Family and patronage during the First Crusade: a social study
The First Crusade (1096-1099) was one of the biggest operations in history. Pope Urban II called for a liberation of the Holy Land from the infidels. However even he could not have predicted the size of the forthcoming crusade. What moved people to go on this unknown adventure? The dangers, risks, and expenses were substantial, as well as the novelty of the whole idea. A social perspective has taken the stage in this debate: the theory of social networks. People moved within these networks, and were influenced by them. Furthermore: in the Middle Ages individualism was an unknown phenomenon, therefore the power of social networks was even stronger. Two types can be identified here: the network of family and that of patronage. How did these networks function during the First Crusade and how did they change according to the circumstances?
The meaning of family and patronage
Around A.D. 1100 family could mean two things. First, it could indicate a group of blood relatives: parents, husbands, wives, children, aunts, uncles, and even cousins. Second, it was used in the form of a household, and included blood relatives, as well as vassals and servants. Both meanings are applicable during the crusades: men of noble birth took their whole households with them, and there also was a concentration of blood relatives to be found among the participants. Patronage indicated the relationship of reciprocity and loyalty between lord and vassal in the feudal system. The lord granted a fief – a piece of land or some property – to the vassal. In return the vassal owed him loyal service, in terms of financial and military support.
Both concepts formed their own networks. The network of family was based on a relationship of dependence, obligation, and loyalty to the family name, whereas the network of patronage involved this relationship of reciprocity and loyalty. These networks worked both horizontally, and vertically: on top was the nobleman and his family, which was being held together by the network of family; which in turn influenced the rest of the population through the network of patronage, which shall become clear later on.
Both concepts formed their own networks. The network of family was based on a relationship of dependence, obligation, and loyalty to the family name, whereas the network of patronage involved this relationship of reciprocity and loyalty. These networks worked both horizontally, and vertically: on top was the nobleman and his family, which was being held together by the network of family; which in turn influenced the rest of the population through the network of patronage, which shall become clear later on.
The functioning of social networks from 1095 onwards
So why did so many people respond positively to pope Urban’s call to fight in the Holy Land? The social networks of family and patronage preconditioned its members to react positively to the idea of crusading, especially the noblemen. The noblemen were preconditioned by the religious traditions of their families (donations, active support of the church, etc.); their place within these families (all those who were not heirs craved pursuing their ambitions); their love for their relatives (penitence for those who were not able to); and lastly honouring the family name. Once the decision to join the crusade had been made, this automatically preconditioned the subjects of the family in question, because of the aforementioned patronage bond between lord and vassal: a vertical functioning of the network of patronage.
The family network was also dominant in the provisioning of the financial funds needed for the expedition. One way to provide for this was by selling or pledging the possessions within the family. Another way was to secure a favourable marriage, which would bring new property and advantageous alliances along with it.
The family network was also dominant in the provisioning of the financial funds needed for the expedition. One way to provide for this was by selling or pledging the possessions within the family. Another way was to secure a favourable marriage, which would bring new property and advantageous alliances along with it.
A new network and the binding powers of family and patronage
When the practical preparations such
as financial support were dealt with, a fellowship had to be formed. Again the
two social networks proved their worth: the fellowship was formed by family
alliances and patronagebonds in the form of the household. A new kind of
network emerged with this household on top: the army of crusaders. As we shall
see, the social networks provided the ties within this new network. These ties
were necessary, because of the lack of formal leaders in the First Crusade. The
stable factor within the army was the household of the nobility. The following
example will illustrate the ties the networks provided. One
the one hand Godfrey of Bouillon – the later king of Jerusalem – was
accompanied by his younger brother Baldwin of Boulogne and his wife Godevere,
his cousins Warner of Grez and Baldwin of Bourcq and subjects
like the butler Ruthard, the seneschal Baldric and Stabelo, the chamberlain
(Alan V. Murray, “The Army of Godfrey of Bouillon,”: 302-303). On the other hand there were also
ties between the households of the different armies that left for the Holy
Land. Eustace III of Boulogne, the eldest brother of Godfrey and Baldwin,
accompanied his lord Robert of Normandy in another crusader army (Albert van
Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana
II, 18-20).
Because of the general lack of official leaders, the rest of the army changed continuously. There were two main factors for this within the social networks: desertion and the changing of ties. Especially during the siege of Antioch (October 1097- June 1098) – a seven-month period of misery, hunger and uncertainty – the problem of desertion was extensive. Many men left their armies, as well as some leaders. Stephen II Henry of Blois is one example. He was one of the informal leaders, who travelled with Robert of Normandy. Apparently the network of home and wife was stronger (John F. Pryor, “Stephen of Blois: Sensitive New-Age Crusader or Victim of History?”: 27-30). Another factor that influenced the networks, was the changing of one’s patronage bonds. Crusaders seem to have chosen the best package of patronage in times of war; one that included security, food, and possessions. If circumstances changed, they could choose another lord. Here we see the boundaries of the bindingpowers of the social networks in wartime.
Because of the general lack of official leaders, the rest of the army changed continuously. There were two main factors for this within the social networks: desertion and the changing of ties. Especially during the siege of Antioch (October 1097- June 1098) – a seven-month period of misery, hunger and uncertainty – the problem of desertion was extensive. Many men left their armies, as well as some leaders. Stephen II Henry of Blois is one example. He was one of the informal leaders, who travelled with Robert of Normandy. Apparently the network of home and wife was stronger (John F. Pryor, “Stephen of Blois: Sensitive New-Age Crusader or Victim of History?”: 27-30). Another factor that influenced the networks, was the changing of one’s patronage bonds. Crusaders seem to have chosen the best package of patronage in times of war; one that included security, food, and possessions. If circumstances changed, they could choose another lord. Here we see the boundaries of the bindingpowers of the social networks in wartime.
Change after the conquest of Jerusalem
After the capture of Jerusalem in June 1099 another wave of change came over the previously formed networks. Firstly, a new political system had to be established, which would secure the newly conquered Crusader States. This new political system was build on the western model of feudal society and was formed by the old political alliances – the alliances between the informal leaders of the expedition. Secondly, most of the crusaders went home. However to keep a stable Christian population, their places in the networks had to be filled. The population was thus reinforced by an influx of newcomers from Western-Europe and by political-advantageous marriage alliances with the Christian Byzantine and Armenian populations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the social networks of family and patronage played an essential part in the First Crusade. They worked on the one hand as an incentive for taking part in it, and on the other as an environment in which people acted in times of war. In addition, they could have a binding aspect, but they were not static: they developed, adapted and changed according to the circumstances. The influence of social networks cannot be denied.
J. R.
Further Reading
Aachen, Albert van, “Historia Ierosolimitana,” in: Albert of Aachen Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. Susan B. Edgingtion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007.
Brittain Bouchard, Constance, Those of My Blood: constructing Noble Families in Medieval Francia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
France, John, “Patronage and the Appeal of the First Crusade,” in The Crusades: the Essential Readings, ed. Thomas F. Madden. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Murray, Alan V., “The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099: Structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 70, no. 2 (1992): 301-329.
Pryor, John F., “Stephen of Blois: Sensitive New-Age Crusader or Victim of History?” Arts: journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 20 (1998): 26-74.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The First Crusaders 1095-1131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Aachen, Albert van, “Historia Ierosolimitana,” in: Albert of Aachen Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, ed. Susan B. Edgingtion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007.
Brittain Bouchard, Constance, Those of My Blood: constructing Noble Families in Medieval Francia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
France, John, “Patronage and the Appeal of the First Crusade,” in The Crusades: the Essential Readings, ed. Thomas F. Madden. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Murray, Alan V., “The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099: Structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 70, no. 2 (1992): 301-329.
Pryor, John F., “Stephen of Blois: Sensitive New-Age Crusader or Victim of History?” Arts: journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 20 (1998): 26-74.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The First Crusaders 1095-1131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.