Why did the First Crusade succeed while later Crusades failed
By Jacob Deacon
The overwhelming success of the First set off a chain of events that would eventually make it almost impossible for future Crusades to achieve the same levels of success as the first. Those who were inspired by the gains of the first Crusaders to take the cross for themselves ended up crusading often for political reasons, not religious, and arguably a more secular motive was not able to provide the crusaders with the religious zeal needed to survive a Crusade. On the other hand, the success of the First Crusade was arguably a major catalyst in the unification of the East against the invading Franks; without a common enemy, figures such as Nur al-Din and Saladin would have found it almost impossible to unite the Muslims.
Before continuing with my argument, a word on clarification is needed. The word `Crusade` is a very broad term, and should therefore be defined in context of this essay. For my research I have used the definition provided by J. Riley-Smith, in that a crusade is “a holy war authorized by the Pope in the name of God…Proposed, like all justifiable Christian violence as a defensive reaction to injury or aggression or as an attempt to recover Christian territories. It answered to the needs of the Church or Christendom rather than to those of a particular nation“[1]. Furthermore, this essay shall deal with the Crusades to the Holy Land as opposed to those in Europe, taking a traditionalist approach.
At the time of the First Crusade the Middle East was deeply divided. The united armies of Western Europe did not face one united Muslim force, but the various militaries of many different warlords and sultans. Arguably the most serious threat faced by the First Crusaders came at the hands of Kerghoba of Mosul when he laid siege to the recently captured city of Antioch, but when the Franks emerged from the city, some Turks who wished to avoid fighting took advantage of what they knew to be the signal to retreat and started a fire[2] . Undoubtedly, this lack of organised resistance is what allowed the Crusaders (who themselves were not immune to inner fighting and arguments, but managed to overcome it) to eventually take Jerusalem and set up the Crusader States. The capture of Antioch itself had been possible because not even a single city was fully united against the Crusaders. For example, the author of the Gesta talks about how Antioch was taken due to a traitor inside the walls to whom `Bohemond often sent messages, sounding as to whether he would receive him in to the city[3]’. Through this one can see how the division of Islam made it possible for those on the First Crusade to succeed in taking the Holy Land. The rulers of the various states were not prepared to fully support each other without some form of recompense, and thus the Crusaders never had one united front to face, making success far easier to achieve.
However, things did not remain this way for future Crusaders. By the time of the Third Crusade, the Crusaders faced a more united enemy under the leadership of one man, Saladin, who was following in the footsteps of his mentor, Nur al-Din. Asbridge comments that `the half century since the First Crusade had seen little sign of a united Islamic response`, but as soon as the Islamic warlords began to unite, their fortunes began to change[4]. Once Syria and Egypt were united, infighting no longer threatened the Muslim’s defence of the Holy Land; The Second Crusade’s siege of Damascus was lifted because of reinforcements sent from neighbouring cities, a drastic change when compared to the siege of Jerusalem. If the First Crusaders had encountered this sort of organised resistance it is much more unlikely they would have succeeded and one can argue that the fact that Nur al-Din and Saladin were only able to unite the Muslims because of the strong presence of an outside threat is evidence that the First Crusade’s success is what prevented later Crusades from taking advantage of disunity between the Saracens.
Whilst the Saracens were uniting under one banner, the opposite seemed to be happening to the Christian forces. Arguably, the leadership of the First Crusade is what prevented the army from disintegrating, and although they were not immune to disagreements, the leadership of men like Bohemond and Godfey was an important factor in the success of the First Crusade. Primary accounts of the first Crusade are full of praise for the great deeds of the men who realized that the Crusaders `must unite to survive`, such as the tale Bohemond of rallying soldiers with the claim that “if our enemies find you without a leader you will all die” before leading them back on in to battle to claim victory[5][6].
Deeds such as this would inspire future nobles to lead their own crusades, but often for different motives. The heavy impact of religion on the motivations of those who were first to take the Cross cannot be ignored, the author of the Gesta frequently finishes his writings in a similar manner to this; `we came back in great triumph and praised the glorified God who reigneth eternally`, a clear sign that they truly believed that they were fighting for God and that he would protect them[7]. Bohemond is even recorded as saying “this is no war of the flesh but of the spirit”, further indication that the Crusaders were steadfast in their belief that they were doing God’s will[8].
However, later Crusaders were often motivated by different callings. Setton writes how many of those who went on the Second Crusade `encountered local and feudal ambition` leading to petty squabbles, putting the Crusade in real danger[9]. There is little doubt that the vast variety of motivations for going crusading led to infighting, with those born in the east showed increasing hostility to western knights who came on later expeditions[10] . Without a doubt these Crusaders were eager to replicate the glory of those who came before them, and this desire blinded them to the need to work together in the face of a unified Islamic enemy. As such, one can argue that because this disunity occurred because of knights trying to accrue glory like Bohemond, the success of the First Crusade was responsible for control of the Middle East remaining elusive.
Things did not improve with later Crusades; after the successful siege of Acre in 1191, Phillip of France left the Holy Land claiming that he had fulfilled his crusading vows, but many chroniclers later attributed his sudden departure to a desire to take advantage of Richard’s presence in the Holy Land and `throw Normandy into disorder` by `stirring up the country` of France[11]. For Phillip to do this showed a blatant disregard for the protection of Crusader’s property offered by the Pope, and well and truly highlights the lack of unity present on the Third Crusade, as Phillip would prefer to attack a former ally and take advantage of him being in the Holy Land rather than help reclaim Jerusalem.
The motivations of Frederick II for going on crusade were also very different indeed to those who set out on the First Crusade. Although he took the Cross at his coronation, Phillips states that `his involvement increased in 1223 when it was decided that he should marry the heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem`[12]. This would imply that his motivations for travelling to the Holy Land had little to do with religion (it is worth noting he was excommunicated when he came to control Jerusalem), and that when he took Jerusalem, it merely became `just one more element amongst his portfolio of dominions`[13].
The rivalry between Richard and Phillip, as already mentioned, highlights another change in the leadership over the course of the Crusades. There were no kings present on the First Crusade. Medieval kings often had to remain in their territories in order to keep order and control, if they left their lands then there was an opportunity for a rival to take the throne .However, from the time of the Second Crusade onwards, these expeditions to the Holy Land nearly always involved a monarch. Whilst on crusade, monarchs constantly worried about how secure their powerbase was, and it was only possible for them to remain crusading as long as their lands were safe. For example, one of Richard I’s main reasons for leaving the Holy Land was because he had begun `to receive disturbing news of the activities of his brother John and of Philip Augustus[14]`. John was planning to seize power for himself, and `it became evident that Richard must soon return to Europe to safeguard his own interests there[15]`. Frederick II faced similar problems, continuing to highlight how a king (or in this case Emperor) was not the best candidate to lead a crusade due to having to ensure the safety of their Kingdom. According to Phillips, Frederick had to depart Jerusalem the day after being crowned because of the `urgent attention` required after he had heard the news that `a Papal army led by the former King of Jerusalem had invaded his lands in Sicily`[16]. When one compares these examples with the fact that the nobles who went on the First Crusade could stay and see it through until the end, it becomes obvious that the continuing change in both the unity of leaders as well as who was leading the Crusades is a major factor in determining why the Crusades began to fail after 1099.
The third reason that led to the failure of any crusading after the first is one that lies in the nature of the Crusades themselves. With the exception of the First Crusade, they were only undertaken in the wake of a disaster. For example, the Second Crusade was preached after the loss of the Kingdom of Edessa, and the Third was launched in response to the loss of Jerusalem itself. The First Crusade, on the other hand, can be seen as the West taking the initiative. It had been centuries since the loss of Jerusalem to the Saracens, and at the time of the First Crusade, another Holy War was taking place in the form of the Reconquista, inspiring others to take the Cross (as Jordan notices, `the idea of fighting to regain the Holy Sepulchre was in the air` due to this other conflict)[17]. Later Crusades did not really have this benefit and there was little that could be done about the fact that crusading zeal only seemed to spread as a reaction to a loss of some kind. Siberry, for example, discusses how there was no desire to continue Crusading after the failure of the Second Crusade, but that `the situation changed after the battle of Hattin`, sparking the Third Crusade[18]. Things remained same over time, when Frederick II took the cross, his German nobles felt `indifferent` about events, despite Frederick’s `personal enthusiasm`, possibly because the Crusade was not called in reaction to the loss of a city such as Jerusalem[19].
On the other hand, the desire to keep on fighting never changed for the Muslims who inhabited the Holy Land. For them the Crusade was an invasion of their homeland and as such, if they faltered or gave up, the Franks would take their homes. Siberry talks about how the Christians `fought in unfamiliar territory`, but the Muslims who lived in the Holy Land knew the land and were unwilling to give it up[20]. From this, one can determine that another reason that the Crusades failed was because of fluctuating interest from one side and steadfast resolve from the other.
In conclusion, one can see how the various factors which led to the capture of Jerusalem were eventually what led to the failure of successive crusades to meet their aims. The first Crusaders survived the Middle East because of infighting between the Saracens, but the presence of a hostile outsider was one of the major catalysts of Islamic unification between Egypt and Syria. It is entirely possible that if the Crusader States and later crusaders showed the same cohesion then Jerusalem and perhaps even Edessa would have remained under Christian control, but just as the Muslims were beginning to present a united front, the Franks were plagued by infighting, each eager for more land and power than the others, seeking to replicate the glory of the First Crusade. It even took the loss of an important city such as Edessa to motivate another Crusade. Through this one can see how the successes of the first Crusade are what led to the failures of all those which followed afterwards.
Bibliography
Anon, edited by Hill R., Gesta Francorum, Oxford University Press, 1979
Asbridge T., The Crusades: The war for the Holy Land, Simon and Schuster UK Ltd, 2012
Asbridge T., The First Crusade: A New History, The Free Press, 2005
Barber M., The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050-1320, Routledge, 2003
Holmes G., The Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Oxford University Press, 1988
Housley N., Contesting the Crusades, Blackwell Publishing, 2006
Jordan W.C., Europe in the High Middle Ages, Penguin Group, 2002
Phillips J., Holy Warriors; A Modern History of the Crusades, Vintage, 2010
Setton K.M., edited by Baldwin M. W., A History of the Crusades; Volume I, The First Hundred Years, University of Wisconsin Press, 1955
Accessed through http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/History.CrusOne
Siberry E., Criticism of Crusading 1095-1274, Oxford University Press, 1985
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/tyre-damascus.asp
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1191philaug.asp
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1192peace.asp
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1148conrad2.asp
End Notes
[1] Siberry E., Criticism of Crusading 1095-1274, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.vii
[2] Anon, edited by Hill R., Gesta Francorum, Oxford University Press, 1979, p.69
[3] Ibid, p.44
[4] Asbridge T., The Crusades: The war for the Holy Land, Simon and Schuster UK Ltd, 2012, p.225
[5] Asbridge T., The First Crusade: A New History, The Free Press, 2005, p.324
[6] Anon, edited by Hill R., Gesta Francorum, Oxford University Press, 1979, p.33
[7] Ibid, p.31
[8] Ibid, p.37
[9] http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&id=History.CrusOne&entity=History.CrusOne.p0541&q1=failure
[10] Holmes G., The Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Oxford University Press, 1988, p.208
[11] http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1191philaug.asp
[12] Phillips J., Holy Warriors; A Modern History of the Crusades, Vintage, 2010, p.229
[13] Ibid p.230
[14] http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1192peace.asp
[15] ibid
[16] Phillips J., Holy Warriors; A Modern History of the Crusades, Vintage, 2010, p.237
[17] Jordan W.C., Europe in the High Middle Ages, Penguin Group, 2002, p.104
[18] Siberry E., Criticism of Crusading 1095-1274, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.192
[19] Phillips J., Holy Warriors; A Modern History of the Crusades, Vintage, 2010, p.229
[20] Siberry E., Criticism of Crusading 1095-1274, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.195
How you can Follow Us!