First Crusade

[muy_thaiguy]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

I'd be very careful using the terms 'France' 'England' or 'Germany' (especially Germany, due to the fractured nature of the HRE)... The first crusade cannot really be seen as a 'state-sponsored' exercise. There were no monarchs or 'national' commitments, just nobles and their entourages who took the cross of their own accord.

And the idea that the Germans, English and 'the rest' followed after the capture of Jerusalem is a little awry too... All were part of the main thrust of the crusade.

Yeah, it's more like Normans, though English I think would work for this case, some of the Armenians once the Europeans left the Byzantine Empire, Germans I would say, because in a book I read that talked about the first crusade, it distinctly said Germans.

You miss my point. Germans and French are perfectly fine. Germany and France, as terms for the kingdoms as a whole, are not. None of the European monarchs took the cross, nor did they commit their countries as a whole. It was simply a collection of Nobles and their entourages.

Germany didn't go on crusade in the same manner Germany went to war in 1939. German nobles and their entourages joined the crusade of their own accord, and were in no way representative of 'Germany' as a whole.

My bad, misread it then.

[Guiscard]

primarily, france was the first to raise to arms, because of ties with clovis from the dark ages... basically the church an france got a long well. the normans joined in, bohemmund because of what some say was want of revenge against byzantium. germany, england, and the rest followed after the capture of jerusalem

I'd be very careful using the terms 'France' 'England' or 'Germany' (especially Germany, due to the fractured nature of the HRE)... The first crusade cannot really be seen as a 'state-sponsored' exercise. There were no monarchs or 'national' commitments, just nobles and their entourages who took the cross of their own accord.

And the idea that the Germans, English and 'the rest' followed after the capture of Jerusalem is a little awry too... All were part of the main thrust of the crusade.

Yeah, it's more like Normans, though English I think would work for this case, some of the Armenians once the Europeans left the Byzantine Empire, Germans I would say, because in a book I read that talked about the first crusade, it distinctly said Germans.

You miss my point. Germans and French are perfectly fine. Germany and France, as terms for the kingdoms as a whole, are not. None of the European monarchs took the cross, nor did they commit their countries as a whole. It was simply a collection of Nobles and their entourages.

Germany didn't go on crusade in the same manner Germany went to war in 1939. German nobles and their entourages joined the crusade of their own accord, and were in no way representative of 'Germany' as a whole.

My bad, misread it then.

No problem. Its something I get from undergrads a fair bit... 'Germany went on crusade, France went... etc.'