The Call to Arms

One of many unexplained mysteries about the Albigensian Crusade was the success of its formation.  While medieval chroniclers cannot usually be trusted with the estimation of large numbers, it is generally agreed that the crusading army which marched into Languedoc in the summer of 1209 was truly vast.  Unlike the forces of the Third Crusade, this army was not organized and supported by any great monarch.  In fact, although Philip Augustus of France was entreated by the Pope to lead this crusade, or at least appoint “some worthy man” to do so on his behalf, he refused both requests and limited the numbers of men who could accompany the two vassals whom he did allow to go.

The problem of mustering large numbers of crusaders for a venture without royal support had been apparent only five years earlier in Pope Innocent III’s efforts to launch the Fourth Crusade.  Famously, although Venice was contracted to transport 33,500 men, only about 12,000 arrived after years of preaching and attempts at organization.  This shortfall, leaving the crusade itself in serious debt to the Venetians, is often seen as the major factor contributing to the diversion of that crusade to Zara and then Constantinople.  The Fourth Crusade, which culminated in an excommunicated crusading army sacking Christian cities, was an utter debacle which must have given pause to anyone contemplating the start of another holy war.

Only four years passed between news of the Sack of Constantinople and the preaching of the Albigensian crusade.  Yet despite the failure of the last great crusading endeavour and the repeated failure to secure royal support for this new crusade, a very substantial army gathered from across Europe and descended upon Beziers.  William of Tudela claims that 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 commoners formed the majority of the army, while William the Breton refers to “infinite numbers” from France.  While accurate numbers may be elusive, it was clearly an army of massive size.  How, then, are we to account for the success of this papal call to arms?

It must, of course, be noted that the redemption of crusading vows in the Languedoc was logistically much easier than in the Holy Land.  It was less expensive and far less time consuming for European warriors to journey to the Midi than to the crusader states in the Middle East.  For those already committed to crusading, whether to perform penance, to gain a crusader’s indulgence, for spiritual fulfillment or to make use of the various financial incentives available, the Albigensian crusade must have seemed a much less burdensome choice.  Yet this explanation alone does not address why this vast number of men became convinced to go on any crusade at all.  For that, we must understand the benefits of crusading and how this crusade was presented by the Church.

Crusaders benefited from a sort of privileged social status in general, fulfilling a special obligation to God by following Christ militarily.  As soon as they took their crusading vows, they sewed a cloth cross onto their clothing to display this special status and to claim its advantages.  Going on a crusade, a sort of armed pilgrimage, was not only portrayed as being a “soldier of Christ” and part of the “army of God”, but as being literally Christ-like.  Although we cannot know the inner thoughts of the crusaders, we know the content of crusade sermons directed at them and the words of contemporary Church chroniclers about them.  In these sources their acts of war, even the massacres of civilians, were divine judgement of which they served as the instruments, just as Christ served as the instrument of salvation.  The sources betray no contradiction between Christ’s message and the bloody slaughter in which they engaged, because they all too often did not represent Christ as the purveyor of a message of peace.  The Cistercian Bernard of Clairvaux, sometimes called “the most admired churchman of his age” had given striking but hardly unique support for bloodshed in the name of Christ in his De Laude Novae Militiae:

“The knights of Christ can fight the battles of their Lord with complete tranquility of conscience, fearing neither sin if they kill the enemy, nor the danger of being killed themselves. For to inflict death or to suffer death for Christ has nothing criminal about it, but rather brings an abundant claim to glory. By the first he gives glory to Christ, by the latter, he gains Christ Himself. The Lord, without a doubt, gladly accepts the death of the enemy as punishment; and yet more gladly gives Himself to the fallen knight as consolation.

The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he kills, and serves himself when he dies. Nor does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister to punish the evildoers and to exalt the good. When he kills an evildoer, he is not a murderer, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. It is necessary to see him as both the avenger at the service of Christ and the protector of the Christian people. Should he be killed himself, however, we know that he has not perished but has achieved eternal glory.

Therefore, the death he inflicts is to Christ’s profit, and the death he receives is for his own gain. The Christian rejoices in the death of the pagan because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives the King occasion to show his liberality by rewarding the deserving knight. In the first case, the just man shall rejoice when he sees the punishment of the evil man. And in the latter, he will say, ‘Truly there is a reward for the just. Truly it is God who judges the earth.’”

In addition to the sophistry of Bernard and his colleagues as their apologists, the crusaders enjoyed the protection of the Church for their properties while they were on crusade and the forgiveness of sins (both those committed before and during the crusade).  Due to special new innovations by Innocent III, they were also relieved of any obligation to pay interest on debts owed to Jews and could, in fact, reclaim previous interest payments paid to Jews.

The topic of how crusades were preached and propagandized is a difficult one to approach.  I’ve just finished reading Christoph Maier’s “Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross”.  Maier points out that in the mid-thirteenth century, the papacy gained an invaluable tool for the dissemination of crusade propaganda in the two preaching orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans.  As these two orders were formed after the preaching of the Albigensian crusade, it can be assumed that the avenues of dissemination available to Innocent III in 1208 were less efficient.  Maier cautions that his sources, model sermons composed in the second half of the 13^th century and after, do not necessarily represent what was actually preached, nor do they address the inducements to crusade which existed apart from sermons.  In general, however, sources do not tell us much about these.  They say that the crusade was preached, but do not recount how.  We know that Pope Innocent III commanded all the French clergy to preach the Crusade in October of 1208, but not what they preached.  And while the contribution of the clergy was doubtless substantial it is likely that the most important means by which the crusade was publicized was through the Cistercian order, often called the “white monks” because of their white robes.

Not only were the Cistercians key to preaching previous crusades to the Holy Land, they were the preferred instrument of Innocent III’s papacy.  Elaine Graham-Leigh in “The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade” points out the great importance Innocent III placed on the Cistercians:

“Pope Innocent was an admirer of the Cistercian order who showed his intention to use Cistercians in many areas during his pontificate by adopting the rota circle device and motto of the Cistercian Pope Eugenius III, ‘fac mecum signum in bonum’, as his own on his accession, and papal legations to Languedoc under Innocent became increasingly Cistercian in character.  That Innocent intended the extirpation of heresy from Languedoc to be the task of the Cistercian order is demonstrated by his choice of Arnauld Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, as chief papal legate to Languedoc in 1204, an appointment which would have facilitated and encouraged the involvement of other Cistercians, such as Abbot Guy des Vaux-de-Cernay and Abbot Foulques of Thoronet, against heresy and efforts such as the preaching campaign of twelve Cistercian abbots in 1207.”

Graham-Leigh goes on to point out that the murdered legate, Peter of Castelnau, and his colleague Raoul were Cistercians.   It could be added that Arnau Amalric in 1209 was not just the head of the Cistercian order and a papal legate, but the leader of the crusade itself until the appointment of Simon de Montfort.  

Some indication of the order’s role in the preaching the crusade can be found in the primary sources.  William of Tudela describes the meeting in Rome at which the Pope heard of Peter of Castelnau’s death and decided on a crusade.

“The abbot of Citeaux, however, sat with his head bent.  Then he rose and, standing by a marble column, said to the pope: ‘By St Martin, this talking is a waste of time!  Come, have your letters written in good Latin, and then I can set off.  Send them to France, to the Limousin, to Poitou, the Auvergne and Perigord; have the indulgence proclaimed here too and all over the world as far as Constantinople.  Proclaim that any man who does not take the cross shall drink no wine, shall not eat off a cloth morning or night, shall wear neither linen nor hemp and when he dies shall lie unburied like a dog.’  He fell silent, and his advice seemed right to all who were there.

Everyone greatly respected the abbot of Citeaux (who later became archbishop of Narbonne, the best who ever wore mitre there), and when he had spoken, no one said a word.  Then the pope, looking thoroughly unhappy, spoke as follows: ‘Go to Carcassonne, brother, and to great Toulouse on the Garonne and lead the armies against the ungodly.  Cleanse the troops from their sins in the name of Christ, and in my name preach to them and exhort them to drive the heretics out from amongst the virtuous.’  After that, at about the hour of none, the abbot left the town and spurred hard on his way, accompanied by the archbishop of Tarragona, by the bishops of Lerida, of Barcelona and of Maguelonne near Montpellier and, from beyond the Spanish passes, those of Pamplona, Burgos and Tarazona.  All these rode with the abbot of Citeaux.

As soon as they had taken leave, the abbot mounted and rode to Citeaux, where all the white monks who wore mitres had gathered for the chapter-general on the feast of the Holy Cross in summer, as is their custom.  In the presence of the whole assembly he sang mass and after that he preached to them and showed every one of them his letter and explained that they were to go here and there about the world, over the whole length and breadth of holy Christendom.

Then, once they knew that their sins would be forgiven, men took the cross in France and all over the kingdom.  Never in my life have I seen such a gathering as that one they made against the heretics and clog-wearers!  The duke of Burgundy took the cross there and so did the count of Nevers and many great men.  What they must have cost, those gold embroidered crosses and bands of silk which they displayed on the right breast!  Nor shall I try to tell you how they were armed, equipped and mounted, nor about the iron-clad horses and their emblazoned trappings, for God has made never a clerk or a scholar clever enough to tell you the half of it, nor to list all the abbots and the priests who gathered there in the host that lay on the plains outside Beziers.”

This account does indeed seem to give primacy to the efforts of the Cistercians to spread the word of the crusade.  While no crusade sermons survive from this time, Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay gives in his Historia Albigensis a copy of a letter from Innocent III, parts of which may be as close to a crusade sermon as we will find.  It bases the whole matter of the crusade on the murder of Peter of Castlenau, now presented as holy martyrdom:

“Innocent, servant of the servants of God, sends greetings and his apostolic blessing to his beloved children, the noble counts and barons and all the people of the provinces of Narbonne, Arles, Embrun, Aix and Vienne.

News has reached us of a cruel deed which must surely bring grief on the whole Church.  Brother Peter of Castelnau of blessed memory, monk and priest, a man surely renowned amongst righteous men for the conduct of his life, his learning and his high reputation, was sent by us with others to the South to preach peace and support the faith.  He had performed the tasks entrusted to him in distinguished fashion, and was indeed still doing so, since all that he taught he had learnt in the school of Christ, and by holding fast to arguments which were faithful to the true doctrine he could both encourage his hearers with wholesome teaching and confute objectors.  He was always ready to give an answer to every man who questioned him, as a man Catholic in faith, experienced in the law and eloquent in speech.  Against him the Devil roused his minister, the Count of Toulouse.  This man had often incurred the censure of the Church for the many grave outrages he had committed against her, and often – as might be expected of a person who was crafty and cunning, slippery and unreliable – had received absolution under the guise of feigned penitence.  At last he could not hold back the hatred he had conceived against Peter – since indeed in Peter’s mouth the word of God was not restrained from executing vengeance upon the nations and punishments upon the people; hatred the stronger because the Count himself was so richly deserving of punishment for his great crimes.  He then summoned Peter and his fellow papal legate to the town of Saint-Gilles, promising to give complete satisfaction on every heading under which he was accused.

When they came to the town the Count at one moment seemed truthful and compliant and promised to carry out all the salutary instructions given to him; at the next he became deceitful and obdurate and absolutely refused to do so, with the result that the legates at last decided to quit the town.  Thereupon the Count publicly threatened them with death, vowing to keep a close watch on their departure whether they went by land or water.  He immediately matched his words with actions and dispatched his accomplices to lay a carefully chosen ambush.  His insane fury could not be calmed either by the prayers of our beloved son, the Abbot of Saint-Gilles, or by the remonstrances of the consuls and townsmen; so the latter escorted the legates – against the Count’s wishes and indeed to his great annoyance – under the protection of an armed guard to the banks of the Rhone.  As night fell the legates settled down to rest, unaware that encamped with them were some of the Count’s attendants who, as events proved, intended to seek their blood.

Early the next morning, after Mass had been celebrated in the customary manner, as the innocent soldiers of Christ were preparing to cross the river, one of those attendants of Satan, brandishing his lance, wounded Peter from behind between the ribs – Peter who stood with the immovable firmness on the Rock of Christ, unguarded against such treachery.  Then – good confronting evil – Peter faced his attacker and, following as did St Stephen the example of Christ his teacher, said to him: “May God forgive you, even as I forgive you”, repeating these words of pious forbearance again and again.  Then injured though he was, the hope of heavenly things allowed him to forget the bitterness of the wound he had suffered, and even though the moment of his precious death was now approaching, he continued discussing with his fellow priests what needed to be done to further the cause of the faith and peace; until at last after many prayers he went happily to rest in Christ.

So he shed his blood in the cause of the faith and peace – surely no more praiseworthy cause for martyrdom can be imagined.  His death would, we are sure, have shone with glorious miracles but for the existence of unbelievers like those of whom it is said in St Matthew’s gospel “and Jesus did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief”.  For although it is true that tongues are for a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, nevertheless when the Saviour was brought before Herod (who, as St Luke says, “was exceedingly glad to see him, for he hoped to see some miracle done by him”), he scorned to make a sign or reply to questions, because He knew that what delighted Herod in the performance of miracles was not that it led him to belief, but rather that he admired empty vanity.  Now, this evil and corrupt generation which seeks after a sign is not worthy to receive that sign (so soon as perhaps it hoped) from the man it has itself made a martyr; nevertheless we believe it is expedient that one man should die for it rather than that it should all perish; for it is indeed so contaminated by the contagion of heresy that it may well be recalled from error more readily by the voice of the blood of its victim than by anything he could have done had he gone on living.  For such is the ancient cunning of Jesus Christ, the marvellous genius of our Saviour, that just when He seems to have been defeated in the persons of His followers, it is then that He wins in them His greatest victory; and by that same goodness by which in dying He overcame death, He brings it about that His defeated followers win victory over those who defeated them.  Now, except a grain of wheat fall into the ground, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 

We may therefore hope that from the death of this most fertile grain, much fruit will be forthcoming for the Church of Christ, since surely any man must be obstinately culpable and culpably obstinate if his heart is not pierced by the sword which killed Peter.  Nor must we entirely lose hope that some purpose will be served by his death, in that God will grant our wishes and ensure even greater success for the holy preaching campaign in the South which Peter initiated and for which he himself descended into corruption.

With all this in mind we have thought it right to issue to our venerable brothers the Archbishops of Narbonne, Arles, Embrun, Aix and Vienne and their suffragans the following instructions (which we strongly urge them to carry out, and indeed enjoin them to do so through the Holy Spirit and by virtue of their duty of strict obedience):

that the word of peace and the faith sown by Peter should be watered by their preaching and so made to take root, and that they toil with unwearying zeal to expunge heresy and strengthen the Catholic faith, and eradicate vices and encourage virtues;

that throughout their dioceses, in the name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and by the authority of St Peter and St Paul, His apostles, and of ourselves, they denounce as excommunicated and anathematised the murderer of the Lord’s servant and all those who by whatever means may have helped, advised or encouraged him to commit such a crime, and likewise all those who may become his receivers or defenders;

that they put under a formal interdict (which they should personally attend to pronounce) all places to which the murderer or any of his abetters may resort;

that this sentence of condemnation be solemnly renewed, to the accompaniment of bells and lighted candles, every Sunday and feast day until the guilty men proceed to the Holy See and win pardon by giving appropriate satisfaction.

Let us turn now to those who, fired with zeal for the true faith, are ready to gird themselves to avenge this righteous blood (which will not cease to cry from earth to heaven until the Lord of Vengeance descends from heaven to earth to confound the corrupt and their corrupters); and to resist those villains who are attacking peace and truth.  To these, let the archbishops and bishops give a firm promise that they will be granted remission of sins by God and His vicar, so that their labour in such a cause will provide adequate satisfaction at least for offences for which they offer heartfelt repentance and true confession to the true God.  Let us emphasise that those villains are striving not merely to snatch our possessions but to take our lives; they are not merely sharpening their tongues to attack our souls, they are raising their hands to attack our bodies; they have become corrupters of souls and despoilers of lives.

The Count of Toulouse has already been struck with the sword of anathema for many great crimes which it would take too long to list.  Now, there are sure indications that he must be presumed guilty of the death of that holy man; not only did he threaten him with death publicly and lay an ambush for him, but also, it is maintained, he has accepted the murderer into close intimacy and rewarded him most generously – to say nothing of other outrageous actions which have become known to us.  For this reason, the archbishops and bishops must publicly declare him to be anathematised.  Since moreover the canons of the holy fathers provide that men need not keep faith with a man who does not keep faith in God and has therefore been excluded from communion with the faithful (and is to be treated as one to be shunned rather than cherished), they should pronounce that all those who are tied to the Count by any kind of oath, whether of fealty or alliance or treaty, are now released from that oath by our apostolic authority; moreover, that it will be permitted to any Catholic person – provided the rights of the superior lord are respected – not only to proceed against the Count in person, but also to occupy and possess his lands, in the expectation that the right thinking of the new occupier may purge those lands of the heresy which has hitherto so foully defiled them in consequence of the Count’s villainy.  Indeed, since his hand is now raised against all men, it is fitting that all men’s hands should oppose him.

If this vexation fails to lead him to understanding, we shall make it our business to step up our action against him.  However, if he at any time promises to give satisfaction, then for sure he will have to give clear proofs of his repentance; he must expel the followers of heresy from the whole of his dominions, and he must devote himself to the cause of reconciliation and fraternal peace.  It was chiefly because of the faults he is known to have committed in these two respects that the Church’s condemnation was pronounced against him – although if the Lord were to mark all his iniquities, he would be hard put to it to give suitable satisfaction whether for himself or for the host of others he has brought to the net of damnation.

If we follow true belief, we should fear not them which kill the body, but him which is able to send both body and soul to Hell.  Let us therefore trust in Him who, in order to free His believers from the fear of death, Himself died and rose again on the third day; and hope that our venerable brother the Bishop of Couserans and our beloved son the Abbot of Citeaux, legates of the Apostolic See, and other followers of the truth faith, will find no cause for fear in the death of Peter, man of God, but that on the contrary it will set fire to their ardour, so that they will be ready to follow the example of one who gladly exchanged a temporal death for eternal life, and will not shrink from laying down their lives for Christ in so glorious a struggle, if needs must.  Accordingly we enjoin and instruct the archbishops and bishops (reinforcing our prayers with commands and our commands with prayers) to give most careful heed to the advice and directions of the legates and help them like true comrades in arms to carry out whatever instructions they issue for the success of our enterprise.  Let them understand that we have laid it down that any sentence pronounced by the legates against those who stand against us or those who stand idly by are to be held valid and strictly observed.

Forward then soldiers of Christ!  Forward, brave recruits to the Christian army!  Let the universal cry of grief of the Holy Church arouse you, let pious zeal inspire you to avenge this monstrous crime against your God!  Remember that your Creator had no need of you when He created you; but now, although He does not truly need your support, nevertheless – acting as if through your help He were less wearied in achieving His will, and His Omnipotence were in fact the less through needing your obedience – He has at this time given you an opportunity of serving Him in a way that is acceptable to Him.  After the murder of that just man the Church in the South sits without a comforter in sadness and grief.  We are told that faith has vanished, peace has perished, that the plague of heresy and the madness of our enemies have gone from strength to strength, and it is clear that potent help must be provided for the ship of the Church in that area in this unprecedented storm if she is not to founder almost totally.  We therefore advise and urge you all most strongly (confidently enjoining you at this most crucial time in the name of Christ, and supporting our request with our promise of remission of sins): do not delay in opposing these great evils.  In the name of the God of peace and love, apply yourselves vigorously to pacifying those nations.  Work to root out perfidious heresy in whatever way God reveals to you.  Attack the followers of heresy more fearlessly even than the Saracens – since they are more evil – with a strong hand and a stretched out arm.  As to the Count of Toulouse who, like one who has made a covenant with Death, gives no thought to his own death – if his punishment starts to turn him to understanding, if his face, filled with shame, begins to seek the name of the Lord, continue by the added weight of your threats to drive him to give satisfaction to ourselves and the Church and indeed God; expelling him and his supporters from the towns of the Lord and seizing their lands, where Catholic inhabitants will take over from the displaced heretics and will serve before God in holiness and righteousness according to the tenets of the true faith which you follow.

Given at the Lateran on 10 March 1208 in the eleventh year of our papacy.”

It is apparent from this remarkable missive that Innocent III fully anticipated the probability that Count Raymond of Toulouse would be successfully reconciled with the Church, as indeed he was.  Although the murder of Peter of Castelnau is repeatedly cited as the cause for the crusade, and although it is blamed completely on the Count, the Count was expected to be able to earn forgiveness and, in any event, did so before the first blow was struck in the ensuing war.  

Heresy is mentioned from time to time in this letter, although not as the cause for the crusade.  Never is that heresy portrayed as theological in nature.  Rather, it is opposition and disobedience in general.  This is seen as existing in the region “due to the Count’s villainy” rather than due to organized heretical preaching and, while it was part of the duties of Peter of Castelnau and now the addressees to root it out, this is to be done “in whatever way God reveals to [them].”  The main thrust of the message is not the rooting out of heresy, but the avenging of the martyred legate.  If this letter is similar to those given to Arnau Amalric and representative of the rhetoric used by the Cistercians, then the prominence given to the story of Peter of Castelanau’s murder was the essential element in the preaching of the crusade.  

In private letters to his legates, Innocent reminded them that the guilt of Count Raymond of Toulouse for the murder of Peter of Castelnau was by no means proven.  As expected, Raymond was reconciled to the Church by threats, not by warfare.  Curiously, none of our sources suggest that Peter of Castelnau’s murderer was ever successfully identified or punished and it does not seem that the matter was brought up much in the fourteen years of negotiations between this letter and Raymond’s death in 1222.  So despite the rhetorical measures employed here, the murder of Peter of Castelnau does not seem to have shaped papal policy.  It did, however, work to raise an army.

A crusading army cannot be used as a policing force to respond to crimes, nor as a tool to root out perverse notions, nor as a judge to determine the guilt or innocence of involved parties.  Although Raymond of Toulouse may have been vilified during the preaching of the crusade, he was one of its members by the time it entered the Languedoc and began military action.  This seeming contradiction between the stated reason of the crusade and its initial course indicates a separation between the rhetoric which Innocent III employed and his intention in beginning a holy war in the Languedoc.  The imagery of the martyred legate was necessary to mobilize forces.  Once the army had begun its campaign of terror, however, it could shed its founding rhetoric because its course could not be altered, even by Raymond’s submission.