okay so this might be the most crucial part of the entire post and the reason why "economic factors" are not a particularly persuasive argument in this context or most military contexts
the key point here is that the money rarely did anything but offset the massive cost, certainly did not pay for the campaigns entirely; Crusades did not break even and they did not turn a profit for the people who started them or did the fighting, not even for the beati possidentes like Ramon IV
the bizarre Schumpeterian plunder-as-profit schematic rarely if ever explains things satisfactorily; I know work on Hellenistic history has fairly comprehensively disproven it there and it's essentially worthless in early modern Europe as well
Crusades were insanely risky ventures that more often than not required rulers to establish entire new fiscal machinery to have a chance at funding the principal for the military campaigns, with the most salient examples being Louis IX and the aforementioned Richard I
to suggest that there was no plunder of any kind would be laughable, of course there was plunder, and of course people like Richard tried to broker whatever deals they could manage but these were in the service of trying to defray costs that had already been incurred, not in the service of actually causing the fighting
anyway the fundamental problem I have here is the suggestion that these 'economic' issues were causative factors
on a macro scale, the expectation of profit was not why churches backed Crusades; in fact, the indulgence issue would seem to militate toward Church authorities opposing Crusades on the grounds that they could farm indulgences for great profit but would never have to actually put that profit toward any purpose unless a Crusade were actually called
a stronger 'economic' argument for Church backing of Crusades wouldn't focus on indulgences but rather noble property remittances; when aristocrats went east they tended to leave their lands in the care of the Church, and the Church usually managed to acquire all or part of the property upon the holder's death if the holder died on the Crusade, but the actual amounts of property involved in these transfers isn't nearly adequate to be a significant causative factor
similarly, the Crusades in the Holy Land were basically never viable fiscal ventures for western European nobles and monarchs; you could make a stronger argument about the Baltic Crusades (where the German Order expected to gain actual territory, although YMMV as to whether it was worth it) or Iberia (where Castile, Aragon, and Portugal expected the same) and of course other conflicts (like theAlbigensian CrusadeOccitan Wars and the various medieval civil wars that were dignified by the title of 'crusade' because reasons) wouldn't follow the same general path, but those aren't really the ones we're talking about here especially if the emphasis is on causation because none of those would've happened without the Levantine Crusades
this isn't just in terms of direct campaigning cost, mind you, but also opportunity cost; if plunder was the goal, plunder might have been easier to gain at less cost by fighting at home rather than in the ass end of the Mediterranean
a more realistic argument about plunder would center on claims that rulers were not particularly rational actors and wished to gain plunder even though they had little hope of even recouping their costs, but that's a very different argument and it's also very hard for me to take that seriously as an 'economic factor'...maybe a psychological one but imaginary plans to do something that would be a drop in the country's economic bucket doesn't really qualify as 'economic' for me
more cogent thoughts on Crusading are buried in this post from awhile ago
they sure are
The people who started the crusades lost for a reason.





Retour en haut












