The First Crusade (1095-1099) had a successful outcome in which the crusaders gained entry to Jerusalem unlike the Second Crusade (1145-1149), where the crusaders didn’t get anywhere near the Holy Land. To an extent, I do believe the difference in the leadership of the two crusades did contribute to their different outcomes. However, I also believe that there were other factors which were more responsible for the outcome, such as the difference in motivation of both the leaders and the main crusading army. Both the crusades, had strong leaders and weak leaders, but it was their motivations that varied, and it was possibly this reason why their outcomes varied.
The leadership of The First Crusade was partly responsible for its success. From
…show more content…
the beginning of the Crusade, there were divisions between the nine leaders, as some were supporters of the Papacy and of Alexius II (emperor of the Byzantines), whilst others opposed these leaders. The divisions between them are shown through the fact that the leaders all depart at different times to each other. However, despite the leaders doing this because of their disagreements, it had a positive effect as it ensured that no single place in Europe had to provide for the entire crusading army at one time. Early on in the Crusade at the siege of Nicaea in May 1097, the nine leaders realised that they had to work together in order for the Crusade to be a success. During the siege, the Council of Princes was devised and the princes came together and planned the blockade strategy which helped the siege of Nicaea be a success. Nevertheless, their collaboration did not stop here, after the siege of Nicaea, they split the army into two waves (under Bohemond and Raymond) to spread out for supplies. Due to the good communication between the leaders of the two waves, the crusading army were again successful at the Battle of Dorylaeum. More importantly, it was the selfish aims of the leaders that were the key to success for this crusade. Everyone had a reason to go on the crusade, for instance religious ideals and political reasons. However for some of the princes such as Bohemond and Baldwin, their motivation seemed to be gaining land and expanding their power. Despite these not being the aims appropriate for a religious crusade, these motivations helped the crusade move forward and become successful. For example, Bohemond wanted to establish himself as the Prince of Antioch so during the siege of Antioch (Oct 1097 - June 1098), Bohemond showed his exceptional military skills and helped gain access to Antioch through negotiations. After the crusaders had gained entry to the city, Kerbogha and his army besieged them, and because Bohemond wanted to hold onto his new title, he came up with a strategy that defeated the army outside. However Bohemond’s success was only possible because of Baldwin capturing Edessa and causing a distraction to Kerbogha and his army which caused a delay. However, there were other factors that were responsible for the success of the First Crusade, which weakens the contribution of leadership.
Firstly the People's Crusades in 1096 was a failure due to lack of discipline amongst the crusaders this resulted in giving Kerbogha an impression that the later crusading army in 1096 would be as disorganised and therefore as easily beaten. Hence, Kerbogha’s response to the main crusaders was more delayed and lacked a united army, which increased the success of the First Crusade. For example in March 1098, after Baldwin's success in Edessa, instead of continuing on to Antioch to stop the siege by the crusaders, Kerbogha attempted to recapture Edessa first. This showed that the crusaders weren't a big enough threat to make stopping their siege of Antioch a priority. Another factor responsible for the success of the First Crusade was the desires of wealth by the Princes. Due to many of the princes looking to establish their own power, this became a common aim between them which ultimately led to the success of the crusade as wealth became the motivation behind them working together. For example, the siege of Antioch was a success due to the competition between Bohemond and Raymond for its possession meant they needed a united front for the siege to succeed in the first place. Indulgence was also responsible for the success of the First Crusade, as in 1095; the first form of indulgence was developed by Pope Urban II. In this form of indulgence it meant that the crusaders had to succeed in crusading and reach Jerusalem in order for their sins to be cleared and gain access to heaven. For example six months after the capture of Antioch, Raymond and Bohemond was still fighting for possession of the city. However, the majority of the army had joined the crusade because of the indulgence idea wanted to get to Jerusalem and were tired of waiting. The fighting between the two princes was a huge stand still in the progress of the crusade.
It was only in January 1099, that Raymond set off again due to the immense pressure from the mob of the crusading army who were tired of waiting. Leadership was again partly responsible for the outcome of the Second crusade as this crusade was bound to fail from the start due to the leaders being unorganised and unprepared. For example, Conrad III (king of Germany) formally committed to the crusade in December 1146, but set his departure date the following May which only gave him six months to plan. As well as being unprepared, the leaders overconfidence caused major setbacks. For instance, Louis VI (king of France) had been successful from the attack by the Turks in December 1147 due to the strong formation of his army. However, Louis did not continue this formation for long and when attacked again in January 1148 the French were unsuccessful. However, the leaders do come together at the Council of Acre in June 1148, and decide a Damascus siege, which has a successful start due to the leaders choosing a good area to establish a camp. Although this plan was working, the crusaders change their strategy which results in them failing because of the lack of supplies. Bad leadership is seen as the leaders in charge of the crusaders had not properly assessed the change. Evidently after this failure the majority of the crusaders abandon the crusade. However, despite the leadership of the Second Crusade being a major reason for the disastrous outcome, there were other reasons which also contributed to its failure. One of these factors was the inadequate aid from the Byzantine emperor Manuel I. From the beginning of the crusade Manuel showed his distrust of the crusaders as he made the leaders swear an oath. Even though Manuel had agreed to help the crusaders, the aid he had provided was insufficient and set them back instead of helping them move forward. For example, in January 1148, the fleet promised by Manuel for the French was too small and unable to fit them all in. This meant that the majority of the army had to split up and walk all the way to Antioch. Not only did Manuel not provide good help, but his guides also reported the movements of the French to the local Turks who were able to track them and attack. The crusaders had trusted Manuel to help their crusade; however he had done the opposite and hindered their progress. In fact it seems as though Manuel was key to the failure of the Second Crusade.
Now, in 1198, in order to raise the papacy rather than take the Holy Land, Pope Innocent III, called for another crusade. This crusade is mostly being led by French Knights and instead attempting to capture Jerusalem, they end up sacking the Christian city of Constantinople! After the fourth Crusade, the other crusades were disorganized efforts that accomplished little to
The First Crusade was called in 1096 by Pope Urban II. The reasons for the First Crusade was to help obtain Jerusalem known as the holy land. During this time period the Muslims were occupying Jerusalem. First Crusade contained peasants and knights’ whose ethnicities consist of Franks, Latin’s, and Celts which were all from the western part of Europe. To get peasants and knights to join Pope Urban II objectives in return of a spiritual reward called “remission of all their sins” which was to be redeemed of any sins the individual has committed. When sins are redeemed Crusaders believed that they will escape the torment of hell. When lords and knights joined the crusade they were known as military elites. Crusaders were known as soldiers of Christ.
The First Crusade is often cited as one of the most damnable consequences of religious fanaticism. A careful inspection of the circumstances and outcomes, however, will reveal a resultant political restructuring of Europe under the banner of Christendom. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate Pope Urban II’s motives in initiating the First Crusade, with a particular focus on the consolidation of the Western Church’s influence in Europe. Among the primary sources that will be consulted are the letter sent by Patriach Alexios of Constantinople to Urban, and an account of Urban’s speech at Clermont. Relevant excerpts from both of these primary sources, as well as contextual evidence and a wide array of historiography, will be taken
The Crusades took place in the Middle East between 1095 and 1291. They were used to gain a leg up on trading, have more land to show hegemony, and to please the gods. Based upon the documents, the Crusades between 1095 and 1291 were caused primarily by religious devotion rather than by the desire for economic and political gain.
The first crusade was held only in order to fulfill desire of the Christians of the recapturing the center of the Christian faith-Jerusalem, which has been controlled by the Muslim nation for more than 400 years. This military campaign was followed with severe cruelty and harsh actions against Muslims which cannot be justified with anything but religious and material interest.
In the year 1095 the First Crusade was just beginning. Pope Urban II called Christians to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim oppressors. He promised indulgences and the gift of eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven for fighting in the holy war. Those that answered the call were peasants, beggars, the poor looking for riches and the unknown looking for glory. What started out as a pilgrimage to help fellow Christians secure their borders and repel foreign invaders soon became the first of many Holy Wars for the Kingdom of God.
Both the Crusaders and the Muslims wanted power. In contradiction the church wanted to reunite Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire with the Roman Catholic Empire giving the Church extra power. Baldwin of Boulogne is a key example in portraying the Crusader’s quest for power; splitting off from the rest of the army and traveling east until he reached Armenian where he would establish himself as ruler. Like Boulogne, Bohemond of Taranto also abandoned the majority to better his own personal status—he took over as Prince of Antioch. Through these two prominent figures we see that power was a necessity to the leaders of this era; and unfortunately the people look up to their leaders and do likewise. However, if these Crusaders were fighting for “religious factors” then they would recognize that God holds the ultimate power and they are nothing without him. But these power hungry individuals obviously lacked humility...
That is relevant because the fourth crusade, one of their goals were to reunite the Greek Latin churches but it only made it worse and made them split up and got assaulted. That is a major reason on how the crusades had its negative outcomes than positive outcomes.Those are some reasons on why the crusades were mostly poor results than good results.There are many different reasons why there were lots more negative outcomes than positive results for instance lots of people would lose their lives and their homes and communities would be destroyed.
The First Crusade from 1095 to 1099 has been seen as a successful crusade. The First Crusaders carefully planned out their attacks to help promote religion throughout the lands. As the First Crusade set the example of what a successful crusade should do, the following crusades failed to maintain control of the Holy Land. Crusades following after the First Crusade weren’t as fortunate with maintaining the Holy Land due united forces of Muslims, lack of organization, and lack of religious focus.
The Second Crusade was undeniably a failure due to division of leadership and troops, bad military commanding, and poor communication. Not only was this the beginning of the fall of the Christian Crusades, "the crusader states would have been fared better have the crusade never been launched" (Madden 59). The loss was tremendous, and although this crusade brought no progress for the Christians, it was none-the-less significant. The failure of the Second Crusade “was the strongest evidence yet that the Franks could lose, and lose big" and significantly strengthened the Muslim army (Madden 58). It was the beginning of the Muslims' rise to power and the Christians' fall from it.
In 1095, Pope Urban II called the first crusade. Happening between 1096 and 1099, the first crusade was both a military expedition and a mass movement of people with the simple goal of reclaiming the Holy Lands taken by the Muslims in their conquests of the Levant. The crusade ended with the capture of Jerusalem in July 1099. However, there has been much debate about whether the First Crusade can be considered an ‘armed pilgrimage’ or whether it has to be considered as a holy war. This view is complicated due to the ways in which the Crusade was presented and how the penitential nature of it changed throughout the course of the Crusade.
A main cause of the Crusades was the treatment of Christian pilgrims. They were robbed, beaten, and then sold. The main group of Turks, the Seljuk Turks, were threatening and growing in power. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexus I, began to become worried and sent out an urgent plea to Pope Urban II, in Rome. He requested for Christian knights to help him fight the Turks. Pope Urban II did agree to his appeal although Byzantine Emperors and Roman Popes were longtime rivals. He also did agree with Alexus I, in fearing that the Turks were expanding. Pope Urban encouraged French and German Bishops and Nobles to also take part in this. “ An accused race has violently invaded the lands of those Christians and had depopulated them by pillage and fire.” This is when Pope Urban II called for a crusade to free the Holy Land. Urban did agree to this having some of his own motives in mind. He was hoping his power would grow in ...
The First Crusade was a result of several reasons-politics, territory, knowledge, etc. It was even said to have begun simply to distract western Europe from fighting amongst themselves. However, the First Crusades was a totally unexpected campaign stirred mostly by religious fervor. People of multiple ethnicities randomly banded together and decided to quit their lives to fight a war from which many were fully aware they might not have returned from, because of their religious devotion.
At the end of the 11th century, Western Europe had emerged as a great power, not yet as strong as the Byzantine Empire or the Islamic Empire of the Middle East and North Africa, however, it had substantial growth in political and religious influence during the Middle Ages. At this time the Byzantine Empire was under constant attack from the Seljuk Turks and many losses had lead to a significant decrease in the Byzantine territories. After the wars with the Turks, years of civil war and chaos followed until Alexius Comnenus, a general in the Byzantine army seized the throne in 1081 and took control of what was left of the Byzantine Empire.
Spanning from 1095 to 1212 C.E, the Crusades were an effort made by medieval Christians to regain their holy lands back from the Muslims. There were five crusades in total going in order from the First Crusade to the Children's Crusade. A few were effective in their own respects although these Crusades proved costly to the European Kingdoms as a result of large losses of life. This paper will explore these crusades and explain why some succeeded whereas others failed.