And at times of division at the top, the humble visionary agitators were able to direct the whole movement. Visions and miracles have been read as evidence for the credulity and zealotry of the poor, but I see the rise to prominence of the visionaries as an expression of social discontent, aimed against the princes and offering alternative perspectives for the direction of crusade.

From the purely narrative point of view, I believe historians in the main have seriously underestimated the impact of the lower social orders on the political debates that took place during the crusade. But having done this, I was then able to read the material in such a way as to illuminate quite a range of questions. So the first section of the book is rather sociological, in that I analyse the main sources for the First Crusade to pin down as much as possible their meaning and their outlook when it comes to social structure. Who are the sources talking about when they refer to pauperes, minores, mediocres, milites, nobiles, principes, etc.? How did the different social layers present on the expedition interact? Were they united by a shared theological view? By a common purpose? Or did they strive against one another, even to the point of open conflict? Perhaps because economic and social historians such as Rodney Hilton and Georges Duby never devoted a full study to the subject even very eminent crusading historians of a more ‘idealist’ tradition make unwarranted assumptions in this area and fall into error. I set out to understand as precisely as possible what the social structure of the First Crusade looked like.

Conor kostick books