It could, therefore be argued that an amalgamation of both cynical self-interest, and religious passion motivated the crusaders, with the possible financial gains, and the liberation of Jerusalem contributing.
With the achievement of the aims of the crusade, the freedom of Jerusalem and the liberation of the Byzantine Empire, it appeared that Europe was once again stable, but in time this changed with the rise to power of Zenghi, and the consequential fall of Eddessa. The threat to Jerusalem, and the Holy Land was perceived to be imminent, and Pope Eugenius III issued the decree for the call for the second crusade. In keeping with the first crusade, a part of the Holy Land was portrayed as in dire need of help, in this case Eddessa. Eugenius III emphasises religious passion in the Papal Bull Quantum praedecessores by making a point of "how great a peril thereby threatens the church of God and all Christendom."
Another religious figure, Bernard of Clairvaux was responsible for the recruitment for the second crusade. Bernard was a highly respected monk, from the same order as the Pope, and coined the phrase, "a new knight," where he refers to the creation of the new military orders, for example the Templars, who were "....religious, as permanently at war as their colleagues in other more conventional orders were at prayer." These religious knights were certainly motivated by religious passion, as they were effectively fighting monks.
The military orders did not, though, encompass the whole of the crusaders. Were they motivated by the same religious passion, or were they more concerned with cynical self-interest? In the same Papal Bull Quantum praedecessores Eugenius III also attempts to motivate the crusaders with what could be deemed as cynical self-interest: "....We forbid that by apostolic authority, that any legal procedure be set in motion touching any property within their peaceful possession at the time when they accepted the cross....."
Therefore, cynical self-interest may have played a key role in determining the motivation of the crusaders, as they were protected in many areas of life, by the church.
The resulting humiliation for the crusaders, at the siege of Damascus doomed the second crusade to failure. However, the strong sense of religious motivation and passion can be seen in the remarks of one contemporary crusader, Otto of Freising. He points out that "although our expedition was not good for the extension of boundaries or for the comfort of our bodies, it was good for the salvation of many souls." This not only indicates that religious passion was an inherent motivating factor, even at the end, but also claims that it was more important than the concept of early foreign expansion, as a motivating factor.
The best example of the nature of crusading being unaffected by cynical self-interest is when, on the 17th of June 1147, Louis VII of France would not use his crusader army to attack the Christian city of Constantinople, in order to free it. This shows a marked difference between the attitudes of the second and fourth crusades, as in 1204, Constantinople was sacked by a crusader army.
It has therefore been shown that, like the first crusade, religious passion was mixed with other motivating factors, including cynical self-interest, but that it was often the overriding motivating factor for the second crusade. Despite the presence of cynical self-interest, it was, at this time, not the key motivation for the crusaders.
The call for the third crusade was came after the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. Again, it would appear that the focus of the crusade lay in religious goals, as Jerusalem had little secular value, but was still of key importance in religious circles. This is exemplified by the call of Pope Gregory VIII, for the crusade, where he desires that the crusaders do not go for "profit or earthly glory," in much the same way as Urban II, in the first crusade.
However, the motivation for Pope Gregory VIII differs, understandably from the crusaders, who may have had more secular goals in mind. Furthermore, the issue of motivation for the third crusade is complicated further, when the motivations of the various leaders, Emperor Frederik Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire, King Philip of France and King Richard I of England, are taken into account. All three men stood to gain popularity and prestige in the eyes of their subjects by participating in the crusade, so it could be argued that in this way they were motivated by cynical self-interest. Furthermore, the agreement between the leaders, to share equally all captured lands, seems to indicate, that even early on, the trio had aspirations of cynical self-interest, in their approach to crusading.
Of course, this could just have been a logical step to avoid straying from the key religious objectives of the crusade into cynical self-interest. In addition, Richard I stood to lose much in both England and France, in his absence, and the fact that he was prepared to risk this for a religious cause indicates that he was motivated by religious passion
However, it is evident that the risk of losses at home were never far from the minds of the leaders of the crusade. In fact, both Philip and Richard returned home to protect domestic interests, and this clearly shows cynical self-interest, as had they been wholly committed to the cause, then they would have been prepared to sacrifice everything, for the glory of God. However, it should be noted that Philip returned to France in 1191, after the fall of Acre, leaving Richard in command of the crusade. Furthermore, Philip prior to this event had demanded half of the money paid to Richard, at Sicily, as well as half of Cyprus. Despite the fact that Philip had not even been involved in any of these battles, Richard still paid him a third of the money, in order to ensure the continuity of the campaign. This evidence clearly shows the religious passion within Richard, and the lack of it with the other crusaders.
In addition, the so-called rank and file of the crusade displayed goals relating to cynical self-interest. Many of the "Christian" soldiers were in fact mercenaries, who were undoubtedly motivated by cynical self-interest, to a large extent. This motivation led also to a change in the nature of crusading, as there are examples where cynical aims took over in the application of crusading warfare. Examples of this are the willingness of the crusaders to loot areas of Egypt, and the desire of many to abandon practised crusading techniques, in favour of unorthodox ways, which would bring glory and other rewards.
It would seem then, that in the third crusade, despite the noble efforts of Richard the Lionheart, cynical self-interest dominated religious passion to a greater extent than in previous crusades, and the attitudes of the other leaders, as well as that of the rank and file are the key to explaining this.
Despite the positive aspects of the third crusade, Jerusalem was still occupied by the Muslims, and upon the election of Pope Innocent III this was at the forefront of his priorities. The fourth crusade was beset with difficulties form the outset, due to internal strife, within Europe. The religious passion required was provided by Fulk of Nully and Count Thibaut of Champagne, who enthusiastically backed the proposed crusade, however the lack of a leader such as Richard the Lionheart was to be a problem, as were economic factors. The Venitians, who were to transport the armies to the Holy Land by ship insisted that the Christian City of Zara be attacked, evidently to me their own needs. The nature of crusading, by this point has certainly changed, as the crusaders were to attack a Christian city, and this shows that all values of Religious passion had been cast aside in favour of cynical self-interest. The plea by Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay shows how the crusaders had completely forgotten the concept of religious passion, and that cynical self-interest had taken over as the overriding motivation: "I forbid you, on behalf of the Pope of Rome, to attack this city, for those are Christians and you are crusaders!"
However, this was not the end of the change from religious passion, to cynical self-interest. On April 12th 1204, Constantinople was attacked by a crusader army. It seems that the crusaders had easily forgotten the events in the city of Zara, which had made the crusade an excomunicate, and after attaining the forgiveness of the Pope, the sacking of Constantinople occured. The nature of crusading had degenerated, by this stage to the extent that "they have not spared religion, nor age, nor sex and have committed fornication and adultery in public."
There can be no doubt, then, that the fourth crusade marks the point where cynical self-interest overtook Religious passion, as the key motivating factor for the crusades. the crusaders did not care about reclaiming Jerusalem, as it never even reached the city. Furthermore, the willingness to attack fellow Christians for secular rewards shows the polar opposite of religious passion, in cynical self-interest.
