Paradoxical Language In Pope Urban II

Although Pope Urban II’s sermon was split into many accounts, they all share similar literary qualities. Accounts of the Pope’s speech include exaggerations of non-Christian brutality, allusions to holy figures, and paradoxical language to justify the call to crusade.

Many of the recounts of Pope Urban II’s speech include language that demonizes non-Christians by exaggerating the behaviors of some of the opposing non-Christians. For example, Robert the Monk’s account describes Persians to,

“circumcise the Christians and pour the blood from the circumcision on the altars or in the baptismal fonts. Some they kill in a horrible way by cutting open the abdomen, taking out a part of the entrails and tying them to a stake; they then beat them and

In one instance, Baldric of Dol’s account chastises warriors who senselessly slaughter people while promoting “[true] soldiery of Christ.” Continuing his metaphor, Baldric describes that Jesus Christ (the Redeemer) and his followers (the sheep-fold) are the only just fighters since they fight for the holy land rather than supposedly murdering people without cause. Baldric’s iteration of Pope Urban II’s sermon illustrates the paradoxical thought that killing others for religious reasons is acceptable, but murdering people for non-religious reasons is not. A similar idea is seen in Guibert of Nogent’s recollection, where he states that brandishing weapons and killing for pride deserves eternal damnation, but holy wars contain, “the glorious reward of martyrdom,” and a, “title of praise now and forever.” Guibert’s version of the sermon follows the same thought of Baldric’s, re-iterating the idea that potentially dying while killing non-Christians would absolve oneself of sin, despite murdering under a different pretext. Papal authority and credibility combined with pre-existing prejudices towards non-Christians legitimized the need for violence to exterminate danger. Christopher Tyerman expands on the later crusades and this paradoxical thought, saying that the crude typology caused dissent in the Middle Ages, and even more so as the crusades continued. Pope Urban’s preaching and

In Guibert of Nogent’s account, he talks about the Maccabees and how they, “attained the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple.” Baldric of Dol makes a similar connection as Guibert, but this time comparing their enemies to the Amalekites, the biblical enemies of the Hebrews. In this case, Baldric brazenly compares Frankish crusaders to Moses in the fight against the Amalekites. Guibert and Baldric use the comparison to the Maccabees and Amalekmites to allude to Frankish soldiers as another sect of historical holy warriors who parallel their forefathers in just holy war. Tyerman includes similar Frankish propaganda, namely an image of Frankish crusaders in the battle of Hattin. The image depicts Franks fighting Saladin, and is a testament to “the impact of the event in memory.” The image, drawn by a Frankish monk, is an allusion to a fight between the holy Frankish soldiers and Muslims showcasing the significance of the crusaders at the