Pope Gregory VII as early as 1070s wanted to help the romans and then jerusalem but the pope also wanted for campaing against al andalus, later the almoravids would show up and like the seljuks they were not as tolerant as previous rulers, i can totally see after sagrajas the iberian knigths prior to the 12th century used religious differences as a reason to fight against Muslims, this was not popular until after the crusades but given how the almoravids i can see this idea of us vs them becoming more popular and with the correct pope citing the idea of aiding the chirstians of iberia against the almoravid atrocities can occur so if anything close to the crusaders occurs it would be in spain, i dont think there would be no were near 100k troops but it would be a crusade.
Without Manzikert would the Crusades still happen?
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
You're not even fact-checking yourself. The cannibalism supposedly occurred at Ma'arra, not Antioch, and the sources for it are extremely thin and questionable. And even if it's true, people starving to death resorting to cannibalism says nothing but that they were starving.
the people crusade they got in to debt one of the reasons why count emico force went around on a murder spree against the jews was they got in debt trying to found their crusade
So you don't have a source. How do you even define "a net loss" in this context? Do you mean that most individual Crusaders lost more than they gained? Or that the whole endeavor spend more money than was actually gained by it as a whole? Because several Crusaders became so wealthy in the process that they ended up ruling entire principalities by the end of it.
The idea that wealthy people cannot be motivated by greed is absurd.
Going on crusade was often a cost for the Crusaders, apart from the First Crusade the ones who lead the Crusade generally went back home (also since they were often kings) and the whole expedition made them only gain salvation from hell. For example what did Richard, Louis and Frederick gain after the Third Crusade?
I am not at home in this days and can not remember the books, but you can find sources about it quite easily, if you search for it.
Maybe some of the first crusaders got richer, but usually Crusades were so expensive who a lot ofCrusaders became bankrupted in the preparation for the Crusade (exclusively for the elevate expenses related to the Crusades).
The idea who something expensive as the Crusades would be motivated be greed is absurd.
Still if you want some sources
4 Myths about the Crusades - Intercollegiate Studies Institute
What everyone “knows” about the crusades may not, in fact, be true. Let's pick four myths and see how well they hold up.
isi.org
Depends?There were rich donors for sure, but at the same time, there really were a lot of second sons of nobility who filled up the rank and file of the armies.I am not at home in this days and can not remember the books, but you can find sources about it quite easily, if you search for it.
Maybe some of the first crusaders got richer, but usually Crusades were so expensive who a lot ofCrusaders became bankrupted in the preparation for the Crusade (exclusively for the elevate expenses related to the Crusades).
The idea who something expensive as the Crusades would be motivated be greed is absurd.
Still if you want some sources
4 Myths about the Crusades - Intercollegiate Studies Institute
What everyone “knows” about the crusades may not, in fact, be true. Let's pick four myths and see how well they hold up.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you there RedSword. The Crusader sources themselves spoke of wealth as a motivating factor. Fulcher of Chartres wrote the following:
Likewise, in the Gesta Francorum, Bohemond of Taranto is recorded as saying to his men: ‘'Today, please God, you will all win much booty' (those are both translations but I can dig up the Latin quotes when I’m at home if needed, and the translations I give of both are accurate). The Crusaders very much saw booty as a motivating factor: which in mo way detracts from their piety. Quite the reverse, as they believed that their piety would be rewarded by booty - this kind of doublethink was very much common in the Middle agrs. Heck, sources describe Crusaders both high and low literally claiming houses during the Sack of Jerusalem.
Re colonialism, there’s a clear division between the people who had prospects in Europe and were doing it with the original intent of returning (Robert of Normandy, Stephen of Blois, etc.) and the ones who weren’t (Bohemond, his nephew Tancred, Baldwin of Edessa). I mean, Baldwin brought his wife and children, he clearly had no intent of returning and was bucking to claim territory from the start. Also, peasants were very much hoping to settle the region - entire villages left seeking the ‘land of milk and honey’. So…no, it wasn’t purely a devotional exercise. Or more accurately, the devotional was intertwined inextricably with the mercenary.
EDIT: Also, the comments on the cost require a certain perspective. As Dr Conor Kostick - who’s one of the better modern Crusade historians - notes in The Siege of Jerusalem, Europe in 1094 and 1095 saw a major outbreak of famine and disease thanks to ergot poisoning so the East looked considerably more attractive…
Last edited:
Ultimately loot was principally a way of softening the financial damage of going on Crusade, not the object. There were far safer and much surer ways to make money than to trudge hundreds of miles through hostile environments assailed by thirst, hunger, and Turks, with a tiny chance of making it to the end. The Latin accounts are unambiguous about how dangerous the journey was, something surely that would put off people seeking merely material rewards. I don't object to the positioning of loot as a motive, but I do object to the commonplace materialist narrative that crusaders couldn't have been true believers (generally going hand-in-hand with the contradictory narrative that they were also ignorant religious fanatics, making them avaricious religious cynical fanatics), when material interest alone cannot explain the willingness of so many people to take up the cross in such adverse circumstances.
Last edited:
I think much more than a get-rich-scheme generally speaking non-religious motives would have been prestige. It makes you look good in the eyes of others and if there is one thing humans really like its that. Like Philip Augustus doesn't seem to have been excessively pious but he also clearly wasn't trying to make a fortune in the holy land either. Which meant he dipped out pretty quickly when the cost-benefit analysis didn't seem worth it.
I do not know exactly about the Crusades happening if Manzikert was a Byzantine victory, but I can see religious efforts to convert Baltic pagan tribes, as well as various efforts to conquer the Islamic Spanish Kingdoms.
a couple weeks ago we had an interesting lesson on the first crusade at uni with professor Antonio Musarra, one of the greatest italian experts on crusades.
in a nutshell what he argued was that the first crusade was prmrly an ideological and geopolitical project of the papacy (especially of Urban II) aimed at solidifying its control on northern Italy(1) and flexing its muscles and showing prestige in the context of the investiture controversy, by "usurping" the position of military head of christendom that theoretically was reserved for the emperor.
in the case of Genoa, the faction that helped the crusaders installing Arialdo as bishop, also collaborated w/ him to organize the earliest forms of republican self governance in the city, which professor Musarra used to argue that, the contemporary emergence of free communes all over northern Italy, could be explained similarly.
all this to say that imo, even w/o Manzikert, the first crusade would still happen (2): the Papacy would still aim to increase its prestige and reinforce its position at the head of christendom and in italian politics, while powerful groups in northern cities would still be receptive to opportunities to assert greater autonomy. It only becomes a matter of finding knights, which Gaul had no shortage of, to act as enforcers of papal will and an excuse to have them move across the north, that i feel could be provided by either the eastern empire or the Normans in the south (3)
(1) for this point he mentioned that crusaders passing through the peninsula were involved in the violent removal of bishops aligned w/ the emperor in various cities, including major ones such as Genoa, Lucca and Milan (were the clash also resulted in the enforcement of clerical celibacy)
(2) (3) though it wouldn't ncssrly point at Jerusalem. Perhaps alt-crusades are sponsored by the normans and aimed at Africa and Egypt
in a nutshell what he argued was that the first crusade was prmrly an ideological and geopolitical project of the papacy (especially of Urban II) aimed at solidifying its control on northern Italy(1) and flexing its muscles and showing prestige in the context of the investiture controversy, by "usurping" the position of military head of christendom that theoretically was reserved for the emperor.
in the case of Genoa, the faction that helped the crusaders installing Arialdo as bishop, also collaborated w/ him to organize the earliest forms of republican self governance in the city, which professor Musarra used to argue that, the contemporary emergence of free communes all over northern Italy, could be explained similarly.
all this to say that imo, even w/o Manzikert, the first crusade would still happen (2): the Papacy would still aim to increase its prestige and reinforce its position at the head of christendom and in italian politics, while powerful groups in northern cities would still be receptive to opportunities to assert greater autonomy. It only becomes a matter of finding knights, which Gaul had no shortage of, to act as enforcers of papal will and an excuse to have them move across the north, that i feel could be provided by either the eastern empire or the Normans in the south (3)
(1) for this point he mentioned that crusaders passing through the peninsula were involved in the violent removal of bishops aligned w/ the emperor in various cities, including major ones such as Genoa, Lucca and Milan (were the clash also resulted in the enforcement of clerical celibacy)
(2) (3) though it wouldn't ncssrly point at Jerusalem. Perhaps alt-crusades are sponsored by the normans and aimed at Africa and Egypt
Yeah I agree as mentioned even 20 years prior the pope Gregory was saying the papacy should lead an army, help the byzantines retake the holy land and attack Muslim Spain hence why I believe spain become the more likely candidate after the amazigh victory at sagrajas .