• 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...


'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.


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.


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)

    in Europe, led by Frederick the Great and Britain having the worlds largest navy, this meant that Britain could use her armies to fight in North American primarily and focus on naval battles while Prussia sent her armies forth in Europe.

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

    Defending with very few troops and no cavalry, Richard was able to push back a much larger army. The battle had been as Riley Smith describes, "a superb victory". Jaffa, more so than any other battle, demonstrates the military success of the Latins on crusade.

  1. How accurate is it to say that the weakness of the Protestant forces was ...

    This is a strong statement illustrating the unity of the Catholics and the Habsburgs because they were able to postpone political rivalries between themselves in order to create an alliance against the Protestants which would be difficult to break. This is significant because, as mentioned previously, the Protestants did not

  2. How important was Spiritual Motivation for the participation in the First Crusade?

    believed that the lack of success that they was having was because God was displeased with them.

  1. To what extent was the military prowess of the Crusaders the main reason for ...

    towards the enemy firing off rounds of arrows, when they reached the ranks they would turn and ride along the rank of the enemy firing arrows at the same time, they would then turn again and ride back to the main body of the army, as this did this another

  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.

  1. To what extent was superior military leadership the reason for success in the first ...

    Such discussion may in fact argue that leadership in terms of central control and clear direction was not always strong and point to the tensions between leaders (particularly over Antioch). On the other hand they may point to the strong military leadership given by able commanders like Bohemond and the

  2. To What Extent Does History show that there is no such thing as absolute ...

    Domestically, he successfully increased the Crown?s influence and authority over the church and aristocracy and thus consolidated an absolute monarchy in France. Louis died of gangrene at Versailles on the 1st September 1715, four days before his 77th Birthday. Louis may have been the closest to absolute power with the

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