Hi there! I have a question that is probably more to do with opinion than anything. So I remember when I was younger learning about the convict period in Australia and violence against Indigenous people. Basically what I was taught (this was when I was in primary school though) was that violence against Indigenous people was largely committed by convicts and lower class people.
When I did a unit on the crusades in uni (I’m a history major) we learned about violence committed against Rhineland Jews by Crusaders. Again I was told that this violence was committed by lower class people and not the proper crusading army (I think these lower class crusader’s were referred to as the People’s Crusade or something)
Anyways, I’m not suggesting that violence wasn’t committed by these lower classes I just think that it’s a bit of a cop out if that makes sense? It seems as if people are placing the blame on these lower class, uneducated people and placing no blame on the higher ups. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like they’re trying to pretty up history by only blaming the “lesser” people.
Mostly I’m wondering to what extent is this the common belief? Or if it even is?
Hopefully the question and title make sense, I can be very bad at putting my thoughts into words.
It is complicated. Historians have pieced together that the armies of the People's Crusade were actually more organized than portrayed by most of the chroniclers, and did actually have quite a lot of noblemen serving in their ranks. The main difference that set the People's Crusade apart from the Crusade of the Princes was that the magnates leading the contingents held greater authority over their men and could therefore restrain lower-level violence more effectively.
They also were better-funded, and weren't as reliant on pillaging. Men like Folcmar, Gottschalk, Peter the Hermit, Walter Sans Avoir, and Count Emicho of Flonheim never truly held full control of their armies because they had not been the lieges of their soldiers prior; as such, their lower social status proved insufficient to command the obedience of their men. They also did not have the financial backing of large estates; Peter the Hermit extorted the Jews to fund his expedition, and was thus able to reach Constantinople more or less intact because his army was able to buy food while passing through Hungary, but after crossing the Bosphorus he returned to Constantinople to negotiate for more supplies with the Roman emperor. While he was away, the army disintegrated into piecemeal assaults against the wishes of Peter's second-in-command Sir Walter Sans Avoir, and were cut to pieces by the Turks.
Folcmar, Emicho, and Gottschalk's armies obtained funding by pillaging the remaining wealth of the Jews, but were so disorganized that they one way or another were unable to pass through Hungary. Folcmar and Gottschalk were destroyed en route in Hungary when their men got out of hand and started pillaging, and Emicho was stopped at the edge of Hungary. After launching a surprisingly organized attack on the town that barred its way, Emicho's army was routed by the Hungarian garrison and ceased to exist.
The key problem of the People's Crusade was not that they were unwashed peasants, which they were not, but that the leaders exercised far less authority since their subordinates were tied to them merely by a common goal rather than any superiority in social status.
In contrast, the leaders of the Crusade of the Princes had spent longer preparing, and were able to buy food more reliably. Their armies were more conventionally-raised, with clear lines of authority due to oaths of fealty and the leaders' high social status, which meant that the leaders were mostly able to keep their men in hand and prevent the disasters that befell the People's Crusade.
It is important to also remember that writers who wrote of the People's Crusade were generally noblemen or related to noblemen. As such, they had a strong incentive to dismiss the People's Crusade as a lowly rabble of peasants rather than a rabble of noblemen. Frutolf of Michelsberg, for example, one of our primary sources on the matter, seems to have come from a Bavarian noble family.