Limitations: The Failed Crusades (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Limitations: The Failed Crusades
Introduction
While the Second and Third Crusades were launched in response to military threats against the crusader states, the need for defence alone did not always trigger a crusade. Between 1157 and 1184, popes attempted to launch crusades on seven separate occasions, but these efforts were largely unsuccessful. This reveals important limitations on what motivated Western Christians to embark on crusading expeditions.
The period between 1157 and 1184 represents a crucial phase for understanding crusading motivation. During these decades, multiple papal calls went unanswered, providing valuable evidence about what factors were truly necessary to inspire a major crusading expedition.
Failed crusade attempts (1157-1184)
During this period, several papal calls for crusades went unanswered, demonstrating that military threats to Christian territory in the East were not sufficient on their own to inspire a major crusading response.
The 1165 attempt
In 1165, Pope Alexander III issued a call for a crusade following a serious military setback in the crusader states:
- Bohemond III, the Prince of Antioch, had been captured by the Muslim leader Nur ad-Din
- The Muslim threat to Antioch was increasing significantly
- Despite this clear danger, the papal call generated minimal response
- The only notable reaction came from King Henry II of England, who called for a tax to fund a potential crusade, but no actual expedition materialised
This example shows that even the capture of a major Christian ruler and threats to one of the principal crusader states were insufficient to launch a crusade. This challenges the assumption that military necessity alone drove crusading activity.
The 1169 attempt
Another failed attempt occurred in 1169 when Pope Alexander III issued the papal bull called Inter omnia:
- A papal bull was an official decree or announcement issued by the Pope
- Inter omnia was issued in response to attacks by Nur ad-Din on Christian territory in the East
- Despite the clear call for protection of Christian lands, no crusade resulted from this papal bull
- This demonstrates that the need for defence, even when officially declared by the Pope, was not enough on its own to prompt a crusading expedition
What was a Papal Bull?
A papal bull was the most formal and authoritative type of document issued by the Pope. The term comes from the Latin word "bulla," referring to the lead seal attached to authenticate the document. Papal bulls were used to announce major decisions, make declarations, or issue calls to action—such as launching a crusade.
Why defence alone was insufficient
These failed attempts reveal several important points about crusading motivation:
- Defence was necessary but not sufficient: While successful crusades like the Second and Third were indeed launched to defend Christian territory, this motivation alone did not guarantee success in raising an army
- Other factors were needed: The examples suggest that additional motivations—such as the fall of a symbolically important location like Jerusalem, strong papal leadership, or widespread preaching efforts—were required to inspire a full-scale crusading response
- The West was selective in its reactions: Not all threats to the crusader states prompted the same level of concern or action in Western Europe
A Critical Distinction
Understanding that defence was necessary but not sufficient is crucial for analyzing crusading motivation. Failed crusade attempts demonstrate that Western Christians responded to more than just military threats—they required compelling symbolic or spiritual reasons to undertake the dangerous journey to the East.
Timeline of threats to the crusader states
Understanding which threats prompted crusades and which did not helps us identify what factors were most important in motivating crusaders.
Major events and their responses
1119 - Battle of the Field of Blood
- Antioch suffered heavy losses in this devastating battle
- The defeat prompted Pope Calixtus II to attempt to launch a crusade
- However, this attempt was largely unsuccessful
1135 - Zengi's campaign begins
- Emir Imad ad-Din Zengi began his campaign against Antioch
- This military pressure continued for several years
- Initially, this did not provoke a major crusading response from the West
1144 - Fall of Edessa
- Edessa, one of the four crusader states, fell to Zengi
- This was the first major crusader state to be lost to Muslim forces
- Pope Eugenius III called for the Second Crusade in response
- This call was successful, showing that the loss of an entire state provoked a stronger reaction than mere threats
The fall of Edessa in 1144 represents a turning point. Unlike earlier threats and defeats, the complete loss of one of the four crusader states generated enough concern in the West to launch a major crusading expedition. This suggests that the scale and permanence of the loss mattered significantly.
1163 - Attacks on Outremer
- Nur ad-Din began attacking the borders of Outremer (the collective name for the crusader states)
- While concerning, these border raids did not trigger a successful crusade
1165 - Capture of Bohemond III
- As discussed above, Pope Alexander III's attempt to launch a crusade failed
- Little response from the West despite the capture of a prince
1170 - Saladin's campaigns begin
- Saladin began his military campaigns against Outremer
- Initially, these campaigns did not prompt an immediate crusading response
1187 - Fall of Jerusalem
- Saladin captured Jerusalem, the holiest city in Christianity
- This left only Tyre, Tripoli, and Antioch in Christian hands
- Pope Gregory VIII launched the Third Crusade
- Pope Celestine III re-launched this crusade after Gregory's death
- The loss of Jerusalem provoked a massive response from the West, showing the symbolic importance of the holy city
The Significance of Jerusalem
The contrasting responses to the fall of Edessa (1144) and Jerusalem (1187) demonstrate the crucial role of symbolic importance in crusading motivation. While Edessa's fall prompted a crusade, Jerusalem's loss generated an even more massive response because of its unparalleled religious significance as the site of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.
Analysis: what made a crusade successful?
Comparing successful and failed crusade attempts reveals patterns:
Successful triggers
- Loss of major symbolic sites: The fall of Jerusalem in 1187 prompted the Third Crusade; the fall of Edessa in 1144 prompted the Second Crusade
- Complete loss of territory: The capture of entire states or cities was more effective than border threats
- Combination of factors: Military threat combined with symbolic significance and effective papal leadership
Insufficient triggers
- Border raids and skirmishes: Attacks on the borders of Outremer (1163, 1170)
- Capture of individuals: Even the capture of Prince Bohemond III (1165) failed to inspire action
- Ongoing military pressure: Zengi's campaign from 1135 onwards did not immediately result in a crusade
Worked Example: Comparing Responses to Different Threats
Question: Why did the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 prompt a successful crusade while the capture of Bohemond III in 1165 did not?
Step 1: Identify the nature of each threat
- 1165: Capture of an individual ruler (Bohemond III)
- 1187: Loss of the holiest city in Christianity (Jerusalem)
Step 2: Consider the symbolic significance
- Bohemond III: Important political figure, but no unique religious significance
- Jerusalem: Site of Christ's crucifixion, the Holy Sepulchre, and the ultimate goal of crusading
Step 3: Evaluate the permanence of the loss
- 1165: Bohemond could potentially be ransomed or released
- 1187: Loss of territory was permanent unless recaptured
Conclusion: The fall of Jerusalem combined military threat with profound symbolic and religious significance, making it a far more compelling call to action than the capture of an individual, even a prince.
Exam focus: analysing change and continuity
When examining the political reasons for launching crusades, consider:
- What changed: The specific triggers that successfully launched crusades evolved over time, with symbolic sites like Jerusalem proving more motivating than border threats
- What stayed the same: Throughout the period, defence remained a key justification, even if insufficient on its own
- How to measure change: Compare the responses to different types of threats; identify which factors consistently led to successful crusades versus failed attempts
Exam Strategy: Establishing Criteria
When answering questions about the extent of change in crusading motivations, establish clear criteria for measuring this. For example, you might compare:
- The scale of the military threat
- The symbolic importance of what was threatened
- The effectiveness of papal leadership and preaching
- The political situation in Western Europe at the time
Using consistent criteria throughout your answer will help you make a more convincing and well-structured argument about whether change or continuity was more significant.
Key Points to Remember:
- Between 1157 and 1184, seven papal attempts to launch crusades failed, showing that calling a crusade did not guarantee success
- Defence alone was not enough to motivate a crusade—the 1165 and 1169 attempts failed despite clear military threats to Christian territory
- The fall of major symbolic locations like Edessa (1144) and Jerusalem (1187) successfully prompted crusades, suggesting that symbolic importance mattered more than simple military necessity
- Not all threats to the crusader states provoked the same response—border raids and individual captures generated less concern than the loss of entire territories
- Understanding failed crusades helps us identify what truly motivated successful crusading expeditions—a combination of defence, symbolic significance, and effective papal leadership was needed