The main reason for the failure of the second crusade was the lack of a clear and unified command structure. How far do you agree with this statement?

This lack of focus was evidenced by the way resources were wasted on ultimately irrelevant endeavours such at the Wendish Crusade and the crusader involvement in the Reconquista. Both theatres of conflict haemorrhaged resources such as food, men and transport which could have been used more effectively on the second crusade and enabled the crusaders to further establish a foothold in the Holy Land- rather than greedily pillage and loot Eastern Europe and Portugal. It is undoubtedly true that the primary reasons for crusader involvement in these conflicts was the promise of riches and the opportunity to march on the enemies of God in an area closer to home- a cause which was significantly less important than the defence of the Crusader states, and indicative of the lack of focus displayed by the crusaders during this period. In particular, the resources wasted in the Reconquista would have been massively useful in the Second Crusade as a fleet of 150-200 English vessels involved in the Reconquista could have been used to aid the crusaders on their journey to the Holy Land- providing supplies, carrying the wounded, and even transporting some of the fighting forces themselves. Though it is true that the decision to assist in the Reconquista rather than the Second Crusade was the decision of the particular crusaders who travelled there, had there been a clear command structure they possibly would not have been given permission, and most certainly would not have been inclined to waste their resources on a cause of far less import than the campaign in the East.

The decision to use the predominantly English fleet in the Reconquista rather than the campaign in the Holy Land was one which contributed to the conception of the disastrous method of travel used by the crusaders. The choice to travel by land rather than sea was a poor one which arguably condemned the crusade to failure before it even began, and undoubtedly hindered the crusaders’ progress. A myriad of problems surfaced as a result of the crusaders’ decision to walk to the Holy Land; the aforementioned issues with resources were exacerbated as there were no ships to bring supplies, the terrain was treacherous- resulting in congestion due to the four-horse carts’ inability to traverse muddy terrain in an efficient manner, and of course the crusaders were more vulnerable to assaults by the Turks. Furthermore, the land route forced the crusaders to travel through areas of Byzantine rule, whereupon they were at best treated with nonchalance and at worst greeted by acts of treachery and prejudice. There were in fact no redeeming features of the decision to travel by land as it did nothing but weaken an already disorganised and bloated army which had a distinct lack of focus. Had the crusaders decided to travel by sea they would have been in a far stronger position from which to take back Edessa and repel the Muslim forces in the East.

However, the decision to travel by land was merely a symptom of more fundamental flaws in the preparation for the second crusade and that single factor cannot be held solely responsible for the ultimate failure of the crusade. Had the crusaders been organised in a cohesive way with a clear and unified command structure it is almost certain that the Second Crusade would have been a more focussed endeavour with a clear set of aims and a strong sense of purpose. Overall, it is clear that the Second Crusade failed due to the combination of a myriad of circumstances; however, the lack of a clear and unified command structure was the main contributor to a significant amount of these issues and thus one can draw the conclusion that it was the main reason for the ultimate failure of the crusade.