There has been a lot of debate about the exact target of the First Crusade – both in the context of modern scholarship of the subject and to some extent in the source material of the time. There’s a lot of moving parts in this discussion, and a huge amount of debate which lacks a universal consensus, so I’m going to try and keep it as straightforward as possible, but I may miss one or two things along the way. Apologies in advance if I do.

Jerusalem

The greatest topic of debate in this area is whether or not the First Crusade was launched with the intention of taking Jerusalem in the first place. Within that debate there is also a sub-debate where, if we accept that Jerusalem was the target, who determined that? Was it Pope Urban II, Emperor Alexius I, or the Crusaders themselves? Let’s start with the big debate first, before going on to that, though.

I’ll open by saying that I’m generally in the camp that believes that the participants on the First Crusade intended to take Jerusalem, but I’ll happily concede that there is ample room for debate here. There are a few barriers in the way of our ability to know for certain what the target was.

For starters, Pope Urban II’s papal archive was lost sometime between 1095 and the present. I’ve read several times that it burned up in a fire, but I haven’t been able to find a concrete reference to when that fire was. In any case, his letters and writings mostly don’t survive today which means we can’t know what he was thinking when he launched the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont.

So, lacking Urban’s own records, we’re reliant on secondary accounts of what happened at Clermont. There are some tricky issues here as well. The first, is that basically every chronicle of the First Crusade was written after it had already been successful - there are a few that may have been written, or partially written, during the Crusade, but still usually assumed to be after the taking of Antioch. There are a ton of chronicles of the First Crusade, but when it comes to the events at Clermont scholars tend to rely on two accounts: Robert the Monk and Fulcher of Chartres. We’ll need to talk about both of them, because this is important.

Robert the Monk was – shocker – a French monk (specifically in the Abby of Saint-Remi). His history of the First Crusade is primarily a re-working of the anonymous Gesta Francoru – an eyewitness account of the events written by a Norman probably in Bohemond of Taranto’s contingent. Re-working the Gesta was actually really common, and we have a lot of really interesting variations on it. Robert is unique in that he wrote the entire account of Clermont on his own (I believe the Gesta doesn’t include any real details in its description of Clermont in the original version, but I’d have to check – I don’t have it to hand), and, most importantly, Robert tells us that he was actually present at Clermont and saw Urban’s speech. So great news, right? Problem solved? Not exactly. Robert wrote his account 10+ years after Clermont, and his version of events has some pretty outrageous details that are a tad suspicious – perhaps most famously he includes the anecdote of the attendees chanting Deus Vult in response to Urban’s speech, a detail that historians who study ecclesiastical councils are a little dubious of (the Austrian historian Georg Strack has done some great work on Clermont and the sources around it). Still, the bit that’s relevant to our interests is that Robert is very clear that the purpose of the First Crusade included as part of its core purpose the re-taking of Jerusalem. So clear point for Jerusalem as target.

Fulcher of Chartres’ history of the First Crusade is one of the most influential narratives of the event – second only to the Gesta Francorum in its influence. Fulcher was a participant of the First Crusade, traveling with Baldwin (future King Baldwin I of Jerusalem) and his narrative continued past the First Crusade and into the early years of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Fulcher also includes what is probably the most detailed description of the Council of Clermont, so detailed that some historians have argued that he must have been an eyewitness to the council. Fulcher’s account is much vaguer about the target of the First Crusade – in his version Urban is more concerned about the Crusaders assisting their Christian brothers in the east rather than a specific target. So, Fulcher seems to suggest that Jerusalem wasn’t the target until after the Crusade had begun. However, Fulcher never says he was an eyewitness at Clermont and he’s usually very good at explicitly stating in his text when he was an eyewitness to an event. A friend of mine (Dr. Yan Bourke) who specialises in chronicles of the First Crusade (albeit on this precise part of them), also pointed out Fulcher has a very personal reason to downplay the idea that Jerusalem was the target: he wasn’t present when Jerusalem was taken. Instead he was with Baldwin – who also wasn’t present for the siege – and it works well for both Fulcher and the reputation of Baldwin I (whom Fulcher was a big fan of – less so his son Baldwin II) if Baldwin’s conquest of Edessa can be seen as equally fulfilling the role of the First Crusade as the later conquering of Jerusalem. So, we can’t really be sure if we can trust Fulcher either.

The last bit of evidence that is usually discussed is a reference in a single annal for the year 1095 (apologies for not having the exact reference, I’ll try and remember to edit it in once I’m back with my books). This single sentence just mentions the declaration of the First Crusade, and says the target is Jerusalem. The argument undermining this source is that it’s not stated to be eyewitness and could be evidence of the general perception of the First Crusade being that it was targeting Jerusalem rather than proof that was what Urban intended.

There are other accounts of Clermont, Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Nogent are also commonly referenced in detailed discussions of the event, but the core of the “Jerusalem or Not” debate tends to centre on Fulcher vs. Robert as outlined above. For me, I think scholars have over stated Fulcher’s accuracy and I think the annal (the only contemporary account) is quite strong evidence.