ABSTRACT
The question of Cluny and the first crusade can be approached in several ways. Judged on the basis of direct evidence, Cluny was no more involved in the crusade than many monasteries. Some scholars have concluded on the basis of indirect evidence, however, that Cluny played a major part in preparing and promoting, and also in profiting from, the crusade.1 This chapter will survey the evidence, moving from certainty to uncertainty and from fact to speculation and will suggest more than one possible level of involvement. In doing so, it is important to remember that Cluny was not only a monastery in Burgundy but also the head of a monastic order that by the end of the eleventh century had dependencies and interests all over the Christian world. The term Cluniac was often applied to houses that had no affiliation with the order, and even to all black Benedictine monks. No one, therefore, including the abbot of Cluny himself, can be considered to act or speak for the entire order. It should also be borne in mind that the initiative taken at Clermont had a post-history, extending for several years. Historians call the expedition that set out in 1096 the first crusade, but not all crusaders left at the same time, and historically the first crusading movement consisted of several expeditions (including that of Peter the Hermit) and lasted for over a decade. Ordericus Vitalis referred to the 1107 expedition as ‘the third expedition of westerners to Jerusalem’.2 The question of Cluny and the first crusade involves the continuation and results of the crusade as well as its beginnings.
