ABSTRACT
A denition of the crusades upon which all can agree still eludes historians of the crusades. Most nd a home in one of two denitions: either the single-minded focus on Jerusalem of the traditionalist school, or the broader denition of the pluralist.1 Michael Markowski attempts to more clearly dene the crusades in his article “Crucesignatus: Its Origins and Early Usage.”2 In this article, he traces the origins and development of the term crucesignatus.3 rough this term he believes that historians can more clearly and denitively dene the crusades, especially those crusades which took place during Innocent III’s ponticate.4 According to Markowski, Innocent purposely relied more heavily upon the term crucesignatus in order to more clearly dene the crusades, in comparison with those who preceded him. It should be noted that Innocent’s successors would not continue this policy, but rather follow in line with Innocent’s predecessors. is paper will examine Innocent III’s usage of the term crucesignatus to ascertain
1 A classic example of the traditionalist school is Han Eberhard Mayer, e Crusades, trans. John Gillingham (Oxford, 1972), pp. 283-84, and 286. e greatest proponent of the pluralist school is Jonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades? 3rd edn. (San Francisco, 2002), pp. xi-xii, and 2-4. Giles Constantable clearly lays out the various denitions of the crusades, including the above two, Giles Constable, “e Historiography of the Crusades,” in Laiou, A.E. and R.P. Mottahedeh, e Crusades om the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington D.C., 2001). Another attempt to better dene the crusades with a specic focus on the papacy is E.O. Blake, “e Formation of the ‘Crusade Idea’,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 21 no. 1 ( January 1970), pp. 30-31.
