|
|
|
|
|
|
by nonameiguess
1010 days ago
|
|
|
I doubt the crusaders were really "good." Most likely nearly all soldiers historically were badly malnourished, but considered expendable and many were going to die no matter what. That isn't to say contemporary humans don't still overeat, probably everything, not just meat. Neither the calorie nor protein requirements of a sedentary office worker are comparable to a medieval soldier. |
|
|
https://www.quora.com/Where-specifically-did-the-Crusaders-c...
"Most seem to think they were warrior monks, or high ranking nobles or poor peasants. In some cases that’s correct, but on the whole often not the case.
Most who fought in the holy land and there were other places where they had crusades, were usually lower nobles, knightly class or franklin, usually richer farmers. They weren’t poor peasants, but they were no rich kings either. They were often people who could barely afford to travel accross the land and have some equipment. Not for nothing did the Byzantine empire get pillaged sometimes.
Picture them as mostly young men of upper middle class background, basically comparable to your modern day average college or university brat. They were relatively well off, but not exactly rich upper class either. Basically up and coming social climbers."