Nicolai Clawson

Crusades
success or
failure?
HIST-1500-003 Prof. Beurtheret

Nicolai Clawson

To answer this question in a single word Id have to say they were a

Failure, despite this being an unfair question. This is not the easiest of
questions to answer in in one word considering its diverse standards, content
and history. The Crusades have been credited in being one single event when
the exact opposite is the truth. The fact of the matter is that form 1069A.D.
to 1487 there were several different battels and wars that made up the
crusades (Jerusalem). While there were several battles and conflicts
historians agree to mark seven of them as the crusades with and eighth
still being debated about. For this paper I have decided to prove that while
the battels did produce both negative and positive results for the people of
this time, they were in their end a failure. My reasoning for that is that by the
end of the Crusades they had become a religious battle that distorted the
true meaning of both religions caught in that conflict. In the end it was a
morality failure. I will demonstrate this by covering each of the crusades in
turn covering their creation to the results at their conclusion. As I have
stated it will be my goal to prove in the end that these
The first crusade was in 1069 A.D. and naturally it involved Jerusalem
and who controlled it. it is important to clarify that Jerusalem is more than
the Holy Land to several religions, it is also a strategic location for trade and
commerce. Several trade routes enter or pass though Jerusalem including
the silk road, this means that whoever controlled Jerusalem would have a
large influence in the trade of the regions nearby and even Europe (The
Crusades). This could be argued as the main cause of the crusades in the

first place but that would be difficult to prove. However, it is clear that
because of this trade that Christians form Europe started to push their
influence in that region. The Trade was a form of power and influence that
they wanted to share in with the several other religions and nations in the
area. However as to be expected there was conflict and this is what lead to
the first crusade (The Crusades).
In the beginning of the 11th century there was unrest in the region of
Jerusalem due to what can only be described as intolerance. The Christians
in Jerusalem itself had been persecuted by the Islamic rulers in the region
was considered to be unfortunate but normal was about to become worse.
The rulers of the city were the Egyptians who while had little love for the
Christians and while turned a blind eye to their mistreatment at least tried to
be fair (Jerusalem). However, it was the Seljuk Turks that were the real threat
to the Christians in the city, it was them that openly wished to either execute
or drive every last Christian out of what they considered to be their land.
Well in 1071 the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comenius took control of the city
and in all sense of the mater sealed the fate of any Christian living in the city.
The Pope Urban the 2nd cried to the rest of Europe for help and launched the
first crusade to take the Holy Land in 1095 (Jerusalem). Now it can be argued
as to why he did this, some would say that his interest was in saving as
many of his fallowers as he could while others argue that he instead wanted
to gain more control of the trade. I personally believe that he did this for both
of those reasons, the Christians in that region had suffered for years and he

sympathized with them. But once they were facing absolute destruction he
called for war. The trade routes benefited all of Europe and that included the
Vatican, he could not allow an aggressive Islamic to take full control of it, by
doing so he could force his will on Europe. In the end the crusade had started
and this was the first domino in long line of other dominions (Jerusalem).
The first wave of fighters from Europe to attack the Byzantine control
of the Holy Land were not solders but were actually farmers and peasants
from France and Germany. it goes without saying that these untrained and
undisciplined civilians had little effect on taking Jerusalem, but they did buy
time for the real solders to arrive in 1096 (Jerusalem). It is important to
remember that in this time it took time for communications to be transported
back and forth. It also took time to supply armies and have them start
marching, but the fact that they were able to launch an attack in just one
year was amazing. In that one-year time frame 40,000 mounted knights and
25,000 infantry solders were on the march to take Jerusalem and were led by
several leaders: Raymond of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of
Flanders, and Bohemond of Otranto (Jerusalem). The war was not easy or by
any means clean, for all their claims to be serving God and his Pope these
knights took cities and slaughtered thousands of people inside regardless if
they were civilian or solder. This is what I mean by the failure of morality in
the Crusades. The Bible these solders and Knights claimed to believe did not
support what they were doing. It is important to remember that most of
these solders had never even read the Bible at that time it was the priest

who had that right, but this is a point that will be seen in all the fallowing
Crusades. As the European forces crossed the land they established
fortifications as well and even left solders to hold these cities. By the time
they reached Jerusalem three years had passed and their forces were
reduced to 1,200 Calvary and 12,000 infantry solders, but with those
numbers they took the city in just over a month (Jerusalem). After their
victory Egypt sent in an army to reclaim the land taken by the invaders. This
attempt of regaining control from Europe did not work and only solidified the
crusaders control, as well as now leaving their five new and small Christian
states alone and with the ability to grow.
The second crusade was more of a retaking of the Holy Land by the
Muslim forces around 1130 A.D. It is important to note that this was in all
sense of the word retaliation. The Crusaders had come in and with surprising
speed captured and held the Holy Land (Crusades). Their goal was to take
Jerusalem and as both a religious slandered and a way to control trade to
Europe. However, the crusaders had been able to not only take the Holy City
but to establish four other western settlements otherwise known as Crusader
states. these five total regions gave the Europeans a large advantage over
the land and they had full intentions to hold it (Crusades). Now ideally
speaking this is where they should have started to treat everyone fairly and
created a long lasting peace, unfortunately this did not happen. The
Crusaders pillaged the land and killed an alarmingly large amount of the
population (Crusades). This was a clear sign of another failure of the

crusades, after so much bloodshed the invaders only sought to treat the
surviving Muslims the same way they treated the Christians before the
Crusade. Lords were placed in these settlements, for the most part they were
decorated Crusaders and were given this title due to their loyalty and
support to the cause. They built castles as a way to solidify their presence
and make it a proper place to rule the regions (TYERMAN). The best way to
describe the effect a castle has on a region is comparing it to an aircraft
carrier in todays time. An air craft carrier is never just alone; it has an entire
fleet protecting it. the same can be said for a castle, they are never alone.
The castle is nearby one or several villages and it provides protection to the
people. They are also placed in places of trade like crossroads and other like
locations. These castles could hold several hundred to thousands of troops at
any given time. In the end these castles made a very clear message to the
Muslims and it was that Christianity had control of the Holy Land and they
were there to stay.
These castles and constant influence of the Crusaders did not have the
desired effect of keeping the Muslim population inline. In fact, the opposite
happened and around 1130 they launched their own version of a Holy War
a Jihad. This is another example of the morality failure I have mentioned
before, where a religion of peace is being distorted to violence and revenge.
In 1122 General Zangi captured the northernmost Crusader state of Edessa.
His victory shattered any illusions of safety to the remaining crusaders, after
all several crusaders had returned home after solidifying their precious in the

region. Three years later in 1147 a second crusade was called for to put this
invasion to an end. Both the kings of France; King Louis 7th and Germany;
King Conrad the 3rd led the armies with the expectation that this would be
victorious like the crusade before them. However, in Dorylaeum Conrads
army was crushed by the Turks and the surviving crusade forces were forced
to assemble in Jerusalem and prepare to attack. There they built up an army
of 50,000 in order to attack the city of Damascus, which before had not been
a challenge to take. But the truth was that the leader of Damascus called to
the other Muslim leaders for aid and their combined might defeated the
Christians that day. This was the ending of the second crusade where the
Muslims were gaining more land with their new stronghold of Damascus by
1154 (Crusades).
Now we move on to the third Crusade, this is where things begin to get
complicated. As the past two crusades had proven that this was a prim
opportunity from nations in Europe to gain additional land and influence of
trade. One of many places to conquer was Egypt itself and there were
several Crusader attempts of taking that nation. However, it was the Muslims
that captured Cairo first and forced to Crusaders to retreat in 1169
(Crusades). After this victory in Egypt we see the rise of Saladin, a Muslima
military and political leader who lead the people as sultan in several years
worth of victories. As Saladin gained power he launched a military campaign
to retake the Holy City of Jerusalem and after the battle of Hattin in 1187 he
did just that (Saladin). By gaining the city of Jerusalem he also gained large

territories of land and brought even more power to his name. while he was a
brutal and resilient leader he did have an understanding of peace and
diplomacy. There were several times that he would approach a city controlled
by the Crusaders and after demonstrating that they were severely
outnumbered and stood no chance of victory he would give them the option
to surrender. Those that surrendered were often held for ransom or served
time in jail. Now while at first this sounds like he was a better man then the
Crusaders it is important to remember he mainly did this because he did not
wish to lay siege to a city (Saladin). The effort and resources that are needed
to lay a proper siege are enormous and time consuming, not to mention the
loss of troops as well. It is important to note that Saladin did not exactly wish
to resolve the Crusade peacefully, but that we wanted to remove the Cristian
invaders from his land as effectively as possible.
After seeing the victories of Saladin and the loss of Jerusalem Europe
launched the third crusade to retake what they considered to be theirs. This
time England played a much larger role in the crusades since it was Richard
the first of England that lead alongside Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and
King Philip the 2nd.in 1192 they launched their attack and marched to regain
their land. There was only one true battle that took place in this crusade and
that was the battle of Arsuf, where Richard the Lionheart was victorious.
Here is what I consider to be the high mark of the Crusades after the battle
Arsuf. Richard marched to Jerusalem and created a treaty with Saladin
(Saladin). These two waring leaders were able to sit down and create a treaty

that brought about some peace. The treaty redefined the lands of Jerusalem
and what regions belonged to both Christians and Muslims. One item that
was not up for discussion was Jerusalem, that city would stay under the
control of Saladin (Crusades). While some could argue that this was a sign of
a victory in the crusades, a moment when both sides started to finally get
along and stop the fighting, it didnt. as impressive as this treaty was it didnt
last long. One incident was the swapping of prisoners, Richard had several
thousand Muslim prisoners and was going to trade them to Saladin.
However, his own commanders instead, ordered their execution leading to
the mass murder of civilians. So even with a treaty being made both sides
still acted like they were still at war. the treaty itself was also not an attempt
at a long term peace, it was a delaying tactic. While Saladin spent time
negotiating and offering deals to surrounded cities, the Crusaders spent this
time to fortified their own cities and strong holds (Saladin). This was a
delaying tactic that put both sides in stronger positions for later
engagements. This was the end of the third Crusade, only one real battle but
by the end the board was set for an even bigger battle.
The fourth crusade was not a full attack like the others had been, in
1198 Pope Innocent the 2nd cried for another Crusade to retake regions of the
middle east. Several French knights took up the oath to fight and marched
off to war despite having fewer troops and financial support than any other
crusade before (Fourth). Of course they didnt realize this until 1202 and
decided to dethrone the King of Hungary, who had also made a vow as a

crusader, they then took the ports so they could have attacked
Constantinople. At this point the new pope Innocent the 3rd called for them to
stop and not attack the Byzantium empire but his orders were either not
received or headed. The crusaders were successful in taking Constantinople
and placed Alexius the 3rd on its throne in 1203 (Fourth). However, his reign
was short lived when a year later Muzuphlus seized the throne and ordered
the crusaders to leave. Of course they decided to instead retake the city and
this time they looted the city and killed several thousand civilians (Fourth).
This action lead to the creation of the Latin Empire from the captured lands
formally owned by the Byzantiums. The Byzantines while exiled were able to
retake their land in 1453 but the effort of retaking Asia Minor left them
weakened and easy to be destroyed by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 (Fourth).
Here we see more long term effects of the Crusades where they did not just
cause immediate harm but destabilized entire regions for several decades
and even centuries later.
By the fifth crusade we can see that all of Europe was in a frenzy over
this and it was easy to see it getting out of hand. There were several smaller
battles and attempts to capture land and influence that individually are not
considered crusades but they are worth mentioning. The first one is one of
the more known ones and that is the Childrens Crusade in 1212 (fifth). The
Childrens Crusade has become infamous over the centuries. This crusade
was when the children of Europe marched through Europe in the hopes of
starting a crusade (the crusades). Now while they did have a few adults the

vast majority of them were children. While they did make it a long way many
of their followers dispersed along the way. unfortunately, the surviving
crusade never reached their destination, it is believed that the majority of
them were sold into slavery (Fifth). This is just one of several small events
that made up the fifth crusade in total. 1209-1219 the Albigensian Crusade
was not a crusade to the Holy Land but instead to the southern end of France
to crush a Cathar heretics. Despite this crusade not being successful it did
open the door for the Inquisition that was much more effective (Fifth). There
were several other events like expeditions to Egypt and other such events. It
is important to note that these smaller events could mean a slowing down in
the hostilities between the Christians and Muslim faiths. However, I
personally believe that this was happening because of a lack of supplies.
Europe and the Middle Eastern nations had suffered greatly during this time.
They had lost countless lives as well as a money. The failure of Morality I has
stated as my topic is evidenced here, the fighting and hostilities were not
dying down because of the two of them reaching and understanding; but
instead it was because of loss of ability to continue the fighting.
The sixth crusade was the first to be a bloodless crusade and at first it
was incredibly effective for the Europeans. This was in 1229 when Emperor
Fredrick the second created a peace treaty with the Muslim forces in the city
of Jerusalem. Fredrick was able to transfer the city of Jerusalem form the
hands of al-Kamil to the Crusaders (fifth). However, there was one final
hiccup and that was Fredrick. When he had first set out on his crusade he

made a vow with the pope. The agreement they made was that for his lands
in southern France he would be able to control the lands he was able to take
in his conquest (Fifth). After his success in gaining Jerusalem he was
excommunicated by the Pope for not fulfilling his vows. Without the support
of the Church and in that sense the rest of Europe he was unable to
permanently hold the city. After the treaty expired a decade later the city fell
out of the Crusaders hands for the last time (crusades). Even this peaceful
treaty was in the end a failure, by this point in time there was too much
history of distrust and hatred between the two that any long lasting peace.
The seventh and considered to be the final crusade was mainly known
for when Louis the 9th tried to invade Tunis, in the end he failed and died near
Tunis itself (end). He was of cores not the only one to launch an invasion into
the Middle East in an attempt to gain its riches and use of trade. However, it
was after this seventh crusade that something happened that ended
everything, the invasion of the Mongols in 1258 (End). The Mongrel armies
came charging in and in an amazing amount of time sacked Baghdad, Aleppo
and Damascus and even tied to invade Palestine. However, they were held
off by the Sultan of Egypt Qutuz in 1259 (End). They were able to do this so
quickly because of the last few decades of war left both Europe and the Holy
Land unprepared for an invasion like this. Yet because of all the past years of
crusades they were unable to join forces against a common enemy. These
Crusades had created such a cultural rift between the two powerful regions
that we can still see this today; yet again proving my point of these Crusades

being a Failure. Now some people ask why Europe was not as prepared as
they should have been when the Mongrels first started their attack, Europe
had been too engaged in what has been debated today as an eight crusade.
The in question eight crusade is the small scale crusades launched by
Europe on itself. Like the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, these engagements
were internal and meant to root out unbelievers or blasphemers in Europe
(End). However, by being so focused on these crusades they had neglected
to strengthen their borders against the invaders. Now while the Mongrel
invaders were held back it would have been much more effective had Europe
been prepared (Crusade). Europe had turned on itself in this madness
created by the Crusades. as I have pointed out earlier the Albigensian
Crusades failure resulted in the creation of the Inquisition. An organization
with the charge of finding the unbelievers. These nations launched crusades
on themselves in an attempt to find all the unbelievers (End). I am reminded
of the witch trials at Salem and remember that this is where those trials
started form. The Inquisition had power and even permission from the
Vatican to root out the unbelievers by any means necessary (Crusades). This
is why there is such a debate about making this the official eight crusade,
there was no invasion to claim the Holy Land. In all the past Crusades there
was an underlining goal to gain land and trade for the betterment of Europe
and the Church. However, these smaller crusades directed to their home
countries contradicted this pattern. However, it is not my place to determine
weather or not this was in fact a crusade. The fact is Europe was not as

prepared to hold back the Mongrels as they would of been had they not been
so preoccupied.
In summery we can see a distinctive pattern in the Crusades that
further support my belief that they were in fact a failure. What is credited as
the first crusade may not be entirely the fault of the Europeans, it was their
involvement that made it worse. The Byzantine Empire had gained too much
power in Europes eyes. Finally, when word reached the Pope about the
struggles his people faced he called for the first crusade to start (Jerusalem).
After the Crusaders captured Jerusalem they too mistreated the people and
killed thousands (the Crusade). This naturally enraged the Sultans and they
launched a new attack, to witch Europe launched a second Crusade
(Crusade). This is when we have Richard the Lionheart enter the field as well
as Saladin in the third crusade (Crusade). There were a lot of smaller battles
but it was these two that did something unheard of, a treaty (Saladin).
Despite having this change and established form of cooperation, it was short
lived as the next wave of crusades started. Once again it was a Pope who
cried for their fallowers to ride into a Crusade to take land and lives (fourth)
this fourth crusade lead to the lootings of several cities and the genocide of
thousands of innocent people (fourth). The fifth crusade while it did have
fallowers ride out to take the Holy Land we also see other forms of Crusades.
the Childrens Crusade was either deserted, killed or sold to slavery (fifth). By
the Sixth Crusade we can see that individual nations wanted to see just how
much land they could gain as well as trade, so they sent out their troops

(End). The seventh crusade was the last ditch effort by the leaders of Europe
to gain any more influence but were shut down fast (end). The in question
eight crusade was the creation of the Inquisition that lead to the deaths of
thousands of people, not to mention the cultural back steep. These crusades
did a lot to further the growth of Europe but in the end these benefits did not
make up for that loss.
I started this paper with the goal to show that when all the numbers
were added up the crusades were in fact a failure and I believe I have done
just that. It wasnt until the years of the Renaissance that Europe was able to
truly overcome these effects suffered by the crusades. I talked about the
failure of morality and we can see that by looking at the overwhelming
amount of deaths created by these wars. Had these deaths been mostly
solders and other such then some could overlook these numbers. However,
the truth is that it was the innocent civilians that suffered the most at hands
of both the Crusaders and the Muslim forces. another point is that in every
chance for peace to prevail it is short-lived and brief, the treaties arranged
by Richard were useless when his own commanders ignored them. finally
lets not forget that these crusades created the Inquisitions that forever
changed the mindset of Europe. While I do not doubt that the Crusades did in
fact do a lot of good in trade and development of medicine it is my findings
that lead me to believe that at their core they were doomed to be a failure.

Bibliography
1. Crusades. (2011). Retrieved March 06, 2016, from
http://www.history.com/topics/crusades
2. Eighth Crusade, 1270. (2010). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_crusade8th.html
3. End of the Great Crusades: The Sixth Crusade (1248-1254) and Seventh
Crusade (1270). (2006). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from
http://www.umich.edu/~eng415/timeline/summaries/end_crusades.htm
4. Fifth Crusade (1217-1229). (2008). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from
http://www.umich.edu/~eng415/timeline/summaries/fifth_crusade.htm
5. Fourth Crusade (1202-1204). (2006). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from
http://www.umich.edu/~eng415/timeline/summaries/fourth_crusade.htm
6. "Jerusalem Captured in First Crusade." History.com. A&E Television
Networks, 2010. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.
7. Saladin. (2008). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from
http://www.history.com/topics/saladin
8. The Crusades. (2013). Retrieved March 04, 2016, from http://historyworld.org/crusades.htm
9. TYERMAN, C. J. (2001). Crusader Castles. The English Historical Review,

(468),