However, if this is true then why did the next two crusades in the Holy Land fail? they were still offered plenary indulgence and were still from a warrior culture. What is more feesable is that the main reason for the first crusade's success was infact part unique circumstances, part Muslim Disunity. This can be backed up by the fact that in the 2nd and 3rd crusades the Muslim were more unified and that is why these two crusades failed. In the 900's the Abbasid Caliphate controled the middle east and the empire stretched from the borders of India to the Northern coast of Africa. It was well organised and had vast economic resource from eygpt. if the Crusade had been lauched at this time it would surely have been crushed instantly. But the Caliphate collapsed when there was rebellion by the army and the empire split into the Seljuk Sultanese which controlled Iran, Iraq, Syria and Asia Minor, and the Fatimid Caliphate which controlled Eygpt, there were territorial and religious rivalrys between these two factions, especially over Palestine. But this was not the only disunity, within the Seljuk Empire there were rival emirs and conflicts between states for example Kilij Arslan the Seljuk Sultan of Rum was warring with the Danishmenz when the Crusaders landed in the middle east. The indvidual Seljuk's did not see the Crusader invasion as a Chirstain war upon the Muslims as a single race but just simply as a new variation in the politics of the region, and perhaps even a force to ally with against other states. This gave the Crusaders an advantage as the empire was alot more vunerable to outside attack in such a state of disunification.
But still, the battles do indeed show that the Crusaders had excellent military stratgery's and leaders. Leadership is a sub-factor of Military prowess, the strength of an army is greatly improved by its leader. Many of the crusader leaders showed great skill and stratergem that contributed directly to the victory in certain battles, for example, at Dorylaeum, Bohemond's stratergy meant that his men could hold out till the rest of the army arrived, Bohemond had adapted this unique tactical circumstances to neutralise the enemy stratergy. whats more is the fact he managed to persuade his french knights to dismount, to their great annoyance, and this shows his strength as a leader aswell as a stratergist. Secondly is the attack on Jerusalem, such a huge task could never of been carried without superb leadership and planning. However where this argument falls down is that fact that no-one appointed a leader, despite several candidates. The reason for this is feduel hierarchy, Kings are at the top, but no King went on the first Crusade. More damaging to this argument is that the 2nd and 1st crusade did have leaders and it did not help.
Although they did not have a Military leader, the crusaders did have a spiritual leader, Adhemar Du Pey, the papal legate. this important because it shows what was really important to them, the Crusaders were Excellent soldiers, with superior equipment and tactics. but what really seperated them as soldiers from the Seljuk's and Fatimids was their Religious Zeal. the concept of crusading itself creates fearsome warriors because they are being given Plenary Indulgence, being absolved of their sins so they will go straight to heaven when they die. This concept of plenary Indulgence creates a fanaticism, the crusaders no longer fear death and as Tyerman puts it "The Slaughter itself was a Penantentual act" so by killing the crusaders were absolving their sins. This religious motivation therefore gives the Crusaders an extra edge as warriors. this can be seen at Antioch when the 'Holy lance' invirgorated them with a ferocious religious energy, sources tell of saints fighting alonside soliders and an army of their own dead coming to their aid, of course this stories are untrue, but the fact that the crusaders believed that they saw these things shows how powerful, and dangerous, this belief could be. furthermore the Crusaders became so fanactical they believe they were the 'instruments of the last judgement' and went out of control and slaughtered who every they came across, for example after the siege of Anitoch when the killed everyone within the city, people fled from them as they made their way to Jerusalem, their atrocities created a terror that lowered the level of resistance.this strong religious fervour also means that in the eyes of the Crusaders and the context of the medieval period what we put down as luck or unique circumstances they would believe was God's Will.
The Crusaders first battle was Nicaea, which was fought against Kilij, unfortunately as we only know they that the Crusader's won, and nothing else, this battle won't be helpful in answering the question. The next battle was Dorylaeum, 'the place of spears', Dorylaeum was a small village in Anatolia on a crossroads leading to Jerusalem. the road between Nicaea and Dorylaem went into a narrow valley through the moutains, as the army passed through here they were harranged by turks, when an axel broke on a cart and the army stopped, no one told the Vanguard of 4,000-7,000 men, under command of Bohemond of Taranto, and they became split from the main army and surround by Turks as they came out onto the plain of Dorylaem. Bohemond used his skills as a leader and experience of fighting in the east to persuade his men to dismount and form a shield wall around the horses making it impossible for the Turks to shoot the men down. after perhaps six hours of the main body of the Army arrived lead by Raymond of Toulouse and the Papal Legate Ademar du Puy. Ademar persuaded Ramymond to attack and the army charged, seeing this Bohemond ordered his men to re-mount and attack the Turks from the other side, this meant that a section of the Turkish army was trapped between two sections of the Crusader army and the rest of the Turks fled, in this battle unique tatical
circumstantces netrualised the Turkish Stratergy, plus the rest of the Turks fleeing could well be put down to Muslim Disunity as the Emirs of other sections of the army were unwilling to help Kilij any further seeing him already fail.
Another unique circumstance was the way in which the the Crusaders got into Antioch, the gates were opened by Bohemond's men when a fustrated Captain of one of Antioch's Towers betrayed the City and let them in. When the army got in the slaughtered everyone, the rest of the Garrison escaped to the Citadel on the hill inside Antioch, which the Crusaders were still locked out of. the fact they got into the city was exceedingly lucky, seeing as just two days afterwards Kerboughah, Emir of Mosul arrived with a huge army and besieged the city, if the crusaders at been caught in the open Kerboughah would have crushed them. However the Crusaders were now stuck in the city with rotting corspes all around them. Then Peter Bartholomew had a vision of the Holy Lance being under Antioch's Catherdral, after searching under the ground of the Catherdral they found what was probably a roman nail, but they believed was the head of the Holy Lance, this filled the Crusaders with a new energy and the leaders decide to launch a sortie out of the city. They came out in a battle formation of four columns and then fanned out across the plains, this shows their military prowess as they had the ability to carry out this stratergy succesful with such a large number of men. Once again unique tatical circumstances neturualised the enemy stratergy as a section of the army was trapped between the River Orontes and and the charging Crusaders, following this many of kerbourghah's Generals in other parts of the battlefield betrayed him and fled, leaving the rest to be slaughtered, again showing how Muslim disunity contributed to the Crusaders success.
The next victory was the siege of Jerusalem, here the Crusaders show outstanding military prowess, the Fortress was taken but direct assault. The Crusaders built 3 huge siege towers. the Crusader prepared to attack, but at night moved all the of the siege works, without the Garrison realising, to a less well defend side of the City and took it by surprise, this was a very clever feint and shows the crusaders tatical ability.
The Last battle was Ascalon, which was fought against the Fatimids after the fall of Jerusalem. This battle supports the idea that the Crusaders tactics were far surperior to the Fatimids, who had a different fighting system to the turks. The Fatimids' was similar to the Crusaders, except that their cavalry used there spears over arm rather than under arm like the crusaders and this leaves you body undefended, secondly their Archers would fire into the air so that the arrows would rain down on attacks, but as the Crusader knights charged in so fast it was almost impossible to get the right angle so the arrow would land directly over the them. By the time of the battle the Crusaders had learnt a lot and they ambushed the Fatimids in their camp at dawn. The army, lead by Godfrey De Boullion attack in a formation of 9 divisions of Infantry with cavalry behind them that then could charge between the division at the enemy. This well planned and carried out stratergy took the Fatimids completely by surprised and where crushed.
by
amelia123456 (student)
