Mounting a Crusade is easy and Crusader armies were notoriously shit. Just get a bunch of peasants riled up, get some disaffected knights to lead them, and send them off packing to the Middle East to get slaughtered by well trained corps of Turkic professional ghulam soldiers.
>The main crusader armies of the 1st Crusade was a bunch of Flemish, Breton, Norman, and some French lords -many looking for land and property- willing to leave their shit in Europe and go East.
False. The Main Crusader armies were from Toulouse, Lorraine (Germans), Sicilian Normans and Normandy Normans. They were not looking for land and property. Their leaders were already extremely rich and the 1st Crusade was not profitable to most of them. Most of the Crusaders also came back to Europe.
If you look at the leaders of the 1st Crusade, you had.
Count of Toulouse = One of the richest men in France. Duke of Lorraine = One of the richest men in the Holy Roman Empire. Prince of Taranto = He was an ambitious man, could be the case that he went there for money Count of Flanders = The richest man in France. Didn't need more money. Duke of Normandy = Son of William the Conqueror, loaned his Duchy and sold his possessions to Crusade. After the Crusade was done, came back to Normandy, without taking any riches from the Crusade Count of Champagne = One of the richest men in France.
Most of those guys were already among the most powerful of Western Europe and could have gotten richer property much more easily if they wanted to.
If they were in it for the money, they would have tried to conquer Tunisia or Egypt, not Jerusalem.
>>669258 Not the anon you're talking to, but you have to understand how central religion was to their whole identity at the time. Hell seemed to be a very real and very scary place, and if you were a knight, you were probably doing a lot of sinning so the chance of absolution would be a huge pull factor. From what we can gather, many joined the 1st Crusade out of sincere religious devotion.
>>669098 >If they were in it for the money, they would have tried to conquer Tunisia or Egypt, not Jerusalem. It's not so much money as it is wealthier lordships and titles. There was already known precedent for Frankish barons fighting in Byzantine employ for both, and it's clear that up to a certain point this was the aim of most of the major princes of the First Crusade. It's Antioch that was the turning point, after which a zealous mob pushed for a direct march on Jerusalem without care for conquest. Once taken the remaining lords who felt cheated out of land in Anatolia and Northern Syria fanned out to acquire land around Jerusalem.
Duke Robert of Normandy was relatively poor when he left for the Holy Land, and he returned without riches because he was unable to acquire a lordship for himself by the time William II died leaving the crown of England up for grabs.
>>669516 Because clearly, the Count of Flanders and the Count of Toulouse needed a title in the middle east. The Count of Flanders totally could get wealthier lordships and titles. It is not like he was richer than the King of France.
>>669734 If they wanted wealthier lordships and titles, there were much easier way to getting them than Crusading.
Crusading was mostly viewed as an expensive nearly suicidal mission, unless you were a great noble. Then, it was an expensive mission with few material rewards. The father of the first Habsburg King died like this, for example. He went Crusading with a richer noble, but was not expecting anything.
>>670154 They wanted wealthy eastern lordships and titles, and there was no easier way to get them than in mercenary service with the ERE. You shouldn't retroactively apply the motivations of later Crusaders on the First Crusade.
>>670188 Peter Frankopan's "The First Crusade - The Call from the East"
People commonly confuse 'they didn't need more' with 'they didn't want more', especially if that need was for something with a unique magnetism and prestige. In the late 11th century, that was Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria.
>>672685 Bohemond is probably the only one that went for the titles, since Taranto was not that great of an inheritance. Most of the others didn't get any titles and came back to Europe and the few that got titles there had more problems with them than benefits (for the descendants of Raymond of Toulouse, Tripoli was a waste of times and resources, that diverted their attention from their rich lands in France).
>>669098 I think people really underestimate how much of an influence religion really had on the people back in this period of history. It was a the turn of the century, and many believed the end of days was coming.
Urban II promised forgiveness of sins as a form of reward for pilgrimage to Jerusalem and its conquest. People back then were acutely aware of the danger of sin and of the state of their souls. So when people say the Crusades were a religious venture, they were at least in the most part in the First Crusade.
Hell, Urban II may have intended originally to just send help to the Byzantines but we may never know.
Thread replies: 28 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 516889
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.