Pope Urban II's Speech At Clermont
The First Crusade is a multifaceted event that is often oversimplified or misconstrued as an analogy for modern-day conflicts. In the last four decades, however, the field has seen a significant overhaul when analyzing the Crusade. Instead of focusing on singular causes, historians now take a pluralist, “interdisciplinary”, approach when determining the reasons for the First Crusade. These reasons are highlighted in Pope Urban II’s powerful speech, Speech at Clermont. His speech, in itself, is complex through its masterful call to arms. Scholars have generally agreed that the primary catalyst to the First Crusade was Pope Urban II’s Speech at Clermont. In the late nineteenth century, scholars overplayed the role of Peter the Hermit as the
…show more content…
This is a topic at is universally agreed on by scholars. The crusader’s would’ve have a preconceived notion of the apocalypse from the Book of Revelations. Marshall states that Urban portrayed the clash between Islam and Christianity as “good” and “evil.” This idea causes apocalypticism to be linked with duality. In every apocalyptic battle, there are good and evil sides, and they are distinctly different from each other. Rubenstein says since Urban was calling for an earthly battle in Jerusalem, and the biblical prophecies had predicted a heavenly battle in Jerusalem- it was impossible to not see the link between the two battles. One motivation for pilgrims joining the First Crusade was that they believed that the Apocalypse was nigh, and they wanted to be in Jerusalem when these events took place. Additionally, some crusaders believed that by going to Jerusalem, they could “set in motion the events of Apocalypse.” Essentially, scholars believe that Urban’s painting of the final battle between good and evil was more crucial to the beginning of the First Crusade, rather than greed. Characterizing the First Crusade as a money grab for the crusaders would be ludicrous, in theory, as Christianity speaks against materialism. Greed was just a distraction that plagued the
This is a topic at is universally agreed on by scholars. The crusader’s would’ve have a preconceived notion of the apocalypse from the Book of Revelations. Marshall states that Urban portrayed the clash between Islam and Christianity as “good” and “evil.” This idea causes apocalypticism to be linked with duality. In every apocalyptic battle, there are good and evil sides, and they are distinctly different from each other. Rubenstein says since Urban was calling for an earthly battle in Jerusalem, and the biblical prophecies had predicted a heavenly battle in Jerusalem- it was impossible to not see the link between the two battles. One motivation for pilgrims joining the First Crusade was that they believed that the Apocalypse was nigh, and they wanted to be in Jerusalem when these events took place. Additionally, some crusaders believed that by going to Jerusalem, they could “set in motion the events of Apocalypse.” Essentially, scholars believe that Urban’s painting of the final battle between good and evil was more crucial to the beginning of the First Crusade, rather than greed. Characterizing the First Crusade as a money grab for the crusaders would be ludicrous, in theory, as Christianity speaks against materialism. Greed was just a distraction that plagued the