The Crusades

[ComradeOm]

However, it should be said that the First Crusade wasn't a complete fluke, considering how successful the Third Crusade was (and a big reason why that wasn't even more successful is because Phillip II went back to France to steal Richard's territories). Plus, the Fifth and Seventh Crusades gave Egypt a real run for their money.Its funny how 'success' can be such a relative term ;)

To my mind the Third Crusade sums up the futility of the whole crusading project. Sure, the Latins won a few battles and Richard made a name for himself but that was it. Lacking the resources to march on Jerusalem (and this from the most lavishly funded crusade in history) the Crusaders settled for maintaining a rump kingdom at Acre whose sad existence for the next century rested solely on the whims of Muslim rulers

The truth is that the Kingdom of Jerusalem never had the resources to compete with a coherent Muslim opposition. As a sovereign entity it was simply unsustainable in terms of population, economy, and military. Nor were such resources (apart from the irregular crusade) forthcoming from Europe. The First Crusade had the marvellous luck of striking when the Islamic world was fractured and in disarray (and even then it was a close run thing) but this could not last forever. The KoJ was an aberration that marked the extremely messy collapse of the Abbasids

And don't buy into the English propaganda regarding Philip (whose reign was vastly more successful than his English counterparts). His departure was the result of dysentery, events that weakened his position at home, and Richard's high-handedness (he also managed to piss of Leopold). Besides, the departure of Philip suited Richard in that it left sole command (and subsequent glory) to him. No, the interesting question is what would have occurred if Barbarossa had survived or the German host (which dwarfed both the English and French contingents) had not fallen apart on his death

I'm puzzled by Egypt though, both those crusades were unmitigated disasters. Even with the chronic instability of the Mamluk state, the Fifth and Seventh Crusades saw two disastrous marches on Cairo which, in both cases, resulted in entire Latin armies being wiped out. I suppose if this is your benchmark then the Third Crusade can indeed be considered a success ;)


Militarily, why do you think the Crusades were such a fluke?Because the First Crusade, which was a resounding success, happened to catch the Islamic world with its pants down. Metaphorically of course

Long story short, the central authority of the Abbasid Caliphate was in the process of collapsing and the Arab world fragmenting into many, many, minor and major fiefdoms. It was fragmentation on a grand scale. Anyway the Muslims are scrapping amongst themselves - each lord carving out his own little empire - when all of a sudden a huge army (70k plus strong) emerges from the backwater of Europe, defeats the Turks, and starts marching down the Levantine coast. In terms of shocks that's right up there with African Union marching into Washington DC

There was no unified response to the invasion. The closest there was to one was Kerbogha, Atabeg of Mosul, who rounded up a few armies and marched to relieve Antioch. Incidentally it really was a miracle that the Crusaders were not wiped out on that occasion. After that the various petty lords of the Levant were more than happy to pay off the Latin host as it made its was to Jerusalem before defeating a third Muslim army at Ascalon. Crusading armies would never again face such disjointed opposition and they'd never again taste such success


What about the medieval Spanish who were able to reconquer Spain from the Muslims?The Reconquista is typically included in Crusade histories but I don't think it belongs there. This was a long process that took centuries (completely different from the expeditions to Outremer) which pretty much saw one group of petty warlords battle another group of petty warlords. Religion was not even overly important with Christian lords accepting/paying tribute to Muslims or serving them as mercenaries (and vice versa). Its only really later that it gets recast as some epic struggle against the infidel, all for the purposes of propaganda of course

If there is a common thread its that Latin success in Iberia, like Outremer, was dependent on Muslim disunity. And the Emirs of al-Andalus were really experts in the fine art of infighting

[manic expression]

Its funny how 'success' can be such a relative term ;)

To my mind the Third Crusade sums up the futility of the whole crusading project. Sure, the Latins won a few battles and Richard made a name for himself but that was it. Lacking the resources to march on Jerusalem (and this from the most lavishly funded crusade in history) the Crusaders settled for maintaining a rump kingdom at Acre whose sad existence for the next century rested solely on the whims of Muslim rulers

The truth is that the Kingdom of Jerusalem never had the resources to compete with a coherent Muslim opposition. As a sovereign entity it was simply unsustainable in terms of population, economy, and military. Nor were such resources (apart from the irregular crusade) forthcoming from Europe. The First Crusade had the marvellous luck of striking when the Islamic world was fractured and in disarray (and even then it was a close run thing) but this could not last forever. The KoJ was an aberration that marked the extremely messy collapse of the Abbasids

Yes and no. The Crusader states were able to unite with one another when they really needed to, while the surrounding Islamic powers were unable to unify until Saladin came onto the scene. Secondly, the Crusader states utilized their only advantages pretty well: they used networks of strongholds and castles and the martial orders to defend their territory, and it worked pretty well for some time.

Yes, the First Crusade was damn lucky. However, the Second Crusade was pretty damn unlucky. We shouldn't underestimate the viability of Outremer to such a degree.


And don't buy into the English propaganda regarding Philip (whose reign was vastly more successful than his English counterparts). His departure was the result of dysentery, events that weakened his position at home, and Richard's high-handedness (he also managed to piss of Leopold). Besides, the departure of Philip suited Richard in that it left sole command (and subsequent glory) to him. No, the interesting question is what would have occurred if Barbarossa had survived or the German host (which dwarfed both the English and French contingents) had not fallen apart on his death

Even if Philip did leave just because of dysentery, he certainly wasted no time in attacking Richard's lands in France once he got back. Two things are important here. First, the French crown had experienced tremendous setbacks due to Louis VII's mistakes. The monarchy didn't control much land at all and Philip was eager to reverse this. Second, Philip really did hate Richard and England to the core. A lot. His father, whom Philip loved very much, was publicly humiliated by Eleanor on multiple occassions, most notably when she married the young king of England and immediately started having sons after having none with Louis. Philip was politically and personally motivated to take as much land and influence from England as he could.

And yes, Philip was very successful.


I'm puzzled by Egypt though, both those crusades were unmitigated disasters. Even with the chronic instability of the Mamluk state, the Fifth and Seventh Crusades saw two disastrous marches on Cairo which, in both cases, resulted in entire Latin armies being wiped out. I suppose if this is your benchmark then the Third Crusade can indeed be considered a success ;)

It's not a secret. Both failed because of bad luck and a few critical mistakes. The Fifth Crusade was going well, they had taken Damietta and had the Egyptians on the back foot. However, they took up very bad positions in the Nile valley and were cut down as the waters rose. Essentially, they were beaten by the Nile and their unfamiliarity with the terrain. Interestingly enough, I'm quite sure the Egyptians offered them Jerusalem and Outremer at one point, but this was refused because the crusade was threatening Cairo itself.

The Seventh Crusade was much of the same. The crusaders had again taken the coast and traveled up the Nile. Later, they had a resounding victory against the Egyptians, but the same flanking force which accomplished this was almost immediately wiped out when they tried to take the nearby town (if you've ever been in a middle eastern or north African medina, you know how horrible it would be for an armored knight on horseback to fight in there). The crusaders lost the initiative and hundreds of their best fighters, and the Egyptians eventually punished them for it.

The Fifth and Seventh Crusades were disasters, but they were both on the brink of success when they failed.

[ComradeOm]

I think we're veering off topic here. Would a mod mind splitting off these last few Crusade posts into a separate thread?


Yes and no. The Crusader states were able to unite with one another when they really needed to, while the surrounding Islamic powers were unable to unify until Saladin came onto the scene. Secondly, the Crusader states utilized their only advantages pretty well: they used networks of strongholds and castles and the martial orders to defend their territory, and it worked pretty well for some timeThe problem with the Crusader states was not unity in itself (although that kingdom must surely go down in history as one of the most bizarrely disjointed and byzantine political environments in history - witness the divided nature to Saladin's decisive campaign) but the sheer paucity of resources. Jerusalem was never a 'European' kingdom and Latins never accounted for more than a thin stratum of the population. It could survive and (in the early years at least) thrive when confronted weak/divided opposition but once the Islamic world solidified it was simply outclassed

There were tactical victories of course (on all the Crusades) but Saladin could afford to suffer a Montgisard and survive. Conversely Jerusalem was living on borrowed time - all it took was one defeat to bring the whole edifice crashing down. And this is not even mentioning the rump kingdom at Acre

The Crusader fortifications, while extremely impressive in their own right (another item on my 'must-see' list) are indicative of the weaknesses that plagued Jerusalem. The two most obvious features of their design was the relatively small garrisons, which reflected chronic manpower shortages, and their strategic role in governing a largely alien local population. In a purely military sense the various citadels admirably served their purpose of allowing from interior lines of communication and movement - such as during the shadowing of Saladin's 1183 campaign - but as purely defensive structures in their own right they were far from impregnable. One of the major factors that compelled Guy de Lusignan to seek battle at Hattin was the knowledge that a passive defence (a la 1183) essentially gave free reign of the countryside to Saladin and was extremely costly


The Fifth and Seventh Crusades were disasters, but they were both on the brink of success when they failed.I'm sure de Lusignan was bemoaning Hattin as his one "critical mistake" ;)

We can talk about what might have happened had this occurred or that occurred but that's the nature of the Crusades and indeed most medieval wars. My own opinion is that having one army wiped out in Egypt is bad luck but two is just clumsy

A few notes though:

The defeat of the Seventh Crusade had little to do with the climate and everything to do with the opposition. The Muslim commanders at Al Mansurah (including Baibars, scourge of both Latins and Mongols - he defeated two crusades and checked the Ilkhanate advance) lured one Crusader army into a trap before slaughtering them and then rapidly advancing, making excellent use of the waterways, to surround the remaining enemy forces

Its essentially the same story with the Fifth Crusade. Advancing into Egypt is not victory in itself. This expedition took Damietta before staging a very weak advance on Cairo. They had neither the supplies nor enthusiasm to actually take the capital, regardless of the Nile waters

During the Fifth Crusade Al-Kamil did make the offer of Jerusalem but it was rejected on the advice of the Hospitallers (IIRC) who, probably correctly, insisted that the city alone would be defenceless without the accompanying lands of Oultrejordain to serve as a defensive buffer. These lands, which would have essentially restored the KoJ to its pre-Hattin borders, were never up for discussion