Ed Ranks the Crusades (Part 1 of 3: The Mediocre)

Huzzah! A well tale of merriment, nay?

Oh look - it's the Crusades! How shall we define that somewhat nebulous term? How about we say they were "a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church (which I'll also occasionally refer to as "Catholic" and sometimes lazily just as "Christians" in these rankings) in the medieval period, especially campaigns with the aim of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." There could be wider definitions, for sure. There were Crusades against heretics, pagans and even other rival Catholics. But just to set some ground rules:

• With the exception of one (dis)honorable mention to start off with, I'll only discuss the Latin efforts to recover the Holy Land from Islam. So no Livonia Crusades or anything like that. I know that will come as a relief to all you Livs out there to whom this is still a sore subject.
• If a Crusade started as a quest to the Holy Land but somehow got sidetracked to fighting fellow Christians (I'm looking at you, Fourth Crusade), I'll still count it.
• I'll limit the Crusades to the "traditional" definition of medieval Crusades -- from 1095 (the beginning of the First Crusade) until 1291 (the fall of Acre, the last Crusader castle of the Holy Land). This effectively ends things a few years after the Ninth Crusade. Were there other "Crusades" after 1291? Sure, but those were lame and post-medieval. Medieval is where it's at.
• Sometimes there are what I'll call "Sub-Crusades" within or immediately dependent upon the events of  a larger Crusade. Instead of ranking those separately, they'll be included as part the major Crusades (People's, 1101, 1197, Shepherds', and so on). The Eighth and Ninth Crusade will be counted separately, even though they're very much linked. Why? I dunno, blame the historians who gave them different numbers.

Based on that, I'll define a total of twelve Crusades, in this chronological order - First, Venetian, Second, Third, Fourth, Children's, Fifth, Sixth, Baron's, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth.

Okay, so now how am I going to rank these twelve Crusades? How does one rank bloody religious wars? Do I rank from the perspective of the Crusaders and their success or failure? That seems pretty biased. So let's add more ground rules. These will be the general factors I'll use:

• Notable political/military outcomes: Were there amazing battles or vast changes over the control of territory and cities? An overwhelming victory, by one side or the other, will bump a Crusade up a few notches.
• Lasting outcomes: An overwhelming victory doesn't seem so overwhelming if a year later those gains are reversed. Think of Kim Kardashian as Jerusalem (no really... stick with me here). If you only conquer Jerusalem for 72 days before losing it, does it really matter? Chew on that, Kris Humphries.
• Major historic legacy: Science often speaks of "paradigm shifts" where the fundamental concepts behind a subject are forever looked at differently. Like the shift from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics. Although it's not completely appropriate to use this term for general history - sometimes events happen that are so big the world is changed after. Win back the Holy Land and establish Christian states that last for hundreds of years? Pretty big. Cause a rift between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that ends all ideas of possible reconciliation and reuniting of the Churches? Also pretty big. Yes, I do realize that in one bullet I talked about a fucking Kardashian and in the next I referenced Newtonian physics. Deal with it.
• Enduring cultural legacy: Sometimes people do things and nobody remembers them. They're lost in time. Like... tears... in... rain.  Nobody today makes movies or writes stories about Amaury VI of Montfort's failed raid at Gaza. But they do make movies and write stories about Richard the Lionheart and Saladin's epic rivalries in the Third Crusade.  Aa crusade that ends in a tie but that people remember a thousand years later is more important than one with a fleeting victory that's largely forgotten.

Now, as I alluded to - I have one exception to my rules above. Because of that, I'll rank thirteen Crusades, rather than twelve. Why? Because I really, really wanted to talk about the Albigensian Crusade. So I'll add it in as a dishonorable mention and as a sample for how the rest of the rankings will be formatted. Why dishonorable? Oh,. you'll see:

Dishonorable Mention: Albigensian Crusade (1209 - 1229)

'Tis well! The Pope doth excommunicate foppish dandies who soon be slain!

Background: Pope Innocent III, probably embarrassed by how poorly the Fourth Crusade turned out, decided that he wanted to launch a new Crusade. However, he also learned from the Fourth Crusade that you don't HAVE to go to the Holy Land to have a Crusade. You can have a fun little Crusade against your fellow Christians!  After all, the Muslims are aaaaaaaaall the way over there in Outremer. Outremer is just a fancy French term for the Holy Land. Don't worry about it. And what group of Christians is more deserving of being persecuted than those disgusting, evil Cathars of Southern France!? Oh man, Cathars were just THE WORST!  They were against corruption in the church; against war, killing and violence; against accumulating material wealth; and they believed in greater rights and equality for women because the immortal soul is sexless. Disgusting! How could any good Christian tolerate such wicked heresy?! Okay, so the Cathars believed in some other weird stuff too... like there being two Gods, with one of them (the Old Testament One) being evil and that evil one created mankind. I can see that sort of annoying the Pope. Popes get testy about stuff like that. Innocent III initially tried a couple of tactics involving voluntary conversion that failed. In 1208 his legate Pierre de Castelnau was assassinated after excommunicating Count Raymond VI of Toulouse for being too soft on the Cathars. Was that reason enough to call for a murderous war to eradicate the Cathars? Apparently... yep!

The Crusade: Less of a traditional "crusade" that involved a finite number of military actions, the Albigensian Crusade was more of a long-haul effort. It began in 1209, when 10,000 Crusaders gathered in Lyon to march south. At Béziers they tried to get the town to surrender and told the Catholics in the city to leave. But the Catholics wouldn't because the Cathars in the city were their friends and they weren't bothering anyone. So the Crusaders burned down the city, Catholics and Cathars alike. After that, a number of Cathar settlements surrendered, because they didn't want to be burned (obviously). But not all. Over the course of twenty years, a number of other campaigns were launched to get rid of the Cathars. I can't really name them all because it was twenty years. In that time, Raymond VI was let back into the Church and excommunicated back out again probably another two or three times (who's counting?). Eventually the forces of French king Louis VIII and his successor, the child king Louis IX, got involved. The traditional end date for the Crusade is April 12, 1229, when Raymond agreed and signed the Treaty of Paris at Meaux, admitting defeat to the French, ending the autonomy of Southern France, and halting any protection for the remaining Cathars.

End Result: 20th Century lawyer Raphael Lemkin had an opinion about the Albigensian Crusade using a term that he himself created. What word is Raphael Lemkin famous for inventing? Genocide. In many of the Crusades, Christians went to war against Muslims. Yet there are still Muslims. In a few of the Crusades, Western Christians warred with Orthodox Christians. Yet there are still Orthodox Christians. When was the last time you met a Cathar? You haven't, because they were totally annihilated.

Legacy: In terms of a Crusade being "successful" at achieving its goals, the Albigensian Crusade is the most successful crusade ever. Way to wipe a group of human beings off the face of the planet! It didn't all happen in the time frame of the crusade itself, as the last known Cathar was executed in 1321, a little under a century after the crusade ended. But by 1229 the writing was on the wall.

What about the Jews? Were Crusaders too busy persecuting the Cathars to bother the Jews? Of course not! There is always time for Crusaders to persecute Jews too! In addition to ending protection of the Cathars, Raymond VI also had to swear an oath that Jews couldn't be allowed to hold public office in Southern France, as they had been allowed to previously.

Any Sub Crusades? Nope.

If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Life is brutal and depressing.

----

Well, there you go. Fun, right? Well, if genocide and murder is making you uncomfortable, then you're really not going to enjoy the rest of these Crusades at all. Now you know about how this is going to go. Continuing with some actual rankings, starting with the most mediocre Crusades of all...

12. Children's Crusade (1212, kind of)

Fie, the poor doth smell-eth.

Background: Supposedly, a boy (either French or German, depending on the story teller) had visions from Jesus who told him to lead a Crusade to convert Muslims to Christianity. But this never actually happened, so don't worry about it too much.

The Crusade: This boy then supposedly rounded up 30,000 children who went South only to be swindled by devious merchants who sold the children all into slavery or were shipwrecked or something. Only not really because that story is made up too. Almost everything about the Children's Crusade is bullshit legend.  The truth is there might have been two separate movements happening at about the same time - one led by Nicholas of Cologne in Germany, and one led by Stephan of Cloyes in France.  Together, both preached crazy stories about how the seas would dry up so they could walk to the Holy Land, or how Jesus had written a letter to the king. Both had followers that were likely more like wandering hobos than children. In the end, there were probably no mischievous merchants who sold them into slavery. It was more like they just dispersed and went back home because the authorities were like, "Get out of here, you crazy hobos!"

End Result: Nothing. Nothing ever actually happened.

Legacy: Just a lesson to us all in the 21st century about how "history" from the Middle Ages is often so mixed up with legend that you pretty much can't believe any of it. Many sources even today take medieval writers at their word and say this occurred. These people are morons. Others try to find some middle ground by recognizing some of the actual historic figures while simultaneously still suggesting that some sort of selling into slavery happened. These people are also morons.

What about the Jews? No Jews were harmed in this Crusade that never actually happened.

Any Sub Crusades? How can a crusade that never occurred have sub-crusades?

If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Listless hobos claimed they wanted to go to war but then just went home after being told it was a silly idea. That's really all.

11. Eighth Crusade (1270)
 

Forsooth, King Louis doth sleep quite deeply.

Background: Twenty years prior, King Louis IX of France was captured by the Ayyubid/Mamluk forces in Egypt, effectively ending his (Seventh) Crusade in total defeat.  Well, at least things couldn't go worse if he tried again, right? Right? Right? Oh my... they absolutely could. While internal warring between Europeans prevented the launching of a campaign for many years, Louis wanted to Crusade again and was especially worried by the encroaching forces of Baibars and his Mamluk Sultanate. Baibars had recently had victories against the increasingly weak Crusader States at Nazareth, Caesarea, Arsuf and Haifa. Louis officially took up the cross in 1267, but his forces didn't set sail until July 1270. Things were slow back then.
 
The Crusade: Despite an initial plan to sail straight for the Holy Lands, Louis modified the strategy to instead attack Tunis first.  Why?  Supposedly Louis thought that the Hafsid Khalif of Tunis, Muhammad I al-Mustansir, would convert to Christianity with a little pressure and help him against the Mamluks (he didn't). Instead, 56-year old Louis set up camp in the ruins of Carthage in late July - right in the middle of a sweeping summer epidemic of dysentery. By August he was dead. In the following months, the Hafsids made a deal with the Christians to allow for free trade and a couple of other agreements in return for the Crusaders ending their siege and just going home.
 
End Result: Dysentery 1, Christians 0.
 
Legacy: The Crusaders launched a siege of a city in the hopes that the forces they were besieging would decide to become their friends to fight the Mamluks. It sounds like a terrible and stupid idea - but who knows? Maybe it would have been a good plan if not for the dysentery. But Louis's failure immediately made the young Prince Edward of England eye a new Crusade. Which we'll fortunately talk about next!
 
What about the Jews? Safe during this one.
 
Any Sub Crusades? There isn't really enough time for a sub-crusade in a one-month crusade that ended via gastroenteritis.
 
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: This is the Crusade that ended via lethal bloody diarrhea.

10. Ninth Crusade (1271 - 1272)

Ne'er be there a more well map of Outremer!

Background: The ninth and last major medieval Crusade was already beginning as the Eighth Crusade was wrapping up. As the French King Louis died shitting himself in Tunis, the son of English King Henry III was on his way to take up the cross. That son was Prince Edward - who would later himself become Edward I (aka Longshanks, aka the fourth best King of England of all time and the guy who did not negotiate with Scottish terrorists). In May 1271 he arrived in Acre. What more background do you even need? You just read about the Eighth Crusade. 

The Crusade: Tripoli (the one in Lebanon, not Libya) was under siege by the forces of Mamluk Sultan Baibars when the Crusaders led by Prince Edward and Louis' brother Charles arrived in Acre. It was enough to send Baibars backwards but the Crusader forces weren't that strong. Edward knew that in a traditional battle he'd lose - and so he instead engaged in little quick raids. Yep, 700 years before the Viet Cong, Edward had already figured out the whole "asymmetric warfare" thing and was a big fan. But in a thing most people likely would have never guessed happened in a Crusade - the Crusaders also sent ambassadors to Abaqa Khan, ruler of the Ilkhanate. Now if you're thinking "Khan" and "Il-khan-ate" sound a bit, well, Mongolian... that's because they were. In the Ninth Crusade, the Christians allied with the MONGOLIAN FUCKING HORDE against the Muslims (or the remnants thereof, as the Mongols technically separated into four separate empires after 1259).  The Mongol forces who joined the battle weren't vast, but they did have some successes before being forced to retreat in late 1271. In the meantime, Baibars planned a strategy of building a fleet to attack Cyprus and cutting off supplies to the Holy Land. He disguised his fleet as Christian ships, but nobody fell for it and suffered a devastating maritime loss that sent him into retreat mode. By May of 1272 Baibars was willing to agree to a 10-year peace treaty with the Christians, ending hostilities. 

End Result: Peace treaty with no major territorial changes.

Legacy: The last of the great medieval crusades ended with a whimper of a peace deal rather than a bang. On his way home, Edward learned that his father had died and he was now King of England. The Pope, fellow Christians, and even Abaqa Khan asked when another Crusade would be mounted to finish off the unfinished job against the Muslims - but neither Edward nor the other Kings of Western Europe would assist. By this time, Acre was the last remaining city of the Christian Crusader states with all others eaten away by Muslim advances. Finally, by 1291 the Mamluks took even that - ending the Crusader period a little under 200 years after the beginning of the First Crusade.

What about the Jews? Nothing notable for this one. The Latin Church was so out of gas by this time it wasn't even persecuting them that well.

Any Sub Crusades? Not this time.

If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: If your divine calling to ensure Christian protection of the Holy Land is doing so poorly that not even the Mongolians (the largest contiguous land empire in all of history) can't even help you... it's time to give up on that divine calling.

----

And that's where I'll end this one for now. Stay tuned for the next tranche of Crusades - the just average ones!