Did the first crusade impact significantly the war-making capacity of states like england, west and east francia? And did later crusades impose equal burdens, or was the distribution of this burden different for the 2nd and 3rd crusades?

Submitted by Qazwereira t3_xxx67w in history

In the first crusade it is speculated that between 60k and 100k europeans left for the holy land. Of course a big part were not soldiers and even others gave up somewhere before Constantinople, but the numbers I've seen when the Prince's Crusade gets to Nicea are over 40k soldiers.

The biggest armies in this crusade were from Toulouse, Normandy and the Holy Roman Empire. So, my question is if this campaign took away France's and HRE's ability to raise armies. I get that at this point feudalism was more present in Europe, so kings had less power and this ability were already reduced, but did the 1st crusade make the situation worse in this capacity?

If yes, did later crusades alter this burden a lot or, when England got more invested, did Richard the LionHeart's higher taxes help England escape this high burden.

I imagine that if this burden was similar for the major european powers, then western Europe might have been better, peace-wise, at those epochs.

959

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

swiftachilles t1_ires8n8 wrote

As LootLizard mentioned, there was actually a surplus of armed people during the 11th century which had caused major issues for the status quo of western and Central Europe.

The first response had been the Peace of God signed in 989 and then the Truce of God in 1027 where the church attempted to limit how and when knights would wage war. This didn’t really work because an armed and violent minority needs to assert itself, especially when violence is it’s only tie to power and legitimacy.

As the most popular and successful Crusade, the First Crusade probably had the biggest impact in changing this. Because not only did tens of thousands of men leave for Outre-mer, but it also established a consistent trickle of knights who would volunteer or join Holy Orders.

However, European politics did not change so dramatically and war continued in much the same way. Especially after the Second Crusade. Hell, Richard the Lionheart and Phillip Auguste both were in the 3rd Crusade and went to war with each other for the rest of Richard’s reign.

248

Igoka t1_irf2i7o wrote

>This didn’t really work because an armed and violent minority needs to assert itself, especially when violence is it’s only tie to power and legitimacy.

So you're saying the Nobles and Church duped the potentially Unwanted-Heirs (go claim your glory) and Middle Class (intrinsic threat) into going away, thus resolving the status quo?

95

TheGreatOneSea t1_irfcq5r wrote

The only real deception would have been about the sheer distance to travel, and even that was probably more out of general ignorance than bad faith.

The crusaders knew full well they had nothing to inherit, and most would have been lucky to have enough equipment to qualify as heavy cavalry. Becoming a crusader thus encouraged families to pay for better equipment, and helped the crusaders to receive far more support from strangers who would otherwise have no reason to aid them. Just look at the difference in support Ukriane has gotten compared to something like Yemen, and you can start to appreciate how big a diffrence ideology actually makes.

Not to be too cynical, of course: few would likely leave everything they knew behind if faith wasn't a genuine motivator, and all but the most ambitious could probably have found easier employment along the way if they looked hard enough. That so many endured great hardships for so long is difficult to attribute to mere pragmatism.

134

swiftachilles t1_irfa3ah wrote

Not quite, this was in reference to the Truce and Peace of God, where the church tried to limit the impact of the newly formed feudal class. This feudal class had only begun to establish itself in the late 900s and early 1000s.

This knightly/feudal class was completely new, only able to gain power through violent means. In the absence of a strong central power, gangs of armed men would build fortresses and bully nearby communities for tribute. As time went on, fortresses turned into castles and armed thugs into knights.

So while the church was able to slow down this process, it was too late to stop. Instead of centrally appointed figures or administrators, a new class had seized power and made themselves indispensable.

The first crusade was a way of channeling this new found oppressive class into a conflict that wouldn’t hurt Christians as much. However this also created a dangerous precedent were waging war was not a sin but instead a virtue.

32

khaddy t1_irg7s26 wrote

This feudal class sounds like any modern day mafia or organized crime syndicate. How strange to think that despite all our progress, not much has actually changed in many parts of the world.

23

MassiveStallion t1_irhgz9i wrote

To be fair the concepts of crime syndicates, crime and mafias are after feudalism.

"The mafia" doesn't really exist without 'the law" and the modern idea of 'the law' doesn't really exist without literacy or policemen.

In a time before laws were written, before police existed, an entity like mafia would essentially be the police. Who else was there? You'd have a nobles guards but those are more of a simple military force than people who investigate theft, murder or whatever.

The idea of a serial killer doesn't even exist until the 1910s because frankly no one actually cared or bothered to keep track of murders.

13

khaddy t1_irhltyo wrote

I meant mafia / organized crime as a group of (mostly men) who would use their strength, numbers, and organization (in the form of attacks on other people trying to live peacefully)... And furthermore that their growing power gave them confidence to increase their activities until they controlled a local area. Whether the "good" powers around them are a King, or a local government, the villagers nearby live by the rules that king or govt established, until the "mafia" gained enough power to undermine those rules and terrorize the people. Only those people who do what the mafia wants are left alone (pay protection money, or give up their harvest and women), others get attacked.

I suppose it's a stretch and I'm playing with words here but at its core, might makes right, and struggles for power are as old as time itself, and when the violent bands got big enough to undermine society, something had to be done with them.

−4

MassiveStallion t1_irhotvi wrote

Yeah. The idea of a crime syndicate can only realistically exist in an area of laws.

If it's just kind of a no man's land like France was back then, it really is just kings and kingdoms.

Your traditional godfather style mafia family is a feudal power structure in of itself, with the Don at the top, sons as heirs and the Commission being like embassies of different kingdoms.

What makes them a mafia or criminals is that they exist inside of an existing nation with laws that outlaw them.

This is a time when 'crime' in the way we think of it honestly wasn't even a thing.

7

sighthoundman t1_irgd2wm wrote

I've read that the Mafia was originally formed to fight the Muslims in Sicily, and then the Spanish.

I haven't verified it, it might just be a widespread rumor. But it is widespread.

The biggest problem was that, as a Non-Governmental Organization, they didn't have any taxing power. So they subsisted on contributions. Some more voluntary than others.

12

Donaldbeag t1_iri3g6g wrote

This really sounds like the sort of origin myth that a group would create to legitimatise themselves and give everyone a good pat on the back.

There were a variety of documented organisations that fought for Christians in Spain, Malta, southern Italy etc - and it would be a bit of a stretch for another, undocumented group of lowly crime lords fighting the same fight that nobody noticed!

3

congojack8119 t1_irg253r wrote

All king Edward wanted was to get back to the holy land for some more glory if there was any his first go around. Just wasn't in the cards

4

Thibaudborny t1_irhshdm wrote

Important to point out that the Peace & Truce of God were purely Western Francian ideas. These were mimicked by Imperial ordinances in the HRE meant to have the same effect.

3

StringSing t1_irekznu wrote

(Not an expert.)

I think another factor to consider was that the church was actively protecting the property of people who took the cross. That would have atleast somewhat reduced the amount of armed conflict going on within the feudal system. The church also preached peace in Christendom most times crusade letters were issue.

Another major part of the soldier count especially for the Germans was mercenaries. As the crusades went on more and more mercenaries were employed. So that shifted things around a bit as nobles and the laity started to defer their service. The alms they paid would purchase fighting men or equipment in their stead.

123

[deleted] t1_irelbzf wrote

Also worth noting after the First Crusade it became more popularized to send second, and third (etc) sons as the first was usually landed and tending the estate

73

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irepinz wrote

Or the 12th son. I can't remember the name right now. Imagine being the 12th son.

47

Amriorda t1_irex5yl wrote

You wake up on your eleventh birthday, and your dad gives you an unbalanced sword. "Do god's work, son. That'll be how you make the family proud," he says, already turning to head back to his chambers.

Your nanny leads you to a horse twice your height and you're told to meet your uncle two towns over. Some of your family had already had their last thought of you before today, but for others this would be the last time you saw any of them.

69

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irexczc wrote

I believe you just wrote the intro to kingdom come deliverance 3, the pre pre pre quel.

36

Thatparkjobin7A t1_irf0fyk wrote

“..and that’s another story of how I bravely fought several men by backpedaling across the countryside so as not to be surrounded.”

27

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irf0y7g wrote

This guy's KCDs.... sorry what were we talking about again? I was just cudgeled by 6 angry peasants in sack cloth...

9

Amriorda t1_irexgfe wrote

Haha, thanks. Devs, if you see this, I'll take the job.

5

TheFalseDimitryi t1_irf52zu wrote

And that’s the lore for my next mount and blade character!!!

4

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irfac5s wrote

Oh man of course I said kingdom come, but its actually exactly like mount and blade!!!! I just saw they are finally bringing the second one to console! I don't have a pc anymore but man those mods on warband were epic!

5

princeps_astra t1_irfe8mf wrote

Roger de Hauteville, but not a crusader

3

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irfj5cu wrote

There's a famous crusaer; I was hoping someone to add the name by now. I gave it a quick search and I couldn't find who I was talking about. Thanks for adding this in now; I'll check this person out anyhow

1

Ferengi_Earwax t1_irep1fa wrote

The church absolutely said it was going to protect people's land who took the cross, but they couldn't do much but point a finger and wag the excommunication punishment. Even after that, people would just pay off the church. Most of the time the land was stolen by other people's family members. Now as for whether england was any better off without Richard, no by far no. England was taxed to 7 hells for the crusades and there would absolutely still be enough normans to boot stomp any anglo saxon who got uppity.

13

Lootlizard t1_ireljg0 wrote

Yes, that was the main reason the pope called for the crusade. There were constant tiny wars going on and people were pretty over it. The Pope hoped that by creating a common enemy he could get all the Christian kingdoms to stop killing each other for 5 minutes. If a bunch of the craziest ones died fighting and you got the holy land back then all the better.

45

Prov0st t1_ireqnsd wrote

And then in the fourth Crusade, instead of hitting their objective, they went for a side mission and hit the Byzantine empire instead.

22

Gerf93 t1_irezi0r wrote

A bunch of the craziest ones? Them Hauteville boys are at it again, aren’t they?

10

Wintersbone7 t1_irfr9uh wrote

Also,the byzantine empire appealed to the pope for help against the rising power of the “infidel“ muslim forces. The emperor would learn that wasn’t a good idea.

4

Vyzantinist t1_irhihx1 wrote

To be fair, Alexios I wasn't expecting anything like a crusade. He simply asked the Pope to encourage western knights to head east to help the Byzantines in their struggles against the Turk. Pilgrims like Robert III of Flanders had previously sent knights to help the Byzantines, so Alexios was probably expecting if the Pope made appeals for the desperate plight of Orthodox Christians more western European knights would be willing to head east to fight for the empire.

5

Wintersbone7 t1_iri94dl wrote

That’s exactly it. Thank you. Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

1

NoWingedHussarsToday t1_iremrel wrote

If I understand you correctly you are asking if crusades reduced (potential) manpower these countries had thus weakening them vis-a-vis other European countries, their potential rivals. If so then no, not to great extent. First crusade was more noble driven and royal power wasn't involved. That happened with later ones when the purpose was defending Jerusalem and attacks on Egypt.

Might not answer your question directly but for a good background about recruitment, financing and such I highly recommend God's War: A New History of the Crusades by Christopher Tyerman

31

Qazwereira OP t1_irg1zlt wrote

Yes, that was my question exactly. As english is not my native language, I might have thought wrongly about how to ask this question.

Thanks for your recommendation!

5

TaliesinMerlin t1_irf5ejy wrote

I want to highlight one of the replies here that distinguishes how the First Crusade was more noble-driven than royal-driven (see the label "Princes' Crusade"). Indeed, one misrepresentation here is that 11th century kingdoms worked like modern states (France, HRE), centralized institutions that raised armies and sent them out. It's not just that feudalism means kings have less power, but that the state apparatuses for raising an army are quite different and distributed to local figures (like lords). So if we're looking at capacities for conflict, "France and HRE's ability to raise armies" (as if the state is doing the action) should be clarified as the monarch's ability to organize armies and perhaps expanded to regional and local leaders' ability to raise armies and engage in conflict, since in the absence of strong state apparatuses conflict comes from leaders creating coalitions of followers and raising people loyal to them.

But the short answer to the first question is "no." For instance, Robert II (Normandy) returns from the Crusades and almost immediately tries to take the throne of England from King Henry I. They settle the dispute diplomatically after Robert lands in England (the Treaty of Alton, 1101), but the reasons for Robert settling are more likely related to Henry's popularity among the English nobles and the church than any shortage of troops. Indeed, they end up fighting anyway in 1105-6, only a few years later, culminating in the Battle of Tinchebray. Robert lost, but he wasn't necessarily short-handed. So whatever the exact numbers would've been, leaders of the time maintained their capacity to wage war almost immediately after the First Crusade.

21

nanoman92 t1_irf5vqd wrote

The first crusade came mostly from France.

At the time, the king of France had very little power outside of his limited realm around Paris, so the country didn't very much work at all as a "unit" (talking in late medieval terms here), for France this wouldn't start happening again until about a century later.

If something it probably made things a bit easier for the king of France.

13

jezreelite t1_irg7dtg wrote

The fact that most of the First Crusade were French is why the Muslim chroniclers of the period referred to all Western Catholics they met as "Franj" or "Ifranji": the Franks.

5

nanoman92 t1_irikyll wrote

That may be Byzantine influence, they had been refering to westerners as Franks since Charlemagne.

2

Hermano_Hue t1_irl1evr wrote

I think its due to the umayyads invading the iberian peninsula, since then they have been naming the western armies as franks

2

ejdvv t1_irf041x wrote

Alot of european states had a increase in their war making capasity. The amount of people that went on the crusades was not even close percentage wise to the drain of manpower in the world wars so there was no shortage of men back home. There is also a huge change in castle and fort building technology that the crusaders bring back from the middle east along with valuable combat experience.

9

fiendishrabbit t1_irgb1d8 wrote

For one thing it solved the Normandy issue.

Normandy had, after a short while of splitting domains into smaller and smaller fiefdoms, turned into a primogeniture (eldest son inherits everything). With very small and very poor fiefdoms there was also no room for most of those second, third and fourth sons in the retinues of relatives and liege lords. So Normandy turned to adventurism, where landless sons had arms and military training and went all over Europe to cause a ruckus.

This led to both:

  1. The formation of what we think of as medieval heavy cavalry, as normandians served with the East Roman army (and learned east roman tactics). Which means we see a more combined arms army (with an increased use of professional archers and cavalry).

  2. Norman armed men all over christian Europe (except scandinavia). Establishing a kingdom in Sicily and England and going on more ill-adviced adventures elsewhere (and eventually forming a core component of the crusades).

Now while a lot of English historians would like to put the Battle of Hastings as the opening for this new European era it's more accurate to push that back a decade, to the Battle of Civitate 1053, or even earlier.

6

Vyzantinist t1_irhj7t3 wrote

The Normans didn't really use combined arms as tactics 101; their play was normally just relying on their heavy cavalry charge to win the day. And they didn't develop their heavy cavalry tradition from the Romans, as Roman writers were astounded and impressed by the power and efficacy of Norman heavy cavalry. As of the battle of Dyrrachium, Roman cavalry still advanced to contact with a trot and used the lance with an overhand or underhand stabbing technique, whereas the Normans charged at length with lance couched. It wasn't until the reign of Manuel I that Roman cavalry were trained in the couched lance technique which, by then, had become standard in western Europe.

1

fiendishrabbit t1_irho5jq wrote

a. Normans 100% did use combined arms as their tactics of choice. Look at Hastings. They have a whole army built up on combined arms tactics with archers, infantry and cavalry operating in support. The one exception is Civitate, because the Normans were hungry, starved and desperate and really didn't have a lot of troops left for a combined arms battle.

b. North european normans did not use couched lances as a standard tactic by the battle of Hastings. Take a look at the Bayeaux tapestry and look at how they're holding their lances (or read any account of the battle). This means that the practice was not widely used by the normans under William I, but was known and popular among the normans following the battle of Manzikert (because we have accounts of Michael VII training byzantine cavalry in the "european style". "Latinkon" however, units equipped and trained specificly to emulate european cavalry, did not appear until Manuel I).

c. The massed charge using couched lances was probably invented by the persians, and it was known by the East romans and probably used by Nikephoros Phokas (the elder) as the technique appears among East roman ally states like the Georgians (who most likely learned the technique during the Cilician campaign of 964. There are a number of military accounts, for example accounts of the Georgian-Seljuk wars, as well as georgian art that depicts riders using couched lances). Note that it's likely that the georgians did not use heavy shock cavalry, as georgian shock cavalry developed out of a tradition of horse archers (so, smaller horses bred for endurance rather than size, weight and shock).

The main reason for East romans not using shock cavalry techniques as standard lies in attitude, equipment and the enemies they faced. 1. The enemies East Rome faced were disciplined and more well trained than most italian infantry, blunting the efficiency of a massed charge. 2. East roman cavalry (kataphraktoi) used much heavier armor and we see no sign of destriers. 3. East Roman battle tactics in the 11th century favored a much more defensive style than the italo-normans.

In short. The normans took a technique that was known, but not favored, by the east romans. Decided they liked it and gradually became more and more specialized in gear and attitude towards favoring that tactic. It's the same kind of "combined arms devolution" that we see after Alexander (where we see a combined arms army devolving into the successor state army that heavily favors big blocks of pikes).

P.S: Note that all of the east roman ally states that took up shock cavalry tactics in the 10th and 11th century were what the East romans would have considered cavalry of lesser status. Light&medium supporting cavalry. Which means no barding or costly (and heavy) laminar armor.

3

dalitpidated t1_isjwryg wrote

If you look at the People's Crusade and the Children's Crusade it becomes apparent that all the Crusades were a farce intended to kill off Franks and replace them with Getae.

1

ArmchairTactician t1_irgafbz wrote

Was all going fine until the Nazis and the Americans showed up and collapsed the temple

EDIT: Oof not a lot of Indie fans here

−4

assfuc t1_iret0ls wrote

I think they made a profit from the crusades.

−10

Deathbyhours t1_irgmmfq wrote

Some individuals did, anyone who survived and got back home (getting back also involved survival) and retained or was able to replace his gear and horses probably brought back a profit in loot, at a guess. However, that is a whole series of conditions.

Of course, they actually conquered the Holy Land at one point, and managed to hold Jerusalem for nearly(?) a century, so there was an acquisition of wealth there, although the smart money would have been transferred out of the Levant and back to England and France, because the wealth that was built up and stayed there turned out to be pretty transitory from the Crusaders’ POV.

Lightning ETA: I strongly suspect the Crusades were a net economic loss for the Crusaders. There’s so little profit in dying.

3

assfuc t1_irgq2zj wrote

Why go home? land and onn a major trade route.

−3

Thibaudborny t1_irhsu9e wrote

Because the outright majority never stayed. This is well documented by historians, in particularly Riley-Smith did extensive research into how crusades were organized by the nobility, it basically meant investing/pawning all their property to be able to fund it.

2