The Crusades: Part 7

Little to Lose?

One claim about the Crusades and wealth is that the “surplus” population, the younger sons with less to lose, took the cross. Thus, perhaps they were after new lands and less self-sacrificing than some imagined them to be. But this claim appears to be false. It was the wealthiest (likely the only ones who could afford it) and those who had the most to lose that traveled.^[20]

Contrary to the belief that younger sons and the “surplus” population comprised the majority of Crusaders, it was primarily the nobility and heads of households who financed and participated in the Crusades.^[21] Historian Christopher Tyerman wrote, “The cliché of younger sons being drawn to the Jerusalem adventure contains no truth. Almost by definition leaders were, if not all eldest sons, possessed of significant patrimonies of their own.”^[22] Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “nor were the crusades organized and led by surplus sons, but by the heads of great families who were fully aware that the costs or crusading would far exceed the very modest material rewards that could be expected; most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupting themselves to go.”^[23] And finally, Steve Weidenkopf wrote, “it was not the younger but rather the first-born sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything.”^[24]

Land

Well, if the Crusaders were not after money, surely it was land they desired, right? When Urban II called for the crusade, he stated any recaptured land would be returned to Byzantium, not go to the Pope, Western lords, or Catholicism.

Initially, the Crusaders were not supposed to inherit or keep land; they were to fulfill their vows at the Holy Sepulcher and return home. The Crusaders were not on a mission to conquer new lands. They were vassals of Emperor Alexius, and all the retaken land was to be returned to the Byzantine Empire.^[25] Nicaea and its surrounding land were given to the Byzantines after the Crusaders recaptured the city. Neither the papacy, nor the Crusader lords prepared for a Crusader state; they intended to aid Byzantium and return the land to them. Byzantium was meant to keep any land gained back by the Crusade, that is, until the Emperor abandoned the Crusaders at Antioch.^[26] And at Antioch, the Crusade leaders had to decide what to do to keep and protect the lands—at one point, asking the Pope to lead the Crusade and keep the lands.

After visiting the Holy Sepulcher, the armed pilgrims had no desire to colonize and wished to return home. However, after winning multiple battles against overwhelming odds and in dire circumstances, they believed God had intervened to help them win Jerusalem for Christianity.^[27] A small portion of them (who, when they originally left, had planned on returning to their homelands) decided to stay back and protect it. Most of the armed pilgrims returned home; only about 300 knights and 2,000-foot soldiers stayed in the Kingdom of Jerusalem after the First Crusade.^[28] Many of the vassals of the few lords that did stay, stayed only out of love for their lords. Most of the clergy returned home as well.^[29] Historian Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote, “In the aftermath of the First Crusade there cannot have been more than between 2,000 and 4,000 Western Europeans in the whole of the Near East.”^[30]

Colonization?

Some view the Crusader States as an early form of colonization. Generally, the claim is that Western European nations took over a foreign land and exploited its workforce and materials for their advantage back home.

Yet, it was not a European colony. It was independent, and money was transferred in massive sums from the West to the Crusader States. The maintenance of it cost Europe tremendously; they did not conquer and exploit, but self-sacrificed via tax and blood to maintain the Crusader States.^[31] Crusader States could not survive without help from the West.^[32] It is the opposite of the claim. In 1274, Humbert of Romans, the former master general of the Dominican order, said “When we gain their lands, we do not occupy them like colonists.”^[33] The fall of the Crusader States occurred partly due to internal disputes but also because the West grew weary of the constant taxes required to provide financial support for them, and lost the resolve to spend more lives and resources for their defense. The last vestiges of the Crusader era, the Christian-controlled islands of Rhodes and Cyprus, would fall to the Ottoman Turks during the 16th century, bringing an end to over four centuries of struggle and warfare that had never, ever been about earthly gain.

---

^[1] (Smith and Hedberg Jr. 2024)

^[2] (“Ekkehard of Aura: On the Opening of the First Crusade”)

^[3] (FLICK, Ph. D., Litt. D 503)

^[4] (Asbridge 2005 327-328)

^[5] (Medieval Sourcebook: William of Tyre: History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea)

^[6] (Madden 5-6) (Weidenkopf 2014 43) (Weidenkopf 2017 99)

^[7] (Stark 2010)

^[8] (Barber 47)

^[9] (Barber 459)

^[10] (Weidenkopf 2014 189)

^[11] (Keen 95)

^[12] (Asbridge 2005 68-69 also see 329)

^[13] (Tierney and Painter 265) (Stark 210 111-114)

^[14] (Asbridge 2005 76-77)

^[15] (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council (1215), canon 71)

^[16] (Weidenkopf 2014 148-149)

^[17] (Stark 210 108)

^[18] (Stark 2017)

^[19] (Asbridge 2005 78)

^[20] (Stark 2010 168)

^[21] (Madden 2005 11-12) (Weidenkopf 2017 98)

^[22] (Tyerman)

^[23] (Stark 2010 8)

^[24] (Weidenkopf 2014 45)

^[25] (Barber 38-39, 208) (Riley-Smith 74)

^[26] (Barber 59-60)

^[27] (Barber 49)

^[28] (Madden 2005 30, 39) (Barber 97)

^[29] (Barber 59)

^[30] (Riley-Smith 87)

^[31] (Stark 2017 101)

^[32] (Keen 94-95)

^[33] (Thomas et al. 34)