Throughout most of the last century, historians contended that
crusading armies were composed primarily of younger sons, fortune-seekers and
ne’re-do-wells. The theory, which resonated well with a cynical, anti-clerical
public, was that crusaders were people with few prospects at home who flocked
to the Holy Land for material gain.
However, the
“advent of computer databases” has enabled much more thorough analysis of who
participated in the crusades — and, as Professor Thomas Madden pointed
out The Concise History of the Crusades points out — this evidence-based research has completely
disproved the popular theory.[i]
Yet while the data is unambiguous, the results have not been
widely acknowledged with the result that the out-dated theories of the last century still
dominate popular understanding of the crusades today. Dr. Schrader takes a closer
look.
The theory that crusaders were motivated by the expectation
of loot and land had its roots in the Reformation and the Enlightenment,
movements that viewed crusading askance either because of its connections with
the papacy or because of its religious character as such. The Protestant
Reformation associated the crusades with an ascendant, over-weening and
hopelessly corrupt papacy. The Enlightenment associated the crusades
with superstition, fanaticism and irrationality on the part of the masses and
cynicism and greed on the part of the elites. By the twentieth century, the
notion that the crusades were “madness,” and — with the benefit of hindsight —
obviously futile from the outset was so widespread that Western historians
found it ipso facto implausible that anyone would undertake a crusade for altruistic
reasons. Ergo: all (or most) crusaders must have had materialistic (rather than spiritual)
motivations.
 |
| Hollywood's version of a crusader: greedy, ruthless, cynical and mad. |
This theory was soon bolstered by initial studies in
northern France that noted that the introduction of primogeniture was spreading
in the century before the first crusade. Primogeniture created a new social
phenomenon: the landless younger son. French historian George Duby hypothesized
that these younger sons, who had previously been integrated into society, were
now an increasing threat to it.
Raised to view themselves as privileged and trained in no profession except that of arms, they were the restless and violent men who needed wars to survive. Logically, they were the men Pope Urban addressed when he criticized Christian knights for fighting each other. They were the “natural” recruits for a crusade. The crusade, so the theory goes, offered them an opportunity to win not only fame and a remission of their many sins, but a chance to gain loot and most important land. In short, younger sons were drawn to the crusade because it offered them an opportunity to regain what they had lost through the introduction of primogeniture: riches, land and titles.
Raised to view themselves as privileged and trained in no profession except that of arms, they were the restless and violent men who needed wars to survive. Logically, they were the men Pope Urban addressed when he criticized Christian knights for fighting each other. They were the “natural” recruits for a crusade. The crusade, so the theory goes, offered them an opportunity to win not only fame and a remission of their many sins, but a chance to gain loot and most important land. In short, younger sons were drawn to the crusade because it offered them an opportunity to regain what they had lost through the introduction of primogeniture: riches, land and titles.
The only problem with this immanently logical and believable
theory is that “it has not stood up to the rigorous examination to which it has
been subjected in the last generation of crusader studies.”[ii]
For a start, two of the regions that produced the largest numbers of crusaders,
southern France and Germany, did not have primogeniture at the time of the
crusades. Secondly, there was precisely at this time, the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, that considerable marginal land and frontier land become available
for settlement, cultivation and control. In short, there were easier ways for
younger sons to obtain land than to travel all the way to the Levant to improve
their fortune.
Furthermore and decisively, “the documentary record [demonstrates] that the great majority of these knightly crusaders were not spare sons but instead the lords of their estates.”[iii] Indeed, all the leading crusaders were great landlords, the most obvious being Robert, Duke of Normandy, but also the Duke of Lorraine and the Count of Toulouse (an extremely wealthy lord).
Furthermore and decisively, “the documentary record [demonstrates] that the great majority of these knightly crusaders were not spare sons but instead the lords of their estates.”[iii] Indeed, all the leading crusaders were great landlords, the most obvious being Robert, Duke of Normandy, but also the Duke of Lorraine and the Count of Toulouse (an extremely wealthy lord).
Of course, even the already rich might want to get richer.
So, theoretically, even if one dispenses with Duby’s hypothesis about who the crusaders were, the thesis that
they were motivated by loot and land might still be correct. Theoretically.
Unfortunately for proponents of this theory there is, again, evidence to the contrary. A large number of medieval charters documenting the transfer of land from one owner to another have survived from the Middle Ages. In recent decades these charters have come under increased scrutiny. As Professor Jotischky summarizes it: “…the financial details evidenced by [charters] confirms the crushing expenses incurred by crusaders — and thereby provides ammunition against the argument that crusaders took the cross for economic enrichment…”[iv]
Professor Madden adds the following information on the costs
of crusading:
The cost of crusading was truly
enormous. A knight who planned to bring a few family members (as many did) and
an army appropriate to his position and authority would have to assemble funds
equal to five or six times his annual income. Few had that sort of money lying
around. They were forced to sell freeholds or settle property disputes to their
disadvantage to raise funds. In many cases, they also turned to their
relatives, who liquidated their own assets to support the crusade. All this
represented a significant, in many case dangerous, drain on the resources of a
crusading knight and his family.[v]
Well, so a capitalist would argue: nothing ventured nothing gained. If it was very expensive to go on crusade, then obviously it was the wealthy who did it — which only goes to prove that (just like nowadays), the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because it always takes money to make money.
The problem with this is that the facts again get in the
way. While some prominent crusaders (Godfrey of Boulogne, Bohemond of Taranto,
Raymond of Toulouse in the first crusade, Reynald de Chatillon in the Second,
Henri de Champagne in the Third etc.) did indeed stay in the Levant to make
their fortunes there, very few surviving crusaders stayed in the Holy Land at
all. Indeed, “the vast majority [of crusaders] returned to Europe with neither
riches nor land.”[vi]
Crusading was not a lucrative business except for the very exceptional few, and
crusaders knew that before they left home. We can say with certainty that economic motives were not what sent most men and women on the long
and dangerous journey to Jerusalem.
The Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades: Kingdoms at the Crossroads of Civilizations is available for pre-order on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk.
Dr. Helena P. Schrader is also the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades:
Piety is incomprehensible in a faithless world.
ReplyDelete