Thomas Grimshaw BA History (V100) To what extent was the First Crusade Justified? The jusficaon of the First Crusade is a naturally complicated issue. Many historians – however objecve they intend to be – are subject to the modern concepts of violence set out by the pacifist movement from the first half of the 19 th century and are influenced by the modern concept of human rights. Acts of aggression are typically viewed as inherently unjusfied causing even the most hardened historian to condemn the immoral massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem aſter the capture in the summer of 1099. It is difficult to understand the crusaders as there is a distance created due to the differences between modern and medieval society. Violence was abundant throughout many areas of medieval life. Marcus Bull describes the violence as being endemic to the West throughout the eleventh century. In fact, it was humorous to see others in pain. Alcohol was drunk frequently, causing many (parcularly women) to be in danger from drunken aggression. Religion similarly played a significantly large role the everyday life of people. There was a constant fear of damnaon and so penances such as fasng were widely taken to guarantee entry into the aſterlife. Even with countless sources describing sinful behaviour among the clergy and lay people, the people were – on the whole – pious. Considering these two features, it is clear to see why an average crusader would not think twice about slaughtering many innocent people if he believed that it was God’s will. Therefore, in order to avoid an anachronisc conclusion, the jusficaon of the First Crusade must be considered within the context of medieval Europe. Yet this also brings difficules as it is impossible to access the minds of individual crusaders and even if such a feat was possible, it is highly likely that those who took part believed that the Crusade was jusfied as it was the will of God. Christopher Tyerman states that ‘all holy wars were, to their adherents, just’ 1 . If this was not the case, the crusaders would not have accepted such a laborious and dangerous task. It is therefore useful to examine the First Crusade in terms of the theological standards of the me. Chrisan scholars have discussed the jusficaon of force since ancient mes, but it was St Augusne of Hippo who, c. 400 AD, put forward the most applicable answer to the queson of jusficaon – the ‘Theory of Just War’. This theory suggests that although violence is evil and should be condemned, it can be acceptable under circumstances; it must be the lesser of two evils. These ideas were reduced by canon lawyers and theologians to provide three criteria that can be used as a measure in an aempt to answer the queson of the jusficaon of the First Crusade. In order to be just, a war must be iniated by a legimate authority (authority of the Prince). This would normally be a secular leader, but for a ‘holy’ war, it must be proclaimed by a member of the clergy who holds powers relang to the authorisaon of warfare. The second criterion is that there must be a just cause. This can be defined as ‘past or present aggression or injurious acon by another’ 2 . However, this is complicated as it is subjecve and open to interpretaon. Finally, every parcipant must have the right intenons; they need to have pure moves and should not exceed the necessary amount of violence. All of these three criteria should be fulfilled, at least in part, in order for a war to be jusfied. This provides an objecve gauge that the First Crusade can be measured against to idenfy if the First Crusade was just by medieval standards. 1 Tyerman, Christopher (2007). God's War. London: Penguin Books. p. 35. 2 Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2009). What were the Crusades?. 4th ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 6. - 1 -