MovieChat Forums > Kruistocht in spijkerbroek (2006) Discussion > A 'children's crusade' - historically co...

A 'children's crusade' - historically correct?

posted 17 years ago by RagingR2
10 replies | jump to latest

Recently the historical correctness of a "children's crusade" has come into question.
I am not sharing this info here to take away anyone's fun. I realise that people who liked the book may not care very much whether it's 100% historically correct since the book and the movie can still be very good entertainment in their own right. I read the book myself when I was 11 or so, and I still like it very much. However, I just thought it was an interesting theory, and I like to share it with you. So here it goes.

As with many historic events from the Middle Ages or even longer ago, our knowledge of them is based on very few written sources. Likewise, our whole image of the crusades is based on very little written evidence, and even more so for the supposed "children's crusade": there are only about 50 written sources that mention it, verying between half a page or only a few sentences, on which our entire image today of these events is based. Recently, a historian from the university where I study (I'm not a history student myself by the way) has gone over these sources again. Now these sources are written in Latin. The whole image of this children's crusade is based on the usage of a the Latin word for "boy" in these sources (can't remember the Latin word). Now his theory is, that like in French, the word for "boy" can be used not only to describe a male person of younger age, but also to describe someone in lower rank. If you speak French, you will know this, as even today the word "garcon" is used in the French language to adress waiters in a restaurant. There is good reason to believe that was the case in the Latin language aswell, so it may very well be true that those sources speak of a crusade that wasn't done by males of younger age ("boys"), but by men of lower rank (slaves, servants, or poor people for instance).
Anyway, like any historical notion, this is just a theory based on written sources and on an historian's knowledge and reasoning. It can't really be proven as such, but neither can many other assumptions about history. And for that matter, neither can the original theory that interprets these sources as evidence of a crusade of boys or children. On top of that, if this relatively new theory will hold, it will most probably take 10 or 20 years for other historians to accept the theory, let alone the period it will take for this theory to find it's way to the general public.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting theory and I just thought I'd share it with you. Not to spoil your fun in reading the book or watching the film, but because I assume most people that enjoy "Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek" or any other book by Thea Beckman will be interested in history too.
Greetings!

[–] OrangeTigger73 17 years ago

hiya

thanks for sharing I also read this in the little newspaper about crusade in jeans that they had at the movie theatre. That did say though that Thea Beckman believed that there where childrens crusades, and ofcourse it has been awarded for best historical book... Thea Beckman always researched her books quite thouroughly, and I think by reading her books almost tought me more about history then my history teacher! ;o) well not more, but it was a great way about learning things, even if it seems that they weren't always true.

If you are interested about these things, you might also wanna check out Terry Jones's Middle Ages series, it reveales a lot of misconceptions(?) that we have about the Middle Ages!

xx

Inge

[–] joyceplaate 17 years ago

but every research she did at the time (70's) would have been done making use of the knowledge available at that time*. So if Raedt's theorie is from recently, then probably Thea would not have known about it. Which is totally OK for me because... it would have deprived me and zillions other kids fo this wonderful book.
Oh yes, there will be lots of people who only get to know about Thea Beckman and her Crusade bc of the movie, but I loved the book 30 years ago, and I still enjoy reading it, though I will ussually skip some tedious passages.

I think Raedt's theory is very interesting, it sounds plausible to me (who is no scholar) , it will certainly give food to entertaining discusions on languages through the ages. If it would turn out to be true, it would only be another example of misconceptions and/or misunderstandings that can grow because of lack of knowledge of languages and cultures.

Thea Beckman's book were very loved by children 10-13 yrs, as far as I can remember she never won any litarary awards in the Netherlands, but she did win quite a few awards of best books, these are awarded by CHILDREN, and I think those count more!

I visited Holland in november and I am still sorry I didnt get the chance to see the movie then. I;'m anxiously waiting for it to be shown here on Curacao.

*
Compare in this light Tonke Dragt's book "Torenhoog en mijlenbreed", about life on Venus based on the terribly little knowledge about Venus at the time of her writing that book. Now we know that the world she described does not excist, which luckily hasn't hindered her from writing an equally entertainingly fantastic sequel 20 years later!

[–] Amiek 17 years ago

I love Torenhoog en Mijlenbreed and Ogen van tijgers! Best Dutch childrensbooks ever.

[–] JJHermans 17 years ago

P. Raedts in the Journal of Medieval History writes about it (I thought in 1975 or 1978). These Pueri were for certain no children.

[–] jorisgeelen 17 years ago

The term Pueri is translated different in documents: the first I found speaks of "boys", then one "children". But I also found that Pueri is a term for peasents whithout land/wanderers.
Considering that people in the middle ages didn't grew very old, I think that the people in this crusade must have been young.

[–] RagingR2 17 years ago

"P. Raedts in the Journal of Medieval History writes about it (I thought in 1975 or 1978). These Pueri were for certain no children."

Guess, what, that's the person I mean. He's a proffesor here in the Netherlands, at the Radboud University Nijmegen where I'm a student. :)

[–] Vehrlah 15 years ago

Well, in my opinion that is a pretty lousy argument. I know about "pueri" and its different meanings, but if there are 50 different latin sources about this crusade, and some of them half a page long, i am convinced that not all of them all the time ONLY used the word pueri(boys/garcons) for describing the partakers of this crusade. In latin language, a lot of synonims exist, and writers tend to use them, so as not to produce texts like: the boys were in crusade and the boys were on their way to Jerusalem. The boys were welcome in one town but not in the nest. Some of the boys got sick, other boys died. Boys boys boys. Oh boy.
So it should be clear from some of the alternative descriptions of the parttakers in this crusade (there ARE at least 50 sources) if it is about kids or not. Well i ll see if i can get my hands on these latin tidbits someday ;)

[–] RagingR2 13 years ago

What you say sounds plausible in a way, but then again I can't imagine that Raedts, the professor who came up with the new "pueri" theory, didn't consider this...

[–] flowers_on_the_razorwire 15 years ago

That was interesting to read.
The children's crusade(s) have always been considered somewhat circumspect, so it's not surprising someone went looking for evidence of their non-existence.
Not sure what to believe myself, but I certainly agree that if they hadn't been mentioned and Thea Beckman wouldn't have written Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek then that would have been a true loss to children's literature.

[–] oakleybingham 13 years ago

Historians have found the "Children's Crusade" dubious for 200 years. The movie is a worse ripoff
of Mark Twain than Whoopi Goldberg's entertaining version. Also if any 15 yo Dutch kid can make gunpowder or bread from scratch then they would be miracles.