I saved a question yesterday, “Did the scandinavians and slavs participate in the middle eastern crusades?”, but unfortunately when I returned to it this morning the OP had deleted it. So I was working on this answer, which is now in need of a question...

We tend to think of crusaders as French or Italian, or English or German - “western” European, rather than eastern or northern. But in fact crusading was a common experience everywhere in Europe. There were certainly Scandinavian, Polish, and Russian crusaders - for the most part they were involved in the crusades in the Baltic (against "pagans"), but some of them also went to the Middle East.

There may have been some Scandinavians as early as the First Crusade. Fulcher of Chartres, who participated in the crusade, wrote that there were “Dacians” on the crusade. He was using deliberately old fashioned, ancient names for some people (e.g., he refers to the Swiss as “Allobroges”), so it’s possible that by “Dacians” he meant people living in ancient Dacia/modern Romania. But it’s also possible that he meant Danes, since Dacia was also a medieval name for Denmark. There was probably at least one Danish person whose name we know: Sweyn, son of King Sweyn II and brother of King Eric I. The adventures of “Sweyn the Crusader” and his wife Florina of Burgundy seem a bit legendary, but their names are attested by contemporary chroniclers.

In any case, there were definitely Scandinavians there a few years later. Around 1110 there was a “Norwegian crusade” led by King Sigurd I of Norway. Sigurd led a fleet of ships down the Atlantic coast into the Mediterranean, where they helped the Spanish capture the Balearic Islands, and they may have visited Sicily. Then they helped the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem capture the city of Sidon. On the way home they visited Constantinople and met the Byzantine emperor.

Among the Slavs, the Polish Duke Henryk of Sandomierz participated in the Second Crusade, and there were other Polish expeditions to Jerusalem in 1153 and 1162. In 1221, the Pope chastised Duke Leszek the White for not fulfilling his vow to go on crusade, and Leszek supposedly complained that he couldn’t go to the Middle East because they didn’t have any beer or mead there.

And of course we shouldn’t forget the other aspect of crusading, people who went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem without necessarily participating in warfare. In that case there is an account of a pilgrimage by Daniel, an abbot from Kievan Rus', and there were even pilgrims to Jerusalem from as far away as Iceland.

The question asked about Scandinavians and Slavs, but to this I would also add Hungarian crusaders. King Andrew II led a Hungarian army to Jerusalem during the Fifth Crusade, and there were certainly other Hungarian crusaders - although Hungary was also a victim, as their territory was attacked during the Fourth Crusade.

Sources:

Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, trans. Francis Rita Ryan (Columbia University Press, 1969)

Mikolaj Gladysz, The Forgotten Crusaders: Poland and the Crusader Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Brill, 2012

Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095-1131, Cambridge University Press, 1997 - Riley-Smith lists all the crusaders whose names are attested

James M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade: 1213-1221, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986 - includes a list of all known participants in the Fifth Crusade

The Library of the Palestine Pilgrim's Text Society, Vol. IV: A Journey through Syria and Palestine by Nasir-i-Khusrau; the Pilgrimage of Saewulf to Jerusalem; the Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel (1896, repr. 1971)

Kedar, Benjamin Z. "Icelanders in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: a twelfth-century account", in Mediaeval Scandinavia 11 (1978-79), repr. in The Franks in the Levant, 11th to 14th Centuries (Ashgate, 1993)

Gary B. Doxey, "Norwegian Crusaders and the Balearic Islands", in Scandinavian Studies 68, no. 2 (1996)

Janus Moller Jensen, Denmark and the Crusades, 1400-1650 (Brill, 2007) - this is about later Danish crusades (there were no crusades to the Middle East at that point), but still interesting

I originally posted this in response to a question about the participation of Kings and other nobles in armed conflict in the Middle Ages. However, the question was removed due to the question being example-seeking. I have expanded my answer a little bit here.

It was actually an incredibly important part of Medieval Kingship to be present on the battlefield. The official seals of most English Kings depicted them seated as the dispenser of justice on one side, and mounted and armed for combat on the reverse. In fact, many other nobles depicted themselves this way on their seals as well. A few examples: Richard I and Edward III Though you can look up just about every English King until James I and find an equestrian depiction on one side.

It is also important to note that commanders avoided pitched battles and preferred to practice warfare through sieges, skirmishes, and through strategic control of supply lines, territory, etc. Kings could participate in this directly or indirectly depending on the other needs of their Kingdom. Richard I, known as a great warrior, only participated in one pitched battle, the Battle of Arsuf, and scholarship actually debates as to whether this conflict actually qualifies as a battle. Richard was well-known to usually remain in the thick of the fighting, and to be a very responsive and innovative commander. Even Kings who did not fight any pitched battles, such as Henry II of England, were expected to take an active role in the practice of war. For his part, Henry II led campaigns in Wales and Toulouse, against the King of France, and against rebels in every part of his realm.

The medieval worldview supported the idea that the outcome of a pitched battle would be determined by God. God would grant the combatants of the winning side the skill and tactical advantages required to win. God would make their arrows fly true and their swords hit their marks, and therefore the victor would have God's blessing. In 1066, Harold Godwinson fought two battles in a matter of weeks to defend his throne. First, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harold defeated Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, who had laid claim to England. A few weeks later, Harold was defeated by William of Normandy, who was able to take the throne largely on the strength of Harold having been killed in the battle. The Anglo-Saxon records that:

William, however, came against him unawares, ere his army was collected; but the king, nevertheless, very hardly encountered him with the men that would support him: and there was a great slaughter made on either side. There was slain King Harold, and Leofwin his brother, and Earl Girth his brother, with many good men: and the Frenchmen gained the field of battle, as God granted them for the sins of the nation.

There was an incident that was not reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but by chroniclers active during the generation following the Norman Conquest that also demonstrates the importance of military participation for medieval kings. At one point during the Battle of Hastings, a rumour was started in the Norman ranks that Duke William had been killed in the battle. The Normans began to break ranks, and William was forced to announce his presence on the battlefield and remove his helmet. This is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry HERE.

The battle raged for some time with the utmost violence between both parties. At length the indomitable bravery of the [Anglo-Saxon] English threw the Bretons, both horse and foot, and the other auxiliary troops composing the left wing, into confusion, and in their rout, they drew with them almost all the rest of the duke's army, who, in their panic, believed that he was slain. The duke, perceiving that large bodies from the enemy had broken their ranks in pursuit of his flying toops, rode up to the fugitives and checked their retreat, loudly threatening them, and striking with his lance. Taking off his helmet, and exposing his naked head, he shouted "See, I am here; I am still living, and by God's help, shall yet have the victory." Suddenly the courage of the fugitives was restored by these bold words of the duke; and intercepting some thousands of their pursuers, they cut them down in a moment. In this manner, the Normans, twice again pretending to retreat, and when they were followed by the English, suddnely wheeling their horses, cut their pursuers off from the main body and slew them. - Orderic Vitalis

This episode not only distinguishes the importance of the King or other leader's presence served to the morale of his men, but even attributes William's actions to forming the basis of the further strategy against Harold's forces.

Later, Henry I of England fought the Battle of Tinchebray against his own brother, Robert Curthose. Both men were present on the field, and the battle ended with Robert's capture and imprisonment. Henry made several tactical decisions in the midst of the battle which led to his victory. This is a more typical outcome as aristocrats in the High Middle Ages tended to avoid killing each other as their ransoms could be quite lucrative. This was the case in 1141 at the Battle of Lincoln, fought by King Stephen of England against the forces of Empress Matilda, who were led by her half-brother, Robert of Gloucester. Stephen is generally accredited as fighting on until knocked unconscious. William of Malmesbury, who actually supported the Empress, said in the Historia Novella "The king himself, though he did not lack spirit in self-defence, was at length attacked on all sides by the earl of Gloucester's knights and fell to the ground on being struck by a stone. It is not known who dealt the blow." William, Henry of Huntingdon, and the anonymous author of the Gesta Stephani, all include similar accounts, and all take it for granted that Stephen's rightful place was in battle, defending his throne.

Some other examples of this include: Edward I, who allegedly declared that his bones should be carried at the head of every English army until Scotland was reconquered - his wishes were not followed. Henry V at Agincourt. Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses - his rival, Henry VI's incapacitation and therefore lack of participation in warfare was a huge selling point for Team York. Richard III was slain in the Battle of Bosworth by forces led by Henry Tudor, later Henry VII.

Most studies on Medieval Warfare or Kingship, and indeed most of the biographies of monarchs in this period will reflect the importance of military success for successful medieval monarchs. John Gillingham, whose life work is primarily concerned with Richard I, has written a great deal on the subject. MT Clancy also returns to this topic several times in England and Its Rulers, which is a great overview of medieval English history.

Week 117

 

In our brief installment from last week we managed to examine some of the reactions produced by F.S. Nitti's declarations to the Chamber of September 13^th 1919, on the recent events of Fiume, as well as providing some context for the perceived harshness of those statements. We had not covered those statements though, and we'll therefore start – and hopefully conclude next week – our examination of the early adjustments made by the Italian Government to the new situation in Fiume from there.

Nitti had opened his reply to the various interrogations which had begun to accumulate in the late afternoon of September 12^th – starting with the one submitted by Guido Marangoni, “to find out what's true in the press news of a march of Italian volunteers over Fiume”, and following the next day with the others submitted, on behalf of the various groups, by Turati, Colajanni, Pala, Celesia, Chiesa and Federzoni – by offering a summary of the available information.

Yesterday, in a telegram the hour of which wasn't clearly readable, but which must have been sent around 13.00 pm, gen. Pittaluga announced the departure from Monfalcone of part of a battalion of grenadiers, previously in Fiume, with trucks, and that 300 youths from Fiume's battalion had left to meet [and join] them. Gen. Pittaluga added that he was reaching out to stop them, that no action had been taken until that moment against the Allies, that he had forbidden any assembly or manifestation and that he was ready to enact energetic measures. He asked for carabineers reinforcements.

At 13.15 gen. Pittaluga telegraphed that grenadiers and arditi, with guns and armored cars, together with Gabriele d'Annunzio, at 11.45 am, breaking through every resistance, had reached Fiume. [as you can see, if the hours provided by Nitti are correct, Pittaluga's first telegram had been sent only after the attempt of the Italian commander to halt D'Annunzio's march had failed]. He added, “order is being restored, and I maintain my command”.

At 14.30 a new telegram, to the Ministry of War, from gen. Di Robilant, informed of the departure, taking place during the night, by means of 40 trucks, of grenadiers led by D'Annunzio to Fiume, and that the volunteer battalion of Fiume was awaiting them on the armistice line.

He added that the Command of the XVI [actually XXVI] Army Corp had proceeded in order to arrest their movement; but, due to the defection of a unit and of other troops of the armistice line, this couldn't happen. Gen. Di Robilant ordered Pittaluga to disarm the soldiers and to confine the grenadiers with the troops of armistice line.

At 15.00 gen. Di Robilant, providing confirmation of the movement, declared that it was such as to compromise our international situation, and asked for the Government's full support for the most energetic action.

At 15.30 gen. Di Robilant telegraphed to the Ministry of War listing those troops with whom he intended, across the armistice line, to take action against the defecting troops. Were, he said, persuasion to prove insufficient, he was prepared to act with energy.

At 18.00, in consequence of the events, gen. Di Robilant suspended the turnaround across the armistice line and gave instructions for certain brigades to prepare to be transferred.

At 21.30, the Command of the VIII Army Corp delivered a communication, coming from the Command in Fiume, which more or less coincided with what I said.

At 22.30 gen. Di Robilant, in response to a telegram I had sent, informed me that he had issued severe dispositions, and that he was in the process of concentrating troops in order to proceed to an energetic repression. He added that an inquest was ongoing, in order to ascertain responsibilities, and that he was going to be in Fiume [the next day, that is, for Nitti, today, September 13^th 1919].

At 4.00 am, today, a phonogram [a phone call] from the Command of the VIII Army Corp informed that the commander of the assault division, of the assault group and of the grenadiers division were departing for Fiume in order to persuade the troops who had defected to desist from their insane intentions.

With another telegram, received at 7.15 am, the aforementioned Command gave communication concerning news from gen. Pittaluga, that at 3.50 am the Dante Alighieri had left the harbor, after signalling repeatedly, provoking bell alarms and causing the populace to wake up; but added that a certain number of seamen had remained on land, and that the delegate of the British detachment had informed of an imminent assault on their barracks, which nonetheless had not taken place.

lt.col. Roncagli, chief of staff of gen. Pittaluga, returning from Udine, stated that, about 12 kilometers from the city of Fiume, he had met units of the 6^th artillery and the bicycle battalion, once detached to Fiume, on their way back to the town. Gen. Ferreri, commander of the troops surveilling the armistice line, informed that he was on his way to meet them. D'Annunzio had noticed his intention to install himself in the seat of the Italian command.

The last telegram, received at noon, declares that the situation created in Fiume by the coup is to be regarded, for the time being, as a serious one, because there are about 2,000 men in town, which entered it without any right.

gen. Pittaluga asked for instructions and added that his intention was to take such measures as necessary to prevent serious conflicts.

 

After his summary, which had been delivered “in the cold form of the official telegrams”, Nitti continued his address to the Chamber on a more personal note, revealing his feelings of “deep sorrow and grief”, and providing a broader reading of the recent events.

What happened filled me with sadness, but also with a sense of humiliation, because for the first time, albeit with idealistic intentions, sedition has made its way into the Italian army.

The Army has but one duty and one rule: obedience! Any other word, any other advice, any other suggestion are harmful. This is therefore an attempt that I must declare, in front of Italy and of our allies […] deplorable.

One thing is an action of volunteers, another entirely the participation of soldiers of the regular army. A soldier who breaks away from discipline, even with noble intentions, goes against his Motherland. Those who incite them, with flattery, even for not self-serving reasons, even for a noble goal, to seditious acts, are turning soldiers against their Motherland.

Therefore you'll hear no words of indulgence from me.

If our Adriatic aspirations are so vigorously contrasted, that's for many different reasons, but also and above all because there are those who give credit to the idea of a violent imperialistic spirit of the Italian people.

I have stated before, and indeed many times, how such a view is wrong. Yet, given how in many countries these ideas have gained traction, the current events don't help dispel these preconceived notions. No worse assistance could be provided therefore to the cause which we all defend and cherish.

Gentlemen, virtue doesn't rest in easy flattery, in exciting the souls of the people. In our most difficult hours, of anguish and peril, virtue rests in resisting flattery and fight back our weakness. And it's not with conceiving such endeavors, a raid somewhere between romanticism and literature, that one can make the fortune of their Country. […]

At this point, voices from the opposition begun crying the name of Garibaldi, in a somewhat forced attempt to invoke a noble historical precedent for D'Annunzio's expedition. Nitti would not accept the analogue, and resumed with the theme of sedition – a sedition more hinted at than addressed in his speech, but which Nitti appeared to regard as a genuine explanation, ascribing the failure of his Government to prevent D'Annunzio's action to a deliberate action of sabotage. Indeed, Nitti's speech betrayed here and there a true sense of disillusionment and anger, revealing the deeply unsettling character of the recent events perhaps more openly than one would have expected from a man who, albeit not the most fascinating of public speakers, was regarded as a quite competent parliamentary man.