Food, Water and Cooking on Crusade: Feeding Medieval Campaigns

Food on crusade came from several sources: provisions carried with an expedition, supplies obtained from local communities, and food gathered or seized along the route. Which source mattered most changed with the campaign and its location. During the First Crusade, armies struggled for food and water crossing Anatolia, then faced prolonged shortages at Antioch and an arid approach to Jerusalem. The Third Crusade offers a different example: Frederick Barbarossa’s forces received bread, barley and wine in Hungary, but later relied on coercion and military action to replenish supplies. Access to meals depended on movement, local conditions and the ability to bring provisions to an army.

On this page5 sections

How armies obtained food on the march

Crusaders combined carried provisions with supplies obtained on the way. Foraging parties searched beyond the immediate camp, while armies also received food from local people, bought it where markets were available, or took it by force. These methods were not interchangeable: a distant foraging trip could expose people to attack, and a supply train could be vulnerable on the road. Friendly arrangements with local rulers or communities could help an army obtain provisions, but such cooperation could end as political and military relations deteriorated.

The experience of the First Crusade in Anatolia illustrates the risks. In the summer march after the battle of Dorylaeum, the Seljuks had burned and destroyed supplies in the country they left behind. The crusaders had little food or water, and men and horses died. Some local Christians gave them food and money, but the army more often looted and pillaged when it could. The evidence describes a mix of aid and seizure, not a dependable system of supply.

Foraging also meant leaving the protection of the main force. During the siege of Antioch, the surrounding area was stripped of food, forcing crusaders to search farther away and making them more vulnerable to ambush. In late December 1097, a large party returned from foraging with a flock gathered for food, but an encounter with the army of Duqaq of Damascus cost them the flock. They came back with less food than they needed. The episode shows how a successful search for provisions could still fail to feed the army if the food could not be brought safely back.

Grain, bread and the work of preparing meals

Provisions could arrive in different forms, and each required different work before it could be eaten. Bread was ready to eat; grain had to be prepared, for example by grinding it into flour for baking or by cooking it. A shipment of grain therefore required time, equipment and labour as well as transport. Flour could be baked where an army had access to ovens, while whole grain and legumes could be boiled. A sustained garrison needed organised baking and cooking rather than relying on food ready to eat. At the Hospitaller stronghold of Bethgibelin, now Beit Guvrin in Israel, the twelfth-century kitchen used large cauldrons above furnaces fed from a separate room. This layout allowed workers to maintain fires while cooks handled the food above.

During Frederick Barbarossa’s march in 1189, King Béla III of Hungary provided boats, wine, bread and barley to the German army. Later, after relations with the Byzantine Empire worsened, the crusaders occupied Philippopolis and its supplies. Local Armenian and Bulgarian inhabitants swore to provide a market for the army while it remained there. Bread could be distributed immediately, while barley also fed the horses on which mounted troops depended.

Animals were also part of the food supply. During the Antioch siege, crusaders gathered a flock while foraging, and accounts describe the loss of that flock on the return journey. The same campaign suffered a sharp decline in the number of horses, which were vital to the army as well as consumers of its resources. In 1190, Frederick’s army sought to replenish both animals and food by taking Iconium. The loss of a gathered flock deprived the army of both immediate food and animals it could retain for later slaughter.

Water, terrain and the pressure of a siege

Access to water depended on where an army travelled and whether it could reach local sources safely. In Anatolia, the First Crusaders’ summer march brought shortages of both food and water. The approach to Jerusalem in 1099 presented a different problem: the countryside was arid, and the Fatimid governor had poisoned most of the wells in the area. There was little prospect of obtaining relief, leaving the crusaders short of water as well as food.

A siege could make shortages worse even when food existed nearby. At Antioch, the Seljuk governor had stockpiled provisions in preparation for the siege, while the besieging army’s supplies dwindled. The crusaders could not fully surround the city, and the surrounding country was gradually exhausted by foraging. A siege thus placed defenders and besiegers in different positions: the governor had prepared stocks within Antioch, while the crusaders had to protect their own supply routes and seek food beyond their camp.

The First Crusaders received provisions through the ports of Latakia and St Symeon, and supplies arriving by sea helped improve conditions. In March 1098, a fleet brought supplies and materials, although transporting them from the port towards Antioch exposed the escort to attack. Control of a port did not by itself put food safely in the camp; the final journey remained dangerous. By contrast, after the crusaders captured Antioch, the army continued to face food problems in the countryside. Local Arab peasants refused to supply them, and the soldiers again began to go hungry.

Shortages, unequal access and fasting

Hunger affected participants unevenly. During the Antioch siege, one account reports that one in seven crusaders was dying from starvation. The shortage also killed horses, and some knights and soldiers deserted. The account specifically suggests that poorer members of the army were probably worse off, while the arrival of local food at very high prices could not make supplies equally accessible. A poorer follower without savings or a patron had fewer ways to buy food at siege prices than a leader supported by property and credit.

Religious fasting was distinct from hunger caused by a lack of provisions. At Antioch, after an earthquake and a period of heavy rain and cold, the church leader Adhemar ordered a three-day fast as penance for sins including pillaging. In July 1099, before an assault on Jerusalem, crusaders undertook another three-day fast and a barefoot procession, following a claimed vision reported by the priest Peter Desiderius. In both cases, fasting was a deliberate religious act carried out during a campaign. It did not resolve the practical problem of feeding an army.

Supply changed with the campaign

The Third Crusade shows that food access depended not only on geography but also on agreements, discipline and the changing course of war. Frederick Barbarossa required participants in his expedition to have at least three marks, an amount intended to let them support themselves for two years. The money was intended to pay for supplies obtained during travel, alongside provisions offered by rulers along the route. The Hungarian provisions and the market arranged at Philippopolis were practical sources of supplies along the route.

When conflict with the Byzantines intensified, that cooperative arrangement gave way to occupation, plunder and a scorched-earth policy. Byzantine forces also attacked the crusaders’ supply train near Philippopolis. Later, in Anatolia, Frederick’s army faced repeated raids and sought food and animals by attacking Iconium. Taken together with the First Crusade’s dependence on foraging, local aid and shipments through coastal ports, these events show why meals on crusade could not be separated from military movement. Food might be carried, bought, gathered or seized, but getting it to the people who needed it remained an ongoing challenge.