Crusades Dbq

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

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 leaders all depart at different times which show their divisions. 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 leaders devised the Council of Princes and they 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; Pope Urban II developed the first form of indulgence. In this form of indulgence it meant that the crusaders had to succeed in crusading and reach Jerusalem in order for them to gain access to heaven by having their sins cleared. 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.