• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent was strong leadership the main reason for the success of the First Crusade (1096-99)?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'To what extent was strong leadership the main reason for the success of the First Crusade (1096-99)?' There were many reasons as to why the First Crusade was successful. It is debatable as to whether strong leadership was the main one - other factors should also be considered, such as the level of disunity in the Muslim world at the time, as well as the aid the Western forces were given by their Byzantine allies. Since the death of the Seljuk emperor Malikshah in 1092, a power vacuum was created in the East. Malikshah's four sons and brother fought over the right of succession, and as a result the once great empire was splintered into a number of warring provinces, all of which were only interested in gaining personal power. Because of this, the Muslim leaders were only concerned about expansion, and failed to take exterior powers into account. When the People's Crusade arrived in the East their forces were not considered to be overly dangerous. ...read more.

Middle

The Crusaders found themselves upon foreign lands, and at the Battle of Dorylaeum, they were confronted by a style of warfare that was to them barbaric and alien. But Bohemond was a stout enough leader to keep his forces disciplined and in check, long enough for Godfrey of Bouillon and the other princes to come to the rescue. It was not only military leadership that proved instrumental to the success of the First Crusade. When the Crusaders were under siege in Antioch by the Muslim forces from Mosul, the monk Peter Bartholomew claimed to have found the lance that pierced the side of Christ. Whether this was true or not was debatable, but the Crusading leaders were cunning enough to use this to their advantage. Adhemar reminded them why they were there, and their duty to God, showing great spiritual leadership by having the Crusaders fast for four days (even though they were already starving), claiming that they would be victorious if they did so. ...read more.

Conclusion

So (in a way) Byzantium was bountiful - should they reach it, Jerusalem was theirs for the taking. As well as this, the Crusaders found themselves upon foreign soil, and would have had a much harder time of navigating the land without the help of guides out of Byzantium. With the aid of their Byzantine guides, the Crusaders were shown the safest routes through Anatolia, and as thus they were able to avoid the more dangerous regions were the Muslims still held power. There were also times when Alexius did go to the aid of his Western allies, such as when he had a flotilla of ships built upon Ascanion Lake to blockade Nicaea's port (although in truth, he went on to undermine his allies by having Nicaea surrender to Byzantium without the Crusaders' knowledge). In conclusion, there are many reasons as to why the First Crusade was a success, but it was the disunity in the Muslim world that was the most crucial, as had the Muslims been unified, it is debatable whether the Crusaders would have ever made it to Jerusalem. Kurt Shead MTG: C ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent was warfare between Britain and France the main contributory factor in ...

    3 star(s)

    gain wasn't permanent, as the conclusive treaty of the war would force Britain and France to return their gains.

  2. To what extent was the Third Crusade a defeat for the Latins?

    His subsequent hostility towards the crusaders on their arrival warranted a total conquest of the island by Richard. The Intinerarrium records that "He [Richard] had found castles crammed with treasures and wealth of every kind." The conquest had as Gillingham writes "reaped tremendous awards.

  1. Why did so many people go on the first crusade

    have heard that many of you have felt the longing to go to Jerusalem, which you should understand pleases us exceedingly.'

  2. To what extent was the first crusade a success

    Therefore to some extent the crusade was a success because it highlighted his victory in the investiture contest. On the other hand, however, the Crusade failed to regain good communication between the Greeks and the Latins, the moment the crusade left Byzantine territory the Greeks cut the vital supplies that

  1. How important was the discovery of the Holy Lance in the Crusader success in ...

    Andrew proclaiming the Holy Lance was buried in the city and subsequently found it in the Cathedral of St. Peter. The importance of this factor in the rejuvenation of the troops' is corroborated by the fact that the already starving troops heeded Peter's request to fast for five days, a

  2. How effective was the leadership provided by prominent individual nationalists in Malaya?

    Ibrahim also suffered from a lack of charisma. He was not known for the style of his speeches but for his "sharp analysis of rational precision" (Milner, 1994) - terms people would hardly use to describe American President Obama's rhetoric.

  1. The First English Civil War

    Rupert was on the right of the King's army with the greater part of the horse; Lord Lindsey and Sir Jacob Astley in the centre with the foot, while Henry Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (with whom rode the Earl of Forth, the principal military adviser of the King)

  2. In What Ways Was The Siege Of Antioch The Turning Point Of The First ...

    Antioch also highlighted and worsened Muslim disunity. The Crusaders victory is mainly credited to Kerbogha being abandoned by his fellow Muslims in the battle. Capturing Antioch made this worse because it showed that Muslim ambition had separated them compared to the Crusaders who had still stayed together despite pressure on them.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work