Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
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">
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 20:46 |
Seocnd crusaders were ill disiciplined ? you rno tmixing with the peter hermit peoples crusade
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 22:29 |
so what the turks overwhelmed the Second crusade.
Or the first crusade overwhelmed the Turks
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 19:42 |
What numbers of Turks were fighting the frist crusade
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 04:36 |
Where the Turks Armoured ,or have a central armoured cavalry like the Mongols did?
|
|
Orderic Vitalis
Immortal Guard
Joined: 03-Aug-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
Quote Reply
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
|
Visit our site www.medievalists.net for articles, videos and more about the Middle Ages
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
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."
|
|