Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Folly and Failure: the Second Crusade

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Folly and Failure: the Second Crusade
    Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 03:03
The loss of Edessa on Christmas Eve, 1144, sent shock waves through Europe. Edessa was the first Crusader state established half a century before, and like many nasty precedents it was feared that unless a reaction occurred, a domino effect would happen to sweep the Crusaders out of the Holy Land.

I find the Second Crusade a curious mixture of surprises, failures and disappointments from the perspective of Christian Europe. The fall of Edessa having become common knowledge, the Papacy felt compelled to issue a call to arms with the promise of remission of sins, to be preached by the very persuasive Bernard of Clairveax. The reaction to the preaching was the enlistment of the French and German monarchs in the adventure to set out overland. Northerners, often Flemish and English, were to depart via sea to their objective. However, Henry II of England was too sly to be dragged into the enterprise, just as well for him and his people.

Problems soon began to weaken the expedition. Unlike the first Crusade, the second was launched under the shock of a vague sense of fear at Muslim encroachment, rather than with a specific military objective in mind. Perhaps that more than anything explains so well why the Northern segment of the Crusade hardly went further than Iberia. Taking shelter on the Portugese coast, the Crusading band was then convinced by a local Christian lord to take the local city of Lisbon from the Moors. Why go all the way to Palestine, when one could indulge their material and carnal desires so close to home. With no clear military objective in the east, plus a dangerous and uncertain journey ahead of them, the Northern segment of the Second Crusade did not journey on to Palestine. Ironically, the taking of Lisbon was the only episode in this military adventure which interrupted the pattern of failure for the Christian side.

Meanwhile, the armies of Emperor Conrad III and Louis VII continued their trek overland, the rabbles of ill disciplined men who went ahead of them causing dischord with the Byzantines upon crossing the Danube. Lavishly entertained and welcomed by Manuel I Komnenos in Constantinople, Odo of Deuil from France nonetheless admits the Crusaders  held a meeting to discuss capturing Constantinople from their allies and  he records the  typical  Western view that the Byzantines were effeminate, effete and mendacious.

Manuel duly decided to ship his ungrateful guests over the Bosphorus to Anatolia, offering them guides and advice on how best to travel. Haughtily rejecting the Emperor's help, the two camps of Crusaders then fell out with one another and decided to separate. Travelling by poor routes against the advice of their Byzantine allies, separated by their petty squabbling, the two armies were defeated separately by the Turks, with few making it on to Palestine.

When they did so it was more failure and embarassment. Annoyed and hot headed over their recent defeats, the new arrivals to Palestine demanded immediate military action against whatever Muslim city was closest. Damascus was a city which had an alliance with the Crusader States, yet remained in the hands of her local Muslim dynasty. Eager for glory, the new arrivals ignored the more intelligent voices among the local aristocracy of Outremer and hastened to attack the only Muslim ally the Christians had. They failed to take the city and in doing so a city which was once a key part of Outremer's defence policy has thrown into the arms of Nur ed-din. Once again, the lack of a clear objective contributed to the utterly inept conduct of the Second Crusade.

For King Louis, it was bad enough, yet while in the Holy Land his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was travelling with him, had an affair with her uncle the Prince of Antioch. The humiliation could hardly have been worse for the young King. So the sorry band of men returned home, with little to show for their undertaking and having left the Crusader States in a situation a good deal more tenuous than they had found them to begin with.
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 17:56

Trust you to open a thread on the Sevond Crusade, when I just started to read a new book on the First. But nevermind.

It might be added that the German participation on the 2nd Crusade was a complete shambles, a halfhearted affair at best.
The Staufer King and HR Emperor Konrad III had to embark to Palestine without the military support of some of Germany's more powerful Dukes, and especially without that of the Welfen Duke of Saxony, Henry "the Lion", who used both the preparations for the crusade and the King's absence to stir up the conflict between the two houses, something he then pursued more seriously under Konrad's nephew and successor Frederik Barbarossa.
 
 


Edited by Komnenos - 24-Jul-2006 at 18:37
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 20:46
Seocnd crusaders were ill disiciplined ? you rno tmixing with the peter hermit peoples crusade
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 04:00
Originally posted by BigL

Seocnd crusaders were ill disiciplined ? you rno tmixing with the peter hermit peoples crusade


Much like the First Crusade, bands of poor warriors and enthusiasts travelled ahead of the main force, often looting and causing mischief at will. It was these who first entered Byzantine territory and their intemperate greed set a bad precedent, making the Byzantines suspicious of the main forces which arrived later.
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 22:29
so what the turks overwhelmed the Second crusade.
Or the first crusade overwhelmed the Turks
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 18:29
Originally posted by BigL

so what the turks overwhelmed the Second crusade.
Or the first crusade overwhelmed the Turks


Not sure if you are asking a question or making a statement. The First Crusade involved fairly good (definitely not perfect) cooperation between the individual Crusader bands and their Christian allies, while losses in Anatolia were quite heavy they were still able to defeat the Turks and complete their objectives. I believe the German force marched into the interior of Anatolia, the German and French having separated from eachother owing to their haughtiness and squabbling. The Turks picked off this army, with Conrad III escaping. Louis VII and his army marching overland before reaching the southern coast of Anatolia, by which time they were much reduced. Only a minority of soldiers escaped via Byzantine ships to reach Palestine, though Louis of course got out. The rest of the Franks perished. In both cases the Crusader armies lost a large majority of men but some managed to escape to go on to Palestine. The disaster of this overland route to Palestine probably played a big role in convincing later Crusaders to take the sea route.
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 19:42
What numbers of Turks were fighting the frist crusade
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 23:10
It is really quite hard to say what exact numbers of Turks fought in the First Crusade, though we must keep in mind that the Turks were far from a united people and different Turkish emirs fought the Crusaders at different points along their trek to Palestine.

Regarding the Second Crusade, it is quite paradoxical that a military mission which set out to bolster the sagging fortunes of the Crusader States (Outremer), actually ended up doing more harm than good. They turned the key ally of Damascus against the Christians, worsened relations with the Byzantines and managed to prove to the Muslims that the Islamic forces could be successful against a full blown Crusade if Turk and Arab worked together.
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 04:36

Where the Turks Armoured ,or have a central armoured cavalry like the Mongols did?

Back to Top
Orderic Vitalis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
  Quote Orderic Vitalis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 23:08

 On the De Re Militari website, we have four articles that deal directly with the Second Crusade, namely:

Edbury, Peter W., Looking Back on the Second Crusade: Some Late Twelfth-Century English Perspectives from The Second Crusade and the Cistercians

Ferzoco, George, The Origin of the Second Crusade, from The Second Crusade and the Cistercians

Martin Hoch, The Choice of Damascus as the Objective of the Second Crusade: a re-evaluation from Autour de la Premire Croisade

Omran, Mahmoud Said, John Kinnamos as a Historian of the Second Crusade - from Uluslararasi Hacli Seferleri Sempozyumu
 
 
 
Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages
Back to Top
Melisende View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote Melisende Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 03:07
Constantine - what is your source for Eleanor's "alleged" affair with her uncle Raymond of Poitiers.
 
It was merely rumour and inuendo - just as it was with the rumour that she  bestowed her affections upon a Moorish slave whilst Louis was absent, and that she instigated the murder of Alphonso-Jordan of Toulouse.
 
One can understand that a young woman brought up in a cultured and gregarious environment would seek out simliar pleasures after enduring the almost monkish and austere lifestyle of the French Royal Court.  And quite naturally she would seek out the company of her uncle as opposed to her boorish husband in whose company she was quite obviously unhappy.
 
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.