[LS]

Um, I don't think he specifically looked at it that way, but I do think it was a factor. You can't explain the "Truce of God" and the "Peace of God" (both of which had failed miserably by that time) without it being a factor. Knight violence was CLEARLY an issue on the minds of the Church leaders.

[Antoninus]

Um, I don't think he specifically looked at it that way, but I do think it was a factor. You can't explain the "Truce of God" and the "Peace of God" (both of which had failed miserably by that time) without it being a factor. Knight violence was CLEARLY an issue on the minds of the Church leaders.

No one's arguing that point. The Popes were very interested in maintaining peace in Christendom. Who can argue that? However, they clearly realized that the force of their moral authority was not enough to suppress the desire to fight among the various knights--the Normans in particular.

It seems obvious to me that Urban II (and his predecessor) saw the Crusades as a way to channel this fighting spirit into a direction that could help protect and defend Christendom, rather than be self-destructive of it. The fact that the call to arms soon after the crumbling of the Byzantine frontier in Western Asia Minor--which had been the Eastern bulwark against the Islamic onslaught--is not coincidental, however. Indeed, the existence of this new and deadly threat is what spurred the Popes to action--not some fanciful modern desire to make Urban II the equivalent of an 11th century head of Planned Parenthood.