gaius valerius

But the economy in any case wasn't in decline in many regions, exactly the opposite, the good lands were getting scarce, but the reaction to that was to occupy the marginal lands (which in time only made matters worse), occupy forest, clear swamps and so on. That however doesn't mean there weren't any more poor people. And in any case, "poverty" is something you need to nuancate and even more so you need to nuancate the chroniclers, remember also that the time of the 1st Crusade was considered by many to be close to the end of days, in medieval Augustine perception the Day of Reckoning was nearing rapidly, and as always, they love to brag about how bad the world was. Economical fortunes may have played a role, but certainly not the only one and moreover the socio-economic background in many lands was one of growth and expansion (which like I said still doesn't exclude anyone from missing the boat).

The "poor" (the pauperes), which didn't mean they were all beggars by the way, who went on a crusade stand out obviously against the other crusaders. According to the Popular School, only these crusades were the true passagia par excellence: Peter The Hermit's, the Chilren's Crusade/Pueri (with hardly all children, just young adolescents, another mistake commonly made because of the name) and the Shepards/Pastoreaux. Those that set out with Peter truly were in the believe that the second coming was near. In that way they would very well form the embodiment of a significant "eschatological momentum"* hardly seen again. Of course the only real problem here is that all sources we have are written by those that avidly condemned these passagia. So ultimately we must be careful in making to decisive statements. We can only make educated assumptions for the greater part. It seems charismatic leaders played an important part in attracting men to join these Popular Crusades. The participants also seemed prone to purgatory violence, more so then other crusaders and they were more susceptible to attacking jews. Another explanation here is also that they were simply harder to control as a force. The pauperes more so then any other group seem to have been instilled with the conviction that the crusaders were the elect of god and on their shoulders rested the task of recovering the Holy Cross and Jerusalem. We know at least with certainty of social conditions playing a part in the crusades of 1212 and 1251. In 1212 there was widespread social unrest due to the military situation in Spain, together with Jerusalem still being lost, this led to the crusade of the pueri. They were convinced that due to their innocence they would succeed were their sinful leaders had failed. In 1251 the causes are even more discernable. Here the pastoreaux took place in the background of the failed attempts of Louis IX, and the church was blamed for not having done enough to ensure the wellbeing of the king, they were actually more prone to attacking clerics then jews.

*N. Housley, "Contesting the Crusades", p93

Bismarck

That seems a little contentious, or it says more than the evidence allows. The potentates, knights and nobles were likely to be just as motivated by the 'cross' as the peasant - Raymond of Toulouse, the most ennobled of the firts crusade's participants, was probably the most devout of the lot.

gaius valerius

Well I specifically said that we can't say anything with 100% certainty, but basically you are misreading the post. The analysis of the 3 Popular crusades does clearly indicated the sense of righteousness they attributed to themselves. The keyword is attributing, various factors indicate that such an assumption may be justified but they again have remarks to be made (fanaticism/zealotism - arguably the strongpoint of the pauperes (shown in the brutal slaughters against jews and everyone they mistook for an infidel, including the orthodox Anatolians) vs the simple inability to control the masses making it easier for them to run rampant). We can also not exclude the individual cases of men like Raymond, the biggest problem at the end of the day remains that for men like Raymond we have a ton of information, while for the pauperes, we have little, and what we do have is true the eyes of men that would glorify the likes of Raymond and viewed the pauperes with absolute disdain.

Bismarck

I did not misread anything. The sentence I quoted said the peasants, or pauperes if you prefer, were motivated by religion "more so than any other group". The italicized phrase is what I take issue with. Couldn't be simpler.I dont know why you start rabbitting on about "attribute" and "assumptions" - semantics is not the problem.

gaius valerius

That's perhaps why it was followed by the word seem. Also, I've answered it in detail above.

Bismarck

Actually, you haven't answered anything - how could you when I haven't asked a question? All I did was raise doubts about that particular claim and nothing you have said has assuaged those doubts.

gaius valerius

The word 'seem' signifies that I said it not as an absolute fact, but as a possible and arguable assumption, I've hence explained why that assumption may be made and what the dangers are. That's actually sort of an answer.

Bismarck

Okay, so you have. However, I would argue that having 'seem' inserted into the sentence makes very little difference to the statement. It indicates a degree of probability [the degree to which the peasant crusader was motivated by religion more than others] that is unwarranted. You are arguing it is probable this is true, I am arguing it is improbable. So, what is needed is to provide reasons why you think the peasant had greater religious motives, and why these reasons 'trump' the motives of the noble crusader.

gaius valerius

I've pointed out the problems that rest in the sheer absence of evidence since all sources were written by chroniclers who were A) hostile to the peasantry and B) positive towards their noble lords. Evidence hence has the problem of interpretation, the most valid subject of evidence are the Popular Crusades (the 3 mentioned), we know of their motives and they show of an honest zeal that partly stemmed from their believe that they through their poverty were uncorrupted. Like I've said we can NOT make any decisive claims on individual attitudes and of course we'll have a Bohemund here vs a Raymond there, however, that does not mean we cannot assess possibilities.

Note I: never did I mention (not even implicetely intended) that their motives trumped that of the nobles.
Note II: the one thing that is absolutely certain, is that the poorest were not motivated by primarily economic reasons.

johnincornwall

I've just read this book so I thought I'd trawl up this thread.

Ignoring the tendency of these threads to turn into a debate on crusades themselves, I thought this book did exactly what it said on the cover - it didn't claim to be comprehensive and gave an insight into the crusades from the 'arab' side.

Having studied history in English and Spanish, where the interests of two parties conflict there is a marked difference in accounts. You have to find your own 'truth', somewhere in the middle ground!

But I thought he pointed out well that there were good and bad guys on both sides, that co-existence was perfectly possible, and that there were many muslim-christian alliances, often against other muslim-christian alliances! Also what came through strongly was the fanatical ignorance of 'incomers', as opposed to the local 'franks' who had learned the ways of the middle east, who often had good relations, including 'my friends the Templars'. A strong point is that the co-existence between states could've gone on much longer if not for this periodic influx and renewal of fanaticism. Also is dealt with in detail the alliances when the Mongols came on the scene. Many Christian states, and the Hospitallers, allied with the Mongols, whereas Acre presferred to lean toward the Muslims, which would stand it in good stead later.

He also points out that whilst the franks were very receptive on the whole to other ideas, knowledge and languages, the muslims were not, and remained 'isolated' in their own ideas and cultures. This is put forward as a theory for the transfer of cultured society from the arab world and Bizantium to Western Europe as time went on. Still today in that area everything is often referred back to 'crusaders', to the bemusement of the west, which regards the crusades as ancient history. A bit like England blaming the Vikings when we have a north sea oil dispute.

He also points out that of the great muslim leaders, nearly all were non-arab, being Kurdish, Turks etc. So although the Caliph in Bagdhad was nominally in control until his unfortunate demise, the 'arab' empire had long since had it's day, with the resurgance of the Eastern Empire around the millenium and the later arrival of Turks.

I think the book adds to our knowledge, complements what we know. It is not a challenge to it.