The ranking of the Crusades continues! I bet you'd really like to hear about average Crusades now, huh? These Crusades weren't complete jokes, but also weren't that memorable or successful either.
9. Baron's Crusade (1239 - 1241)
Background: In
1229, Frederick II's brilliant negotiation skills won back Jerusalem
for the Christians by agreeing to a 10-year peace deal with the Muslims.
Not coincidentally, 1239 just happened to be 10 years later. Despite
Frederick's earlier victory things weren't going too well in the Crusader States, as there was in-fighting between local barons
and a fear that they could soon fall to the Muslims when the peace
expired. So even five years before the expiration of the treaty,
Pope Gregory IX was making plans for another Crusade with papal bulls,
requirements that all Christians give their money to the church
and listen to sermons about how awesome it would be to go on a crusade,
and about how killing brown people would grant you eternal life in
heaven. You know, the usual crusader stuff. But as with the Fourth
Crusade, the crusader armies quickly got distracted from the whole
"protecting Christianity from Islam" thing and Gregory started gazing
lustfully at the general area of Constantinople. And then Gregory also
wanted to redirect funds raised for the crusade to attack Frederick II. The Baron's Crusade was a hot mess and it
had no idea what it wanted to actually do.
The Crusade: Named the Baron's Crusade because, duh, a lot of Barons went on it - it began in 1239 when one group traveled towards Constantinople to protect the fledgling Latin Empire from "heresy" or something like that. They captured Tzurulum, but simultaneously lost the arguably more important cities of Darivya and Nikitiaton to their primary opponent, Vatatzes of the Empire of Nicaea (the primary successor State to the destroyed Byzantine Empire - sorry these aren't in chronological order so I haven't talked about that yet). Elsewhere, other barons from France set sail for Acre (ignoring the Pope's redirection to fight the Nicaeans) and marched towards Ascalon, leading a successful ambush against Ayyubid forces along the way. But after that victory the barons couldn't coordinate and broke apart - with some of them being routed in a battle in Gaza. They also left Jerusalem undefended - and on December 7, 1239 Jerusalem fell to Sultan An-Nasir Dawud. The only reasons the Christians ever caught a break was because an ongoing civil war within the Muslim Ayyubid dynasty- with An-Nasir (Syria faction) feuding both with rival Syrian As-Salih Ismail as well as As-Salih Ayyub (Egypt faction). Alliances changed rapidly with different Muslim and Christian factions temporarily allied with one another for short periods and for short gains. As-Salih signed a treaty with the Christians that gave the Crusaders a huge chunk of territory - but hilariously he didn't even give lands that he owned, instead signing away An-Nasir's lands (including Jerusalem). Holy crap, can you imagine the set of balls on As-Salih? That would be like if the Maine went to war with Vermont and Vermont was like, "No, don't kill us. Here, have Concord," and Maine is like, "deal!" Before the lands promised could even be controlled, the leaders of this faction of barons left the Holy Land in 1240 and it fell to a new faction of English-led crusaders to try to control the territories kind of signed over. This last faction saw no real combat, but simply finished negotiations with Ayyubid leaders that cemented the deals and agreed to prisoner exchanges. By May 1241, the Crusaders sailed home.
End Result: Christian "victory" in intentional quotation marks.
Legacy: On paper the deal signed between the Christians and Ayyubids made the Crusader States and Christian holdings in the Holy Lands as large as they had been since before Saladin's victories in 1187. Making Christian territory as large as it had been in over 50 years sounds like a big victory, right? Some historians therefore refer to this as one of the most successful crusades. That was only on paper though. Yes, the Christians did actually get Jerusalem back (uh, after losing it) but much of the other land that they supposedly gained wasn't really under their control. And of the land actually under their control - much of it was highly susceptible to attack when the tenuous alliances with the Muslims ended. Within three years - Jerusalem would fall for the final time. But I'll describe that more in the background for the Seventh Crusade.
What about the Jews? Nothing notable that I'm aware of for this one.
Any Sub Crusades? Kind of. The Constantinople, French and English efforts are sometimes counted as three different Crusades, or more commonly the Constantinople one is listed as separate from the Franco-English one.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Having a "World's #1 Dad" coffee mug doesn't make you the world's #1 dad... just like having a treaty that says you control an expansive domain of Crusader States doesn't mean that you control an expansive domain of Crusader States. Especially if your Western European allies just leave as soon as they get the treaty with no intention on actually protecting you.
8. Venetian Crusade (1122 - 1124)
Background: Twenty
years after the success of the First Crusade, things were going fairly
okay in the new Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, but the Christians were still
under attacks from Muslim forces around them. Of particular concern
was Ilghazi, ruler of the Artuqid dynasty (a successor to the collapsed Sultanate of Rum). Ilghazi
had been an ally of the Crusaders at various times, but shifted
alliances frequently to fit his needs. King Baldwin II of Jerusalem had
enough and and asked Pope Callixtus II for some help. But Callixtus
decided to invent the concept of the email forward button and just sent
the request to the Doge of Venice, Domenico Michiel. The Doge and
Baldwin came to an agreement, and the Pope gave his blessing by
signing off that Crusaders would be forgiven of all sins. The Venetians
set sail in August 1122.
The Crusade: If the story of the First Crusade is a charming tale (from a Christian perspective, at least) about Christians coming together despite differences between Latin and Orthodox Christianity for a common cause to protect the faith... the Venetian Crusade is, well, not. The first thing the Venetians did was attack Corfu, part of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. This would be a common theme for Crusades involving Venetians. Ilghazi died in 1122 but he wasn't the only problem for the Christians. There was Balak of Mardin (emir of Aleppo), Toghtekin (atabeg of Damascus, who had just purchased Tyre from the Fatimids), and the resurgent Fatamids themselves - now with an empowered caliph following the assassination of the long-reigning vizier al-Afdal Shahansha. Next thing you know, King Baldwin got himself captured by Balak and the Venetians finally remembered "Oh yeah, we're supposed to go to protect Jerusalem rather than attack other Christians, huh?" They arrived in Acre in May 1123 and learned that a Fatmid fleet was also sailing to aid Emir Balak. The Doge whipped out a brilliant strategy to divide his fleet when the two met. The Fatmids saw a small, weak-looking Venetian fleet and attacked, only to be flanked and surrounded when the rest said, "Surprise!" The next bit of action had to wait until 1124, when the Crusaders marched upon Tyre and laid siege upon the forces of Toghtekin. With supplies dwindling, Toghtekin eventually agreed to a a surrender on terms that his people who wanted to go could go and his people who wanted to stay wouldn't have all their possessions looted. The leaders of the Crusades took the deal, although the Crusaders themselves were kinda pissed because they really, really wanted to loot. It's the Christian thing to do, right? Baldwin was released soon after, although not specifically as part of the deal.
End Result: Crusader victory with notable territorial gains.
Legacy: The addition of Tyre was a big expansion for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Kingdom would never be as big as it was than under the reign of Baldwin II. Christianity had to be pretty psyched about the whole thing too, huh? Two Crusades and two victories! I'm sure they said, "Boy, these Crusade things sure are easy! Let's do more!" But the cracks for what would fall apart later already began to show here - what with the Venetian attack on their fellow Christians in Corfu.
What about the Jews? I mean I'm sure they were being persecuted somewhere but primary sources like Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre didn't record it.
Any Sub Crusades? No.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Even with a highly successful Crusade there is no promise that you'll be remembered or that your Crusade will even get a proper number.
7. Second Crusade (1147-1149)
Background:
To say that Christians and Muslims lived in "peace" during the half
century between the First and "Second" Crusades (kind of the third one,
since the Venetian Crusade fell between)
might be a bit of a generalization, but the term is relatively
accurate. While there were certainly some skirmishes, co-existence was
the theme of the period. The Christian victories in the First Crusade
set up several "Crusader States" in the Holy Land and those were
expanded after the Venetian Crusade. The Northernmost of these was the
County of Edessa, which also happened to be the weakest and least
populated of the Christian enclaves. Turkish atabeg (a title of nobility
that's sort of a mix between a governor and a regent) Imad ad-Din
Zengi, namesake of the Zengid dynasty, decided that he could easily just
take it. And he did, with barely a fight. Word got back to Pope Eugene
III, who issued the papal bull Quantum praedecessores in 1145, calling for a new Crusade. Shit was on!
The Crusade: Initial response to the papal bull was slow, but once the rest of Europe saw that French King Louis VII was on board, others jumped on the bandwagon. The tales of victory and heroism from the First Crusade 50 years before had become legendary and everyone wanted in on the action for what would surely be yet another easy victory over Muslims. See that italics on the "surely"? You can tell where this is going, right? Conrad III of the Holy Roman Empire followed the lead of Louis VII but brought an army twice as large as the French one and took a different marching route. Eventually, a whole mix of other European nobles looking for glory joined too. The Westerners eventually met up with their Eastern Crusader State colleagues at the Council of Acre and planned a 50,000-man strong attack on Damascus - a former Crusader State ally ruled by the Burids and who switched sides to team up with the Zengids. The year before, atabeg Zengi (who sort of started this whole thing) was assassinated by a Frankish slave who fled to Damascus thinking he'd be rewarded by their ruler, Mu'in ad-Din Unur. Instead he was turned back over to the Zengids, now ruled by Zengi's son Nur ad-Din, to be executed. Which made the Zengids and Damascans total bros now!!! The 4-day siege of Damascus is described in most history books using words like, "foolish", "total failure" and "fiasco." The Crusaders couldn't work together and agree (prematurely) on the spoils of their victory for who would get to keep the city. Things honestly weren't much better on the other side, as the Burids' alliance with the Zengids was similarly tenuous (they weren't really total bros after all - Unur feared the Zengids would conquer Damascus themselves if they came down to help). But it was the local Crusader lords who decided to abandon the siege, and soon after the Westerners retreated as well.
End Result: Modest Muslim victory. The Zengids maintained control of Edessa and the Burids maintained control of Damascus. Westerners mostly spin it a "stalemate" since the Muslims didn't really gain anything or re-take Jerusalem themselves, but if 50K zealots come and try to conquer you but wind up going home - yeah, that's a victory for you.
Legacy: Sequels are always hard to do. For every The Godfather Part II there are a dozen The Hangover Part II's. For the Christians, Crusade Part II fell in the category of the latter. The theme of the Christians not being able to get along would continue for pretty much every other crusade. Intra-Christian bickering about spoils of war and the geopolitical ramifications of their respective power and influence back home would lead the Latin Crusaders to have increasingly diminishing returns nearly every Crusade. After this one failed they probably should have stopped trying.
What about the Jews? In the early stages of rallying support for the Crusade after the papal bull, a French monk named Radulphe went around France and Germany preaching that the Jews were the enemy and should be killed. It lead to a series of massacres that more senior officials in the Catholic Church had to step in to end.
Any Sub Crusades? The Wendish Crusade and the "Reconquesta" of Iberia were in full swing during the same period.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Save the conversation about the spoils of war until after you actually win.
6. Fifth Crusade (1213 - 1221)
Background: The
Fourth Crusade (a decade prior) was an unmitigated disaster for Pope
Innocent III, who lost control of his holy quest to a bunch of marauding
Venetians that attacked other Christians rather than ever heading off
to Jerusalem. He swore to not make the same mistake when he called for
another Crusade. This time the Church and its papal legates would play
more of a role in coordinating the entire venture, like it should have
always been! After all - this is a holy quest! In 1213, Innocent issued
the papal bull Quia maior calling for a new crusade. As
with previous Crusades, it took a while for the kings or Europe to
respond to the Pope's call. I guess news traveled slower back then. With
nothing happening yet, in 1215 Innocent issued yet another bull, Ad Liberandam,
which was like "no really, this time you should all really go on a
Crusade." That year also hosted the Fourth Lateran Council, where the
Pope was able to set specific plans for how to proceed with the quest.
This time the plan included specifics on supplying the Crusaders so that
they didn't turn into marauding bandits.
The Crusade: France, usually one of the most active to support, was too busy with their AlbigensianGenocide
Crusade to join. The Germans too either delayed involvement or
(according to some sources) were prevented from participating due to a
rivalry with the Pope. Innocent suddenly died in 1216, and the new Pope
Honorius III had to take over the Crusade. It would
fall to King Andrew II of Hungary to lead the fight, and he embarked for
the holy land in August 1217. Now I know you might not think of
Hungary as a European powerhouse - but they actually assembled one of
the largest and most powerful Crusader forces in history. When Andrew
arrived in Acre, it was he who led the war council of other crusaders
that included John I (King of Jerusalem); Leopold VI (Duke of Austria);
Bohemond IV (of Antioch); and the Hospitalers, Templars and Teutonic twats
knights. Andrew crossed the Jordan River and defeated the forces of
Al-Adil I, the brother of Saladin commonly known in the west as
"Saphadin." But after these initial victories Andrew got sick and by 1218
had to return home. Al-Adil wasn't in good health either, and he died
in 1218 - passing the sultanate of the Ayyubid dynasty to his son,
Al-Kamil (Meledin). German, Dutch, Flemish, English and Frisian forces
arrived to relieve Andrew - and they smartly made an alliance with
Kaykaus I, Sultan of Rum (despite the fact that they were Muslims and
had been opponents in previous Crusades). While the Rum Seljuks attacked
the Ayyubids from the North in Syria, the Christians attackdd Egypt
- forcing Al-Kamil to divide his Ayyubid forces on two fronts. So was
Innocent III right? Looks like the Church's involvement in this Crusade
really set things on track and got an organized, well-thought out war
going! Not so much. By 1219 Honorius III sent his legate, Pelagius of
Albano, to "lead" the Crusade. After floundering for a year in a siege
at Damietta, the Crusaders eventually took the port city, but with heavy
losses. Damietta was actually a much more important city to the Ayyubids
than Jerusalem was, as the center of their power was Egypt and control
of Damietta meant control of the Nile. The Ayyubids had actually
destroyed the walls and fortifications of Jerusalem because they assumed
the Christians would take it anyway and it would be harder to defend
that way. Al-Kamil offered Pelagius a straight swap - Jerusalem for
Damietta. Pelagius refused, believing that the Christians would win
anyway. William, Count of Holland, thought
that was damn ludicrous - what with capturing Jerusalem being the entire
POINT of the crusades... and he threw his hands up and went home. Bad news
continued as the Ayyubids defeated the Rums in Syria, freeing up their
forces to support the defense of Egypt. As the Crusaders advanced to
Cairo in 1221, the Nile flooded (some versions of the story say Al-Kamil
opened the dams) and halted them. As they ran out of supplies, the Crusaders retreated but were trapped by waters. In a nighttime
attack, Al-Kamil obliterated the Crusaders and forced the army of
Pelagius to surrender. To ransom the crusaders back, the Christians had
to give back Damietta and sue for peace. Crusade over.
End Result: Ayyubid victory... on two separate fronts!
Legacy: So there you have it, just as the Fourth Crusade was a failure for a lack of papal leadership - the Fifth Crusade equally sucked from too much papal leadership. Like Goldilocks. Would it have been helpful to the Crusaders if the Germans were allowed to join the war earlier and with greater forces? Sure, but the Popes were feuding with the Germans. Would it have been a good idea to swap Damietta (a city of little value to Crusaders but great value to the Ayyubids) for Jerusalem (a city of little value to the Ayyubids but great value to Crusaders)? That's not a rhetorical question. Yes. Yes it would have been a good idea.
What about the Jews? Remember that Fourth Lateran Council of 1215? Well, it was actually called for a number of reasons, not just to discuss the Crusade. It set around 70 major articles of canon law. Among them - making Jews wear special clothing and symbols to distinguish themselves (gee, that idea doesn't seem like it could ever go wrong), declaring Jews ineligible to hold public office, and taking measures to prevent converted Jews to turn back to their old faith. They also ordered Jews not to charge high interest rates - because apparently that stereotype has been around FOREVER.
Any Sub Crusades? Not particularly, although Andrew II's abortive campaign is sometimes referred to by itself as "King Andrew's Crusade." The Children's Crusade has also been classified as part of it, but I don't classify it that way because 1) it happened before the Quia maior, and 2) it's bullshit that never really happened.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: If the goal of your Crusade is to win back the holy city of Jerusalem for your faith, and your opponents offers to give you Jerusalem - TAKE THE DEAL.
5. Sixth Crusade (1228 - 1229)
Background: To
say that Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire had a bit of a
contentious relationship with the Church would be an understatement. For
a variety of reasons, Frederick never joined the failed Fifth Crusade,
despite the participation of some of his German forces. To some degree,
he was busy consolidating his own power. But his interest in the Holy Land increased after he, as a 30-year old widower, was married to the
12-13ish year old (eww) Yolande of Brienne, heiress to the Kingdom of
Jerusalem (a kingdom which, since Saladin's 1187 victories, didn't
actually include Jerusalem). The marriage is often credited as a
political instrument of Pope Honorius III. Yet when Honorius died,
Gregory IX became the new Pope had Frederick excommunicated, claiming Freddy
had broken his vow to take up the cross. The actual reasons were more
do do with political rivalries and power over Naples, but it didn't stop
Frederick from eventually setting sail in 1228 to the Holy Land anyway
(because screw the stupid Pope).
The Crusade: On the way to Acre, Frederick decided to stop by and get into a mini war in Cyprus, just as Richard the Lionheart had done several crusades before. He then continued on and reached the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What he found was factionalism and divided tensions, due to the rift with the Papacy. Some crusaders, barons and church officials were reluctant to support or join Frederick's army. Being a realist, Frederick knew the numbers of men he had probably weren't enough for a successful attack on the forces of Ayyubid Sultan al-Kamil (the Muslim victor of the Fifth Crusade). Despite this, Frederick hoped that al-Kamil would want to avoid battle anyway and would be willing to negotiate when a Crusader army came marching down. Frederick was right. The Sultan had a lot of things to worry about, including a rebellion from within what he considered his own territory led by An-Nasir Dawud. Having to deal with the damn Crusaders again was just too much for al-Kamil. During the Fifth Crusade, al-Kamil had been willing to make a deal to give the Crusaders Jerusalem... and he was indeed willing to make a similar deal yet again. In exchange for a 10-year peace deal, he gave the Christians a large part of Jerusalem (Muslims retained control over the Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock) and other cities including Nazareth, Jaffa and Bethleham. In February 1229, just a few months after arriving, Frederick II and al-Kamil agreed to the peace deal without a single major battle. Frederick walked into Jerusalem soon after and had a crowning ceremony, declaring himself King of Jerusalem (because screw the stupid Pope).
End Result: Christian victory through peace treaty.
Legacy: Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is just another form of politics. Frederick II was dead and buried several centuries before Clausewitz was ever born - but he understood the basic concept without needing any damn Prussian military strategist to tell him. While most of the Crusades were designed around using military force to achieve policy goals - Frederick understood that a good negotiation could accomplish the same thing. And boy did he ever accomplish his goals - he won back Jerusalem without a single battle. Some say that you know you made a good deal when neither side is happy with the end result. That's not the case here - as Frederick got what he wanted (Jerusalem) and al-Kamil largely got what he wanted (for the Crusaders to leave him the hell alone). Frederick achieved the greatest Christian victory in the Crusades since the First Crusade. Really the only loser was the Church itself - as the Pope had to reluctantly un-excommunicate Frederick, and it was proven once and for all that the Kings of Europe didn't need no stinking papal authority to go on Crusades. Several future Crusades would bring proof to that. The German claim to Jerusalem wouldn't last very long though.
What about the Jews? When the Christians got Jerusalem back they made an unsurprising rule - no Jews allowed. All the Jews that had been under the protection of the Muslims in the city were booted out.
Any Sub Crusades? Nah.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: The best way to get your excommunication lifted if you're feuding with the Pope is to win back Jerusalem through clever diplomacy, crown yourself king, and shove it right in the face of that pointey-white-hatted loser dorkface (because screw the stupid Pope).
9. Baron's Crusade (1239 - 1241)
 |
| For certes, it be another map upon parchment! |
The Crusade: Named the Baron's Crusade because, duh, a lot of Barons went on it - it began in 1239 when one group traveled towards Constantinople to protect the fledgling Latin Empire from "heresy" or something like that. They captured Tzurulum, but simultaneously lost the arguably more important cities of Darivya and Nikitiaton to their primary opponent, Vatatzes of the Empire of Nicaea (the primary successor State to the destroyed Byzantine Empire - sorry these aren't in chronological order so I haven't talked about that yet). Elsewhere, other barons from France set sail for Acre (ignoring the Pope's redirection to fight the Nicaeans) and marched towards Ascalon, leading a successful ambush against Ayyubid forces along the way. But after that victory the barons couldn't coordinate and broke apart - with some of them being routed in a battle in Gaza. They also left Jerusalem undefended - and on December 7, 1239 Jerusalem fell to Sultan An-Nasir Dawud. The only reasons the Christians ever caught a break was because an ongoing civil war within the Muslim Ayyubid dynasty- with An-Nasir (Syria faction) feuding both with rival Syrian As-Salih Ismail as well as As-Salih Ayyub (Egypt faction). Alliances changed rapidly with different Muslim and Christian factions temporarily allied with one another for short periods and for short gains. As-Salih signed a treaty with the Christians that gave the Crusaders a huge chunk of territory - but hilariously he didn't even give lands that he owned, instead signing away An-Nasir's lands (including Jerusalem). Holy crap, can you imagine the set of balls on As-Salih? That would be like if the Maine went to war with Vermont and Vermont was like, "No, don't kill us. Here, have Concord," and Maine is like, "deal!" Before the lands promised could even be controlled, the leaders of this faction of barons left the Holy Land in 1240 and it fell to a new faction of English-led crusaders to try to control the territories kind of signed over. This last faction saw no real combat, but simply finished negotiations with Ayyubid leaders that cemented the deals and agreed to prisoner exchanges. By May 1241, the Crusaders sailed home.
End Result: Christian "victory" in intentional quotation marks.
Legacy: On paper the deal signed between the Christians and Ayyubids made the Crusader States and Christian holdings in the Holy Lands as large as they had been since before Saladin's victories in 1187. Making Christian territory as large as it had been in over 50 years sounds like a big victory, right? Some historians therefore refer to this as one of the most successful crusades. That was only on paper though. Yes, the Christians did actually get Jerusalem back (uh, after losing it) but much of the other land that they supposedly gained wasn't really under their control. And of the land actually under their control - much of it was highly susceptible to attack when the tenuous alliances with the Muslims ended. Within three years - Jerusalem would fall for the final time. But I'll describe that more in the background for the Seventh Crusade.
What about the Jews? Nothing notable that I'm aware of for this one.
Any Sub Crusades? Kind of. The Constantinople, French and English efforts are sometimes counted as three different Crusades, or more commonly the Constantinople one is listed as separate from the Franco-English one.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Having a "World's #1 Dad" coffee mug doesn't make you the world's #1 dad... just like having a treaty that says you control an expansive domain of Crusader States doesn't mean that you control an expansive domain of Crusader States. Especially if your Western European allies just leave as soon as they get the treaty with no intention on actually protecting you.
8. Venetian Crusade (1122 - 1124)
 |
| Tyre be a most small city, it seem-eth. For a white palfrey be nearly as tall! |
The Crusade: If the story of the First Crusade is a charming tale (from a Christian perspective, at least) about Christians coming together despite differences between Latin and Orthodox Christianity for a common cause to protect the faith... the Venetian Crusade is, well, not. The first thing the Venetians did was attack Corfu, part of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. This would be a common theme for Crusades involving Venetians. Ilghazi died in 1122 but he wasn't the only problem for the Christians. There was Balak of Mardin (emir of Aleppo), Toghtekin (atabeg of Damascus, who had just purchased Tyre from the Fatimids), and the resurgent Fatamids themselves - now with an empowered caliph following the assassination of the long-reigning vizier al-Afdal Shahansha. Next thing you know, King Baldwin got himself captured by Balak and the Venetians finally remembered "Oh yeah, we're supposed to go to protect Jerusalem rather than attack other Christians, huh?" They arrived in Acre in May 1123 and learned that a Fatmid fleet was also sailing to aid Emir Balak. The Doge whipped out a brilliant strategy to divide his fleet when the two met. The Fatmids saw a small, weak-looking Venetian fleet and attacked, only to be flanked and surrounded when the rest said, "Surprise!" The next bit of action had to wait until 1124, when the Crusaders marched upon Tyre and laid siege upon the forces of Toghtekin. With supplies dwindling, Toghtekin eventually agreed to a a surrender on terms that his people who wanted to go could go and his people who wanted to stay wouldn't have all their possessions looted. The leaders of the Crusades took the deal, although the Crusaders themselves were kinda pissed because they really, really wanted to loot. It's the Christian thing to do, right? Baldwin was released soon after, although not specifically as part of the deal.
End Result: Crusader victory with notable territorial gains.
Legacy: The addition of Tyre was a big expansion for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Kingdom would never be as big as it was than under the reign of Baldwin II. Christianity had to be pretty psyched about the whole thing too, huh? Two Crusades and two victories! I'm sure they said, "Boy, these Crusade things sure are easy! Let's do more!" But the cracks for what would fall apart later already began to show here - what with the Venetian attack on their fellow Christians in Corfu.
What about the Jews? I mean I'm sure they were being persecuted somewhere but primary sources like Fulcher of Chartres and William of Tyre didn't record it.
Any Sub Crusades? No.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Even with a highly successful Crusade there is no promise that you'll be remembered or that your Crusade will even get a proper number.
7. Second Crusade (1147-1149)
 |
| These knave Saracens shalt surely be slain! Huzzah! |
The Crusade: Initial response to the papal bull was slow, but once the rest of Europe saw that French King Louis VII was on board, others jumped on the bandwagon. The tales of victory and heroism from the First Crusade 50 years before had become legendary and everyone wanted in on the action for what would surely be yet another easy victory over Muslims. See that italics on the "surely"? You can tell where this is going, right? Conrad III of the Holy Roman Empire followed the lead of Louis VII but brought an army twice as large as the French one and took a different marching route. Eventually, a whole mix of other European nobles looking for glory joined too. The Westerners eventually met up with their Eastern Crusader State colleagues at the Council of Acre and planned a 50,000-man strong attack on Damascus - a former Crusader State ally ruled by the Burids and who switched sides to team up with the Zengids. The year before, atabeg Zengi (who sort of started this whole thing) was assassinated by a Frankish slave who fled to Damascus thinking he'd be rewarded by their ruler, Mu'in ad-Din Unur. Instead he was turned back over to the Zengids, now ruled by Zengi's son Nur ad-Din, to be executed. Which made the Zengids and Damascans total bros now!!! The 4-day siege of Damascus is described in most history books using words like, "foolish", "total failure" and "fiasco." The Crusaders couldn't work together and agree (prematurely) on the spoils of their victory for who would get to keep the city. Things honestly weren't much better on the other side, as the Burids' alliance with the Zengids was similarly tenuous (they weren't really total bros after all - Unur feared the Zengids would conquer Damascus themselves if they came down to help). But it was the local Crusader lords who decided to abandon the siege, and soon after the Westerners retreated as well.
End Result: Modest Muslim victory. The Zengids maintained control of Edessa and the Burids maintained control of Damascus. Westerners mostly spin it a "stalemate" since the Muslims didn't really gain anything or re-take Jerusalem themselves, but if 50K zealots come and try to conquer you but wind up going home - yeah, that's a victory for you.
Legacy: Sequels are always hard to do. For every The Godfather Part II there are a dozen The Hangover Part II's. For the Christians, Crusade Part II fell in the category of the latter. The theme of the Christians not being able to get along would continue for pretty much every other crusade. Intra-Christian bickering about spoils of war and the geopolitical ramifications of their respective power and influence back home would lead the Latin Crusaders to have increasingly diminishing returns nearly every Crusade. After this one failed they probably should have stopped trying.
What about the Jews? In the early stages of rallying support for the Crusade after the papal bull, a French monk named Radulphe went around France and Germany preaching that the Jews were the enemy and should be killed. It lead to a series of massacres that more senior officials in the Catholic Church had to step in to end.
Any Sub Crusades? The Wendish Crusade and the "Reconquesta" of Iberia were in full swing during the same period.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: Save the conversation about the spoils of war until after you actually win.
6. Fifth Crusade (1213 - 1221)
 |
| Andrew II doth seem a cheery slayer of Orientals. |
The Crusade: France, usually one of the most active to support, was too busy with their Albigensian
End Result: Ayyubid victory... on two separate fronts!
Legacy: So there you have it, just as the Fourth Crusade was a failure for a lack of papal leadership - the Fifth Crusade equally sucked from too much papal leadership. Like Goldilocks. Would it have been helpful to the Crusaders if the Germans were allowed to join the war earlier and with greater forces? Sure, but the Popes were feuding with the Germans. Would it have been a good idea to swap Damietta (a city of little value to Crusaders but great value to the Ayyubids) for Jerusalem (a city of little value to the Ayyubids but great value to Crusaders)? That's not a rhetorical question. Yes. Yes it would have been a good idea.
What about the Jews? Remember that Fourth Lateran Council of 1215? Well, it was actually called for a number of reasons, not just to discuss the Crusade. It set around 70 major articles of canon law. Among them - making Jews wear special clothing and symbols to distinguish themselves (gee, that idea doesn't seem like it could ever go wrong), declaring Jews ineligible to hold public office, and taking measures to prevent converted Jews to turn back to their old faith. They also ordered Jews not to charge high interest rates - because apparently that stereotype has been around FOREVER.
Any Sub Crusades? Not particularly, although Andrew II's abortive campaign is sometimes referred to by itself as "King Andrew's Crusade." The Children's Crusade has also been classified as part of it, but I don't classify it that way because 1) it happened before the Quia maior, and 2) it's bullshit that never really happened.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: If the goal of your Crusade is to win back the holy city of Jerusalem for your faith, and your opponents offers to give you Jerusalem - TAKE THE DEAL.
5. Sixth Crusade (1228 - 1229)
 |
| Frederick II and al-Kamil doth speak ribald tales of wenches they didst swive whence they maketh peace. |
The Crusade: On the way to Acre, Frederick decided to stop by and get into a mini war in Cyprus, just as Richard the Lionheart had done several crusades before. He then continued on and reached the Kingdom of Jerusalem. What he found was factionalism and divided tensions, due to the rift with the Papacy. Some crusaders, barons and church officials were reluctant to support or join Frederick's army. Being a realist, Frederick knew the numbers of men he had probably weren't enough for a successful attack on the forces of Ayyubid Sultan al-Kamil (the Muslim victor of the Fifth Crusade). Despite this, Frederick hoped that al-Kamil would want to avoid battle anyway and would be willing to negotiate when a Crusader army came marching down. Frederick was right. The Sultan had a lot of things to worry about, including a rebellion from within what he considered his own territory led by An-Nasir Dawud. Having to deal with the damn Crusaders again was just too much for al-Kamil. During the Fifth Crusade, al-Kamil had been willing to make a deal to give the Crusaders Jerusalem... and he was indeed willing to make a similar deal yet again. In exchange for a 10-year peace deal, he gave the Christians a large part of Jerusalem (Muslims retained control over the Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock) and other cities including Nazareth, Jaffa and Bethleham. In February 1229, just a few months after arriving, Frederick II and al-Kamil agreed to the peace deal without a single major battle. Frederick walked into Jerusalem soon after and had a crowning ceremony, declaring himself King of Jerusalem (because screw the stupid Pope).
End Result: Christian victory through peace treaty.
Legacy: Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is just another form of politics. Frederick II was dead and buried several centuries before Clausewitz was ever born - but he understood the basic concept without needing any damn Prussian military strategist to tell him. While most of the Crusades were designed around using military force to achieve policy goals - Frederick understood that a good negotiation could accomplish the same thing. And boy did he ever accomplish his goals - he won back Jerusalem without a single battle. Some say that you know you made a good deal when neither side is happy with the end result. That's not the case here - as Frederick got what he wanted (Jerusalem) and al-Kamil largely got what he wanted (for the Crusaders to leave him the hell alone). Frederick achieved the greatest Christian victory in the Crusades since the First Crusade. Really the only loser was the Church itself - as the Pope had to reluctantly un-excommunicate Frederick, and it was proven once and for all that the Kings of Europe didn't need no stinking papal authority to go on Crusades. Several future Crusades would bring proof to that. The German claim to Jerusalem wouldn't last very long though.
What about the Jews? When the Christians got Jerusalem back they made an unsurprising rule - no Jews allowed. All the Jews that had been under the protection of the Muslims in the city were booted out.
Any Sub Crusades? Nah.
If Have to Remember One Thing, Remember: The best way to get your excommunication lifted if you're feuding with the Pope is to win back Jerusalem through clever diplomacy, crown yourself king, and shove it right in the face of that pointey-white-hatted loser dorkface (because screw the stupid Pope).
---
Well, that brings us to the final four, folks! What will they be? You could just look at the numbers that are missing and figure it out on your own. Or how about instead you wait a few days until I do my next post about the greatest of the Crusades instead? 
