For Pilgrims and Strangers I needed to send characters on Crusade, but which crusade should I choose? After much research, I decided upon the Third Crusade as the most credible crusade for my English characters and so the story is set in the 1190s. There were a multitude of reasons why a baron would take the Cross and in part three of a series of blogs, I'll explore some of the less likely motivations.
Out of Favour Barons
Barons, whether lay or ecclesiastical, lived in the temporal world where their power and position relied on the state of secular politics. However, some barons did go on crusade to the East during periods of upheaval, but only if their position in the political arena was insecure with no hope of reinstatement.
The few barons with English lands who accompanied Robert Curthose were associated with the rebellion of 1195. Phillip de Bellême was found guilty of complicity while Anulf de Hesdin cleared his name in a trial by battle. Both men deemed it wise to remove themselves temporarily from William Rufus' immediate authority, as did Stephen of Aumale. His father, lord of Holderness, was one of the leading conspirators and one chronicler (Florence of Worcester) writes that the rebels aimed to put Stephen on the throne in place of his first cousin. There is no evidence to indicate the level of Stephen's involvement, if any. He had been one of the Norman barons to support William Rufus against Duke Robert in 1090. However, perhaps Stephen was concerned at how much of the rumour his cousin believed and thus left with Duke Robert.
Ivo de Grandmesnil is the only recorded baron holding English lands to embark on the crusade called for after 1100. Ivo, who had accompanied Robert Curthose on the First Crusade, supported the Duke in the 1101 war against Henry I. He was found guilty of waging private war and the 'unheard of crime' of 'burning the crops of his neighbours.' Heavily fined and out of royal favour, he perhaps felt that 'it would be very difficult if not impossible for him to ever regain the king's friendship which he had forfeited' (Orderic Vitalis). Shame that he had fled the siege of Antioch during the First Crusade was perhaps why he chose to return to the Holy Land, but it was his dire political circumstances which provided the catalyst. Ivo did not leave until 1102, after his fall from secular position and power.
Although the civil war in England meant the vast majority of barons did not heed the call for a crusade in 1146, it also created the circumstances which drove a few to take the cross and depart. Waleran de Meulan, Earl of Worcester, was one of king Stephen's chief advisers, who had remained faithful to his cause even after the battle of Lincoln in February 1141. Threatened with the loss of his patrimony when Geoffrey of Anjou overran his lands in Normandy, Waleran deserted Stephen later in the same year. The crusade provided the means of absenting himself from this situation of divided loyalties.
Pope Eugenius III's encyclical Quantum praedecessores of 1146 and subsequent papal bulls gave protection to the lands and interests of all who took crusading vows. The Church recognised that this was the predominant concern of those they wished to recruit. Barons could absent themselves knowing 'their goods and families' were safeguarded by the Church; the payment of debts was suspended and 'no legal suit will be brought concerning those things they hold peacefully' (Audita tremendi, 1187). Such privileges were especially welcome for barons who found themselves in difficult political circumstances.
Roger de Mowbray found himself not only militarily vulnerable, because of the civil war in Stephen's reign, but also legally insecure in the possession of his honour. Captured at the battle of Lincoln by the Earl of Chester, he was forced to concede land to the Earl's constable amounting to fourteen knights' fees. Through royal favour, Roger de Stuteville was able to regain some of his grandfather's lands given to Roger de Mowbray's father. Making a crusading vow was a means of protecting the Mowbray honour from further loss. Another claim for land by Robert de Stuteville was possibly unsuccessful because Roger was absent on crusade. Roger may have also taken the cross a second time in 1176 to protect his lands from further royal punishment and as a timely voluntary exile after his involvement in the 1173-4 rebellion against Henry II (Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1237).
Barons whose Political Star was Waning
For other barons the crusade was a means of trying to regain position and power that they had lost. Drogo fitz Ralph, Roger de Glanville, Gilbert Pipard, Ralph de Arden, and Bertran de Verdun were all former shefiffs who had lost their positions upon Richard I's accession. Roger of Howden also found his secure place as royal clerk privy to the king's inner circle threatened under the new regime. Ranulf de Glanville initially bought release from his vows but, once he was dismissed from his justiciarship and shrievalty, he joined the king on crusade. Like his colleagues, he perhaps viewed his participation in Richard I's crusade as a means of restoring royal favour.
Peter des Roches' decision to take the cross in September 1221 occurred at the same time his political ambitions faltered in England. Early in the year, Henry III was removed from his personal guardianship; by the summer, he was deprived of control over the royal household. In the Autumn, before his departure, Peter des Roches was nominated as the first Archbishop of Damietta, a post he most likely canvassed for. Thus, Peter des Roches engineered a fresh start for his political ambitions, which came to nought with the fall of Damietta. He finally accompanied Frederick II on crusade in 1227, 'a disappointed man, seeking consolation for his thwarted political career.' Like other barons he had sought voluntary exile. His involvement in the return of Jerusalem to Christian hands enhanced his reputation and brought him international prestige. The crusade offered him 'a platform from which to relaunch his career at court.' Within one year of his return to England, Peter once again enjoyed a leading role in local and central government. (Peter de Roches: An Alien in British Politics, Nicholas Vincent)
The crusade often gilded the successful crucesignatus with a distinguished reputation, which held much sway in the political arena.
By Order of the King
To protect the king's interests, some barons went on crusade on the express command of the king, whilst others were expected to lay aside their vows.
Tyreman suggests that Henry II sent William de Mandeville to sabotage Count Philip of Flanders' crusade in 1177. Henry believed Philip intended usurping the throne of the leprous boy-king Baldwin IV. The threat was credible - the Count, like Henry, was the grandson of Fulk of Anjou, from whom the kings of Jerusalem descended. Through his influence on the Count, William de Mandeville appears to have been successful, making Philip look a fool and 'effectively dogging his movements.' (England and the Crusades, 1095-1238, Christopher Tyreman)
Geoffrey fitz Peter, William Brewer, and Hugh Bardolf lay aside their own crusading vows in 1189. They numbered amongst the key administrators Richard I left behind to manage and safeguard his kingdom during his absence. Hubert de Burgh and Richard de Marisco were absolved of their crusading vows because of the needs of government during Henry III's minority. Secular politics and the wishes of the king were deemed more important than the fulfillment of crusading vows. Innocent III's investigations concerning those with unfulfilled vows led King John to ask for dispensations for certain magnates because 'their presence was indispensible to him' (Innocent III and England, Christopher R. Cheney).
Crusading offered temporary, voluntary exile but also the opportunity to advance a reputation and enhance prestige. The guardianship of the king's interests was another important factor many baronial crucesignati had to consider. At the heart of it all position and power were the barons' primary concerns, not religious fervour.