They could be employed as farmers of a nobleman's lands, freemen, who were expected to drop everything and fight for their liegelord if the need arose.

In exchange for this, they were supplied with war horses, a sword, lance, shield, hauberk, and helm. Other 'knights' were chosen by their friends and relatives for their aptitude in horsemanship and use of arms, and families would club together to equip a man with horse, armour, etc.

The expense could be crippling. You couldn't just pick up some old nag halfway to the knackers yard. The animals had to be fit, strong and agile and their purchase could be likened to buying a house today.

The horses had to eat, they had to be kept in good health, saddles and bridles had to be bought. So being a mounted warrior was a very pricey undertaking.

At this early stage, the one thing that made the mounted soldier so feared was his absolute ruthlessness.

Mind you, thirty years before, at Hastings, the Conqueror had deployed some 4,000 knights against the Saxon shield wall, but these men were often high born in their own right and received their horses, weapons and armour from Duke William.

In 1095, the various warring factions, and there were a great many, had deteriorated into little more than a rabble. They were thugs, who's occupation, when not working their land, was killing in the name of the liegelord.

Whom they killed mattered not at all. But this would change. Great leaders sprung up and they were to experience a far different type of warfare than that to which they'd been used.

The Muslim way of hit and run, the ambushes, meeting warriors who were masters of the bow and arrow on horseback, all this went to mold them into knights more worthy of the name.

Another weapon came into its own at this time. That was the longbow. It was about 6' long, and in skilled hands capable of driving an arrow some 400 yards.

Crossbows, too, appeared, but they were cumbersome to use and very slow to load. However, at close quarters, they were deadly. A knight's mail was no defense against such a weapon. The spiritual leader of the expedition was Adhemar of Le Puy, the Bishop of Le Puy in Southern France.

The secular leader was Raymond of Toulouse, who led the Southern French Crusaders. Then we have Bohemond of Taranto, leader of the Southern Italian Normans. Godfrey of Bouillon, who led crusaders from Germany and Lotharingia. Robert of Normandy, William the Conqueror's eldest son, a leader among the Nortern French crusaders, and Robert the Second of Flanders, another leader of the northern French.

There were others, of course, but these men were the principal noblemen in the whole undertaking.

And so this unwieldy multitude started off, their leaders' goal being Constantinople. The Pilgrims began to set out in the Spring of 1096.

Many were led by a strange, eloquent man named Peter the Hermit. His outward appearance was wretched. He wore a hooded, woolen garment that covered his body and the top half of his arms. He walked barefoot, ate fish and drank wine, but never bread.

He was small and altogether nondescript. But his wits were sharp and his speech captivating. The lower orders in particular followed him and he led them off on what was to be known eventually as the People's Crusade.

It seemed that wherever he spoke, he incited religious zeal. He wasn't the only charismatic. There were others just as capable of firing up their followers, and the first wave set out as a breakaway group under a nobleman named William Sansavoir on the 21st. May 1096.

They were a ramshackle, uncontrollable horde, 15,000 men, women and children, with absolutely no idea of the horrors and hardships that awaited them.

Ominous riots in Rouen in December 1095 against the Jews prompted the latter to warn their brethren in Germany of these Crusaders.

In May to July of 1096, the poor followers of Judaism in Germany faced the mindless fury of bloodthirsty mobs in their cities.

Once again, I'm indebted to Professor Thomas Asbridge and his splendid book "The First Crusade."

Copyright (c) 2009 Mike Bond