The Fourth Crusade and Fifth Crusade, both of which were initiated by Pope Innocent III, ended in failure. The reasons that these crusades were both unsuccessful are because of the Papacy’s lack of power, influence, and support, the widespread heresy at the time that caused discord and conflict amongst the Christians, as well as poor or illogical decision making by those in power.
In 1198 the recently elected Pope Innocent III began preaching for another Crusade that would attempt to regain control of the Holy Land, as the Third Crusade left Saladin, a Muslim leader, in control of Jerusalem. Innocent III began preparing for war, and formed an agreement with the Venetians, stating that the Crusaders would pay the Venetians for transportation to the Holy Land. Innocent III overestimated his forces, and needed less supplies than he requested, however, Venice still wanted the full agreed upon amount to be paid. The men tried to pull their money together to pay the entire amount, however they still were well short of the required sum. As a pope, Innocent III did not have the power, wealth, and men that the kings had. At the beginning of the 1200’s the papacy had far less influence than the kings. As the Crusaders were unable to pay, they instead formed an agreement which stated that the Crusaders would help the Venetians take over the Christian city of Zara in order to gain its wealth and supplies, however, “The barons and nobles among the crusaders agreed to what the doge proposed. But no one in the army knew this plan, except the leaders.” (7) This secret arrangement led to dissonance among the Crusaders when word got out, as many people, including Innocent III, despised the idea of harming a fellow Christian in any way. The city o...
... middle of paper ...
...d have been constantly gaining support during the crusade, but not only that, making sure that people follow up on their promises. However, at the time Frederick II was the Holy Roman Emperor, and had more power and influence than the pope, so it may have not even been possible to convince him to go. Thus, the weakness of the papacy, as well as the insolence and heretical ideas of the leaders also led to the Fifth Crusade’s demise.
Thus, both the Fourth Crusade and Fifth Crusade were failures for the same reasons, illogical and poor decisions by leaders which leads to a lack of trust as well as terrible losses, heresy which can divide any group that shares a common belief, and pope that lacks power, authority, and influence.
Works Cited
1) Edward Peters, ed., Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971)
Foss explains, “What Urban needed was an enterprise, clearly virtuous in serving the ends of Christiandome… in these moments of reflection, the popes mind turned towards Jerusalem.” Urban II reflects back on the first taking of the Holy City after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1071, and begins to question what his people know about the Turkish race and really the ideology of Islamic thought. Foss goes on to examine the ignorance of westerners and needed to be “reminded [by the pope] of the infamous heathens, their cruelty and hatred of Christians,” hoping this would justify the first Holy Crusade. However, Foss identifies the creativity of the Pope’s language to persuade the knights and army of the people to embark on the Holy Crusade based on the Muslims cruel actions turned onto their fellow Christians. Claiming the Muslims “Killed captives by torture…poor captives were whipped…and others were bound to the post and used as a target for arrows.” Foss examines the Popes words as an effective effort of persuasion in creating an army of crusaders to help clean “…Holy places, which are now treated with ignominy and polluted with Filthiness” and any sacrifice in Jerusalem is a “promise of a spiritual reward… and death for
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
Pope Urban II, just like many popes before him, was a part of the Investiture Controversy, which stemmed from a dispute between King Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. For the duration of the 11th and 12th centuries, religious leaders like Urban faced conflict with the ruling class of Europe, and this sense of contention impacted and fueled many of Urban’s decisions, including the choice he made to so strongly encourage the Crusades. Due to the fact that there were “political forces at work… since the Crusades were also tied to the Investiture Controversy” and because Urban attempted to and succeeded at “usurp[ing] the prerogative most secular rulers had claimed traditionally to declare an enemy and muster troops for battle,” it is undeniable that he was caught up in – and winning – a political battle, which means that he must have been acting with politics in the forefront of his mind (Crawford). Furthermore, Pope Urban II used the crusades as a way of undermining the king's authority while simultaneously increasing his own – now he was the one who was calling the shots and sending the European people off to war, when usually, that job belonged to the king. Although this may seem insignificant, the pope knew that if the king could not even control his own people, he would have no power left. The pope's decision to rally the people up for a crusade was a meticulously calculated one that effectively and purposefully resulted in him becoming the most politically powerful person in Europe, when previously almost all of his power stemmed from
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. The United States of America: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986.
The First Crusade was a widely appealing armed pilgrimage, and mobilized a vast conquering force at a time when the Christian Church was moving towards centralization and greater political influence in Europe. The Church gained a wider audience more accepting of its leadership, benefitted economically, and developed its own militarily force. These outcomes, along with the Church’s documented ambition to expand and its reversal of prior teachings, support the idea that the First Crusade was a deliberate political maneuver, intended to to expand and consolidate the authority of the
...how the power really did rest with religion and the figures that claimed leadership over Gods children. The first Crusade was a success and shows how the Pope had powers not even emperors or monarchs could have over nations. “The First Crusade enabled the papacy to put itself at the forefront of an immensely powerful movement and grasp the moral leadership of Europe” (Bennett).
The Crusades were the first tactical mission by Western Christianity in order to recapture the Muslim conquered Holy Lands. Several people have been accredited with the launch of the crusades including Peter the Hermit however it is now understood that this responsibility rested primarily with Pope Urban II . The main goal of the Crusades was the results of an appeal from Alexius II, who had pleaded for Western Volunteers help with the prevention of any further invasions. The Pope’s actions are viewed as him answering the pleas of help of another in need, fulfilling his Christian right. However, from reading the documents it is apparent that Pope Urban had ulterior motives for encouraging engagement in the war against the Turks. The documents and supporting arguments now highlight that the Pope not only sought to recruit soldiers to help but also to challenge those who had harmed the Christians community and annihilate the Muslims. He put forth the idea that failure to recapture this lands would anger God and that by participating, God would redeem them of their previous sins.in a time of deep devoutness, it is clear this would have been a huge enticement for men to engage in the battle. Whether his motives were clear or not to his people, Pope Urban’s speeches claiming that “Deus vult!” (God wills it) encouraged many Christians to participate and take the cross.
The crusades in the middle ages were a long-lasting series of vigorous wars between Christians and Muslims over the Holy Land, Jerusalem. The crusades lasted for almost two hundred years. They began in 1099 and approximately ended in 1291. (What were the motives, and causes of these gruesome wars?) is the first question one might ask. To properly answer this question, I am about to analyze the first four crusades that had began in 1099 and ended in 1212.
Beginning not too long after the failure of the Second Crusade, the Third Crusade (also known as the Kings' Crusade) spanned from 1189 to 1192. It's purpose was to reclaim the Holy Land from Saladin, and was largely successful, and the European leaders managed to capture the cities Acre and Jaffa, as well undo the majority of Saladin's previous conquests. However, it was unable to capture Jerusalem, the key motivation to the Crusades. The key figures in this Crusade were Richard I of England (also known as Richard the Lionhearted), King Philip II of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
How could the Christian church, which bases itself off kindness and peace, allow the Crusades to happen? The religion known to be loving of all was the cause of the most catastrophic occurrence in the late eleventh and late thirteenth centuries because of misconceptions and avarice of the pope. Of all of the religious wars fought, this was the one with the highest level of ridiculousness. Members of the church fought for all of the wrong reasons and the outcome was poor because of it. Even though the Crusades were justified by the false philosophies of both parties, they were overall beneficial economically. Before one can analyze the thoughts of the people, he or she must know what came about to make them think like this.
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.
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 ...
In order for the crusades to begin, the Christians needed to gather an army to travel and fight the forces of Muslims. With all the power being held by monarchies at this time, the church needed to be cleaver in order to gain troops to put their lives on the line. To gain the support of these warriors and dedication of men, Pope Urban II (1088-1099) challenged those morals of men by telling them to grab their weapons and join the holy war to recover the land of Jerusalem. It was not the challenge that convinced men to take part in this war. The promise of “immediate remission of sins” attracted the men to stand up for their religion and beliefs while at the same time, promising them a trip to heaven when life comes to an end. With this statement, men instantly prepared for battle which in a very short period of time gave the church power which has been held by the monarchies. Men of rich and poor prepared for battle, some wearing ...
Dana C Munro, "The Popes and the Crusades," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , 55, no. 5 (1916): 352,