The Crusades - more Frankish or more Latin?

[Bosniensis]

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? I guess this could also be a question relevant to France and much of Medieval Western Europe.

Romans did participate in one of the Crusades.

Romans are victims of Crusades due Sack of Constantinople.

If you are talking about Romans from Western Europe, those do not exist for at least 1500 years. Wars, Plagues etc..destroyed them. Hellenic Roman world in 10th century existed only in the East.

[gixajo]

Actual Normans

The crusades (in Holy Land) were a French initiative,and the French nobles were those who in greater proportion contributed efforts during the time that the crusades lasted.

At first mostly, then they lost some influence, but they always stayed on top,practically till the end.

The Germanic countries also contributed a lot, but I think that the French in this, were the ones who contributed the most.

It was a pan-European phenomenon of French initiative in general.

[Creoda]

Romans did participate in one of the Crusades.

Romans are victims of Crusades due Sack of Constantinople.

If you are talking about Romans from Western Europe, those do not exist for at least 1500 years. Wars, Plagues etc..destroyed them. Hellenic Roman world in 10th century existed only in the East.

Well, the contrast between the Byzantines and the Crusaders in the First Crusade is very illustrative.

[Jana]

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? I guess this could also be a question relevant to France and much of Medieval Western Europe.

More Frankish Barbarian.

[gixajo]

I cannot deny the importance of germans contribution on crusades, but French contribution in that case in the total sum was the most important.

But Bohemund was not Italian?

[dududud]

Western European, French. Latins was a "indo-european" people from Latium.

[Token]

I cannot deny the importance of germans contribution on crusades, but French contribution in that case in the total sum was the most important.

But Bohemund was not Italian?

Bohemond wasn't German, he was Norman.

[PaleoEuropean]

I cannot deny the importance of germans contribution on crusades, but French contribution in that case in the total sum was the most important.

But Bohemund was not Italian?

Bohemond was a bone fied Scandinavian Norman

[Faklon]

I think this comparinson is kinda senseless. Most of them would have spoken Old French (they brought the language to the Levant), a Latin language developed in Northern France and containing Germanic (Norman, proto-Frankish) influences. Others would probably be more typically Latin/Italic and Germanic.

[PaleoEuropean]

The crusades (in Holy Land) were a French initiative,and the French nobles were those who in greater proportion contributed efforts during the time that the crusades lasted.

At first mostly, then they lost some influence, but they always stayed on top,practically till the end.

The Germanic countries also contributed a lot, but I think that the French in this, were the ones who contributed the most.

It was a pan-European phenomenon of French initiative in general.

The initial Crusades were almost exclusively Norman with a handful of French French commanders involved.