[LS]

First, the phrase "I haven't read his medieval stuff" referred to HOLLISTER, not White.

Second, sitting here in my office, I'm not likely to come up with ANY "primary source" material from the 900s. If you can dig up that, you either are living in a castle in France, or are a fraud.

Third, White specifically did NOT say that the Europeans "had" the stirrup first---but that they first used it in shock combat, so apparently you haven't read his "critics" right or you haven't read him. I think Victor Hanson accepts White's interpretation of the Frankish use of the stirrup in this regard.

Fourth, I don't need to provide ANYTHING. The necessity for the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" (or do you need "primary source documents" on those, too?) alone are sufficient evidence that there was widespread violence in common European cities, and that the Bishops of Aquitaine, among others, thought it necessary to do something about it from the ecclesiastical perspective.

[Antoninus]

Second, sitting here in my office, I'm not likely to come up with ANY "primary source" material from the 900s. If you can dig up that, you either are living in a castle in France, or are a fraud.

Nonsense. I didn't mean the actual documents. I mean quotes--you know, citations? For such a widespread "conventional wisdom" theory, you'd think that there'd be plenty of support in the writings of Pope Gregory VII or Urban II. Can you not provide any? I looked here and didn't find any support for the notion that Urban's called the Crusades, either primarily or in part, "because he thought Europe was overpopulated and needed to ship people out."

Third, White specifically did NOT say that the Europeans "had" the stirrup first---but that they first used it in shock combat, so apparently you haven't read his "critics" right or you haven't read him.

You misunderstood my post. Read this article if you get a chance: The Stirrup Controversy, It contains a very good summary and critique of White's stirrup theory.

Fourth, I don't need to provide ANYTHING.

No you don't. But your thesis dies with your surrender as far as I'm concerned.

The necessity for the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" (or do you need "primary source documents" on those, too?) alone are sufficient evidence that there was widespread violence in common European cities, and that the Bishops of Aquitaine, among others, thought it necessary to do something about it from the ecclesiastical perspective.

That evidence is completely circumstantial--like claiming that LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam primarily to help quell the race riots going on in the US cities during the mid-1960s and to thin out the excess underclass population a little.

[Claud]

Here's probably what Lynn White is basing the argument on, from the speech of Urban calling the Crusade:

"But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.' Empasis mine

The theory isn't as unsupported as it first looked, but I'm still going to retain some suspicion and here's why.

Urban's sentiments are an overt appeal to the Franks to "let none of your possessions retain you": your life is hard, your land unproductive, and it can barely sustain all of you. He first directly appeals to their piety and then adds these few practical reasons too. This is no internal plan of Urban's to thin out Frankish Europe--this is an exhortation for the nobility to not be hindered by the comfortable attractions of their family estates and wealth.

Also, fast forward to the end of the speech:

Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage, and shall make his vow to God to that effect, and shall offer himself to him for sacrifice, as a living victim, holy and acceptable to God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When, indeed, he shall return from his journey, having fulfilled his vow, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Thus shall ye, indeed, by this twofold action, fulfill the precept of the Lord, as lie commands in the Gospel, 'he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Emphasis mine

I'm sure Urban understood that to occupy the Holy Land, knights would have to remain there, but here at the end of the speech is all the language of pilgrimage: to *return home*, the vow having been accomplished. If his idea had been to "thin out" the Frankish kingdom, the pilgrimage idea would have been rather counterproductive--there would be more forceful language about *settling* the place. A passage or two seems to come close to that:

Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.

But elsewhere, Urban says:

"And we neither command nor advise that the old or those incapable of bearing arms, undertake this journey. Nor ought women to set out at all without their husbands, or brother, or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than an advantage. Let the rich aid the needy and according to their wealth let them take with them experienced soldiers. The priests and other clerks, whether secular or regulars are not to go without the consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went without permission. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.

No non-military personnel, no women save those acompanying relatives, no prelates or laymen without permission. Again, emphatically NOT the language of a call for mass migration, but rather of pilgrimage and religious duty.

Again, just to be clear, I really would have to read White's argument rather than responding half blind here. But the idea here (all too typically for modern historians), seems to miss the mark in a fundamental way by overemphasizing economic explanations in places where very different forces were at work (in this case, piety). It's clear to me at least that for Urban, the "overpopulation" argument was not a fundamental aspect of the Crusades but an attempt to head off the Franks' very natural objections to leaving their estates.