How could the English mount a Crusade only thirty years after the Battle of Hastings that had such a huge impact on the kingdom?
>>668906
Elaborate your question please.
>>668906
>How could the English mount a Crusade only thirty years after the Battle of Hastings that had such a huge impact on the kingdom?
They didn't?
The main crusader armies of the 1st Crusade was a bunch of Flemish, Breton, Norman, and some French lords -many looking for land and property- willing to leave their shit in Europe and go East.
>>668906
>the Battle of Hastings that had such a huge impact on the kingdom?
Yes and no. The old ruling class was displaced by a new one. Not such a huge disruption to the economic heart of the kingdom.
Also 30 years of relative peace is the sort of thing that causes grand expeditions to be launched.
Mounting a Crusade is easy and Crusader armies were notoriously shit. Just get a bunch of peasants riled up, get some disaffected knights to lead them, and send them off packing to the Middle East to get slaughtered by well trained corps of Turkic professional ghulam soldiers.
>>668906
Since when were the english relevant in the first crusade? It was all about "franks".
>>668952
"Franks" and sicilian normans, sorry. The sicilians were important.
>>668930
>>668952
These.
Cunts from France & Flanders did the Crusade. Presumably with recruits from other land given that the military class was fluid as fuck back then.
As Anon said a lot of the cunts were looking for land and wealth. Lots of poor soldiers in continental Europe.
Meanwhile the Normens in Europe just got their grandspankin new kingdom.
>>668962
>Meanwhile the Normens in England*
Sorry.
>>668930
>They didn't?
True
>The main crusader armies of the 1st Crusade was a bunch of Flemish, Breton, Norman, and some French lords -many looking for land and property- willing to leave their shit in Europe and go East.
False.
The Main Crusader armies were from Toulouse, Lorraine (Germans), Sicilian Normans and Normandy Normans.
They were not looking for land and property. Their leaders were already extremely rich and the 1st Crusade was not profitable to most of them. Most of the Crusaders also came back to Europe.
If you look at the leaders of the 1st Crusade, you had.
Count of Toulouse = One of the richest men in France.
Duke of Lorraine = One of the richest men in the Holy Roman Empire.
Prince of Taranto = He was an ambitious man, could be the case that he went there for money
Count of Flanders = The richest man in France. Didn't need more money.
Duke of Normandy = Son of William the Conqueror, loaned his Duchy and sold his possessions to Crusade. After the Crusade was done, came back to Normandy, without taking any riches from the Crusade
Count of Champagne = One of the richest men in France.
Most of those guys were already among the most powerful of Western Europe and could have gotten richer property much more easily if they wanted to.
If they were in it for the money, they would have tried to conquer Tunisia or Egypt, not Jerusalem.
>>669098
Kinda figures how Rich Cunts wouldve done the crusade: they had money to do so.
Maybe it was just a venture for them, temporally speaking.
>>669258
Not the anon you're talking to, but you have to understand how central religion was to their whole identity at the time. Hell seemed to be a very real and very scary place, and if you were a knight, you were probably doing a lot of sinning so the chance of absolution would be a huge pull factor. From what we can gather, many joined the 1st Crusade out of sincere religious devotion.
>>668951
You moron, your describing the People's Crusade. A crusade led by monks like Peter the Hermit without approval of the papacy.
The crusade the Pope had called had far better logistics, supplies, leadership, troops and discipline.
>>669098
>If they were in it for the money, they would have tried to conquer Tunisia or Egypt, not Jerusalem.
It's not so much money as it is wealthier lordships and titles. There was already known precedent for Frankish barons fighting in Byzantine employ for both, and it's clear that up to a certain point this was the aim of most of the major princes of the First Crusade. It's Antioch that was the turning point, after which a zealous mob pushed for a direct march on Jerusalem without care for conquest. Once taken the remaining lords who felt cheated out of land in Anatolia and Northern Syria fanned out to acquire land around Jerusalem.
Duke Robert of Normandy was relatively poor when he left for the Holy Land, and he returned without riches because he was unable to acquire a lordship for himself by the time William II died leaving the crown of England up for grabs.
>>669516
Because clearly, the Count of Flanders and the Count of Toulouse needed a title in the middle east. The Count of Flanders totally could get wealthier lordships and titles. It is not like he was richer than the King of France.
>>669701
I never said all the barons nor that they needed anything.
>>669734
If they wanted wealthier lordships and titles, there were much easier way to getting them than Crusading.
Crusading was mostly viewed as an expensive nearly suicidal mission, unless you were a great noble. Then, it was an expensive mission with few material rewards.
The father of the first Habsburg King died like this, for example. He went Crusading with a richer noble, but was not expecting anything.
>>670154
They wanted wealthy eastern lordships and titles, and there was no easier way to get them than in mercenary service with the ERE. You shouldn't retroactively apply the motivations of later Crusaders on the First Crusade.
>>670171
>They wanted wealthy eastern lordships and titles
[citation needed]
Only for Bohemmond this would make sense.
>>670188
Peter Frankopan's "The First Crusade - The Call from the East"
People commonly confuse 'they didn't need more' with 'they didn't want more', especially if that need was for something with a unique magnetism and prestige. In the late 11th century, that was Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria.
>>668906
So what?
Arabs were shit, always pwned.
Then the Turks came, converted to Islam. They packed the christian shits in properly. I'm talking piston driven 9 inch girth Turkic dicks slamming ceaselessly in Christian boipussy 24/7 for 50 years.
Crusades ended.
Simple.
>he believed the britbong did the first crusade
>>672620
>did
You're probably searching for the word "joined".
>wikipedia told me the Kindgom of England did something
kek
>>669098
Bohemond went for the dosh and land. His inheritance was shit in relative terms.
Now on to the next question!
Is Jerusalem the only pre industrial city that wasn't built along a river or sea?
I can't really think of any in Europe, maybe the Levant was different.
>>672685
Bohemond is probably the only one that went for the titles, since Taranto was not that great of an inheritance. Most of the others didn't get any titles and came back to Europe and the few that got titles there had more problems with them than benefits (for the descendants of Raymond of Toulouse, Tripoli was a waste of times and resources, that diverted their attention from their rich lands in France).
>>669098
I think people really underestimate how much of an influence religion really had on the people back in this period of history. It was a the turn of the century, and many believed the end of days was coming.
Urban II promised forgiveness of sins as a form of reward for pilgrimage to Jerusalem and its conquest. People back then were acutely aware of the danger of sin and of the state of their souls. So when people say the Crusades were a religious venture, they were at least in the most part in the First Crusade.
Hell, Urban II may have intended originally to just send help to the Byzantines but we may never know.
