3rd Crusade Failure

With the mission seemingly completed after the First Crusade, the armies demobilized and many of the Crusaders departed Jerusalem. The remaining Crusaders divided the conquered lands into four territories for governance: Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa, and Tripoli. In time, the Muslims countered with their own holy war (jihad) against the Christians with the goal or regaining control over Jerusalem. In 1144, the Seljuks recaptured Edessa. This development led to other Crusades. Since the military battles are not the major focus of this research effort, I will only briefly describe the remaining Crusades.

Pope Eugenius III proclaimed the Second Crusade in 1145 and it was led by King Louis VII of France beginning in 1147. Unlike its predecessor,

A joint effort between England and France, this crusade achieved some success but ultimately failed to retake Jerusalem. Pope Innocent III proclaimed the Fourth Crusade in 1199, but this crusade, lasting from 1202 to 1204 also failed. A significant consequence of this Crusade for the Byzantine Empire was the fall of Constantinople, at the hands of the Crusaders. Another crusade proclaimed by Pope Innocent III, the Fifth Crusade, was prosecuted against Egypt from 1217 to 1221 but ended in failure in terms of the goal of recapturing Jerusalem. During the Sixth Crusade, proclaimed by Pope Gregory IX, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II “took the cross,” led the expedition and agreed to a treaty with Egypt that resulted in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth again coming under Christian control. In the Seventh Crusade, not only did the crusade fail, but its leader, King Louis IX of France was captured in 1250. Twenty-one years later, following an earlier negotiated release with Egypt for money, King Louis IX joined Prince Edward of England in the Eighth and final Crusade; this too ended in failure. While not significant, another historical discrepancy arises as Walker does not credit King Louis IX as participating in the Eighth

What is different, is the perspective of whether the wars were successes or failures. Although acknowledging that the Crusades failed to accomplish the objectives of recapturing the Holy Lands and defending the Eastern Empire against the Muslim Turks, T.A. Archer and Charles L. Kingsford argued that the Crusades succeeded in delaying, and perhaps stopping the advance of Islam; a fact that changed the course of history.

Presenting a different perspective, James A. Brundage viewed the Crusades as a partial success. He acknowledged “the Crusades failed to establish a long-lived kingdom in the Holy Land, set the stage for the fifteenth-century Muslim takeover of the Byzantine Empire, and shattered any hope of reconciling the Eastern and Western Churches.” Nevertheless, he also asserted that the Crusades “contributed profoundly to the political, economic, and intellectual development of Western Europe.”

Finally, Steven Runciman viewed the Crusades as a complete failure for Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and the Islamic Middle East. He assigns most blame to the Popes, whom he criticized for their greed and lust for power. While he celebrated the Crusades for being “triumphs of faith,” he concludes the “Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of