An interview with specialist Sini Kangas (University of Tampere) on the Crusades, the role of the Church, and the historicity of the sources reporting unspeakable violence.

---

 

The Crusades and the role of the Church.

We also discussed this topic, without apologetic filters, with a specialist in the field, Sini Kangas, researcher of Medieval History at the University of Tampere (Finland).

Recently, Kangas contributed to developing a section on the First Crusade for the volume “Les croisades“ (Perrin 2025), edited by Martin Aurell and Sylvain Gouguenheim.

In today’s episode of the “Friday Interview“ we asked her about the motivations that led the crusaders to set out for Jerusalem, among which there was no intention whatsoever to convert Muslims or enrich themselves with their possessions.

The scholar also focuses on the brutality of the conquest of Jerusalem, noting however that the Muslim sources do not recount the gruesome (and probably legendary) stories found in Christian sources, which were more intent on creating biblical allegories.

Finally, the role of the popes and the Church in the crusades, which exercised “partial control” over the soldiers and sought “to protect the Jewish communities” from outbreaks of antisemitism.

 

The Church and the Crusades: interview with the specialist

QUESTION – Professor Kangas, in political debate the term “crusade” is still used today, always with a negative connotation. But where does this word come from?

ANSWER – The terms “crusade” or “crusader” were not yet in use in the 12th century.

The Latin sources from the time of the First Crusade (1096–1099) referred to the “crusade” as iter or peregrinatio, meaning pilgrimage, or as passagium or expeditio, more generic terms related to travel or a military campaign.

The chansons de geste, in Old French, simply speak of “going to Jerusalem”. The term crucesignatus only appears from the 1180s onwards to denote a pilgrim to Jerusalem who had sewn a cross onto their garments, meaning “marked with the cross.”

The verbs “to take the cross” and to become a crusader appeared around 1219–1223, when the crusades had already been underway for over a century.

 

The motivations of the crusaders: convert and enrich?

QUESTION – It is commonly thought that the crusade was a mission against Islam as such. Is that true?

ANSWER – Originally, Pope Urban II appealed to members of the Roman Church to help Eastern Christians.

The goal was to reclaim Byzantine territories lost to the Seljuk Turks and to gain control of the city of Jerusalem, also under Muslim rule. After the crusaders’ conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and the establishment of the Latin Kingdom, Christian rule over the Holy City became the primary objective of the First Crusade in Western historiography.

According to the sources, the crusaders were motivated by the desire to undertake a pilgrimage to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and to avenge the “outrage” suffered by Christ: for Western medievalers, the places physically touched by the Lord had to be governed by Christians. In crusader propaganda, the Holy Land was described as an inheritance God had destined for Christians, usurped by the enemy.

 

QUESTION – So the goal was not to convert the Muslims?

ANSWER – No, the conversion of Muslims was not the objective of the First Crusade, nor of subsequent ones in the Middle East during the 12th century.

It was different in the Baltic region, where from 1147 onwards crusades were organised with the explicit goal of invading the lands of Prussia, Livonia and Estonia and converting their inhabitants to Catholicism. In these wars, many natives lost their lives, property, and personal freedom. In particular, large areas in Estonia were depopulated during the crusader conquest.

Besides campaigns against Muslims and northern pagans, the crusades were also directed against Christians accused of heresy in France and Italy, and against Greek Orthodox Christians: the best-known case being the Fourth Crusade, which culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.

 

QUESTION – So, there were various motivations that drove the Crusaders to depart. What were the main ones behind the First Crusade?

ANSWER – According to the sources, the first Crusaders wanted to pray at Christ’s tomb, avenge the outrage suffered by the Saviour, and honour the comrades lost along the road to Jerusalem.

Human beings are always driven by multiple motivations, not just one. Many Crusaders were genuinely religious and wanted to contribute to the salvation of their own souls and those of their families. During the era of the Crusades, the phenomenon became a veritable family institution: many European families took part in expeditions across generations.

 

QUESTION – It is also said that the Crusaders sought wealth, bringing back various looted treasures to Europe.

ANSWER – The returning Crusaders brought back no riches, except for relics from the East.

Taking part in a crusade was extremely costly, and participants often had to sell or mortgage much of their property to afford the journey. They were also supported by their families.

 

The brutal conquest of Jerusalem: truth and legend

QUESTION – The conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 is surrounded by various legendary narratives.

ANSWER – The conquest of Jerusalem was brutal. At the same time, one of the greatest myths of the Crusades is that the holy wars were waged in a particularly different or more brutal manner compared to other wars. This is not the case.

During their campaign, the Crusaders followed the same general rules of warfare they applied at home. Commanders tended to preserve their resources and to strike deals with the enemy rather than fight, and prisoners could often save their lives by paying a ransom.

During conquests, the Crusaders were reported to be responsible for killing inhabitants of various cities regardless of age, gender, or physical or mental condition. This was common practice when the warring sides failed to negotiate a settlement and a fortress or city was taken by force and left to the soldiers’ plunder.

Jerusalem was no exception.

 

QUESTION – Why was no agreement reached?

ANSWER – In this case, negotiations failed because the Muslim commander Iftikhar al-Dawla was expecting reinforcements from Fatimid Egypt any day. Had the city held out for another two weeks, his decision might have proven wise.

 

QUESTION – What do the sources say about the conquest of Jerusalem?

ANSWER – It was bloody.

According to the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum, the pilgrims killed and mutilated the “Saracens” all the way to the “Temple of Solomon,” meaning the al-Aqsa mosque, where the city’s inhabitants had taken refuge to escape the invaders. The massacre continued inside the mosque throughout the day, until the entire building was covered in the blood of Muslims. The anonymous author did not know the number of dead; only God did.

In the account of Raymond of Aguilers, who, like the anonymous author, witnessed the conquest of Jerusalem firsthand, Muslim blood flowed from the Temple of Solomon up to the knees of the knights and the hooves of their horses.

Fulcher of Chartres, who visited the city with Baldwin of Boulogne in December 1099, wrote that the stench of death was still noticeable inside and outside the city walls. According to him, 10,000 corpses were gathered from the Temple of Solomon at the time of the conquest. Fulcher stated that no one survived the massacre—not women, not children.

 

QUESTION – And what about Muslim sources?

ANSWER – The Muslim sources from the time offer only brief mentions of the 1099 conquest. The continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus by al-Qalānisī (written between the 1140s and 1160s) states that the Franks invaded Jerusalem and seized the city by force. Some residents took refuge in the sanctuary, where many were killed.

The Jews sought shelter in the synagogue, which the Franks set on fire. Later, the men who had gathered in the sanctuary surrendered and paid a ransom.

Another Syrian, al-‘Azīmī, who completed his chronicle in 1143/1144, reports that the Franks took Jerusalem from the Egyptians and burned the synagogue. When Saladin’s biographers discuss the reconquest of Jerusalem in 1187, they make no mention of the events of 1099.

Only in the chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr (†1233) do we find a more specific figure for the number of victims. According to him, Iftikhar al-Dawla and his men were spared, but in the al-Aqsa mosque more than 70,000 people were killed during a week-long massacre. However, this account was written more than 200 years after the events and does not match contemporary Syrian sources.

This raises a valid question: why did Western sources choose to emphasize the scale of the massacre, while Arab, Syrian, and Greek sources did not? The answer is biblical. The authors wrote an allegory in which the fall of Jerusalem was adapted from the Book of Revelation (14:19–20).

 

QUESTION – So Christian sources exaggerated the violence and number of victims to create a biblical connection?

ANSWER – Yes, the authors intended to present the First Crusade as part of a providential history, with the battle of Armageddon, the end of the world, and Christ’s second coming at the end.

The Bible ends with Revelation, and the First Crusade ended with the conquest of Jerusalem: this dramatic parable was chosen because it placed the crusaders within God’s great design.

 

The role of the Church in the Crusades

QUESTION – What was the Church’s real role in the Crusades?

ANSWER – In my view, the Crusades were originally a popular movement over which the popes were able to exercise only partial control.

There was nothing new in the papal preaching of 1095: Urban II’s predecessor, Gregory VII, had tried to launch a very similar initiative, without success.

However, in 1095 the atmosphere was different. The fact that the first contingents reached Constantinople as early as late spring to early summer of 1096 can only be explained by the fact that the masses were already on the move when the Pope began to preach.

Throughout the long 12th century, many revivalist movements emerged in Western Christendom. Many of these, including the Crusades (the largest among them), were embraced by official Catholic doctrine, while others were condemned as heretical.

 

QUESTION – How did Church authorities relate to these popular movements?

ANSWER – The popes authorised their legates to preach the Crusades, and these legates often accompanied the armies during the expeditions.

Moreover, there were known charismatic preachers who were not authorised, yet managed to attract followers. According to sources, these groups could incite unrest.

As large crusading armies moved across Europe, pogroms often occurred. Crusaders heading East generally refrained from attacking Jews and settled for bribes, but the real threat came from other groups made up of anti-Semites and commoners eager to loot and kill their neighbours.

During the First and Third Crusades, Jewish communities were subjected to serious attacks in the Rhineland and in England.

 

QUESTION – And the Church? How did it respond to antisemitism?

ANSWER – The Church sought to protect Jewish communities, with mixed results.

In the case of the Second Crusade, Bernard of Clairvaux, a papal legate, succeeded in preventing outbreaks of antisemitism even before they began, forcing a violent monk-preacher to return to his monastery.

 

The ambivalent case of the Crusades

QUESTION – You’ve been studying the Crusades for a long time. What fascinates you?

ANSWER – I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that faith can drive people to perform such extraordinary acts.

For a modern person, the idea of giving everything up to walk thousands of kilometres toward an unknown destination, at great expense and risk to one’s life and safety, is hard to grasp.

I have been – and remain – struck by the complexity of human motivation: we can be cruel and kind, greedy and generous, loyal and selfish at the same time; and we are often absolutely convinced of the righteousness of our cause, never questioning our motives.

 

---

Read all the other “Friday Interviews”.