Sins of the Crusaders – For the Love of Money?

Introduction: The Real Motives Behind the Crusades

“We now know that greed cannot have been the dominant motive among the first crusaders, not least because, as recent research has shown, for most participants the expedition promised to be utterly terrifying and cripplingly expensive.”
– Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History

The Financial Sacrifice of Crusading Knights

“Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt…Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”
– Thomas Madden

Money, Power, and Hereditary Inheritance in the Middle Ages

Money interests dominate our leaders today, so the assumption is that money must have always dominated leaders, including the medieval aristocracy. The truth is while power and money have always held sway over the hearts of men and drawn the wrong sort to positions of power, during the Middle Ages hereditary inheritance prevented those sorts from rising to power to a large extent. And the feudal aristocracy, in tandem with a church hostile to trade, the charging of interest and greed, often despised merchants and money. Money did not have the same grip over society as in our modern materialistic world.

In my first two articles, I referred to those who went to the Holy Land as making great sacrifices and risking lives, lands, and wealth to help their persecuted brothers in the East. They did not view the quest as one for profit and gain but as self-sacrifice.

Perceptions of Sacrifice and Greed Among Crusaders and Their Critics

At the time of the events, matters were viewed the exact opposite way to how many see them today; the ones who left were seen as making a sacrifice, and those who stayed did so out of greed. For example, Contemporary historians like Ekkehard of Aura said those who did not engage in the pilgrimage did so because they were focused on money and power; in contrast, the Crusaders made a great sacrifice by giving those things up.

Even the few who were set to gain risked lives, families and lands and endured thirst, diseases, baking heat and blistering cold. The journey was not worth the loot and gain that might be had. Many deserted. A select few individuals, such as Bohemund of Taranto, saw the Crusades as an opportunity for adventure and to gain power, yet at the time of the Crusades, critics of those who stayed in Europe claimed they did so for money, unwilling to surrender their wealth to help those in the East.

The High Cost and Financial Impact of Crusading

And even if they did survive and return they often suffered loss, as historian Alexander Clarence Flick wrote: “Many powerful feudal lords, who divided sovereign power with the king, were killed or returned impoverished and were unable to recover their power.” Having travelled long distances at extraordinary expense, the financially-starved and desperate army used up all their remaining resources to return to Europe.

Those who remained in the Holy Land after the successful First Crusade also were considered self-sacrificing. William of Tyre described Raymond of Toulouse as follows: “Count Raymond, nonetheless, spurned his native land and did not return home, but, instead, most devoutly followed Christ. He extended further the pilgrimage upon which he had embarked and followed it in voluntary poverty to the end.” When the King of France, Philip II Augustus, left the Third Crusade to improve his position in France, Richard the Lionheart of England who stayed behind said, “We, however, place the love of God and his honour above our own and above the acquisition of many regions.”

The Enormous Financial Burden of the Crusades

Crusading cost a knight five or even six times his yearly income. Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “Most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupted themselves to go…crusading was a very expensive undertaking…the best estimate is that a typical crusader needed to raise at least four times his annual income before he could set forth.” Scholar Malcolm Barber wrote, “few of the aristocratic participants could have seen it as a source for potential profit, it cost four or five times the annual income of a knight to equip one.”

The elite Western unit was the armoured knight; maintaining them during long journeys to the Holy Land was extremely challenging. This was especially true when their horses suffered casualties. Furthermore, the cost of knighthood was already a significant drain on resources in the West, and the additional expense of maintaining the knightly unit in distant lands made it even more burdensome.

Financial Strain on Monarchs and Nobles

Many kings spent the realm’s entire treasury and multiple years’ income to fund more prominent crusades. Over 10 years, King Louis IX of France spent six times the royal income to fund crusades to the Holy Land. Richard the Lionheart drained all of England’s money to fund his crusade. One observer said of Richard that he, “put up for sale all he had, officials, Lordships, Earldoms, Sheriffdoms, castles, towns, lands, everything.” Knights sold vineyards, mills, land, and even entire counties to help pay for the voyage. Nobles sold their lands, vineyards, castles, and forests and even went bankrupt to fund their crusade and help others who wished to go. Kings paid for knights to go on crusades, weakening themselves at home even if they did not personally go.

Volunteers and the Financial Burden on Society

Volunteers offered much aid. Historian Maurice Keen wrote, “Crusading was expensive, and the costs were borne by the crusaders themselves, their families, their lords and… the church in the west.” And scholar Thomas Asbridge points out, “Many families endured major financial sacrifices to enable their kin to afford to crusade…only a handful of crusaders actually stayed in the Levant after the expedition, and among the returning majority none came home laden down with riches.”

Not only did knights and foot soldiers make the journey at a tremendous financial cost, but most believed that by taking the cross, they were unlikely to return, let alone with riches. Many people who were leaving and never expected to return, donated their lands and gave away their positions before departing. Several Crusader lords made arrangements for their possessions before departing, assuming that they would not return.

The Church’s Role in Financing the Crusades

The Church helped fund the Crusades. Popes, bishops, kings, and lords raised taxes to help fund expeditions or gifts to the crusader states. The Church consistently made significant donations to help the Holy Land and made large-scale contributions to fund various crusades and help alleviate some of the expenses, stating:

“Lest we should seem to put on other men’s shoulders burdens so heavy that we would not so much as put a finger to them, like those who say, but do not, we give 30,000 pounds out of our savings for this work, and besides the passage-money which we give all crusaders from Rome and the surrounding country, we also give 3,000 silver marks which are left in our hands from the gifts of certain Christians, the rest having been spent for the benefit of the holy land by the patriarchs of Jerusalem and the masters of the Templars and the Hospitallers. Moreover, we and our brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman church, will pay a tenth of our incomes; and let all know that they must faithfully do this.”

Crusades: Burden on the West, Not a Quest for Wealth

The wealth gained by groups like the Templars in the Holy Land came not from “loot” but from funds from the West.

The goal of the crusades was never money, they were a burden on the West as a whole. During the Fourth Crusade (which was derailed from its original aim), Crusaders invaded Constantinople to loot and subsequently rule it. However, Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the Crusaders, condemned their actions, stating that they were only interested in earthly treasures, not heavenly ones. He said of the Fourth Crusade, “You apply yourself not to the recovery of Jerusalem, but to seize Constantinople, preferring earthly to heavenly riches… no wonder the Greeks call them dogs.” Urban II said at the Council of Clermont, “Whoever goes on the journey to free the church of God in Jerusalem out of devotion alone, and not for gaining glory or money, can substitute the journey for all penance for sin.” Professor Rodney Stark points out that Pope Alexander II called a crusade against Spain in 1063, which was closer and had rich lands to acquire, yet few responded. But later many knights volunteered for a more expensive, more perilous, and longer journey towards the Holy Land, which promised fewer rewards. Scholar Thomas Asbridge wrote, “The once-fashionable myth that the crusaders were self-serving, disinherited, land-hungry, younger sons must be discarded.”

Debunking the “Little to Lose” Theory

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 most wealthy (likely the only ones who could afford it) and those who had the most to lose that travelled.

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.

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.” 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 of 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.” And finally, Steve Weidenkopf wrote, “it was not the younger but rather the firstborn sons of French families who overwhelmingly participated in the First Crusade. In other words, it was the men who stood to lose everything.”

Land as a Motive: A Misconception

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 fulfil 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.

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. At Antioch, the Crusade’s 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.

The True Intentions of the Crusaders

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. 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. 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. 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.”

Was It Colonization? A Different Perspective

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. Crusader states could not survive without help from the West. 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.” 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 on their defence. 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.