The first crusade came mostly from France.

At the time, the king of France had very little power outside of his limited realm around Paris, so the country didn't very much work at all as a "unit" (talking in late medieval terms here), for France this wouldn't start happening again until about a century later.

If something it probably made things a bit easier for the king of France.

I want to highlight one of the replies here that distinguishes how the First Crusade was more noble-driven than royal-driven (see the label "Princes' Crusade"). Indeed, one misrepresentation here is that 11th century kingdoms worked like modern states (France, HRE), centralized institutions that raised armies and sent them out. It's not just that feudalism means kings have less power, but that the state apparatuses for raising an army are quite different and distributed to local figures (like lords). So if we're looking at capacities for conflict, "France and HRE's ability to raise armies" (as if the state is doing the action) should be clarified as the monarch's ability to organize armies and perhaps expanded to regional and local leaders' ability to raise armies and engage in conflict, since in the absence of strong state apparatuses conflict comes from leaders creating coalitions of followers and raising people loyal to them.

But the short answer to the first question is "no." For instance, Robert II (Normandy) returns from the Crusades and almost immediately tries to take the throne of England from King Henry I. They settle the dispute diplomatically after Robert lands in England (the Treaty of Alton, 1101), but the reasons for Robert settling are more likely related to Henry's popularity among the English nobles and the church than any shortage of troops. Indeed, they end up fighting anyway in 1105-6, only a few years later, culminating in the Battle of Tinchebray. Robert lost, but he wasn't necessarily short-handed. So whatever the exact numbers would've been, leaders of the time maintained their capacity to wage war almost immediately after the First Crusade.

You have to understand that they were still pretty limited in terms of large scale precision manufacturing back in the early 1800s. The skilled craftsmen of the time could certainly create very tight and precise fitting metal parts as showcased by the accurate timepieces made by 18th century clockmakers, and also Eli Whitney's stunt demonstration of interchangeable parts in a couple of muskets he had made by hand.

But to make precise parts consistently the same, and in great quantities cheaply was a whole different matter and wasn't really achieved until the mid-19th century. Until that time, complex mechanical devices and parts that required minute precision to work had to be made and fitted by hand and eye. Producing true interchangeable parts with this system was not economical. Even Eli Whitney, a pioneer in the field, failed to live up to his claim of producing 10,000 muskets in 2 years, taking 10 years instead. This rate wasn't much better than what the larger gunmaking firms in Birmingham, England (a major center of gun production at the time) were doing in the late 1700s without the aid of a interchangeable parts system.

>Every cannonball needs to fit the barrel as closely as possible to maximize the power of the cannon

Cannonballs of that period were usually casted from casted iron, with no final machining afterwards. Casting does not lend to precise final dimensions as 1. It creates a rough, imperfect finish, and 2. Most metal and alloys tend to shrink in the mold as the casting cools, leading to slight variance to the final dimensions of each casted shot if factors such casting/pouring temperature, composition, cooling rate, etc. are not exactly the same. In addition, rust and grime built up that inevitably occurs during storage/transport, especially on board a damp seagoing ship, would further change the functional dimensions of the casted shot.

So as you see, there had to be some amount of gap or windage between shot and gun bore in Napoleonic-era cannons in order to compensate for these discrepancies. Usually about a few millimeters for naval or artillery guns, or a few percent of bore diameter. In service, the windage grew significantly as each firing eroded the cast iron or bronze barrel (which were much less durable than steel or wrought iron barrels used in later guns).

In comparison, the British Brown Bess musket in that same period fires a .71 cal ball in a .75 cal bore barrel - a windage of about 5% - and it'll still develop a peak internal pressure of around 10,000 psi with the standard military powder loads at the time despite such a "loose" fit. So no, you don't need tenth of a millimeter precision for a Napoleonic cannon, and trying to make one so would had been prohibitedly expensive.

And that’s the lore for my next mount and blade character!!!

East and West francia didn't exist at the time of the first crusade, just saying.

>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?

This guy's KCDs.... sorry what were we talking about again? I was just cudgeled by 6 angry peasants in sack cloth...

“..and that’s another story of how I bravely fought several men by backpedaling across the countryside so as not to be surrounded.”

Alot of european states had a increase in their war making capasity. The amount of people that went on the crusades was not even close percentage wise to the drain of manpower in the world wars so there was no shortage of men back home. There is also a huge change in castle and fort building technology that the crusaders bring back from the middle east along with valuable combat experience.

A bunch of the craziest ones? Them Hauteville boys are at it again, aren’t they?

Where does the image of pirate with parrot originates? When did it become a trope?

Haha, thanks. Devs, if you see this, I'll take the job.

I believe you just wrote the intro to kingdom come deliverance 3, the pre pre pre quel.

You wake up on your eleventh birthday, and your dad gives you an unbalanced sword. "Do god's work, son. That'll be how you make the family proud," he says, already turning to head back to his chambers.

Your nanny leads you to a horse twice your height and you're told to meet your uncle two towns over. Some of your family had already had their last thought of you before today, but for others this would be the last time you saw any of them.

Just piggybacking on your comment to recommend another excellent read: [The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge](http://The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7282903-the-crusades)

I think they made a profit from the crusades.

As LootLizard mentioned, there was actually a surplus of armed people during the 11th century which had caused major issues for the status quo of western and Central Europe.

The first response had been the Peace of God signed in 989 and then the Truce of God in 1027 where the church attempted to limit how and when knights would wage war. 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.

As the most popular and successful Crusade, the First Crusade probably had the biggest impact in changing this. Because not only did tens of thousands of men leave for Outre-mer, but it also established a consistent trickle of knights who would volunteer or join Holy Orders.

However, European politics did not change so dramatically and war continued in much the same way. Especially after the Second Crusade. Hell, Richard the Lionheart and Phillip Auguste both were in the 3rd Crusade and went to war with each other for the rest of Richard’s reign.

I thought raids across the border were standard for pretty much any ancient empire or state. But eventually the western Roman Empire got invaded, with Goths etc entering en masse. Hard to raid Germania when you’ve been invaded because you ran out of soldiers.

And then in the fourth Crusade, instead of hitting their objective, they went for a side mission and hit the Byzantine empire instead.

Or the 12th son. I can't remember the name right now. Imagine being the 12th son.

The church absolutely said it was going to protect people's land who took the cross, but they couldn't do much but point a finger and wag the excommunication punishment. Even after that, people would just pay off the church. Most of the time the land was stolen by other people's family members. Now as for whether england was any better off without Richard, no by far no. England was taxed to 7 hells for the crusades and there would absolutely still be enough normans to boot stomp any anglo saxon who got uppity.

Can anybody recommend any books on Ögedei Khan and/or The Mongol Empire 1227-1242?

His life as the Supreme Khan is written in the final chapter of 'The Secret History of the Mongols'. However it is fairly brief, and I was wondering if there are any, more detailed books about his life and that time during the Mongol Empire.

I heard about a rune inscription from the Varangian guard in the Hagia Sophia that could either be a name or the word “bored” 😂

[removed]

Exactly this ⬆️ and also the fact that if you do, the tribes would confederate and just roll through your territory making the whole campaign meaningless in the first place 😂