With reference to pilgrimage and crusade: Richard Landes referred to that
moment when Bishop Gunther of Bamberg and his fellow pilgrims (1064-65)
were forced to defend themselves, or the just war in action. They started
off on their pilgrimage, as was traditional, unarmed ('most of the
Christians thought it was impious to supply themselves with military
aid...'). Traditionally, pilgrims embarked on an inherently pacific
religious journey; pilgrimage meant vulnerability. I am convinced that the
papacy and the crusaders themselves considered 'the Jerusalemites' of 1095
authentic pilgrims. But the idea of armed pilgrims represents a paradox--I
wouldn't go so far as to call it an oxymoron--somewhat like that other
extremely curious, and paradoxical, crusading hybrid, the monks of war.
Monks, of course, were pre-eminently exponents of peace. What is especially
interesting about 'armed pilgrimage' is its apparent novelty. And its
novelty (I would welcome correction here) seems to be conceptual. When
scholars say that 'armed pilgrimage' "evolved", they are taking Darwin
seriously. Sudden mutation, not slow growth, is what evolution certainly
means in this case. Or can anyone point to a proper, self-consciously
'armed pilgrimage' before 1095?
Gary Dickson
University of Edinburgh
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
