Crusades- What really happened there

[Khazrak]

What was really happening during the Crusades? Was it just army fighting army or was it more complicated then that?

Did the Crusaders really know that they were fighting for land and wealth? Or did they still believe they were doing gods will?

Why was the fourth Crusade just a sack of Constantinople, but the Eastern Romans were really the Crusaders allies?

why were none of the other 7 Crusades as big as big as the first 3?

[attilavolciak07]

I'll try to best answer your questions.

Did the Crusaders really know that they were fighting for land and wealth? Or did they still believe they were doing gods will?

I'm not entirely sure, but many were fighting for either glory, wealth (these two mainly for the higher class) or (for the poorer) because the Pope promised they would go to heaven if they participated or God would forgive theirs sins.

Why was the fourth Crusade just a sack of Constantinople, but the Eastern Romans were really the Crusaders allies?

I think Venice was the leader of that Crusades and the Doge thought he had a big enough army to sack Constantinople, that he wouldn't have normally, so he took the chance.

why were none of the other 7 Crusades as big as big as the first 3?

I don't know if the Pope called them or if some nobles were looking for more wealth etc.


I don't know much about the other question, though.

Cheers!

[gaius valerius]

Okay, actually this is thread can only have 1 valid reply:

The Routledge Companion to the Crusades, Peter Lock, Routledge, 2006
Contesting the Crusades, Norman Housley, Blackwell Publishing, 2006

(of course their are other standard works as well)

Buy those books, read them IF YOU TRULY HAVE AN INTEREST, then come back here to discuss for real.

Of course, back to reality as few would actually go that far as to buy valid books and read them, no, rather they'd stick to wikipedia (oooomg) and highschool (ooooomg) knowledge and popular (ooooomg) culture about shining/barbaric knights in shiny/ragged armours fighting warz dOOd.

So lets give it a try.

What was really happening during the Crusades? Was it just army fighting army or was it more complicated then that??

What happened? Well several hundreds of thousands of Europeans left their homes in a timespan of several centuries, and went eastward, additionally some new theatres opened in Spain (alrdy ongoing but given a new flavour) and in Eastern Europe (Preusenreisen). Your question is quite pointless as a valid answer would require several essays (just get the books I mentioned). In short it was very complicated.

It wasn't a war, it was a socio-political movement, a symptom of a Europe in transformation.

Did the Crusaders really know that they were fighting for land and wealth? Or did they still believe they were doing gods will? ?

First you ask if the crusades were more complicated and your second statement clearly reveals that you believe they fought solely for wealth? Wrong. For every Bohemund there was a Raymond (of Toulouse) - and more correct, for every Bohemund there were a dozen Raymonds, for every Frederick II a Louis IX. Fact is religion was a prime mover for both the illeterate masses as for the (well actually also illeterate) nobility. It is true that many of the higher ups had less religious goals (take Bohemund), but apart from those obvious examples the picture is less clear. Both religion and worldly matters got heavily intertwined so the line is not always clear. But to discard religion as a factor and to see the papacy as a ruthless institution seeking only power can't be farther besides the truth. Even Bohemund was without a doubt convinced that he was doing gods work.

In any case, the intention and motivation part is a tricky one and geographical differtiation is legio (historians hailing from the muslim world often discarded religion and kept to barbarian hordes set on plundering see: Hillenbrand, "The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives", Edinbrough, 1999) and amongst byzantinist you'll find enough of these men as well. The primary sources used are of importance here, cause if you as a historian would just interpret Anna Comnena without any sense of criticism, you'll just twist history (as many byzantinist do - which was one of John Frances greatest criticisms on byzantinists, of course, there are many more reknown byzantinist well aware of this, take Angold, Magdalino or Harris - something France then again failed to mention).

The view that they were all greedy fanatics has been abandoned by most (some still cling on to it), as there is evidene enough that the people who took up the cross were able of self-reflection. That materialist interpretation has little foundations left, historians nowadays have a much clearer insight in the 'minds' of the crusaders (literature: Riley-Smith; 'The State of Mind'). As far as the leaders were concerned, this group has likewise attracted an unusually large degree of attention by historians. Men like Bohemund are all to often carried forth as the example of the so-called true crusader, ambitious, ruthless and using religion only as a disguise. The truth - led it be said - is less simplistic. However, this view persists as it is easy (certianly with retrospect) to defend and because contemporary sources like that of Anna Comnena and Geoffrey Malaterra say so - and as I said, one has to be carefull with interpreting these primary sources as their bias is evident). Also it is often difficult to make a clear disctinction whether or not original intentions can be read from outcomes (literature: Riley-Smith: 'The Motives'). When crowned sovereigns step in it becomes even more hazardous. Richard took Cyprus, Frederick II spent most of his time enforcing his dynastic rights in Cyprus, etc, yet they didn't said out with this in mind, rather, such sovereigns only saw it as natural to conquer while they were engaged in god's work. Men like Richard could not said aside their status as king when they departed on crusade, their rank brought with them obligations that made their experience of crusading different.

The nobility was no less infused with religious awareness, the imitatio christi, the pilgrimage, they were prime movers. Especially spiritual anxiety is dominant in the sources (literature: Cowdrey, "The Genesis"; Bull, "Knigthly Piety", pp 250-81; Riley-Smith, "The First Crusade", pp13-57; Riley-Smith, "The First Crusaders", pp 23-52). The concept of an armed pilgrimage was in that light a breakthrough (rather then renouncing violence). They (came to) saw crusading as 'feudal' service to Christ, something promoted by the Church. Booty was much more a mover than land for these men. Often this is also seen as a reason revealing their unpure intentions. However, this is also a tad off. First of all the acquisition of booty was an inherent trait of the nobility as they waged war. Secondly plunder was partly necessary to keep the crusade fueled and the mouths fed.

As for the pauperes - who fall into a separate category of the "popular crusades" - religion more than anything was the prime mover. Arguably this group was the one the most thoroughly convinced that the crusaders were the elect of god. Typically these popular crusades (1098, 1212, 1251) were led by charismatic figures and of all crusaders they were the most zealous.

Why was the fourth Crusade just a sack of Constantinople, but the Eastern Romans were really the Crusaders allies? ?

Many theories. You those who believe in a conspiracy, and those who believe it was accidental. Amongst the latter you can then discard those who see it as a clash of civilisations (often taking it back as far as 1054) and those who see it as purely a sad sequence of events. The latter has the most scholary credibility. You should best check out:

Queller and Madden, "The Fourth Crusade, The Conquest of Constantinopel", University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997

also check out the works of Harris and Angold (byzantinists).

The Romans and the Crusaders had ever since the First passagium been on uneasy terms, especially after Antioch a lasting cause of grievance was sown. Why? Because the Byzantines had not asked for the crusades. Alexius - when appealing to the west - wanted mercenaries, what he got was a mass migration of religious zealots, eyes set on Jerusalem. This is called getting more then you've bargained fore. But still: why could the crusaders and the Byzantines not get along? In the past often the 1054 shism was used as a pretext, however nowadays we know better. The main reason for both parties not getting along was politics. The Crusaders went to liberate the Holy Land (and were under the impression the Emperor himself had asked for this), the Byzantines only wanted to restore their empire. The Crusaders looked to Jerusalem, the Byzantines to Antioch (they could care less for Jerusalem). The Byzantines had been fighting the muslim 'heretic' for centuries and for centuries they alone had formed the barrier between east and west. They did not need a bunch of Frankish knights rushing in there telling them what to do. So fundamentally both parties had different interests. These could not be reconciled, thus that's why they didn't get along.

why were none of the other 7 Crusades as big as big as the first 3?

Because the First was the first. It was a popular crusade. Such crusades - those labeled as the only true crusades by historians belonging to the popularist group - were stereotyped by a massive popular support. We were dealing with hordes of ppl (numbers vary between 60-100000) spontaneously leaving there house and home to march eastward. This feat was not repeated often, other examples of popular crusader were that the so-called Children's crusade (and no - before anyone asks - that wasn't a crusade of 12-year olds) and the Shepards crusade. Typical for these enterprises was that they were chaotic, without real leadership. In other crusades (the official ones) we are dealing with carefully planned expeditions led by kings and emperors, not spontaneous mass-migrations. Also, the more the crusades got institutionalised, the more professional they became. The first crusade was still very much a disorganised rabble of peasants, a mixture of knights and pauperes, while later on we have kings, with professional armies. They funded these crusades on their own, with their royal income, so they were smaller, but principally stronger, as they were more professional.

FINAL NOTE: also keep in mind that there was no such thing as "a crusade", such terminology did not exist, those official crusades we discard are artificial, they are the largest expeditions, but in reality crusades were ongoing, Latin nobles kept travelling east in between to fullfill their pledges, some stayed, many more returned home.

As the saying goes: Less is more.

Im' finally done with editing. Great post by motiv-8 btw. cheers

[Poach]

Well, despite not living up to the great expectations of Gaius here, I'll give my bit.

As with most such occurances in human history, the leadership did it for power, wealth and prestige, while the poor and unintelligent were fooled by the rhetoric and fully believed in their mission.

The reason the first three were so large is due to enthusiasm in Europe. By the time the Kingdom of Jerusalem had fallen and the following Crusades had failed to show anything of promise, the enthusiasm somewhat died out as the nobles forgot about the Holy Land and became more concerned with their lands in Europe.

[motiv-8]

Please disregard everything attilavolciak07 just said. Now, let's begin. Keep in mind that I'm relying mostly on memory, so if one sees an error feel free to jump in.

Was it just army fighting army or was it more complicated then that?

It was of course more complicated then that. That's just a silly question. Nothing in history is simple.

Did the Crusaders really know that they were fighting for land and wealth? Or did they still believe they were doing gods will?

It depends on who you were talking about. The First Crusade and indeed many crusades featured a spectrum of personalities and ambitions, from the devious and profiteering Bohemond of Taranto (son of Robert Guiscard) and Baldwin of Bolougne, who left his fellow knights to pursue his own realm and fortune at Edessa, to Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who was indisputably one of the most pious and devoted men of the entire venture, and Godfrey of Boullion, who refused to be called a king when Jerusalem was taken.

The very fact that the vast majority of crusaders and even some of the notable leaders, such as Robert of Normandy (son of William the Conqueror), left the Holy Land and returned to Europe demonstrates that the primary motivation was piety, not wealth or land. Very little land or wealth was attained from the vast undertaking.

Later on, numbers of knights and merchants would trickle into the Levant, and many were in search of prosperity or personal gain, but to say that this was the overall aim of the Crusades is improper.

Why was the fourth Crusade just a sack of Constantinople, but the Eastern Romans were really the Crusaders allies?

I must point out that the Byzantines and Latins were rarely on good terms. Hostility between the Greeks in the east and Latins in the west was an on-going problem dating back centuries, most immediately stirred by the Schism in 1054. Alexios Komnenos asked for mercenaries to aid in the fight against the Seljuqs, yes, but the Pope's response at Clermont was not at all what the emperor expected. He wanted soldiers to help him campaign, not an all-out invasion force which arrived at the gates of Constantinople in autumn, 1096.

From the outset Alexios was suspicious of some of the crusaders' intentions, especially Bohemond, whom he had gone to war with only years before! He forced the knights to swear fealty to him, which was accepted by some and rejected by others, and then quickly ferried them off across to Asia Minor before they could cause too much trouble. For their part, the Latins were suspicious of the emperor's intentions, sensing that they were being used as pawns. After all, the supposed agreement was that whatever land was taken from the Muslims would legally belong to the Byzantines and would revert to their rule. To ensure this was the case, Alexios sent out his best teneral, Taticius, with a small army to assist the crusaders on their way to the Holy Land.

The agreement was first put to the test at Nicaea. When the crusaders were about to storm the city, they discovered that it had secretly surrendered to the Byzantines. Despite the previous agreements, this event embittered a great many of the Latins. This greatly influence events at Antioch.

Antioch was a formidable city which underwent a lengthy and difficult siege before being taken in 1098. During the siege the morale of the crusaders suffered greatly, and some gave up entirely. Alexios had previously promised to appear in person at the head of an army to assist in the capture of the city -- and probably to ensure its smooth transition to Byzantine rule. However, as he approached he was intercepted by a certain Stephen of Blois, who had fled the city and babbled in terror about the siege being a lost cause and imminent defeat approaching the crusaders. Whether or not the Count of Blois was putting on an act is not certain, but he was so entirely convincing that Alexios abandoned the campaign, thinking Antioch was already lost and the Latins doomed.

Of course, in Antioch this was anything but the case. In fact, the leaders were anxiously awaiting the arrival of Alexios in order to boost their own troops' morale and be able to move on to Jerusalem. When this did not occur, they were embittered even further and, aided by the discovery of the Holy Lance -- real or not -- decided to storm the city themselves. They were victorious and, seeing as how the emperor had never showed up to help, Bohemond claimed that the city was his to take. The Papal legate had just died, so there was no official verdict on the action, and nevertheless the other leaders didn't have the energy to dispute his claim, so after a time they moved on.

Alexios was enfuriated by what he perceived as Latin deception and Bohemond's refusal to hand over the city which was de jure Byzantine territory. Bohemond replied that due to the Greeks' apparent refusal to aid the crusaders, thus breaking the promise they had made previously, the oath they had sworn to Alexios was no longer valid. From then on, ownership of Antioch and other territories was a sticking point that made relations between Constantinople and the Crusader States luke-warm at best, dissolving into open warfare at worst.

There were many more actions after this, some cooperative, some counter, but I thought this would be a good introduction into Byzantine-crusader relations.

The Fourth Crusade came about as a result of the crusaders' poverty and the opportunism of certain Venetians and Byzantines. The resposnibility of the latter for the sack of their own capital is often overlooked. When the crusading party reached Italy, they lacked the funds to cross the Mediterranean to their objective. The Doge of Venice agreed to take them in, fund them, and transport them, if they first assisted in taking the port of Zara, nominally under Hungarian control, for Venice.

When the crusaders finally took Zara in 1202, they were approached by the Byzantine prince Alexios Angelos. Alexios's father had been deposed by a coup started by his brother. Claiming to be the rightful ruler, he offered substantial Byzantine assistance in the crusade if the crusaders would help him retake Constantinople and the throne. They did so, and Alexios was enthroned as emperor. However, once he came to power it became evident that he neither the ability nor perhaps the intention of making good his guarantees. The Latins responded by pillaging towns in Thrace in order to gain supplies and money promised and to force Alexios's hand. However, this sufficed to make the population in Constantinople enraged, and they began massacring foreigners in the city. The crusading army eventually responded by storming the city and pillaging it for its worth, despite the fact that Alexios had already been deposed and executed by another Alexios, of the Ducas family.

why were none of the other 7 Crusades as big as big as the first 3?

Because by that point in time the enthusiasm for crusading had died down greatly or transferred to other regions, including the Iberian peninsula, the Baltics, and even the Cathars of France. The crusade after the first were failures and so the venture as a military idea was beginning to be seen as a fallacy. Furthermore, the overall goal of the crusades was to ensure the safety of the Christian holy places and their pilgrims, which was attained by the First Crusade and continued even after Salah ad-din reconquered Jerusalem in 1187. Finally, certain individuals, such as Doge Enrico Dandolo of Venice, perverted the aims of crusading for their personal vendettas or endeavors. All of these contributed to the gradual dying down of the crusading spirit, which was revealed most of all by the lack of enthusiasm in countering the Ottoman conquest of Christian principalities in the Balkans.

EDIT: I see that gaius valerius already laid some groundwork and provided literary sources, which is fantastic. I'll throw in a few more that may be of assistance:
The Crusades by Zoe Oldenbourg, which relies mostly on the work of Latin historians such as William of Tyre and others.
The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalouf, which provides a refreshing look at the events from the other side, relying on Arab contemporaries such as Ibn al-Athir.
A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold for a brief contextual analysis of Byzantine attitudes.
The Origin of The Idea of Crusade by Carl Erdmann for insight as to motivations and goals.

[Babur]

The West attempted to destroy Islam and now they are trying again

[The Cobra]

The West attempted to destroy Islam and now they are trying again

Exactly. no one can deny that.

[gaius valerius]

As if their is 'a west' and 'an islam'.

[Hansa]

The West attempted to destroy Islam and now they are trying again

If you rephrase that to large groups of Western European warriors attempting to stem the advance of the Turks, and reconquer the Holiest places in christendom from the Moslems. You would be more correct. If the Crusaders had attempted to destroy Islam I believe the first crusaders might have moved towards Egypt after the defeat of the Fadamid army of Al-Afdal.

The Crusades were not a Western effort to destroy Islam, although there is no doubt that they wanted it to happen. Indeed there seems to have been a clear belief among many westerners, especially religious elites; that Islam was at its last gasp in the 12th century and was about to fall. Legends of the victories of the mighty, non-existing, eastern Christian ruler Prester John, and the conquests of Moslem territories by his ''grandson'' (who turned out to be Genghis Khan)(i) gave the westerners new belief in the fall of Islam, but if I understand things correctly the main reason was the belief in the imminent coming of Christ and the ''end of days''.

(i)One should note that even after the Georgians disproved any myth that Ghengis Khan was a Christian ruler many seems to have believed/or hoped that the fall of Islam was still imminent and that the Islamic world and the Mongols would destroy each other paving the way for a Christian world.

And as always a very good post from Gaius (you are extremely well read). According to a medieval prof I know; the standard work on the Crusades these days is considered to be Christopher Tyermans; Gods War, A New History of the Crusades. Oxford. 2006, among medieval historians (it has replaced Runcimans long outdated trilogy from the 50's) so if one plans to read one book about the Crusades, this is probably the best read. Tyerman has his weaknesses though as everyone else, and the more the merrier applies to crusade historiography as everything with else. Regarding Housley: 2005 (Contesting the Crusades), this book deals primarily with crusade historiography and not the factual events that happened during the Crusades. The list given by Gaius is brilliant though, although I haven't read all the books he recommends, I have read enough of them to see that he knows what he is talking about (which i already knew very well from former posts by him).

[Odovacar]

with the same logic:islam tried to destroy the west...

[Babur]

with the same logic:islam tried to destroy the west...

Well we shall win this time

[Nietzsche]

Gaius Valerius seems to have this in hand, but I would like to add the following book to the list:

The Crusades: A History 2nd Edition by Jonathan Riley-Smith Yale University Press 2005

Makes many of the points Gaius indicated and clears away the myth that the Crusaders were just a bunch of foul-mouthed, dirty-faced, thugs that were trying to destroy islam.

[saneel]

Allah guarantied the victory of Islam.

[Arto]

Allah guarantied the victory of Islam.

The soldiers of Islam did

[gaius valerius]

Guys... C'mon, someone will think you're serious and soon thou shalt be waging holy war upon one another on the VV...

[2CV]

The best and only thing we got from the crusades was the apricot.

[jankren]

Allah guarantied the victory of Islam.

Yes, in Allah believers should put their trust. Jihad fi sabilillah! Struggle in the Way of God!

[Giorgos]

Yes, in Allah believers should put their trust.

That sounds suspiciously like something that would come out of Yoda's mouth...

[Giorgos]

@saneel:

No

[Richardus]

I think the other 7 crusades were not as big because simply people thought it was becoming tiring and there simply not the fervour found in the first crusade. When the pope first wanted knights to go on crusade they did because it was such a new spiritual undertaking, and the belived the words of pope innocent IIX (something) in that if they died they would go to heaven and people really did belive it