On this day in France, November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II gave a ringing sermon that set in motion what later became known as the First Crusade, and a new concept of Christian holy war that would last for centuries. Urban presented the crusade as a war of defense (against Muslim aggression) and repossession (of the holy lands). But were these really his motives for preaching a holy war?

Perhaps not. Palestine had been in Muslim hands since the 7th century -- not a fresh wound -- and the threat of Islamic aggression had presented itself on-and-off for decades without any response from Rome. Christian territory in Asia Minor had been lost, true, but there was no serious pan-Islamic threat to the Eastern Orthodox empire; Islam was more fragmented and internally conflicted than ever before (which is exactly why the First Crusade was able to succeed). And despite Urban's lurid account of Muslim atrocities, the reality was that Islam and Christianity had been co-existing in relative peace for centuries. The recent conflict in Asia Minor was typical of military struggles which flared up from time to time. Urban certainly exploited the eastern call for military help, and capitalized on a golden opportunity to take back the holy lands, but those probably weren't his real reasons for summoning a holy war to begin with.

Many historians tell us that Urban was more proactive than reactive, designing the crusade to meet his own needs: to consolidate papal power and expand his sphere of influence. According to William of Malmesbury, Urban engineered the holy war in order to gain popularity and create enough upheaval to allow him to recapture Rome from the anti-pope Clement -- a stooge of Urban's worst enemy, Emperor Henry IV.

But why would the crusade make Urban so popular? By making warfare sacred under the right conditions, he was able to address the spiritual dilemma of medieval knights whose violence had been tearing apart Europe for the past century (the 1000's were the worst in French history), and which the pacifistic Peace of God movement had tried in vain to remedy. "You who have been the terror of your fellow men, go and fight against the infidel," preached Urban. By demonizing the Islamic world, Urban was able to channel violence abroad and make bloodshed -- for the first time ever -- holy and penitential. In the words of a medieval preacher: "By this kind of warfare, people make their way to heaven who perhaps would never reach it by another road." That's hard for us to respect even from a distance (and unacceptable theology in today's world), but it made sense in a medieval context. Knights and nobles lived for combat; their honor depended on it.

Urban's overriding agenda, in other words, was to establish his position in Italy. He needed the popularity and power that would turn the tide against his secular enemies, and the crusade gave him both. Knights now had an unprecedented opportunity to slaughter "infidels" for the remission of their sins. It's no exaggeration to say that the First Crusade was primarily about exporting violence in a time of internal chaos for France. In the process, to be sure, the pope hoped to achieve solidarity with the eastern churches and recover the holy places. But these goals were subordinate to his immediate agenda at home, as he struggled to stay on top of secular authorities and their influence -- particularly that of the Holy Roman Emperor -- and to win the hearts of the laity.

To learn more about the fascinating (and often disturbing) era of the crusades, check out various books from the library's history section, such as:

God's War: A New History of the Crusades, by Christopher Tyerman. The most up-to-date and comprehensive treatment of the crusades written by an Oxford scholar. See the endorsements of this book, and also check out Tyerman's online interview.

The Atlas of the Crusades, edited by Jonathan Riley-Smith. The best visual resource for the crusades. Highly detailed, with color plating. Riley-Smith is today's leading historian on the crusades.

The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, by Amin Maalouf. An important account of the crusades from an Arabic perspective.

The Crusades: The Essential Readings, edited by Thomas Madden. An assortment of essays, each of which broke important ground in crusade scholarship.

What Were the Crusades?, by Jonathan Riley-Smith. Assesses different understandings of the crusades.

The First Crusade: A New History, by Thomas Asbridge. The most up-to-date account of the First Crusade. It reads almost like a novel in some parts. Like Tyerman, Asbridge emphasizes the proactive rather than reactive nature of Urban's crusade.