The Failure to Consult the Leaders of the Crusader States (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Failure to Consult the Leaders of the Crusader States
Introduction: A critical strategic error
One of the most significant mistakes made by the leaders of the Second Crusade was their complete failure to communicate with the rulers of Outremer (the established crusader states in the East) before launching their campaign. Neither Conrad III of Germany nor Louis VII of France consulted with the experienced leaders who had been defending these territories for decades. This lack of coordination had devastating consequences for the entire crusade, leading to wasted time, squandered resources, and ultimately contributing to its failure.
The failure to consult created three major problems:
- The crusaders pursued an objective that no longer existed
- Months were wasted establishing new goals, draining finances
- Competing plans emerged that reflected regional interests rather than a unified strategy
The consequences of poor communication
Pursuing a destroyed objective
The stated aim of the Second Crusade was to recapture Edessa, which had fallen to Muslim forces in 1144. However, by 1146, Edessa had been completely destroyed and razed to the ground, making its recapture pointless. Had Conrad and Louis consulted with the leaders of Outremer before departing, they would have known this crucial information from the start.
Astonishingly, as late as February 1148 — more than two years after Edessa's destruction — Conrad was still writing letters explaining his intention to recapture the city. This demonstrates how completely out of touch the crusading leaders were with the actual situation in the East.
The leaders of Outremer possessed vital intelligence that could have saved months of planning and preparation for an impossible goal.
Costly delays and wasted resources
When the crusaders finally discovered that Edessa was no longer a viable target, they faced a new problem: what should they do instead? Between March and June 1148, a full four months passed while the crusading leadership tried to establish a new objective for their campaign. This delay had serious financial implications.
The cost of delay:
Maintaining a crusading army was extraordinarily expensive. Soldiers needed to be fed, housed, and paid. Equipment required constant maintenance and replacement. Every day spent debating objectives rather than achieving them drained the crusaders' already limited resources. These financial pressures would eventually contribute to the crusade's collapse.
Competing regional interests
Because no overall strategy had been agreed in advance, the crusaders were presented with different plans that reflected the particular concerns of different crusader states. Rather than responding to the needs of all of Outremer, two competing proposals emerged:
- The Antioch plan, which focused on northern threats
- The Jerusalem plan, which addressed southern concerns
This division revealed how the failure to consult had created confusion about the crusade's true purpose.
The Antioch plan
Raymond's strategic proposal
In May 1148, Prince Raymond of Antioch made a military proposal to Louis VII and the assembled nobles. His plan was strategically sound: the crusading army should help capture the cities of Aleppo and Shaizar. These conquests would neutralize the growing Muslim threat to the Principality of Antioch from the north.
Why the Antioch plan made strategic sense
Raymond's proposal was realistic and well-considered for several reasons:
The rising threat of Nur ad-Din: Since Nur ad-Din had replaced Zengi as the ruler of Aleppo, the Muslim threat to Antioch had intensified significantly. Nur ad-Din was proving to be an extremely capable military leader who posed a serious danger to the northern crusader states. Capturing Aleppo would eliminate his base of power in the region.
Previous near-success: The plan was achievable because Shaizar had nearly fallen during a previous joint campaign with the Byzantines in 1138. This demonstrated that the target was within reach of a well-organized crusading force.
Military viability: With the combined forces of the Second Crusade and Antiochene troops, Raymond's plan offered a genuine opportunity for success. It would have been a sensible deployment of Louis's forces.
Louis's rejection and its consequences
Despite the strategic merit of Raymond's proposal, Louis VII rejected it outright, much to Raymond's anger and frustration. According to the medieval chronicler William of Tyre, Louis's sole interest was completing his journey to Jerusalem to fulfil the vow he had made. Personal religious obligation took precedence over strategic military sense.
The breakdown in cooperation:
The rejection created a permanent breakdown in relations between the French king and the Prince of Antioch. When Louis decided to continue his journey southwards to Jerusalem, he left behind any prospect of receiving military support from Antioch for the remainder of the Second Crusade. This loss of potential allies would prove significant in the campaign's eventual failure.
The Eleanor affair: Politics and personal relationships
The rift between Louis and Raymond was deepened by allegations involving Louis's wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine. According to chroniclers William of Tyre and John of Salisbury, Raymond attempted to use Eleanor — who was his niece — as leverage to pressure Louis into accepting the Antioch plan.
The sources claim that Raymond lured Eleanor into an intimate relationship, and that she even sought a divorce from Louis. However, Louis refused to grant a divorce, partly because his reputation as a military leader had already been damaged during the difficult journey to Antioch, and he could not afford the public embarrassment of an unfaithful wife. Louis therefore forced Eleanor to continue with him on the crusade.
Evaluating the sources:
These allegations come from chronicle sources and should not be treated as proven historical fact. However, whether the affair actually occurred or not, the story illustrates the complete breakdown in trust and cooperation between the two leaders. This political and personal conflict helps explain why the northern campaign was abandoned in favour of the Jerusalem plan.
The Jerusalem plan
The Council of Acre
On 24 June 1148, an impressive gathering of nobles convened at the Council of Acre to determine the future direction of the Second Crusade. The most significant representatives included:
- The French barons under Louis VII
- The German dukes under Conrad III
- The nobles of Jerusalem, chiefly represented by Queen Melisende
This council marked a crucial turning point in the crusade. After months of uncertainty and delay, the crusading leadership finally had to make a definitive decision about their objective.
Three strategic options
The assembled nobles debated three possible campaigns:
Northern campaign to Edessa:
This option would have fulfilled the crusade's original stated purpose. However, it was now completely impractical because Edessa had been destroyed. Additionally, Prince Raymond had withdrawn his support after his conflict with Louis, meaning the crusaders would lack crucial local assistance.
Southern campaign to capture Ascalon:
This coastal city remained in Muslim hands and posed some threat to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. However, it was not an immediate or urgent danger. Furthermore, it was already surrounded by crusader castles that contained the threat it posed.
Eastern campaign to take Damascus:
This option targeted the important city of Damascus, which had traditionally maintained a truce with Jerusalem. However, the political situation had changed with the rise of Nur ad-Din in Aleppo, and the truce had come to an end.
Why Damascus was chosen
The representatives chose the Damascus plan. This decision appeared sensible based on several factors:
Eliminating the northern option: There was simply no point in pursuing a northern campaign. Edessa had been completely destroyed, making its recapture worthless. Moreover, Prince Raymond had withdrawn all Antiochene support following his dispute with Louis.
Rejecting the southern option: Ascalon did not pose an immediate threat to Jerusalem. The city was already effectively contained by surrounding crusader fortifications, so it could be dealt with at a later date.
The changing threat from Damascus: The truce between Jerusalem and Damascus had previously limited the threat that Damascus posed to the crusader kingdom. However, this arrangement had collapsed with the rise of Nur ad-Din's power in Aleppo. Damascus now represented a genuine danger that needed to be addressed.
Jerusalem's priorities:
Ultimately, the choice was made with the interests of the Kingdom of Jerusalem at the forefront of decision-making. After losing northern support, the crusade leadership focused on what the southern crusader state needed most.
Preparations began immediately for an attempt to capture Damascus in July 1148. However, this campaign would ultimately fail, marking the effective end of the Second Crusade.
Exam focus: Analysing the failure to consult
For essay questions about leadership failures: This topic provides excellent evidence for arguments about poor strategic planning. Consider how the failure to consult demonstrates:
- Lack of communication between Western and Eastern Christian forces
- Ignorance of local conditions and political realities
- The consequences of pursuing personal religious vows over military strategy
- How political and personal conflicts (the Eleanor affair) undermined military cooperation
Making connections: Link this topic to:
- The broader reasons for the Second Crusade's failure
- The growing power of Muslim leaders like Nur ad-Din
- Differences between crusaders from Europe and settlers in Outremer
- The role of individual personalities (Louis, Raymond, Eleanor) in historical events
Using evidence effectively: When writing about this topic, include:
- Specific dates (February 1148, March-June 1148, 24 June 1148, July 1148)
- Specific places (Edessa, Aleppo, Shaizar, Damascus, Ascalon)
- Named individuals with their titles
- The consequences of each decision
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Neither Conrad III nor Louis VII consulted with Outremer leaders before the Second Crusade, creating serious strategic problems from the start
-
Edessa had been destroyed by 1146, but crusaders didn't know until February 1148, wasting months of planning for an impossible objective
-
Four months (March-June 1148) were lost establishing new goals, draining the expensive crusading army's resources
-
Prince Raymond's Antioch plan was realistic (capture Aleppo and Shaizar to counter Nur ad-Din) but Louis rejected it to fulfil his vow to reach Jerusalem
-
The alleged affair between Eleanor and Raymond deepened the rift between Louis and Raymond, leading to loss of Antiochene support
-
The Council of Acre (24 June 1148) chose Damascus over Edessa (destroyed) and Ascalon (not an immediate threat), focusing on Jerusalem's interests
-
The failure to consult demonstrates how poor communication, personal conflicts, and ignorance of local conditions undermined crusading leadership and contributed significantly to the Second Crusade's ultimate failure