The Pros And Cons Of The Third Crusade

After the disappointments of the Third Crusade the Christian forces would never again threaten the real bases of Muslim power. From the end of the Third Crusade and on they were only able to gain access to Jerusalem through diplomacy, not arms. In 1199 Innocent III called for another Crusade to recapture Jerusalem. To prepare for this crusade, the ruler of Venice had agreed to transport the French and Flemish Crusaders to the Holy Land. However the crusaders never fought the Muslims because more than half of their men did not show up and they were unable to pay the Venetians. This turned into a bargain with the Venetians and once Innocent III learned of their barging he excommunicated the participants. Then there was the Fourth Crusade which

(Lecture 9 notes) Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II vowed to lead a Crusade in 1215, however, due to domestic political reasons postponed his departure. Under pressure from Pope Gregory IX, Frederick and his army finally sailed from Italy, but returned to port within a few days because Frederick had fallen ill. ( A&A 72-74) The pope, angered at this delay excommunicated the emperor. In 1228 Fredrick tried to seize the Holy Land, the unconventional Crusade was led by diplomatic negotiations with the Egyptian sultan. From these negotiations a peace treaty was produced. A couple years later Louis IX, Saint Louis of France, decided that his obligations as a son of the Church outweighed those of his throne, and he left his kingdom for a six-year adventure. Since the base of Muslim power had shifted to Egypt, Louis did not even march on the Holy Land. His plan continued by plotting an attack on Cairo in the spring, which turned into a catastrophe. This was because the Crusaders did not guard their flanks and allowed the enemy to retain control over the water reservoirs, in which the enemy was able to flood the Crusaders out and trap the whole army. Louis was forced to surrender in April