Bacchus 1

Rachel Bacchus

Dr. Robert Grant

HIS 311-001

24 February 2020

Comparing the First and Second Crusades

Late in the 11th century CE, the Western and Near Eastern worlds were divided into three

religious tribes: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims. Islam had split its followers

into two groups as they disputed who should be the successor to Muhammed. The religion

splintered into the Sunni and the Shi’a and began fighting each other. Pope Urban II, in 1096 CE,

deemed this the perfect time to regain some power into the papacy. In the Council of Clermont,

he deems it a holy emergency requiring the attention of all Roman Catholics. He promises

anyone that goes to fight for the “will of God”—a process now known as “crusading”—will

inherit assured salvation and an erasure of all sins (Riley-Smith 1-4). The object of their

crusading became the existing pilgrimage to the Holy Land and the reclaiming of Jerusalem,

which Muslims had occupied since the 7th century. The first two following crusades produced

drastically different outcomes. For the Christians, their early success in the First Crusade swiftly

transformed into a fleeting memory by the end of the Second Crusade; this turnaround can be

attributed to their variation of leadership cooperation, international relationships, and overall

spirit to fight for the cause.

Beginning in 1095 CE and lasting until 1102 CE, the First Crusade launched a series of

violent battles amongst the West and the East. The Turks were not without success—this evident

through the slaughtering of hundreds of Baldwin’s troops—yet, overall the First Crusade is

considered to be a Christian victory. With the motivation of Pope Urban II, five leaders gathered
Bacchus 2

together in Constantinople before their march to Nicaea. The aggressive war they expected from

the Turkish forces was never present when they arrived. They had time to instate trade systems

with the Byzantines before the Turks reached the city (Riley-Smith 26-27). The first battle was

quick, for the Crusader armies proved to be intimidating and the Turks retreated. The Peasants

Crusade, though seemingly a quickly expiring revolt, produced few real results apart from

misleading the opponents of the future Crusaders into thinking they were not a serious threat

(Riley-Smith 28). Antioch tells of a battle in which the Crusaders were vastly outnumbered yet

managed to make an equal attempt at war. The outcome turned out in a draw but is considered a

Crusader victory as the Muslim leader retreated after seeing their huge number of casualties

(Riley-Smith 37-42). By the summer, the Crusaders had successfully taken the city under their

control and could move on to their main conquest: Jerusalem. At this point, their progress is

described as, “[changing] from a crawl to a gallop” (Riley-Smith 45). They accomplished this

assault with help from Genoa and careful ploys to catch Jerusalem’s forces by surprise. They

massacred the city until it was recorded as, “ankle deep in blood.” While this is likely an

exaggeration of detail, the fact remains that their massacre was merciless—killing the men,

women, and children of Jerusalem and taking it back as their own. With this triumph, the First

Crusade officially concluded.

The First Crusade owes a portion of its triumph to its myriad of leaders, specifically the

council of “princes” that needed to work in tandem in order to accomplish the recapture of

Jerusalem. This council consisted of nobility and experienced soldiers that were put in charge of

separate armies. Though declared “princes”, they were not of royalty, but their status was greater

than some kings around the lesser developed Europe. The council was composed of Hugh de

Vermandois, Bohemond of Taranto, Godfrey de Bouillon, Raymond of Toulouse, and Robert of

Bacchus 3

Flanders (Asbridge 43-47). Principle authority shifted from every battle; they each desired to be

the sole leader—and thought themselves to be the worthiest—yet within the structure of the

council, they were of substantially equal status. This equality and unity proved to be crucial to

the ascendancy of the Crusader States and their expansion. Later on, the Crusaders will find

themselves at a great disadvantage due to their leadership, but during the First Crusade, the

council of princes could assist their accompanying armies to successfully besiege their targets.

Even more than its leadership, the Crusaders’ victory is greatly due to their abundant

resources and allies early on in the war for the Holy Land. Though their resources in food and

supply were not always high, the support of outside land allowed the armies to remain in the

fight long enough to win over their cities. The Crusaders benefitted most from their alliance and

trade partnerships with Egypt and the Byzantine Empire. The Egyptian Fatimids were

historically a consistent trade partner and continued for a great part of the First Crusade.

Meanwhile, the relationship with the Byzantines became stained as the Crusaders continually

betrayed their promises and trust (Riley-Smith 32-33). Even so, the Byzantines provided

resourceful aid in sieging Antioch and further on to Jerusalem. These relationships did not last

into later Crusades and the victories diminish with them. The Crusader armies also proved to be

advanced in weaponry: their shields took Turkish forces by surprise when they proved capable of

withstanding a rain of arrow attacks. These advanced and unfamiliar battle materials would not

allot them a lead for long, but during the First Crusade, it declared them a valid opponent even

against the more numerous Muslim armies.

Finally, the contrast of spirit between the Christian Crusaders and the Muslim armies at this

point in the war created a major attribution to the triumphant results for the Crusaders. For the

Christians, this was not just an imperial campaign for expansion and land gain, but it was a fight
Bacchus 4

for their own salvation and a fight to carry out the will of God (Riley-Smith 1-4). For many, they

felt strongly that this was their duty to fulfill a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. It became their

fight for Heaven or Hell. On the contrary, the Muslims were in a fragmented state. They were

lost in their own schism of religious belief between the Sunni and the Shi’a and could not focus

their full attention into fighting the Crusaders at this time. They lacked unity and an offensive

plan for battling the Christians, but they also lacked a desire to fight outsiders in that moment.

They fought for defense but were somewhat indifferent over the land. Ironically, after the

conclusion of the First Crusade, the war shifts the status of the Muslims and drives them to unite

against a common enemy: the Crusaders.

Significant changes occurred between the first and second crusades. Many devout

Crusaders believed they had fulfilled their vow and completed their pilgrimage to the Holy Land

through the recapture of Jerusalem, so they return home without any intentions to fight again

(Riley-Smith 48-49). Between those who return to their homes in the west and those who were

killed during the First Crusade, the remaining Crusader army is significantly smaller. The

council of princes have broken out into a civil dispute of power. Specifically, there was

pronounced upset over the ruling entity for the County of Edessa. Richard Toulouse believed he

was the obvious choice for acting ruler, but when he was overlooked and only asked as a second

choice, he took offense. Tension erupted between the leaders of the First Crusade and inhibited

their abilities to act in harmony. Meanwhile, the Crusaders have begun wars in Ramla against the

Egyptian Fatimids who had previously been at the aid until this point (Asbridge 121). Possibly

overconfident in their conquering skills, the Crusaders won two of the three battles with Ramla,

but the most significant result was their loss to the Egyptians. By losing a major battle to the
Bacchus 5

Fatimids, they revealed they were not an invincible force and could be taken down by the right

army.

In 1147 CE, the Second Crusade officially began when the Muslim armies took back the

County of Edessa. This crusade was shorter than the first, only lasting three years. When the

Muslims captured Edessa for the second time, they called it “the victory of victories” (Asbridge

226). At this point, Pope Eugenius III could not stand to let the Muslims claim victory over the

Christians after all they endured within the First Crusade and announced the start of the Second

Crusade, but his intentions for it remained unclear. European kings joined the fight ironically to

the chagrin of their results, for their clash of egos and style contributed significantly to the

overwhelming loss for the Crusaders. Additionally, tensions with the Byzantine Empire grew in

particular towards France, and the support of the Crusaders by the Byzantines was crucially

diminished. Perhaps the biggest mistake of the Crusaders during the Second Crusade was the

focus on Damascus. This decision began a series of failures lasting through many future

crusades.

There is a stark contrast between the leadership of the Crusaders and the Turks during the

Second Crusade that lead to the misfortune of the Christians. The introduction of kings into the

militaristic leadership for the Crusader States results in a tremendous lack of cooperation.

Between Louis VII of France, Conrad III of Germany, and Raymond of Antioch, internal

fighting and dispute remarkably increased since the First Crusade. Each leader had their own

strategy and methods that were unable to coexist with one another (Asbridge 250-254).

Meanwhile, the Muslims were coming together under their leader, Zangi, in the early 12th

century to take back Edessa. Later on, after Zangi’s death, Nur ad-Din takes command and

remains a successful leader over the Muslim crusading efforts (Gabrieli 64). Nur ad-Din provides
Bacchus 6

the Muslims with one of their first major victories: the triumph at Damascus. During the First

Crusade, the Christians managed to stay unified while the Turks were divided, but the Second

Crusade conveys a turnover of roles.

This lack of unity amongst the Christian Crusaders applies to the lack of spirit and

passion for the cause of fighting. In the First Crusade, those who fought were joined together in

their pilgrimage and their desire to fulfill God’s will. Then the purpose shifted slightly, but the

results shifted dramatically. Unintentionally, the Christians gave the Muslims a reason to join

together and work in tandem for a common cause. They put aside their disagreements and came

together in harmony to defend their land and their religion (Gabrieli 59). The spirit of the God

weakened the spirit of the Christians and morale dropped steadily as the Crusaders continued to

lose.

In the end, the First and Second Crusade have some common characteristics, but the

differences and changes between the two are so major they are impossible to overlook. Despite

the commonalities of war—food disparity, fluctuation of morale, etc.—the contrasts between the

First Crusade’s cooperation of leadership and the disaster of the kings in the Second Crusade

provide evidence of more significant distinctions. The Second Crusade showed more evidence of

their failing global relationships and resources as well as their lack of pure spirit and intention for

fighting a Holy War. On the other end, the Muslims gained that spirit between the two crusades

and carry it further as the war continues. At its center, the Crusaders paved their pathway and

dug their own graves as they entered into the Second Crusade, and they persist in this detrimental

path for crusades to follow.

Bacchus 7

 
I pledge that I have acted honorably.
 
 
Signed: _____Rachel Bacchus_____
Bacchus 8

Works Cited

Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land.

Harper Collins, 2011.

Gabrieli, Francesco. Arab Historians of the Crusades. University of California Press, 1984.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History. Yale University Press, 2005.