Why did Knights Go on the Crusades?

But, "anachronisms" are my forte'! All of history is full of them! You just need "leadership" to figure them out!

Hail!, Ron!

Then perhaps you should choose terminology that dont inherently imply such things. I'll provide the chopping block if you deliver the hair.

It's the call of the wild. Wanderlust, the dream of thrills and spills, sheer machismo, fame and glory, the lure of beautiful, exotic-looking foreign females, sweet BS from smoothtalking politicians, yadda yadda yadda.

Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 26-May-2010 at 03:05

Originally posted by DreamWeaver To some extent you areright Shield, but its not lure of the material world, its the lure of the spiritual. To walk in the foot steps of the prophets and Christ. Jerusalem being the most important pilgrimmage site to the Christian world. To go there, to see it and to defend it.

I agree and the fact is that about 50% never made it home and very few came back with any wealth. Dr Madden talks about this on his lecture "God wills it!" I was a bit perplexed when he said the Turks were Indo-European, not true. It began as an armed pilgrimage to basically guard pilgrims and to right a wrong. Meaning to assist the Christians of the east but of course some atrocities were no doubt committed, they were human.

i would like to think that they did go on crusade for religious interests and it was probably the main force driving them but surly they must have been lured by secular interests as well such as adventure, fame, land and gold

i dont know the answer to this BUT, I DO know why the Poles didnt go on the crusades! ... "Duke Leszek the White explained in a long letter to the Pope that neither he nor any self-respecting Polish knight could be induced to go to the Holy Land, where, they had been informed, there was no wine, mead, or even beer to be had."

I really enjoyed reading the above opinions! All of them were well presented and well written!

Thanks guys!

But, if I were to take a side? And, I of course, will, then I would suggest that the "cost" of such an adventure, was mostly borne by the "host!", or as the Bible might have stated "The Lord of the Host!"

It was these "high-born" figures who raised the necessary monies, and not their vassals!

For the vast majority of the real fighters (other than the heavily armoured rich knights) were merely going with their "liege lord", because they had no other choice! They had all sworn "fidelity" to their "Lord!"

But, knowing the brutal nature of most of the common man's life, at that time, they also might well have desired a "great adventure", and a "great chance at fame or fortune, or even both?", as they prepared to accompany their "master" into a foreign land, about which they had also heard so many stories, about the women, gold, jewels, etc.! Even the weather in these far places looked wonderful! No great snows, not much rain, etc.!

So, I would suggest, that there is some certainty that some of the great lords of the time, became involved in the crusades out of some religious duty system, but the majority of the entity was not so moved!

That is they were "Indentured" to a "Lord", and only left home because it was their duty to accompany said Lord, while a lot of the rest, really looked forward to the adventure!

Some, very un-noble warriors actually did find fame and fortune with the Lord providing it!

It was to all intents and purposes, a way to enter a "Brave New World!"

Regards,

Actually DW, who wrote the following;

"Also how does one explain those at any level of society who wish to go, but independently of their feudal seniors and vasslas. Just becasue your lord is going doesnt mean that you actually have to. though it may be a wise ideas given the interpersonal relationship nature of a feudal state, taking the cross is a very individualistsic thing. There is actual litigation lain down by the Church on who may go, who may not and to whom one must ask permission. Men cant go without asking their wives (very little changes it seems ). You in turn can go independently of your lord, though their consent is often required."

My opinion is they followed because of the times! They were no different than slaves, or "slavs!" But, of course, my connection of Slaves and Slavs,is likely to provoke some response!

But, the words are inter-twined, in any event!

At least that is my "Opinion?"

Regards,

I used these words above;

"My opinion is they followed because of the times!"

And, DW asked; "Followed because of the times, how so?"

Uh? Times then made men have different views towards both their own futures and the future of their "liege" lords!, I would guess!

From the "liege" it might well have been a feeling of "Noblis oblige'?", and from the the "vassal", it was "serendipity?"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/serendipity

I just know, that it works for me!

Thanks for the thought! Maybe I need to work on it?

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 30-May-2010 at 19:07

Originally posted by Shield-of-Dardania Wanna know the ultimate etymology of the term 'serendipity'? Well, in ancient times there were islands in the east, supposedly abundant with gold. The islands included Sri Lanka off the Indian subcontinent, and Sumatra and Java in South East Asia, now forming the main islands of Indonesia.   Now, the ancient Indians called those islands 'Suvarna Dvipa', which in Sanskrit meant 'Golden Islands'. Sometimes they got confused, or they didn't differentiate between a peninsula and an island, and called even the Malay Peninsula as 'Suvarna Dvipa' too.   Indians being Indians, sometimes they drop vowels and shortened 'Suvarna Dvipa' to 'Suvarn Dvip'. Their pronunciation of the consonant 'v' being rather light, sometimes it sounds like a 'w'. So, to the ancient Arab traders - who didn't have a 'v' sound at all in their language - who ventured east a bit later, 'Suvarna Dvipa' ended up sounding more like 'Suwarn Dwip', which a fast talking, loosely pronouncing Indian would have made it sound like 'Saurandwip', which eventually gave rise to the Arabised name of 'Sirandib' for Sri Lanka, which was corrupted further to 'Serendib'.   BTW, the Portuguese may have lifted the intitial 'Siran' in 'Sirandib' and changed it to 'Sailan', from which derived the westernised name 'Ceylon'. Either that, or perhaps they just corrupted the name 'Sri Lankh', a variant of 'Sri Lankha', into 'Sailan'.   Anyway, colonial time British writers later picked up the name 'Serendib' and anglicised it to'Serendip', from which came the terms 'serendipity' and 'serendipitous'. Possibly also, they liked the name due to the intial 'Seren' in it, which perhaps invoked images of serenity, calmness and tranquility in their creative imaginations.

wow thats a mouthfull