How far were divisions amongst the crusaders the main reason for the failure
of the Second Crusade?
It is evident that a variety of reasons contributed to the failure of the Second Crusade, in particular
divisions amongst the Crusaders, Muslim disunity and poor aims. However, it is evident that the most
important factor was Crusader disunity.
The most significant factor which led to the failure of the Second Crusade was clearly divisions amongst the
crusaders. Unlike the first crusade, there were clear divisions amongst the French and German crusaders
and a lot of hostility and in fighting. The two armies had to travel separately as a result of the infighting and
this proved disastrous as it meant they were more vulnerable to attacks and both armies were attacked by
the Seljuk Turks, the German army at Dorylaem and the French army at Mount Cadmus. This led to the
already small armies being reduced to around 20,000 men and making it difficult to later defeat Nur Ad Din
at Damascus and forcing them to retreat, resulting in the second crusade’s failure. The crusaders also did
not work well with the native Franks who could have helped them and advise them not to attack Damascus
as it was not a threat. These divisions are linked to the poor leadership of Louis of France and Conrad of
Germany as neither were natural leaders or had military experience so were unable to control their men.
Overall, this factor is the most important because had they united and had good leadership, they would
have had enough men with military ability to perhaps succeed, as shown in the first crusade, but their
disunity reduced their size so meant they stood very little chance against the now united Muslim army.
Another factor which held some importance was the poor aims of the first crusade, which also contributed
to the reduced army size alongside Crusader disunity. Pope Eugenius and Bernard were not military men so
were unable to come up with a clear aim and tactic and instead presented the second crusade as a general
attack on the non-Christians and there were various smaller campaigns such as those in Spain, Eastern
Europe and Northern Africa. These multiple campaigns meant that men and resources were spread very
thinly so the main army in the holy land was smaller than it should have been had there been one
campaign similar to the first crusade. This made it more difficult to defeat the bigger Muslim army.
Moreover, poor aims meant that the Crusader leaders, Louis and Conrad, were unsure as to what to do
and ended up attacking Damascus, which was a bad idea and lead to their eventual defeat, rather that
trying to recapture Edessa which sparked the whole Crusader. However, despite this clearly being a
significant factor, it is limited in its importance. Had the Crusaders in the main campaign been united then
the reduced size of the main army would not have been as big of an issue as they would have enough men.
Also, if Louis and Conrad had been good leaders then poor aims would not have been an issue as they
would be able to think tactically about what to do rather than making poor decisions such as to attack
Damascus and travel seperately. It is also significant to note that despite poor aims, other campaigns such
as the one in Eastern Europe actually succeeded in their aims because those armies were united, clearly
showing that whilst being important, the poor aims of the crusade have limited importance in explaining
why the second crusade failed.
The final factor which was arguably more important than poor aims but not the most important factor was
Muslim unity. In the 12th century, Muslim leader Zengi sought to unite the Muslims and under his son, Nur
Ad Din, all of Northern Syria was united. The two preached the idea of Jihad (holy war) and motivated the
Muslims to unite against the Christian world. This contrasts to the first crusade where the Muslims were
clearly not united and the Crusaders were able to use this to their advantage. Now united, the Muslims
had a bigger army and were more easily able to defeat the reduced Crusader armies and Nur Ad Din had a
big army and a lot of resources behind him unlike the Crusaders. Due to the Muslims being too powerful
now, there were many times where the Crusaders failed to face them, for example retreating at Damascus.
However, not all of the Muslim world was united. For example, Damascus was independent and actually
feared Nur Ad Din and only asked for his help as a response to the Crusaders’ attack. Therefore, had the
of the Second Crusade?
It is evident that a variety of reasons contributed to the failure of the Second Crusade, in particular
divisions amongst the Crusaders, Muslim disunity and poor aims. However, it is evident that the most
important factor was Crusader disunity.
The most significant factor which led to the failure of the Second Crusade was clearly divisions amongst the
crusaders. Unlike the first crusade, there were clear divisions amongst the French and German crusaders
and a lot of hostility and in fighting. The two armies had to travel separately as a result of the infighting and
this proved disastrous as it meant they were more vulnerable to attacks and both armies were attacked by
the Seljuk Turks, the German army at Dorylaem and the French army at Mount Cadmus. This led to the
already small armies being reduced to around 20,000 men and making it difficult to later defeat Nur Ad Din
at Damascus and forcing them to retreat, resulting in the second crusade’s failure. The crusaders also did
not work well with the native Franks who could have helped them and advise them not to attack Damascus
as it was not a threat. These divisions are linked to the poor leadership of Louis of France and Conrad of
Germany as neither were natural leaders or had military experience so were unable to control their men.
Overall, this factor is the most important because had they united and had good leadership, they would
have had enough men with military ability to perhaps succeed, as shown in the first crusade, but their
disunity reduced their size so meant they stood very little chance against the now united Muslim army.
Another factor which held some importance was the poor aims of the first crusade, which also contributed
to the reduced army size alongside Crusader disunity. Pope Eugenius and Bernard were not military men so
were unable to come up with a clear aim and tactic and instead presented the second crusade as a general
attack on the non-Christians and there were various smaller campaigns such as those in Spain, Eastern
Europe and Northern Africa. These multiple campaigns meant that men and resources were spread very
thinly so the main army in the holy land was smaller than it should have been had there been one
campaign similar to the first crusade. This made it more difficult to defeat the bigger Muslim army.
Moreover, poor aims meant that the Crusader leaders, Louis and Conrad, were unsure as to what to do
and ended up attacking Damascus, which was a bad idea and lead to their eventual defeat, rather that
trying to recapture Edessa which sparked the whole Crusader. However, despite this clearly being a
significant factor, it is limited in its importance. Had the Crusaders in the main campaign been united then
the reduced size of the main army would not have been as big of an issue as they would have enough men.
Also, if Louis and Conrad had been good leaders then poor aims would not have been an issue as they
would be able to think tactically about what to do rather than making poor decisions such as to attack
Damascus and travel seperately. It is also significant to note that despite poor aims, other campaigns such
as the one in Eastern Europe actually succeeded in their aims because those armies were united, clearly
showing that whilst being important, the poor aims of the crusade have limited importance in explaining
why the second crusade failed.
The final factor which was arguably more important than poor aims but not the most important factor was
Muslim unity. In the 12th century, Muslim leader Zengi sought to unite the Muslims and under his son, Nur
Ad Din, all of Northern Syria was united. The two preached the idea of Jihad (holy war) and motivated the
Muslims to unite against the Christian world. This contrasts to the first crusade where the Muslims were
clearly not united and the Crusaders were able to use this to their advantage. Now united, the Muslims
had a bigger army and were more easily able to defeat the reduced Crusader armies and Nur Ad Din had a
big army and a lot of resources behind him unlike the Crusaders. Due to the Muslims being too powerful
now, there were many times where the Crusaders failed to face them, for example retreating at Damascus.
However, not all of the Muslim world was united. For example, Damascus was independent and actually
feared Nur Ad Din and only asked for his help as a response to the Crusaders’ attack. Therefore, had the
