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

Account for the success of the first crusade.

Extracts from this document...


Account for the success of the first crusade. The first crusade was hailed as an unprecedented success by the historians of the day and indeed by contemporary historians. The reasons for this great success, if it can be called great at all, are many. From Pope Urban II's fiery call to arms, to the lack of preparation from the Turks, there are many causes for this success. Indeed the unquestioning faith of the crusaders, the quality of their leaders, and the allies which they procured during their journey were further factors in the success. After receiving the request for military aid from the Byzantine emperor Alexius I, Pope Urban II seized upon this opportunity for him to reinforce Papal control and influence in the east and to unite the divided western Christian Europe. Through his highly charismatic sermon given on 27th November 1095 at the Council of Clermont, Urban was able to arouse great enthusiasm from the nobles and clergy present for a Holy War on the Muslims in the east. They then went out and spread the command of a call to arms from God to their diocese and to anyone they met. This created a huge influx of people from all walks of life wishing to take part in this pilgrimage to the holy land. This could have been seen as a good thing as more people would mean a bigger army for which to smash the Muslims with. But a lot of people who answered the call were not knights or trained soldiers they were ordinary men, women and children, and so they can be seen as more of a hindrance than of help. ...read more.


But the main leaders were driven to a degree by their own ambition and this sometimes led to atrocities occurring. Such as the massacre of 300 Norman troops who Baldwin of Boulogne had forced to camp outside the walls of his newly captured town of Tarsus because he did not trust them and hence they were slaughtered by the town's former garrison under nightfall. But through all of the bad decisions, most of the time when they were needed to unify and attack together they did just that. They worked as one army, even if they disagreed on tactics when they assaulted and besieged major cities such as Antioch and Jerusalem. Indeed the assault on Jerusalem was impeded time wise by the arguing between the leaders over who should be given Antioch, but when they eventually got there the remaining princes worked together to gain success. But the fact that most of the princes true ambitions lay in their own personal gain is shown by Bohemond who selfishly never took any further part in the crusade after becoming Prince of Antioch. He never even went to Jerusalem. This was a major reason in why in took so long for the crusaders to take Antioch, because Raymond had wanted to storm the city but Bohemond refused and wanted to besiege it even though there wasn't enough troops to encircle the city. Bohemond's decision to siege was due to his own greed; he wanted Antioch for himself and so wanted it intact. ...read more.


During the People's crusade The Turkish king Kilij Arslan's capital, Nicaea was situated close to where the crusaders were based. He was happy enough to watch them ravage the countryside but as soon as they threatened his city he easily defeated them. This easy defeat of the Christian forces lulled him into a false sense of security. When he heard that another Christian force had amassed at Constantinople he assumed that it would be of the same type of incompetent soldiers as before and so took the majority of his army to attack a rival state, 'he had not foreseen that the crusading army would be so strong'2. This same sort of misconception of the crusading forces was common among many of the Muslim leaders, and hence played a major part in the success of the first crusade. This can be proven by the failure of the second crusade. It contained around the same amount of people as the first crusade but by this time the Muslim leaders were more prepared and swiftly defeated the crusaders in two battles3. Even though the main reason for the success of the first crusade was the disunity between the Muslim states, all of the factors mentioned contributed to the crusades success. The crusaders allies played their part in helping the crusaders to succeed in their goals. Also the faith of the people played a major part. Their faith cannot be underestimated, it kept them going and forced them onwards to Jerusalem; it was their faith which stopped them from turning back even when they were dying from starvation and disease. It was ultimately their faith which drove them to succeed. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Ancient History 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 University Degree Ancient History essays

  1. Alexander the Great and His Army.

    Alexander led the charge, the Alliance was decisively defeated leaving Macedon as undisputed military power in Greece. The use of catapults in the field is evidenced in one of Alexander's early battles in the Northern Marches of Macedon. At Pelion, Alexander, in a rare loss of the initiative had to

  2. Which battle can we consider to have been the most important turning point in ...

    The battle began in the morning, soon after the Greeks had sung their paean. The Marines boarded the triremes and the ships then began to manoeuvre further into the straits in an orderly fashion. It appears the Corinthian contingent of ships under Adeimantos began to sail away northwards as the

  1. Why was British decolonisation after 1945 so easy to achieve?

    The Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, the large number of Indians who lost their life in the violence struggle than accompanied partition, the civil war and bloody military rule that has been a feature of the subsequent histories of a number of former colonies, from Sierra Leone to Burma, and

  2. How did Swedish and French diplomatic relations affect the Thirty-Years War?

    The Swedish plan on sending an army to Germany was therefore of outmost interest to the French. In 1629 Richelieu sent his top diplomat, Charnac´┐Ż, to Sweden to propose an alliance and to encourage the Swedish to get involved in the German war in exchange for subsidies.

  1. Why was Byzantium ultimately unable to resist the Ottoman onslaught?

    This is for various reasons. Firstly, the empire was significantly weakened both politically and territorially. The conquering parties deliberately chose the weaker candidate for the position of emperor. "Instead of choosing their energetic leader Boniface of Montferrat, who was related by marriage to the Angeli and Comneni and now betrothed

  2. What is the extent, and reasons for, the Ancient fascination with Egypt?

    Yet it was an Egypt 'in the twilight of pharaonic power'1 that fascinated Greek travellers such as Herodotus. The reliability and objectivity of his account is questionable however, with many critics dismissing him as a man 'of mediocre intellect who believed all sorts of fairytales, collected spurious anecdotes, and gullibly accepted partisan versions of events'2.

  1. The Muslim conquest of Spain

    Many historians make a point of mentioning the uncanny number of similarities between the Muslin conquest of Spain in 711 and the arrival of the Normans in Britain in 1066. Indeed both conquests have a lot in common. In the case of Britain King Harold was in the north dealing with a Viking threat when the Normans invaded.

  2. The Roman World 509 B.C. To A.D. 180

    Much of the public land would in the future be held by the present occupants and their descendants as private property, but the surplus was to be confiscated and allotted to landless Roman citizens. When it became evident that the Tribal Assembly would adopt Tiberius' proposal, the Senate induced one of the other tribunes to veto the measure.

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