 
crusades-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This article was submitted to me by the author for inclusion in this set 
of files, called Stefan’s Florilegium. 

These files are available on the Internet at:
http://www.florilegium.org

Copyright to the contents of this file remains with the author.

While the author will likely give permission for this work to be 
reprinted in SCA type publications, please check with the author first
or check for any permissions granted at the end of this file.

                               Thank you,
                                    Mark S. Harris
                                    AKA:  Stefan li Rous
                                         stefan@florilegium.org
************************************************************************

Putting the Thirteenth Century Crusade into Context
--Nicolaa de Bracton of Leicester
									
England and the Crusade in the Thirteenth Century
	In 1240, England has been under the rule of Henry III for more than twenty years now.  The tumult that marked the early years of the reign (during Henry’s minority) have largely subsided, and Henry is not yet overtroubled by the baronial dissent which would mark the later years of the reign.  Many of the greater feudal lords have thus chosen this time to fulfill crusaders’ vows with an expedition to the Holy Land.  Though many historians continue to number the major expeditions as “crusades”, in truth the dividing lines between the individual expeditions have begun to blur, with smaller groups of crusaders and pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land almost constantly.  The “high water” mark of the crusader kingdoms has passed, and though there are victories from time to time, these kingdoms are gradually contracting.

	However, crusading zeal has not subsided, particularly in England and France.  With relations between those two perennial enemies relatively peaceful, many members of the noble and knightly classes have chosen the crusade as a venue not only to win glory on the field of battle, but also to make the highly-desired pilgrimage to the Holy Land and fulfill a solemn vow to aid in its protection.

The Church in the Thirteenth Century
	To understand the crusade fully, one must understand the mindset of the thirteenth century person.  It is commonplace in the twentieth century to examine the Church in retrospect, especially its all-too-human failings, with typical modern skepticism.  Implicit in this analysis is the idea that an “age of faith” is somehow an age of ignorance, in which a corrupt Church sought to control both the minds and bodies of the masses and stamped out any attempt at “free thinking”.   This is to misunderstand the medieval mind. First,  it is often forgotten that the Church made many attempts to control the violence in society which were quite beneficial.  On the eve of the First Crusade,   the great wars of  conquest largely over by now, roving bands of “thugs” of the knightly classes had taken to wandering the countryside causing trouble.  Urban II’s call to crusade was partially an attempt to redirect the energies of these men, whose whole raison d’etre  revolved around combat, towards a common enemy, rather than towards each other.  It is no accident that one of the duties of a knight under the emergent codes of chivalry was to defend the Church.   It is during the Crusade period that these codes become fully developed. Knights were bound together both by their class and by their Christian faith, as well as their place in the feudal hierarchy.  To the medieval person, this hierarchy was divinely ordained, and both Church and Crown had their appointed places.   Second, the Church itself, at the height of its influence, was going through a huge series of reforms intended to address many of its perceived deficiencies, including undereducated clergy, priests who bought and sold ecclesiastical offices or who did not fulfill their duties, and so forth.  The rise of universities was partially a result of these reforms;  the intellectual climate in the thirteenth century was also quite open to new ideas (particularly those which attempted to integrate classical philosophy into Christian theology).  Finally, for virtually all medieval people, religious faith was the basis of life (whether one were an orthodox Catholic, a heretic, or a Jew).  Contrary to popular belief,  the Church did not discourage the average person from learning about the faith;  quite to the contrary--the survival of large numbers of basic theological, devotional, and hagiographical tracts, some in the vernacular, attest to this.  Though it is true that the Church expected people to remain  within the bounds of orthodoxy, that still left many roads open for inquiry.  Few thirteenth century people ever challenged their faith--most accepted it without question.  This is not a “bad” thing--it’s a “different” thing, and it’s a fascinating exercise to try to put oneself into this different frame of mind.

Why Crusade?
	I have already alluded to the two major factors in choosing to take a crusaders’ vow: piety, or a desire to defend the holy places of the faith from the “infidel”;  and loyalty to one’s overlord. A third should be added to this, one which is somewhat related to the first:  the idea of penance. Each bears further discussion.  But I want to mention a third reason sometimes cited for the crusade in passing, that being that younger sons went on Crusade in search of land.  While this may indeed have been a factor in the first Crusade, and perhaps even the second, it was not a factor by the thirteenth century.   The Crusader Kingdoms of the twelfth century had largely disappeared by the thirteenth, and with their disappearance, the crusade movement had drastically changed in character.  The thirteenth century crusades were far more personal in nature than had been the earlier efforts, in which huge armies from many nations allied together.  These crusades tended to be organized by a single king or a coalition of noblemen;  this probably contributed to their comparative lack of success in actually besting the foe.  Facing a resurgent Islamic world powered by the relatively ruthless Mamaluk Turks, based in Egypt, the European Crusaders found themselves outclassed.  This did not stop them from trying, however.  Going on Crusade was one sure way of gaining military experience for a young noble, particularly a younger son whose future was not yet certain--but seldom was land a promise in this later day.
	As I mentioned, thirteenth century crusades were largely organized by one or more powerful nobles in a particular country, and national pride was often an issue.  Thus, those personally attached to the retinues of major noblemen often followed their lords overseas, as might local knights and gentry, depending on the popularity of the particular nobleman.  Those who did not actually make the trip could contribute in other ways, as I shall note in a moment.

	Finally, there is the motive of piety or penance.  Though the crusades were extremely violent in nature, they were largely undertaken with the idea in mind that one enlisted to fight for God’s cause in His army--a “soldier of Christ” in the very real sense. And in fact, in the thirteenth century, the threat from “the infidel” was considerably more pronounced than it had been in the late eleventh, when the movement had first began.  By this time, the real fight had returned to its original roots--protecting and defending the pilgrimage destinations in the Holy Land.  Not being able to have access to Jerusalem --even if one could never actually go there in person--was as important, or nearly so, to a thirteenth century Christian as for a modern Muslim to know that someday, one might make it to Mecca.  In addition, priests were regularly assigning taking a crusader’s vow to the noble classes as penance for major crimes and indiscretions by this time--this was simply a evolution of earlier assignments of pilgrimages.  Many even took the vows as a form of voluntary penance--after all,  as from the early days, crusaders were given a plenary indulgence for all sins committed while on Crusade, and it simply “looked good on your resume”, as it were.  There were few of the upper classes and virtually no kings who did not take such a vow in the thirteenth century, so far had the idea spread.

Crusade Recruitment
	How did one “sign up”, as it were? In the case of the first Crusade, it was first preached in the south of France by the Pope himself.  Preachers then went out from there around France to drum up support. For later Crusades, the pope would usually instigate or encourage efforts by dealing directly with those who would lead it.  But preaching remained one of the best ways of signing people up, and with the rise of the mendicant friars, especially Dominicans, crusade preaching became a bit of a science. Crowd psychology was important.  Since crusading was often equated with penance, Lent was a popular period for preaching, as was Advent, and September 14 --the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, became almost a festival for crusaders or crusade preaching. The sermon was often placed just after Mass for dramatic effect; often a bell was rung for the Holy Land when the Lord’s Prayer was recited in the Mass.  By the thirteenth century, there were regular special prayers and processions designed to inspire penitence and aid the cause of the Holy land. The sermons would be packed full of exempla , or moral stories of those who had taken the Cross or the bad things that had happened to those who had not or prevented others from doing so. Repetition of certain phrases (“Rise up and follow the cross”) was common. Often the preachers would use props, such as a relic of the True Cross (or another cross to symbolize it);  and if miracles happened in the vicinity as a result, so much the better. Finally, it was important to have someone actually come forth immediately after the sermon;  this seems to have often been arranged in advance (major noblemen probably rarely took the cross on impulse).  Less formal methods of persuasion were also used, including the writing of letters from the Holy Land bemoaning the latest atrocities of the infidel, which were then widely circulated; and that of having  local notables publicly whip up support.  Songs and literature about crusading and the great heroes of the movement (including the Arthur stories, in which the Quest for the Grail was often equated with the crusade, and the Chanson de Roland , which, though ostensibly about Charlemagne’s campaigns against the Moors, owes more to the Crusade movement, particularly the Reconquista--which,though not in the Holy Land, was as much as a Crusade as its more famous cousin).  

	“Taking the Cross”  probably involved swearing a public oath over the relics, and then sewing a linen cross (red or white, depending on the particular crusade) to the shoulder of one’s cloak. After this, a person was designated a crusignatus  (sometimes wrongly translated asCrusader.)  Lists of these people were kept in England by the Crown (as well as by the Church), because their legal status changed.  Normally there were restrictions placed upon disposing of large amounts of property;  these were lifted in the case of those preparing for crusade.  Bilking a crusignatus  in a deal also gained one an extra penalty in canon law. Provision was also made for wives and children of crusaders should they be killed or lost while on crusade.  The other reason for keeping the lists was to keep track of who had not fulfilled their oath...
	Which brings up another point.  By the thirteenth century, more and more people, both male and female, were taking crusaders’ oaths.  The majority of these people never set foot in the Holy Land, but they certainly fulfilled their vows --by making monetary contributions, or by raising forces.  This allowed the ethos to spread throughout society, even to the fairly poor.

Bibliography

	There are a plethora of books on the actual history of the Crusades;  Steven Runciman’s three volume set is pretty much the standard overview.  

Brundage, J.A.  Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader.  London, 1969.

Cunnington, C. and P. Handbook of English Medieval Costume.  London,1969.

Forey, Alan.  The Military Orders from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries.  Toronto 1992.

de Joinville, Jean and Villehardouin, Geoffroy.  Chronicles of the Crusades.,  M.R.B. Shaw, trans.  New York:  Penguin Books, 1963.

Lloyd, Simon.  English Society and the Crusade:  1216-1307 .  Oxford 1988.

___________, “ ‘Political Crusades’ in England, c. 1215-1217 and c. 1263-1265”, in Edbury,  PW. ed.  Crusade and Settlement.  Cardiff, 1985.

Maier, Christoph T. Preaching the Crusades:  Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century .  Cambridge 1994.

Riley-Smith, J.C.  The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading .  London, 1986

Tyerman, Christopher.  England and the Crusades: 1095-1588.  Chicago 1988.

CD:
Music of the Crusades.  The Early Music Consort of London;  David Munrow, dir.  London Records 430 264-2.

---
Copyright 1996 by Susan Carroll-Clark, 53 Thorncliffe Park Dr. #611,
Toronto, Ontario M4H 1L1  CANADA.  Permission granted for
republication in SCA-related publications, provided author is credited
and receives a copy.

If this article is reprinted in a publication, I would appreciate a notice in
the publication that you found this article in the Florilegium. I would also
appreciate an email to myself, so that I can track which articles are being
reprinted. Thanks. -Stefan.

<the end>

Edited by Mark S. Harris	13C-Crusade-art