Failure at Damascus in 1148 and the End of the Crusade (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Failure at Damascus in 1148 and the End of the Crusade
The siege of Damascus
The siege of Damascus began with considerable promise on 24 July 1148. King Baldwin III of Jerusalem launched the initial assault through the orchards on the western side of the city, supported by the forces of Louis VII of France. The western approach proved strategically valuable because the orchards provided both cover and a source of food for the crusading army.
Conrad III, the Holy Roman Emperor, achieved the most significant early gains. His forces included soldiers who had travelled via Lisbon and an additional 2,000 cavalry that Manuel I, the Byzantine Emperor, had provided. Thanks largely to Conrad's efforts, the crusaders captured the river and established a fortified camp outside Damascus. This position gave them two crucial advantages: a reliable water supply from the river and food from the surrounding orchards. The crusaders now appeared well-positioned to begin the lengthy process of breaching the city walls and defeating its garrison.
The western position outside Damascus offered the crusaders significant strategic advantages that made it ideal for a prolonged siege. The orchards provided both defensive cover from arrows and a sustainable food source, while control of the river ensured the army had access to fresh water—a critical resource in the Syrian climate.
The fatal strategic change
However, on 27 July 1148, the crusader leadership made a decision that would doom the entire campaign. They chose to abandon their successful western position and relocate their attack to what they believed was a weak point in the eastern walls of the city. The crusader commanders hoped this change would speed up the siege, which had become urgent because Nur ad-Din, the powerful Muslim ruler of Aleppo, had begun mobilising forces from Mosul and Aleppo to relieve Damascus.
This strategic shift proved disastrous. Unlike the western side, the eastern approach to Damascus had no orchards for food and no access to water. The crusading army quickly became exhausted without these essential supplies. After just three days in this untenable position, the crusaders were forced to retreat. The siege of Damascus ended in complete failure.
Explanations for the failure
William of Tyre's account
William of Tyre, a contemporary chronicler who later became Archbishop of Tyre in 1175, offered a controversial explanation for the siege's failure. Although he was not present at Damascus himself, William interviewed participants and conducted extensive research. His account is particularly significant because it reveals how contemporaries viewed the crusade leadership and what they believed had gone wrong.
William of Tyre's chronicle is one of the most important sources for the Second Crusade, but historians must evaluate it carefully. Writing decades after the events, William relied on interviews and earlier sources. His account reflects not just what happened, but also how the crusading community interpreted and explained their failure.
The bribery theory
According to William of Tyre, the defenders of Damascus employed a cunning strategy when they saw the crusaders succeeding in their western attack. They allegedly bribed certain crusader nobles, appealing to their cupidity (greed) with promises of substantial payments. William compared these nobles to Judas, the biblical traitor, suggesting they betrayed the crusade for money.
These corrupted nobles supposedly convinced the crusader kings to abandon the orchards and move to the opposite (eastern) side of the city. To conceal their treachery, they presented plausible military arguments: they claimed the eastern side offered better access to the fortifications because there were no protective orchards, river, or moat to hinder their approach to the walls.
William of Tyre argued that the real purpose of this advice was to move the army away from a position where Damascus was genuinely vulnerable and struggling to hold out, to a position where maintaining the siege would be impossible. The kings and principal leaders believed this "specious talk" and abandoned the position they had won through great effort and loss of life.
Whether this bribery actually occurred remains uncertain and debated by historians. William's account demonstrates that contemporaries were quick to blame poor leadership and possible corruption for the crusade's failure, but we must be cautious about accepting this explanation without corroboration from other sources.
Aftermath and the end of the crusade
The departure of Conrad III
After the Damascus fiasco, there was brief discussion about attacking the coastal city of Ascalon instead, but no action was taken. On 8 September 1148, Conrad III recognised that the Second Crusade had effectively ended and began his journey home, travelling via the Byzantine Empire.
Louis VII's extended stay
Louis VII took a different approach. To fulfil his crusading vow, which required spending a year in the Holy Land, he remained in Jerusalem until April 1149. When he finally departed, he sailed with a fleet provided by Roger of Sicily. However, even Louis's return journey was marked by disaster: Byzantine forces attacked his fleet, further souring the already tense relationship between the French and the Byzantines.
The death of Raymond of Antioch
The crusade's failure had devastating consequences for the crusader states. In June 1149, Prince Raymond of Antioch was killed at the Battle of Inab. Raymond had earlier proposed an alternative strategy for the crusade—attacking Aleppo and Nur ad-Din's territory—but the crusade leaders had rejected his plan in favour of the Damascus campaign. His death marked a turning point for the northern crusader states, which began to weaken significantly.
Raymond of Antioch's death was particularly significant because he had advocated for a different crusading strategy. His proposal to attack Aleppo might have addressed the real threat to the crusader states (Nur ad-Din in the north) rather than Damascus, which had sometimes been an ally of Jerusalem. The rejection of his plan and his subsequent death illustrate how the Second Crusade's poor strategic decisions had lasting consequences.
The abandonment of Edessa
By the end of the 1140s, the situation in the north had become so dire that the King of Jerusalem arranged to sell off the castles in the County of Edessa. The rest of the county was abandoned permanently. This represented a complete reversal of the Second Crusade's original objective: the crusade had been called specifically to recover Edessa after its fall to Muslim forces in 1144, yet by 1149 even the remaining fragments of the county had to be given up.
The abandonment of Edessa represents the ultimate failure of the Second Crusade. The crusade was originally called to recapture Edessa after its fall in 1144, yet the crusade's failure at Damascus left the crusader states so weakened that even the remaining parts of Edessa had to be permanently abandoned. The crusade not only failed to achieve its objective—it made the situation worse.
Causes of failure: leadership and circumstances
The role of Manuel I and the Byzantine Empire
Manuel I, the Byzantine Emperor, played a complex and arguably damaging role in the Second Crusade. His intentions in 1147 reveal the conflicting priorities between the Byzantine Empire and the western crusaders.
Analysing Manuel I's Role in the Second Crusade's Failure
This analysis examines whether Manuel I's actions were intended to sabotage the crusade or were simply the result of conflicting priorities:
Manuel's intentions:
- To ensure the Germans did not capture any land in Hungary as they passed through
- To protect Byzantine territory from the French
- To ensure the Turks did not launch a reprisal attack on the Byzantine Empire
Manuel's actions:
- The Byzantine army shadowed the Germans through Hungary to monitor them
- Louis VII was made to swear an oath of homage to Manuel and was provided with guides and supplies
- Manuel made a treaty with the Turks at Konya
Consequences:
- Short-term: The Byzantine Empire remained safe from both crusader and Turkish attack
- Long-term: The German and French armies clashed with Byzantine forces, leading to supply problems and distrust. The Byzantine guides betrayed Louis, and his forces suffered heavy losses. Ultimately, the Second Crusade was weakened and failed
Analysis: This reveals how Manuel prioritised Byzantine security over crusading success. While his actions were rational from a Byzantine perspective—protecting his empire from potential threats—they significantly undermined the crusade's chances. Whether this constitutes deliberate sabotage or simply conflicting interests remains debatable.
Historical debate: leadership versus circumstances
Historians debate whether the Second Crusade failed primarily due to poor leadership or circumstances beyond the leaders' control. Key factors in this debate include:
Arguments for poor leadership:
- The disastrous decision to change position at Damascus
- Failure to coordinate between different crusading contingents
- Rejection of Raymond of Antioch's alternative strategy
- Possible corruption and self-interest among crusade leaders
Arguments for circumstances beyond control:
- Byzantine interference and conflicting interests
- The strength of Muslim resistance, particularly from Nur ad-Din
- Supply problems and hostile terrain
- The legacy of earlier defeats (Conrad's loss at Dorylaeum)
The evidence suggests both factors played important roles. While the crusade leaders made critical errors—especially at Damascus—they also faced genuine obstacles including Byzantine interference, Muslim military strength, and logistical challenges that would have tested even the most capable commanders. Understanding the Second Crusade's failure requires examining both the decisions made by leaders and the difficult circumstances they faced.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The siege of Damascus initially succeeded when crusaders attacked through the western orchards on 24 July 1148, capturing the river and securing food and water supplies
-
On 27 July 1148, crusade leaders made a fatal decision to shift their attack to the eastern walls, where there was no water or food—the crusaders retreated after just three days
-
William of Tyre claimed that Damascene leaders bribed crusader nobles to persuade the kings to change strategy, though this remains uncertain and debated
-
Conrad III left on 8 September 1148; Louis VII stayed until April 1149 but was attacked by Byzantine forces on his return journey
-
The crusade's failure had severe consequences: Raymond of Antioch was killed in June 1149, and the County of Edessa was permanently abandoned
-
The Second Crusade's failure resulted from both poor leadership decisions (especially at Damascus) and difficult circumstances including Byzantine interference, Muslim resistance, and supply problems