Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What were the motivations of the crusaders?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
crazy canuck

crazy canuck

Great Canadian Hero
13 Badges
Nov 15, 2002
1.206
0
Visit site
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
Originally posted by Sonny
Many of the armies were seasonal and feudal obligations varied. As time went on more and more armies were paid with the scutage that the nobles paid in lieu of service or the tax money which Parliament allocated (in England). As long as these armies got paid they usually stayed where they were put (at least this is more or less the way it was in England and similar in France).

The seige of Acre which was kinda the lead in for the Third Crusade lasted 18 months IIRC. :)
Click to expand...

But wasn't crusading a special circumstance. I thought that one of the benefits of going on crusade is that the crusader was no longer obligated to provide military service to their leige lord upon return - making the crusades very popular - but in return the time which required of a crusader in the field was extended.
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck
But wasn't crusading a special circumstance. I thought that one of the benefits of going on crusade is that the crusader was no longer obligated to provide military service to their leige lord upon return - making the crusades very popular - but in return the time which required of a crusader in the field was extended.
Click to expand...
Going on crusade never freed one from the obligations to one's liege lord on return. The reasons for the popularity of crusading were founded elsewhere...
 
Originally posted by Martinus
Yup. That's why few cases of religious mania expected, these were mostly landless knights that went on crusades, hoping for gaining some lands in the Holy Land (on way or another).
Click to expand...
Well, actually not...

Most of the crusaders were well-off landed knights. You just have to chesk how much such an expedition would cost to see that. Most of the crusaders had to pawn off parts of their land to go, and this wouldn't have been possible had they been landless, right? ;)

Another thing you see when looking closer into the background of the crusaders is that they came in groups - in many instances whole groups from one family would go, increasing the financial weight on the family estates further. A prime expample of this are the Bouillon brothers Godfrey, Balwin and Eustace on the first crusade :)
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck
Sorry, you are right. I was confusing forgiveness of debt and the inability of a liege lord to take the land of the crusader while on crusade.
Click to expand...
That is one thing, but you forget the most important: Faith ;)

The "free pass" through Purgatory was a very good sales argument for the preachers of crusades :)
 
Originally posted by Lasse Nielsen
Wasn't purgatory "inventet" later by the medici pope? the one who build (or startet building) the church of St. Peter? if so it could not have been an insentive to the crusaders (but what do I know...):confused:
Click to expand...
It wasn't invented by the Medicis...

From NewAdvent.com:
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Havard
That is one thing, but you forget the most important: Faith ;)

The "free pass" through Purgatory was a very good sales argument for the preachers of crusades :)
Click to expand...

It may be a great fault of mine but I tend to be a cynic. I'm sure that there were some pious souls who ventured out on the crusade soley because of faith but I suspect that a great many others also went for the economic advantages.
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck
It may be a great fault of mine but I tend to be a cynic. I'm sure that there were some pious souls who ventured out on the crusade soley because of faith but I suspect that a great many others also went for the economic advantages.
Click to expand...
Then how come close to none made a forune on the crusades? For a good read on this topic I suggest "What Were the Crusades" by Jonathan Riley-Smith (came in third edition just before Christmas).

Riley-Smith (2002), p. 72:
Crusaders drawn from so many walks of life must naturally have had many reasons for taking the Cross and their motives have been a subject for debate since the movement began. A popular generalization today is that they were attracted by the prospect of material gain, whether through colonization or booty. But although the First Crusade began the process by which Western Europeans conquered and settled many of the coastal territories of the eastern Mediterranean, it is very unlikely that thsi was planned from the start: most of the crusaders returned home once Jerusalem had fallen to them and the colonists migrated to the region only after it had been conquered. With no proper system of provisioning th eearly crusaders had to forage to survive, which explains their obsession with loot, but any plunder gained towards the end of the crusade would have been dissipated on the return journey, even supposing that men could have found the physical means to carry it home. Everyone agrees that material and ideological motivations are not mutually exclusive and it would be absurd to maintain that no one thought he could benefit in wordly terms - for one thing there were real advantages in enhanced prestige at home - but the profit motive, which has always rested on insufficient evidence, looks less and less convincing the more we know. An alternative, twentieth-century, explanation of the attraction of crusading is that families, growing larger and worried about the pressure on their lands, adopted strategies which encouraged or forced unwanted male mambers to seek their fortune elsewhere and that crusading provided these supernumeraries with an outlet. But the reality was that far from being an economic safety-valve, crusading cost the families of volunteers much in financial terms.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the quote. It is an interesting read.

But the logic seems a bit flawed. Just because the majority of crusaders did not return from the crusades with economic benefit does not mean that they did not set out seeking it.

An analogy may be the gold rush. Using the logic of the article very few people who came west for the gold rush did so for economic advantage because as we know for many coming to the gold fields was a terrible economic decision and they would have done much better staying home on the farm. Therefore they must have come west for other reasons which include answering the call of the government for settlers to come west.

You may think that this analogy is a bit simplistic but as I said I am a cynic and I have some difficulty with theories which depend on human beings acting rationally.

The article does a good job of demonstrating that an informed crusader conducting a rationale cost benefit analysis of what he should do would not choose the crusade for material gain. But as I said I suspect a potential crusader (much like his more modern counter part in my analogy - the gold digger) rarely conducted such an analysis. I suspect that the lure of adventure, potential financial gain, and just plain getting off the farm, were significant motivations for going on crusade.

All that having been said, the Church granted a get out of pergatory free card didn't hurt either. And there is likely no argument that the temporal and spiritual motivations made a powerful combination.
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck

All that having been said, the Church granted a get out of pergatory free card didn't hurt either. And there is likely no argument that the temporal and spiritual motivations made a powerful combination.
Click to expand...

I have read the conversation between you and Harvard, its been a treat on a somewhat bleek day. Anyway i think CC that your last paragraph spells out a lot of the motavation for a crusader, that and the duty of Feudalism.

Understand the social climate was completely different then, all you had was the church, and gossip at the market. The Church was the media, school, sometimes state. As a commoner you owed your lord your service if you didnt do it you loose your land and your good name, then the church excommunicates you. Two HUGE deals for these people I suspect, and 2 of the primary motivations for Crusade.
 
Odin,

Good point.

And this is the part I don't really understand. How did fealty obligations relate to or conflict with taking the cross and going on crusade? I have read a few of the edicts setting the benefits to be accorded to going on crusade. A common theme in all of them appears to be the forgiveness of debt and obligations while on Crusade - and if killed on crusade complete forgiveness of all debt and obligation so that the family would not be burdened.

I am assuming that someone could take the cross without the consent of anyone up the fuedal ladder but I suspect that what occured was that a fuedal lord took the cross and called on his vassels to do the same. I assume that the going was not compulsory in the same way as it normally would be, but that their would be a lot of pressure to answer the call.

As you can see I am guessing at a lot of this. It would be great if someone could explain this to me.
 
That is just an excerpt from the book I referred to.

But the logic seems a bit flawed. Just because the majority of crusaders did not return from the crusades with economic benefit does not mean that they did not set out seeking it.
Click to expand...
If noone returned laden with riches while plenty returned in pretty poor shape (and many didn't survive at all), why would they expect to make any profit going themself? As Riley-Smith mentions there is no contradiction between material and ideological motivations. The question is how would they be led to believe there were much to gain in personal fortune?

Another trend one sees that the crusaders tended to come from "crusading families":

Riley-Smith (2002), p. 73:
In the earliest period there is also evidence for concentrations of crusaders in certain noble families in which traditions of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or attachment to the patronage of particular saints or to reformed monastisicm, had generated a predisposition to respond to the appeal.
Click to expand...

These were families where crusaders had returned, as usual with no wealth to show, but still their kin took the Cross to uphold the tradition.

I think it is wise not to underestimate the strong grip the Church had on Europe in this period. Centuries of agitation and preaching of crusades didn't exactly mellow the aveage man's devotion to the Church...
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck
Odin,

Good point.

And this is the part I don't really understand. How did fealty obligations relate to or conflict with taking the cross and going on crusade? I have read a few of the edicts setting the benefits to be accorded to going on crusade. A common theme in all of them appears to be the forgiveness of debt and obligations while on Crusade - and if killed on crusade complete forgiveness of all debt and obligation so that the family would not be burdened.
Click to expand...
The taking of the Cross went across any feudal lines of fealty of command. The general terms when someone took the Cross was that, as you mention, they were excepted from obligations (financial and feudal) while away. I would assume your estates would still have to pay ant rent/taxes levied on them but that the actual payment could wait until you returned home. The same goes for debts. I can't recall any forgiveness of debt/obligations from death though. The most usual way to finance a crusade was to either sell land or to pawn away land. If the crusader didn't return the one pawning the land could keep it...


I am assuming that someone could take the cross without the consent of anyone up the fuedal ladder but I suspect that what occured was that a fuedal lord took the cross and called on his vassels to do the same. I assume that the going was not compulsory in the same way as it normally would be, but that their would be a lot of pressure to answer the call.

As you can see I am guessing at a lot of this. It would be great if someone could explain this to me.
Click to expand...
As you assume you didn't need the consent of a liege lord to take the cross. Neither could a liege lord force his subordinates to join. The fact that a powerful lord took the cross was pretty important though, as many could be expected to follow his example.
 
You'll notice that the debts did not go away - just the interest is suspended while on crusade.:)
 
Yes, I did.:eek:

After studying it a bit I have concluded that once again Havard is right.

It seems that most of the economic protections were designed so that a crusader, or someone sponsoring a crusader, could have protection from interest and suit so that they could afford to go on crusade.
 
Originally posted by crazy canuck
Yes, I did.:eek:

After studying it a bit I have concluded that once again Havard is right.

It seems that most of the economic protections were designed so that a crusader, or someone sponsoring a crusader, could have protection from interest and suit so that they could afford to go on crusade.
Click to expand...

Havard's always right. ;)

But while they may not have gone expecting financial gain, some did go in hopes of carving out or being granted fiefs. Fiefs in Outremer were usually more "independent" than most were back home, and because of the peculiar situation, nobles that would be of relatively lesser status back home could exert greater influence on matters of the kingdom.

Regardless, if you were a younger son and not in line to inherit the fiefs & allodiums of your family, a somewhat better opportunity awaited in Outremer. This also applies to other "crusading" lands, as in the northern & eastern marches of Germany, and I would assume, along the frontier in Spain.
 
Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Havard's always right. ;)

But while they may not have gone expecting financial gain, some did go in hopes of carving out or being granted fiefs. Fiefs in Outremer were usually more "independent" than most were back home, and because of the peculiar situation, nobles that would be of relatively lesser status back home could exert greater influence on matters of the kingdom.
Click to expand...
Prime examples are Guy de Lusignan, who as a relative newcomer to the Holy Land caught the attention of the widow queen Sibylla and married her to eventually become king of Jerusalem and also his possibly strongest supporter, Reynald de Châtillon who upon arrival in the east married to the Principality of Antioch, was imprisoned by Nur ed-Din for 16 years and upon release (having become a widower in the meantime) promptly married the richest heiress available - the de Milly heir to the marcher Lordship of Trans-Jordan... All three of the above were matches they would be pretty certain would be out of their league back home...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back