Bearing of the crusade on our story.
No king engaged in the first crusade.
The crusades a Latin movement.
Name of Franks. of the crusaders are to be found in the writings to which we are in the habit of turning in every page for the history of England and Normandy.[1] Our native Chronicler can spare only a few words, but those are most pithy words, to set forth the great stirring of the nations.[2] And in our present tale the holy war directly comes home to us, chiefly because so many men whom we have already heard of took a part in it. Above all, it places two of our chief actors before us in parts eminently characteristic of the two. We see how Duke Robert of Normandy went forth to show himself among the foremost and the worthiest in the struggle, and how King William of England took occasion of his brother's zeal to gain his duchy by money wrung from English households and English churches. I have noticed elsewhere,[3] as has been often noticed before, that the work of the first crusade was strictly the work of the nations, and of princes of the second rank. Dukes and counts there were many in the crusading army, but no king of the West joined in its march. The Western Emperor was at open war with the Pope who preached the crusade. The kings of Spain had their own crusade to wage. The kings of England and France were of all men in their kingdoms the least likely to join in the enterprise. The kingdoms of the North were as yet hardly stirred by the voice of Urban. It is indeed plain that the whole movement was primarily a Latin movement. It is with a true instinct that the people of the East have from those days onward given the name of Franks to all the Christians of the West. It is a curious speculation, and one at which I have already hinted elsewhere, what would have been the share of England in the crusades, if there had been
