Travelling to a Crusade: Routes, Ships and the Practicalities of Medieval Expeditions

For a medieval crusader, reaching a campaign in the eastern Mediterranean could mean crossing much of Europe by land, sailing from a western port, or combining the two. The journey was part of an armed pilgrimage: many participants had taken a religious vow, but the expeditions also included soldiers, sailors, family members and other non-combatants. From the First Crusade of 1096–1099 to the campaigns of the thirteenth century, there was no single route or standard travel arrangement. Leaders planned different itineraries, and individual groups could leave the main force, arrive by another route or fail to reach the intended destination.

On this page5 sections

Routes depended on the expedition

The First Crusade shows how varied an overland journey could be. Poorer and less disciplined groups set out before the main aristocratic forces in 1096. Walter Sans Avoir and Peter the Hermit led separate contingents through Hungary and Byzantine territory to Constantinople. After clashes and looting along the way, Emperor Alexios I Komnenos arranged for the groups to cross the Bosporus into Anatolia, where most were soon destroyed by Seljuk forces.

The major noble-led armies also travelled by separate routes. Godfrey of Bouillon’s force crossed Hungary and the Balkans. Raymond of Toulouse’s contingent travelled along the Adriatic and through the Balkans to Durrës in present-day Albania, while Bohemond of Taranto and Tancred sailed to Durrës before continuing overland. The leaders and their forces gathered at Constantinople between late 1096 and spring 1097. From there, Byzantine ships carried the crusaders across the Bosporus. Their route then continued through Anatolia towards Antioch and, later, Jerusalem.

Overland travel brought risks before an army reached enemy territory. In Hungary, rulers sometimes required guarantees of good conduct: Godfrey’s brother Baldwin was offered as a hostage before Godfrey’s troops were allowed to cross. The First Crusade’s march through Anatolia exposed travellers to attacks, shortages of food and water, and the loss of horses. After Turkish forces withdrew, they had burned or destroyed supplies along the route. At the siege of Antioch, provisions also came by sea from nearby ports, showing how a land army could depend on coastal connections once it reached the eastern Mediterranean.

Later expeditions used different combinations of land and sea travel. During the Second Crusade, the German army retraced the First Crusade’s route through Hungary and the Balkans, then crossed into Anatolia. The French force followed separately. After shortages, raids and losses on the journey, Louis VII and his knights sailed from Antalya to Syria on Byzantine ships. Many who remained behind died, deserted or were enslaved. A shared destination did not mean that every contingent followed the same route, or that all participants travelled together.

Ships and transport agreements

Sea travel could move large groups across the Mediterranean without requiring them to cross Anatolia on foot, but ships had to be found, hired or built, and their sailing schedules shaped the campaign. Vessels had different functions: fleets included war galleys, transports for troops and ships designed to carry horses. Sailors and marines were essential to operating them. The Third Crusade relied heavily on ships, while some armies, including that of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, chose to travel overland.

Richard I of England and Philip II of France made separate arrangements for the Third Crusade. Richard hired ships at Marseille and Philip at Genoa. Richard initially waited for his fleet, but when it did not arrive in time, he hired other ships and sailed to Sicily. The delay meant that his fleet later travelled separately. Philip sailed from Sicily towards the eastern Mediterranean, while a storm scattered Richard’s fleet. Some ships were wrecked on Cyprus, where the island’s ruler seized the cargo and captives. Richard then conquered Cyprus before continuing to the siege of Acre. The episode shows how storms, delays and local political decisions could change a sea route.

The Fourth Crusade provides a clear example of transport being arranged as a formal contract. Its leaders appointed envoys to negotiate with Venice, which agreed to prepare a fleet to carry 33,500 crusaders for 85,000 silver marks. The agreement required extensive preparation, including the construction of ships and training of sailors. Yet far fewer people assembled at Venice than expected. Some travelled from other ports, while others did not set out. The crusaders could not pay the contracted sum. To recover the cost of its preparations, Venice proposed that they attack Zara, now Zadar in Croatia, a Christian city on the Adriatic. The crusaders captured it in 1202, and the expedition was later diverted to Constantinople instead of proceeding as planned towards Egypt.

Not everyone depended on the main fleet. Some participants in the Fourth Crusade travelled from ports in southern Italy directly to the Holy Land. A Flemish fleet sailed to Marseille and then continued to Acre. After the campaign’s diversion, other crusaders abandoned the main force and found their own way east. These journeys could bring them to the same region but not necessarily to the same campaign: the ruler of Jerusalem, for example, would not break a truce to accommodate a small group of newly arrived crusaders.

Other expeditions relied on transport arranged by rulers along their route. During the Fifth Crusade, Hungarian and Austrian crusaders embarked on Venetian ships at Spalato, now Split in Croatia, rather than travelling to the more distant ports planned for the gathering. Frederick Barbarossa’s army crossed the Balkans by land, but conflict with the Byzantine emperor disrupted its passage. In 1190, the Germans were eventually transported into Anatolia on Genoese and Pisan ships. In both cases, the availability of passage depended on negotiations and political circumstances, not simply on a traveller’s decision to take ship.

Costs and the means to travel

The expense of joining a crusade varied with a participant’s status and resources. A knight’s participation in the First Crusade could cost as much as four years of income. Some nobles borrowed money or sold or mortgaged property; less wealthy people could join a noble’s retinue rather than equip an independent expedition. Equipment, horses and upkeep made a mounted knight’s costs much greater than those of a poorer follower relying on a lord’s support.

Transport contracts could place costs on leaders and their followers collectively. The Venetian agreement for the Fourth Crusade tied the price of a prepared fleet to an expected number of passengers. When fewer assembled than planned, the shortfall became a crisis for both the crusaders and Venice. It was not a routine fare dispute: the debt shaped the expedition’s route and helped redirect its military action. For Frederick Barbarossa’s campaign, a separate rule required participants to have at least three marks, judged enough to support themselves for two years. This was a condition of joining that expedition, not a universal crusading requirement.

Timing, camps and pauses along the way

Departure dates were often planned around the practical demands of travel. For the First Crusade, Pope Urban II set 15 August 1096 as the start date, after the beginning of the harvest. Some groups nevertheless left months earlier, from March, and encountered trouble as they passed through Hungary and Byzantine lands. The major expeditions of the Second Crusade departed in May and June 1147. Fleets on the Third Crusade sailed at different times between spring and autumn, and a storm could disrupt a passage even after ships had left port.

Journeys also included long waits and seasonal pauses. During the Second Crusade, Louis VII’s force spent the winter at Ephesus before continuing through Anatolia. The Fourth Crusade’s main army wintered at Zara after capturing the city. Louis IX’s army spent the winter in Cyprus during the Seventh Crusade, where an epidemic killed many. These pauses kept an expedition in one place for weeks or months, but the arrangements differed from one campaign to another. At a siege, travellers might have to remain in a camp: the long siege of Acre during the Third Crusade brought outbreaks of disease, including fever and dysentery.

Once an army reached Egypt, the season could affect its operations as well as its journey. During the Fifth Crusade, the crusaders captured Damietta in 1219 but delayed their advance while fearing the Nile floods and awaiting reinforcements. When they later moved inland, floodwaters helped block their route. The problem was not simply the distance between ports and objectives: rivers, weather and the timing of an advance could determine whether an army could move or had to wait.

Hardships and consequences of the journey

Travel exposed armies to different pressures on land and at sea. Overland contingents faced raids, difficult crossings, depleted food supplies and the loss of animals. In Anatolia during the First Crusade, heat and a shortage of food and water killed men and horses. On Frederick Barbarossa’s route, disputes with Byzantine authorities and attacks on foraging parties interrupted the march. He reached the Seljuk capital of Iconium, where his army captured provisions and animals, but he drowned while crossing the Saleph River in 1190.

Sea travel could shorten a land route but carried its own hazards. Richard’s fleet was scattered by a storm, while the Fourth Crusade’s dependence on a contracted Venetian fleet left the expedition vulnerable when far fewer passengers arrived than expected. Port stops and local agreements could also become points of friction. Travel plans were therefore inseparable from political relations with rulers and cities along the way.

Some travellers never reached their destination, while others arrived after an army had dispersed or during a local truce. Some groups were destroyed before reaching the eastern Mediterranean; others deserted, took a different route or arrived after the main force had moved on. Routes, ships, money and seasonal conditions shaped not only the experience of travel but also the size, timing and direction of the expeditions themselves.