in nomine dei: ecclesial attempts to control medieval warfare

8/7/2019 In Nomine Dei: Ecclesial Attempts to Control Medieval Warfare

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-nomine-dei-ecclesial-attempts-to-control-medieval-warfare 1/15

In Nomine Dei:Ecclesial Attempts to Control Medieval Warfare

Thomas Bailey, OSBHS 690: Independent Study, ³The Feudal World´

December 17, 2010



Bailey 1

During the periods of persecutions against the Christian church, the martyrs willingly

went to their deaths refusing to fight back. They felt compelled to ³turn the other cheek´ as they

had been commanded by Jesus of Nazareth. When the first Christian emperor of Rome began to

favor Christians throughout the empire, and later when Christianity was made the state religion

of Rome, new questions were raised about the legitimate use of armed force in maintenance of a

Christian empire. War was baptized along with other parts of pre-Christian Rome. Ambrose of

Milan and Augustine of Hippo placed limits and duties on the iustum bellum. In the martial era

of the medieval world these principles were not always followed, to the horror of some

churchmen. An attempt was made therefore, on the part of the Roman Church, to redirect the

innate desire for war to what was seen as a more constructive outlet, i.e. the Crusades.

The world into which Ambrose of Milan (c.340-397) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

had been born was a perilous one. Germanic invaders were threatening to destroy the empire, as

they had already conquered vast areas of Gaul, the Iberian Peninsula, and North Africa. The

invaders, seen as barbarians, were the enemies of culture and order, which was symbolized by

the empire. It was the order, seen by the Roman Christians has having been established by God,

that was to spread the message of Christianity to the world. The myth surrounding the Battle of

the Milvian Bridge had been the link. In the popular imagination of Christian Rome,

Constantine was the ³Lord¶s Anointed´ who brought a return to the Pax Romana. The German

threat was made worse because the majority of the tribes were Arians; so there was an added

connection to them as destroyers of that which was holy, i.e. orthodoxy.

Ambrose had been the imperial governor in Milan before he was consecrated as bishop of

that city. His background suited him to a sympathetic position to the defense of the state. As an

educated man he was also well versed in Roman political discourse and so his principal work



Bailey 2

that touches on just war theory, On the Duties of the Clergy, is seen by some scholars to be a

reworking of Cicero¶s De O fficiis. He borrowed from this text two principles: mercy is to be

given for those who ask and honesty in dealing with the enemy.1

An addition to the classical

interpretation was Ambrose¶s insertion that clerics were to abstain from violence, ³the thought of

warlike matters seems to be foreign to the duty of our office « nor is it our business to look to

arms, but rather to the affairs of peace.´2

There remained therefore some reluctance for a total

espousal of violence in the defense of the state. Just war was a duty, but it was a lesser duty. For

those called to the defense of the empire, it was an absolute duty.

Ambrose justified war in the context of a moral or religious duty incumbent upon

Christians by appealing to the Hebrew Scriptures, in particular the conquest of Canaan and the

Maccabean Revolt. In each of these cases war was not sought for its own benefit or proof of

manly prowess, but in defense of righteousness. Ambrose used Moses as an example for the

maintenance of justice and good will in a community, which was created through duty and

mutual support. He wrote, ³Moses feared not to undertake terrible wars for his people¶s sake «

so as to give freedom to the people.´3 Freedom within the Jewish and Christian context referred

to the Covenant between God and the Chosen People. Moses¶ wars therefore can be seen as a

defense of the promise of God to provide a land and for the ability of the people to fulfill their

obligation through rituals and customs. In the context of the Roman Empire ± which is seen as

an instrument for evangelization ± that which was applied to Israel and Judah is now transferred

to Rome in the same way that the New Covenant was seen to replace the Old Covenant.

1Roland H. Bainton, ³The Theory of Just War in the Christian Roman Empire,´ in Christian Attitudes Toward War

and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 90.2 Ambrose of Milan On the Duties of the Clergy 1.35.75. 3 Ambrose, 1.28.135.



Bailey 3

Augustine of Hippo built upon the foundation of his teacher to create for the Western

world the rules of the iustum bellum. Like Ambrose before him, the Hebrew Scriptures were the

justification to preserve what Jesus of Nazareth had won on the cross. Augustine lived to see

Alaric sack Rome and the Vandals capturing Africa, in fact he died in the same year that the

Vandals besieged Hippo, and it affected his outlook on human nature. In the earthly city,

perfection was not attainable and so salvation ± the heavenly city ± was of supreme importance.

It was not the protection of the state that allowed one to raise arms against another, but to

safeguard against the destruction of the soul.

Augustine did not write a treatise on just war, but applied principles to various situations

that his community faced. Again, like Ambrose, he drew upon his educated background to use

the systems already established by Plato and Cicero, but by adding a Christian ethos to the

theories.4

The system created by Augustine had five principle points: right intention; just cause;

conducted by legitimate authority; as a last resort; and properly conducted. Augustine having

not set out to establish a system did not precisely define the meaning of each. For instance

Augustine quotes the Matthean Gospel passage (Matt. 26:51,52) in which Jesus rebukes Peter for

cutting off the ear of the high priest¶s slave. In his interpretation, Peter erred because he did not

possess the authority to attack, i.e. wage war. The ability to wage war lies with the ³constituted

authority.´5

The meaning of who constitutes authority is open to interpretation. Augustine and

Ambrose seem certain that private individuals do not possess the right to kill anyone and

therefore it devolves to the state.6

It was removed from the private citizens to make because they

were unable to be dispassionate. He wrote, ³the wars of Moses « carried on by divine

4Bainton, 95.

5 Augustine of Hippo Against Faustus 22.70.6 Bainton, 97-98.



Bailey 4

command, he showed not ferocity « acted not in cruelty « and warning those who needed

warning.´7

The legitimate authority was to ensure that the other four elements were followed

properly. As violence for the sake of violence seemed to spread in Western Europe during the

Middle Ages, the monarchs were being neglectful of their duty.

At a regional council held at Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II (c.1035-1099) spoke to the

assembled noblemen and asked them to travel to the Holy Lands in order to reclaim the land for

Christ. His action launched the First Crusade, which ended with the capture of Jerusalem in

1099. Urban was not the first pope to have called for a crusade however. Pope Gregory VII

(c.1015/28-1085) made the first attempt in 1074. Gregory is generally known for his dispute

with the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (1050-1106), but his involvement in the crusading

movement cannot be divorced from his reforming policies.

The principles involved in the investiture controversy did not begin with Gregory VII and

Henry IV. Its origins date back to the fifth century and the rise of the papal monarchy. Popes

Leo I (c.400-461) and Gelasius I (d.496) attempted to solidify their spiritual and temporal

authority because of threats to orthodox belief by monophysitism. Leo was able to confine

himself to the spiritual realm only; but as the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I (d.518) involved

himself in the Acacian Schism, Gelasius needed to establish authority in the secular realm as the

final arbiter in spiritual matters. In Duo Sunt Gelasius expounded upon what became known as

the Two-Swords Theory. In this theory there are two authorities, the spiritual and the secular,

and the spiritual is more important. Normally the spiritual authority allows the secular to act as it

sees fit, unless it acts against orthodox belief or engages in immoral conduct; in such cases the

spiritual authority is bound to intervene.8 The result of this method of argument is that ecclesial

7 Augustine, 22.74.8 Gelasius, Duo Sunt.



Bailey 5

authorities attempt to influence political decisions, particularly in those cases that affected the

Roman Church.

Gregory VII was interested in reforming the Roman Church so that it could fulfill the

mission entrusted to it by Jesus of Nazareth. In order to do so he needed to assert his authority

over the secular rulers who were seen as unjustly interfering with the Church for their own ends.

He met with some successes and many failures, but in examining these situations we can

understand Gregory¶s mentality. In his crusade summons the ³authority of St. Peter´ was

invoked to persuade the nobles and men-at-arms of Europe to ´undertake the difficult task of

bearing aid to your brethren.´

9

The usage of St. Peter¶s authority is meant to convey the

superiority of the spiritual over the secular. It was a familiar phrase in the lexicon of Pope

Gregory VII as well as previous and future popes.

In the same year that Gregory made his call for armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem he also

wrote to the Hungarian king. In this letter he chastised King Solomon (1053-1081) for his action

that was ³grievously offensive against St. Peter.´ The act was accepting the crown of Hungary

from Emperor Henry IV. In the rebuke, Gregory cites several precedents indicating his

suzerainty over Hungary: the vassalage of King Stephen (d.1038) in 1000 to Pope Sylvester II

(d.1003); Emperor Henry III¶s (1017-1056) recognition of papal authority over Hungary by

sending the ³insignia of sovereignty´ to Pope Leo IX; and Henry III¶s gift of a spear and crown

to the shrine of St. Peter.10 The spear and crown is a vital connection in papal authority over

secular rulers. The symbolic nature of these gifts was that it was St. Peter who had led the

imperial armies to victory ± the victory was St. Peter¶s. The understanding of saint-generals

9Gregory VII, ³Call for a Crusade, 1074,´ translated by Oliver Thatcher, in A Source Book for Medieval History,

edited by Edgar McNeal (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513.10 Gregory VII, ³Letter to King Solomon of Hungary, October 1074,´ in The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII ,

translated by E. Emerton (New York: Octagon Books, 1932), 48-49.



Bailey 6

leading armies was not foreign to medieval mythology. St. James was often credited with

Christian victories over Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula and St. George was seen as aiding the

English during their campaigns. To the victor goes the spoils for St. Peter had proven in trial by

combat his right to administer the Kingdom of Hungary. King Solomon was aligned with Henry

IV during the Investiture Controversy therefore an attack on the validity of Henry¶s vassal can be

interpreted as propaganda. Nevertheless it still goes to the core of the principle that Gregory was

attempting to make ± the authority of the Roman Church was absolute.

The letter Gregory VII wrote to Henry IV in December 1073 claimed that Henry violated

the liberties of God and St. Peter. He uses two biblical kings to illustrate a good and bad king.

King Saul was made king by God but gave the glory and credit to himself, therefore, God took it

away from him. King David on the other hand was blessed ³by reason of his humility.´11

The

threat was clear; divine retribution awaited Henry if he continued to defy the will of the papacy.

It needs to be kept in mind that it was not simply a power grab on the part of Gregory VII. There

was much reform in the Church and in society that needed to be done and the papacy saw the

secular rulers as doing nothing to stop it.

The acquisition and maintenance of kingdoms, principalities, earldoms, baronies,

dukedoms, and counties created large amounts of violence ± seemingly endless private warfare.

It is nearly impossible to see any of these wars fitting the description of iustum bellum. They

were vindictive, overtly destructive, easily begun and hard to end, etc. The effects were

devastating to the non-combatant population who were subject to starvation, pestilence, rape, and

pillaging. Various regional councils of the Roman Church attempted to reign in the destructive

nature of these wars to maintain a small amount of peace and prosperity. The Pax et Treuga Dei

11Gregory VII, ³Letter to Henry IV, December 1073,´ in Those Who Prayer: An Anthology of Medieval Sources,

edited by Peter Speed (New York: Italica Press, 1997), 253-254.



Bailey 7

was the result, placing restrictions on when, where, and upon whom warfare took place. Several

holy days and liturgical seasons were times in which war was prohibited. Warriors were also

forbidden to attack peasants and clerics or anyone who took sanctuary in a holy place, such as a

church. The penalties for violating God¶s Truce and Peace were steep, excommunication and

eternal damnation.

The ecclesial attempts to maintain peace had limited success. Greater structure to

warfare was gained as lords, having amassed enormous power, began to exert control over their

vassals. A byproduct of the peace was restlessness amongst the knightly class and so

tournaments grew in number and popularity. The tournaments were designed to allow knights

the opportunity to display their knightly prowess, skills in weaponry, and bravery. In reality they

were small battlefield engagements. The intentions of the participants were not to kill their

opponents, but many men were killed and severely maimed in these games. The way the

tournaments were viewed by church reformers was as wars without any purpose, where Christian

killed or injured a fellow Christian for entertainment. They were antithetical to iutsum bellum.

The contemporaneity of the call for crusade and the investiture controversy cannot be

separated. In a divinely ordained hierarchy, the usurpation of power of one order from the other

is a grave injustice. Injustices needed to be rectified; if princes or priests did not avenge the evil

done, God¶s punishment followed. The princely rulers were entrusted by God to protect their

subjects from harm and violence, even self-induced violence. It is not a leap to see the harm

inflicted on the peasants because of warfare and knights at tournaments as God¶s punishment

upon a sinful Europe that refused to amend its ways. Gregory saw his duty therefore to right the

wrong by redirecting the knightly energy to a right intention and just cause. In order do so, he



Bailey 8

needed to prove that he was the legitimate authority. He was not novel in his approach ± the

spiritual realm controlled the temporal.

In a few words, Gregory VII made his case for the crusade:

a pagan race had overcome the Christians and with horrible cruelty had devastatedeverything « governing the conquered lands with tyrannical violence, and «

slain many thousands of Christians as if they were but sheep. « [S]imply togrieve is not our whole duty. The example of our Redeemer and the bond of

fraternal love demand that we should lay down our lives to liberate them.12

He laid out the criteria for iustum bellum. The intention was based in a love of God and their

fellow Christian, not for vengeance against the ³Saracen.´ The murder of Christian provided the

just cause. The belief that the Islamic rulers were ³tyrannical´ meant that no diplomacy or

discourse was possible. Only two of the criteria were not expressly mentioned, legitimate

authority and right conduct. It is here that the supreme authority of the papacy was needed to

rally Europe outside of its internal boundaries for the greater good, the defense of Christendom.

And since the war was to be conducted under the auspices of the Roman See, it would have been

properly conducted under the banner of St. Peter.

The political situation failed for Pope Gregory VII to achieve his goal of a united

Christendom under papal authority that could again become a force for the pacification, i.e.

Christianization, of the world. Despite little change in the political situation, Pope Urban II

(c.1035-1099) was able to call successfully a crusade in 1095. The Concordat of Worms, which

ended the first phase of the Investiture Controversy, was twenty-seven years in the future and the

emperors and popes still squabbled over superiority and rights.

There are five differing versions of the famous speech given by Urban to the assembly at

Clermont: Fulcher of Chartres (b. c.1059); Robert the Monk; the anonymous Gesta version (c.

1100); Balderic of Dol (c.1050-1130); and Guibert Nogent (c.1055-1124). All were written after

12 Gregory VII, ³Crusade,´ 512-513.



Bailey 9

the events and some were present while others were not. Nevertheless there is a similarity in

theme. Robert¶s version contains variations that are helpful in understanding the tenor of

Urban¶s message and what allowed his call to succeed.

Robert began with an appeal to flattery, equating the French as the ³race chosen and

beloved by God.´13

The biblical imagery was a two-sided compliment for it contained a subtle

reference to a need for repentance. According to the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish people often

strayed from the covenant. The result was God inflicting punishment on them so that they repent

and return to following God¶s commandments. It was meant to instill in the French repentance.

Robert¶s version leaves the reason for repentance unanswered until later. He instead begins to

describe the great atrocities inflicted upon Christians in the Levant by ³a race utterly alienated

from God.´ The cruelty described was meant to inflame the passions of the hearers;

interspersing religious desecration with accounts of raping women and leading men around on

leashes of their own intestines.14

It is evident that the Urban of Robert¶s memory attempted to apply the Augustinian

criteria to the situation he faced. His greeting was more than flattery and a call to repentance; it

established a movement toward right intention. As a holy people there are certain expectations

for them, such as prayer and alms giving. Urban demanded more from them. The Israelites had

to travel to the Promised Land and when they arrived they had to fight for it because it was

God¶s will. The new Israelites were being called to do the same, follow God¶s will as it was

explained to them by Urban. Augustine of Hippo¶s formula for just cause was ³[t]hose wars may

13Penny Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270 (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy

of America, 1991), 13.14 Robert the Monk, ³Historia Hierosolymitana,´ translated by Oliver Thatcher in A Source Book for Medieval

History, edited by Edgar McNeal (New York: Scribners, 1905), 518.



Bailey 10

be defined as just which avenge injuries.´15

Urban¶s examples, which are told in the other

versions as well, were chosen because they were abominable to an honor-bound society. The

raping of women called into question offspring¶s legitimacy and right of inheritance, as well as,

degraded a man¶s martial prowess being unable to defend women. The use of intestinal leashes

was a reference to domestication of animals, equating fighting men with tame puppies. These

were injuries that demanded justice.16

³On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these

wrongs « if not upon you?´17

Robert¶s record then returned to flattery, but it is focused on reminding the French of the

great deeds their ancestors had performed. The Frankish hero, Charlemagne (d.814), is invoked

and praised for his victories over pagan kings and expanding Christendom. He then returns to

the theme of repentance, outlining the sins of the French. He spoke of France as too small for its

population, unable to provide the necessary resources. The lack of resources, he claimed, led to

murder, war, and hatred, which are symbols of the petty feudal squabbles and tournaments.

Instead, the French should reconcile themselves to one another and take possession of the land

given to the ³children of Israel.´ He ended the speech with the granting of remission of sins to

any who partook the journey. And the crowd responded, ³Deus vult! Deus vult!´18

The criteria of just cause, legitimate authority, and proper conduct are treated in the final

section of Urban II¶s speech. The preservation of peace and order was an ideal sought by

religious and secular leaders of the medieval world, though not often attained. An element of

peace was unity and cohesion amongst Christians. The statements on the misdeeds of the French

15Augustine of Hippo, ³Exposition on Psalm 45,´ quoted in Roland H. Bainton, ³The Theory of Just War in the

Christian Roman Empire,´ in Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-

evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 96.16

Cole, 14.17 Robert, 519.18 Ibid, 519-520.



Bailey 11

therefore need to be understood in this context. In the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus in the

Gospel of John, he prayed for the unity of Christians.19

The unity desired by Jesus was an

important motivation for medieval churchmen; it was the foundation for the desire to establish

Christendom. The senselessness of Christian attacking and/or killing a fellow Christian appalled

them, especially if there was a greater need. The crusade can be seen as a means to unite

Christians together in a common cause, as such, the crusades were justifiable under Just War

Theory on this account alone.

The invocation of Charlemagne is recorded only in Robert the Monk¶s version. The

rallying of French valor is implied, but again there is more to the symbol presented.

Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III (750-816), which in the papal understanding implied

submission of the emperor to the pope. It is not to justify the position of Urban II because during

the reign of Charlemagne the goals of the empire were seen to coincide with the Church. They

worked together in a symbiotic relationship. The statements in Robert¶s version described

Charlemagne extending the ³territory of the holy church.´20 By this is meant that dioceses and

religious houses were established and endowed, but also that Christianity was spread and

prospered. It is the cooperation of the secular and spiritual realm that was the animating force

behind the appeal. Urban was not forced to concede temporal authority nor was he required to

yield it; instead he proposed the right ordering, which meant the spiritual did not need to

interfere in the secular. When the right ordering of the spiritual and secular realms occurs there

was seen to be right conduct. Additionally, the expedition was called a pilgrimage and the

requirements of that status needed to be fulfilled.

19 John 17:2120 Robert, 518.



Bailey 12

The dangers of fifth century Rome did not differ greatly from those enjoined upon the

people live in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The principle difference was the enemy was no

longer a foreigner speaking a strange tongue, but your neighbor. Following Augustine of

Hippo¶s lead, the papacy of the High Middle Ages recognized war and violence as an innate part

of life. Instead of doing the impossible, eradicating it, they attempted to give it structure and

develop ethical war. The presumed interference of religious leaders into the affairs of secular

leaders was not welcome, creating more difficulties. The struggles between church and state

need therefore to be seen within the context of the rise of the crusades and the directing of

warfare against disunity amongst Christians and unite them against a common enemy.

The delicate intertwining of the Investiture Controversy and the Crusades can be easily

missed in the modern area of over-specialization. Certainly this paper does not definitely answer

the question of their connection, but hopefully it does open new ideas for exploration. The

medieval world was fascinated with unity and order, and so to divide segments that are so

closely related in time does a disservice to the people who lived during the period.



Bailey 13

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Ambrose of Milan. ³On the Duties of the Clergy.´ In Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters,edited by Philip Schaff. 24-174. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library,

2004, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.html.

Augustine of Hippo. ³Against Faustus.´ In Augustine: The Writings Against the Maincheans and Against the Donatists, edited by Philip Schaff, 191-481. New York: The Christian

Literature Publishing Company, 1890, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/nnpnf104.html.

Bernard of Clairvaux. ³In Praise of the New Knighthood.´ Translated by Jean Leclercq.In Treatises III , introduction by Bernard McGinn. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications,

1977.

Fulcher of Chartres. ³Gesta Francorum Jerusalem Expugnatium.´ Translated by Oliver Thatcher.In A Source Book for Medieval History, edited by Edgar McNeal, 513-517. New York:

Scribners, 1905.

Gelasius. ³Duo Sunt.´ Translated by J.H. Robinson. In Readings in European History, edited by James Robinson, 72-73. Boston: Ginn, 1905.

Gregory VII. ³Call for a Crusade, 1074.´ Translated by Oliver Thatcher. In A Source Book for

Medieval History, edited by Edgar McNeal, 512-513. New York: Scribners, 1905.

__________. ³Letter to King Solomon of Hungary, October 1074.´ In The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII , translated by E. Emerton, 48-49. New York: Octagon Books, 1932.

__________. ³Letter to Henry IV, December 1073.´ In Those Who Prayer: An Anthology of

Medieval Sources, edited by Peter Speed, 253-254. New York: Italica Press, 1997.

Henry IV. ³Letter to Gregory VII, January 1076.´ In Those Who Prayer: An Anthology of Medieval Sources, edited by Peter Speed, 254-255. New York: Italica Press, 1997.

Robert the Monk. ³Historia Hierosolymitana.´ Translated by Oliver Thatcher. In A Source Book for Medieval History, edited by Edgar McNeal, 517-521. New York: Scribners, 1905.

Secondary Sources:

Bainton, Roland H., ³The Theory of Just War in the Christian Roman Empire.´ In Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation,

85-100. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960.



Bailey 14

Claster, Jill. Sacred Violece: The European Crusades to the Middle East, 1095-1396 . Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2009.

Cole, Penny. The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270. Cambridge, MA:

Medieval Academy of America, 1991.

Kaeuper, Richard. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999.

______________. Holy Warriors: The Religious Ideology of Chivalry. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Maier, Christoph. Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the

Cross. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Nicholson, Helen, ed. The Crusades. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Partner, Peter. God of Battles: Holy Wars of Christianity and Islam. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1997.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading . Philadelphia University

of Pennsylvania Press, 1986.

Rist, Rebecca. The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198-1245. London: Continuum, 2009.

Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. The Papacy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

Swanson, R.N. Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215-c.1515. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995

Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050-1300. Reprint. Toronto: Medieval

Academy of America, 1988.

Tyerman, Christopher. God¶s War: A New History of the Crusades. Cambridge: Belknap Press,2006.

in nomine dei: ecclesial attempts to control medieval warfare

Documents