Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Igoka t1_irf2i7o wrote

Reply to comment by swiftachilles in Did the first crusade impact significantly the war-making capacity of states like england, west and east francia? And did later crusades impose equal burdens, or was the distribution of this burden different for the 2nd and 3rd crusades? by Qazwereira

>This didn’t really work because an armed and violent minority needs to assert itself, especially when violence is it’s only tie to power and legitimacy.

So you're saying the Nobles and Church duped the potentially Unwanted-Heirs (go claim your glory) and Middle Class (intrinsic threat) into going away, thus resolving the status quo?

95

TheGreatOneSea t1_irfcq5r wrote

The only real deception would have been about the sheer distance to travel, and even that was probably more out of general ignorance than bad faith.

The crusaders knew full well they had nothing to inherit, and most would have been lucky to have enough equipment to qualify as heavy cavalry. Becoming a crusader thus encouraged families to pay for better equipment, and helped the crusaders to receive far more support from strangers who would otherwise have no reason to aid them. Just look at the difference in support Ukriane has gotten compared to something like Yemen, and you can start to appreciate how big a diffrence ideology actually makes.

Not to be too cynical, of course: few would likely leave everything they knew behind if faith wasn't a genuine motivator, and all but the most ambitious could probably have found easier employment along the way if they looked hard enough. That so many endured great hardships for so long is difficult to attribute to mere pragmatism.

134

swiftachilles t1_irfa3ah wrote

Not quite, this was in reference to the Truce and Peace of God, where the church tried to limit the impact of the newly formed feudal class. This feudal class had only begun to establish itself in the late 900s and early 1000s.

This knightly/feudal class was completely new, only able to gain power through violent means. In the absence of a strong central power, gangs of armed men would build fortresses and bully nearby communities for tribute. As time went on, fortresses turned into castles and armed thugs into knights.

So while the church was able to slow down this process, it was too late to stop. Instead of centrally appointed figures or administrators, a new class had seized power and made themselves indispensable.

The first crusade was a way of channeling this new found oppressive class into a conflict that wouldn’t hurt Christians as much. However this also created a dangerous precedent were waging war was not a sin but instead a virtue.

32

khaddy t1_irg7s26 wrote

This feudal class sounds like any modern day mafia or organized crime syndicate. How strange to think that despite all our progress, not much has actually changed in many parts of the world.

23

MassiveStallion t1_irhgz9i wrote

To be fair the concepts of crime syndicates, crime and mafias are after feudalism.

"The mafia" doesn't really exist without 'the law" and the modern idea of 'the law' doesn't really exist without literacy or policemen.

In a time before laws were written, before police existed, an entity like mafia would essentially be the police. Who else was there? You'd have a nobles guards but those are more of a simple military force than people who investigate theft, murder or whatever.

The idea of a serial killer doesn't even exist until the 1910s because frankly no one actually cared or bothered to keep track of murders.

13

khaddy t1_irhltyo wrote

I meant mafia / organized crime as a group of (mostly men) who would use their strength, numbers, and organization (in the form of attacks on other people trying to live peacefully)... And furthermore that their growing power gave them confidence to increase their activities until they controlled a local area. Whether the "good" powers around them are a King, or a local government, the villagers nearby live by the rules that king or govt established, until the "mafia" gained enough power to undermine those rules and terrorize the people. Only those people who do what the mafia wants are left alone (pay protection money, or give up their harvest and women), others get attacked.

I suppose it's a stretch and I'm playing with words here but at its core, might makes right, and struggles for power are as old as time itself, and when the violent bands got big enough to undermine society, something had to be done with them.

−4

MassiveStallion t1_irhotvi wrote

Yeah. The idea of a crime syndicate can only realistically exist in an area of laws.

If it's just kind of a no man's land like France was back then, it really is just kings and kingdoms.

Your traditional godfather style mafia family is a feudal power structure in of itself, with the Don at the top, sons as heirs and the Commission being like embassies of different kingdoms.

What makes them a mafia or criminals is that they exist inside of an existing nation with laws that outlaw them.

This is a time when 'crime' in the way we think of it honestly wasn't even a thing.

7

sighthoundman t1_irgd2wm wrote

I've read that the Mafia was originally formed to fight the Muslims in Sicily, and then the Spanish.

I haven't verified it, it might just be a widespread rumor. But it is widespread.

The biggest problem was that, as a Non-Governmental Organization, they didn't have any taxing power. So they subsisted on contributions. Some more voluntary than others.

12

Donaldbeag t1_iri3g6g wrote

This really sounds like the sort of origin myth that a group would create to legitimatise themselves and give everyone a good pat on the back.

There were a variety of documented organisations that fought for Christians in Spain, Malta, southern Italy etc - and it would be a bit of a stretch for another, undocumented group of lowly crime lords fighting the same fight that nobody noticed!

3