The Crusades - more Frankish or more Latin?

[PaleoEuropean]

Well, if the closer Norse ancestor of Bohemond was his great-grandfather, and after mixing with different Frenchs and South Italians, I don´t know if genetically he would be very different from any average Italian or French less "germanic".

Those who started all, were the pope Urban II (French from Champagne) and Peter the Hermit (French from Amiens) and after the Council of Clermont:


I see mostly Frenchs, some Italians and one Portuguese.

I still have atleast 8% Scandinavian and my last pure Scandinavian ancestor was well over 1000 years ago, who's to say admixture wise considering its 100% random. Nationality and ethnicity was different from how we view it today especially in regard to nobility after the Normans who really internationalized the Nobility. Normans melted into their host countries and the neighboring nobilities, that is why there so successful they didn't completely alienate their host countries. Also idk abut every single person in that list, but a lot of those names look Norman. Another thing I am talking about the military might of the early Crusades not the church.

[Ouistreham]

In Turkey, Frank (Frenk) was a generalizing term for western catholic Europe. Like they would say "Frankish ambassadords" meaning European ambassadors.

Very good answer.

Latins of Frankish origin. Northern French, west Germans etc. Who spoke Latin.

A funny assumption.

My question is not just about personnel, but how would you better describe the Crusades as a whole, in terms of personnel, culture, spirit, organisation, politics etc; sprung from the Frankish Barbarian world or from the (post)Roman/Latin world?

Both.
The Germanic nations became Christian relatively late in history but they took Christianity very seriously, much more than the Southerners did.

It's somewhat meaningful that Godefroy de Bouillon, the one who first took Jerusalem, was also Duke of Lower-Lorraine. All his roots were in Northern France and present-day Belgium.

Most historians agree that medieval chivalric ideals developed from Germanic warrior ethos. Christianity at this time was still highly syncretic

Very right.

The initial Crusades were almost exclusively Norman.

No. Fighting for idealistic motives or religious reasons was always foreign to the Norman mindset (I know, I'm from Normandy). Norman knights were primarily seeking territories, thrones and crowns.

But Bohemund was not Italian?

AFAIK his father was a Norman nobleman who conqueered a part of Italy, his mother was a daughter of the French king.

I don't get the question. Franks in the 12th and 13th century were not romance speakers?

Not all of them.
There was a time when Germanic and Romance cultures were intermingled in the core Frankish kingdom (Northern France, Western Germany, Benelux).
With time passing, areas under 50.01% Germanic influence became 100% Dutch/German speaking, whilst those under 50,01% Romance influence became fully French speaking.

And in the end you find a linguistic boundary running from the North Sea to Switzerland.

[gixajo]

I still have atleast 8% Scandinavian and my last pure Scandinavian ancestor was well over 1000 years ago, who's to say admixture wise considering its 100% random. Nationality and ethnicity was different from how we view it today especially in regard to nobility after the Normans who really internationalized the Nobility. Normans melted into their host countries and the neighboring nobilities, that is why there so successful they didn't completely alienate their host countries. Also idk abut every single person in that list, but a lot of those names look Norman. Another thing I am talking about the military might of the early Crusades not the church.

But you have recent ancestry from British islands, they could be considered also some type of germanic population, and not only for more modern Saxon and Viking input but also with their celtic genetic base, that have basically the same common origin than ancient germans.

[Jana]

Maybe you misunderstood. Spoke Latin as today we speak English. Not natively. But they knew it for sure.

[gixajo]

So I will answer the question finally with: 50% Germanic/50% Latin.

[PaleoEuropean]

Very good answer.



A funny assumption.



Both.
The Germanic nations became Christian relatively late in history but they took Christianity very seriously, much more than the Southerners did.

It's somewhat meaningful that Godefroy de Bouillon, the one who first took Jerusalem, was also Duke of Lower-Lorraine. All his roots were in Northern France and present-day Belgium.



Very right.



No. Fighting for idealistic motives or religious reasons was always foreign to the Norman mindset (I know, I'm from Normandy). Norman knights were primarily seeking territories, thrones and crowns.



AFAIK his father was a Norman nobleman who conqueered a part of Italy, his mother was a daughter of the French king.



Not all of them.
There was a time when Germanic and Romance cultures were intermingled in the core Frankish kingdom (Northern France, Western Germany, Benelux).
With time passing, areas under 50.01% Germanic influence became 100% Dutch/German speaking, whilst those under 50,01% Romance influence became fully French speaking.

And in the end you find a linguistic boundary running from the North Sea to Switzerland.

I didn't say the Normans fought for religion, they carved out the first Crusader states in the Middle east and they didn't really care what the church thought or said. When the Pope called for Norman aid in 1084, they aided the Pope but also sacked and burned Rome. They were their own independent political force for sure and it is said that many of the Crusading Normans also participated in Paganism.

[Faklon]

.
The Germanic nations became Christian relatively late in history but they took Christianity very seriously, much more than the Southerners did.

Can you define how they took Christianity more seriously? I can't find struggles such as Iconoclasm (pagan unspiritual practise for many) in the Western empire.

[Ouistreham]

I didn't say the Normans fought for religion, they carved out the first Crusader states in the Middle east and they didn't really care what the church thought or said. When the Pope called for Norman aid in 1084, they aided the Pope but also sacked and burned Rome. They were their own independent political force for sure and it is said that many of the Crusading Normans also participated in Paganism.

Oh yes.
Using religious excuses to lay hands on kingdoms always was a typical Norman proceeding.
It's just what they did with England in the year 1066.

[brennus dux gallorum]

Latins, as much as most of them were french, followed by italian

[Regnera]

I think it's more Latin,because there're a percentage of crusades were from Italy.