Final answer:
The main answer to whether the crusaders were well-trained and organized and all followed one leader is No. While some aristocratic-led armies during the First Crusade were better organized, the general movement was marked by a lack of unity and strategic planning, resulting in military failures and a fragmented crusading effort.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Anna Comnena's perspectives, the crusaders exhibited variability in their training and organization. While some of the aristocratic-led armies during the First Crusade showed better organization and preparation for battle, the broader movement of the Crusades was characterized by challenges in organization, particularly in coordinating the movement of people across Europe. The followers of Peter the Hermit, for example, despite their eagerness, were poorly organized and subsequently decimated by the Turks shortly after arriving in Anatolia. This incident underlines the lack of a unified leadership and strategic planning within the early crusading efforts.By the Second Crusade, despite high-profile leadership from rulers like King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany, coordination issues persisted. The armies were again defeated in battles in Anatolia, and the overall effort achieved very little due to disorganization and distrust with the Byzantine Empire. The crusaders during this period still did not follow a singular leader or cohesive strategy, which led to their failure.Conclusion The main answer to whether the crusaders were well-trained and organized and followed one leader is primarily No. They faced continual challenges in organization and leadership, with the exception of some better-prepared contingents led by powerful aristocrats. There was no single leader unifying these diverse groups and their motivations, leading to a fragmented effort that often resulted in military setbacks and failures.