Why did the Crusades fail?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- The Crusades overall did not fail, but the Crusades in the Holy Land ultimately did. The question addressed here: why? Get my book about the Crusades:
www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Heathe...
Support my work on Patreon:
/ realcrusadeshistory
Get the music used in this video:
www.amazon.com/Lit-Sky-Roman-...
Donate through PayPal:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Why did the Crusades fail?
Check out my buddy Other Realm Productions: ua-cam.com/channels/hFn36Efwnixq3hdilJ6EWA.html
Could Jon Sobieski have retaken Constantinople?
I wonder why the Byzantines weren't so capable compared to the Crusaders especially in its last legs up to 1453?
@vikedude 123
I know they want to take revenge for the massacre. But there had to be better ways to do this without destroying Byzantium.
But hindsight is 2020.
If you run out of ideas for videos, you could do some on the Russo-Turkish wars 1600s, 1700s, & 1800s, and the Greek Wars for Independence in the 1800s.
@@noelkosobucki9722 I don't think it was possible. Despite the unification of nearly all the West countries, they could only take the Ottoman lands up to Belgrade. But the Ottomans regained all they had lost in 1740 and
They held them until the 1880's.
I think Barbarossa not dying in Asia Minor is one of the biggest what ifs in history
I agree. That unique event that would change everything.
Do you think if Richard the Lionheart knew to wait till Christmas for Saladin to die, things would have changed?
It really doesn't matter as he would have taken over Zengid lands at most and after that Barbarossa would have to deal with possible Kwarizmian invasion of Zengid lands
The kwarizmians were a massive power that practically ruled over the entire Persia and Transoxiana, they were known to field one of the largest and most well armed armies on the planet
they used many Central Asians within their military it would have been a disaster of Barbarossa
@@agentopaque3776 He had 20,000 Knights and a total of 100,000. Look at what the Lionheart did with 2,000 Knights.
@@doylekitchen9795 Kwarizmians defeated crusaders and sacked Jerusalem during the 6th crusade u dumbass
they were Turkic nomads and mamluks slave soldiers not some Arab regular wearing cloth as armour
Did not succeded long term: lasting presence of 200 years wich is nearly as much as the US but surrounded on all side and outnumbered 10 to 1, allowed a lot of things to happen including Marco Polo's journey, started the other crusades, rigth of pilgrimage remained.
Good points, very fair. At the same time, I do think people often ask the question why was the holy land eventually lost, and so I just wanted to address that here. Obviously if you go long enough in history, just about everything fails eventually, so in that respect we have to look at much of Crusades history as remarkable success in the face of very difficult odds.
For logistical and strategic reasons. It’s like asking “ why Muslims never managed to conquer France , Germany and England ? They did manage to conquer , for some centuries , peripheral areas of Europe ( Iberian peninsula , Sicily , Balkans etc ) but never core Europe. Well , the Levant was core Islamic territory , hence why it was so hard for crusaders to hold on to.
Yeah when you look at the Muslim and Mongolian territories its not really that impressive when you consider that much of that land was uninhabited or uninhabitable.
Scutum Fidelis I disagree there , what the Mongolians did was extremely impressive. Sure , Central Asia and Siberia were sparsely populated , but China ? China alone had more people than all European countries combined ( like today ). And as for Muslims ( I guess you refer to the early Arab conquests ) it’s also impressive , because Egypt , Persia and Pakistan also had very big populations.
Jotaro97 I don’t think it’s just the Pyrenees , they actually invaded France and ruled cities in the south for some decades ( Narbonne for example). I believe it’s because the Frankish kingdom was actually strong and well organised , unlike the Visigothic kingdom which was a mess at the time the Arabs invaded it.
@@scutumfidelis1436 ever hear of China or India? Please educate yourself, or atleast think through your comments before posting.
Anita McGuire none , but somebody said Mongolians only conquered uninhabited territories and that’s absolutely false.
I'm so glad that you noted that in everywhere but Outremer, the Crusades were successful in achieving their objectives. And yes, the reason Crusading failed in the Near East was lack of effort by Europeans. They really did have more important issues to resolve. But just as important was the clash of personalities. Most Christian leaders were more interesting in competing and or weakening their rivals.
I agree that the Third Crusade was exemplary, but it doesn't overshadow the accomplishments of the First. In 1099, Crusading armies and their Muslim adversaries were generally evenly matched, and the Christians never lost a battle, often winning crushing victories, even winning lengthy sieges at Antioch and Jerusalem. Undoubtedly, the finest Crusader commanders were Richard and of course the leper King Baldwin. One wonders how the history of Outremer might have fared had Baldwin lived longer. I doubt for example he would have led his men to massascre at Hattin. He and Richard might have been quite a force opposing Saladin.
No man it’s all about Egypt, Specially Cairo , That was the center of Rule , wealth , Troops the keep supplying levant with the needs to resist 7 consecutive Crusades for 150 years
I always found it odd that we in our school system, focused so much on the Crusades in the Levant. But not the other sets of Crusades on the Mediterranean, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Baltic region. As they had far more historical significance - the Crusades in the Iberian Peninsula created the countries of Spain and Portugal (who would become massive empires and huge economic powerhouses in the early modern period) and the Baltic Crusades created the modern-day nation-states of Latvia, Lithuania (well it kind of existed before, but was more centralized because of the Baltic Crusades), Estonia and Prussia (the modern German state). As well as a long-lasting rivalry between Germany and Russia (Battle of the Ice in 1242 A.D. - Alexander Nevsky vs. the Teutonic Knights). The Danish flag and their version of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Dannebrog, was created solely because of the Baltic Crusades at the Battle of Lyndanisse in 1219 A.D. The Levant Crusades on the other hand, didn't really do anything other than establish four small Crusader kingdoms for about 200 years. History insignificant really...
Christians tend to focus on the fight for Jerusalem. They don't like to talk about the Crusades in the Baltic region because it is white people attacking white people. Better to focus on whites fighting Arabs to conquer the land where Jesus lived. That's what keeps the attention of mainstream white Christian America.
@@JoshuaRellick you sound like a soy boy..... The crusades in the middle east are more interesting .........
Hmmm thats odd, usually I hear about Poland and the Battle of Vienna
I think a big part of it was (as I've learned from your videos actually) that most of the people going on these Crusades weren't really interested in staying and holding their gains. They were of the opinion that, once the objectives were completed, they were just going to head home right then.
Another excellent episode. Truly the best content on UA-cam . Very enjoyable
Thanks for the Crusade videos. I've been using it to supplement the book I'm reading on them.
The key difference between the Crusades in the Holy Land and the Crusades everywhere else is supply lines - much of the Islamic Turkish gains after 1071 were not reversed. One can not simply by pass much of Anatolia and hold the Holy Land in-the-long-term. The first order of business should have been to defeat the Turks (to drive them back over the Caucasus mountains) - before retaking the Holy Land. But, of course, the temptation to "take Jerusalem NOW " was very seductive.
Always great information 👏👏👏 keep up the good work
Thanks!
@@RealCrusadesHistory indeed :)
Didn't Crusaders retake Jerusalem when Allenby walked in through the Jaffa gate.
The British Cabinet congratulated him for retaking Jerusalem for Christisndom.
Eeeh that was more symbolic to show that the British empire's forces had beat the Ottoman sultans in the name of King and Country rather than any will to crusade. After all, if they wished to crusade they would have kept Constantinople.
The arrival of the Mongols was a major change. The split between Eastern and Western Christians after 1204 prevented more crusades from taking place.
Many Crusades did take place after 1204.
@@RealCrusadesHistory True, but at least some of the time, tensions prevented them from materializing. Have you studied Peter of Cyprus' raid on Alexandria on this channel yet? I think they could have held Alexandria had they collaborated more with the Byzantines.
It sucks if only the Mongols succeeded in wiping out Islam, first.
@@meekmeads Oh well too bad you'll just have to convert now lol 😆
The 4th crusade was disaster it gave the crusade bad name
I agree. The lack of sustained immigration from Europe was a large part of the finite nature of Outremer.
Well, who the hell would want to live in that dry arid hell hole? Compare that to the green temperate lands of Germany and France.
@@frauleinhohenzollern8442tell me you know nothing about The Levant without saying you don’t know anything about it, and assume it’s all desert
Crusades were mainly French (Norman) undertaking with some or considerable support from other monarchs. When France became engulfed in domestic wars against English and Germanic States, they couldn't continue overseas expeditions to the holy Land.
The main reason for long term failure was over- reliance on support from Europe.
Makes sense. One of the big reasons the romans were so successful in far and foreign lands was because they had determination and most importantly the logistics.
And because they allowed local culture to blend into Roman culture. Anyone from Syria to Britannia could become a Roman citizen. The Romans could be both ruthless and tolerant when it suited them.
Frans Buijs that’s how they kept the kingdoms under control. It doesn’t have to do with initial conquering
@@rustyshackelford3590
Yeah, I was just looking at the bigger picture!
Location location location. Outremer was far closer to the heart of the caliphate than to the heartland of Christendom. Logistics combined with cultural differences. It was a bold attempt but ultimately unsustainable.
Not so much that it was far away from the heartland of Christendom , more that there was no large Christian realm nearby capable and willing to help. The main areas were Outremer would be supported from would be Italy and the Balkans, but Italy was broken up into many states who used their resources to fight each other and in the Balkans the Roman empire in the east was hard pressed by the loss of Asia minor to the seljuks.
No man it’s all about Egypt, Specially Cairo , That was the center of Rule , wealth , Troops the keep supplying levant with the needs to resist 7 consecutive Crusades for 150 years
Thanks for a well-informed video.
Good stuff 👍
They 'failed' in the broadest sense of history just like Christianity is waning in once Latin Christendom.
It's the slide of history. eg "Why did Rome fail?"
They succeeded in particular; for their own time they were a resounding success.
In my opinion, should the Crusaders manage to make a real alliance with the Byzantine Empire (who was still kind of a sizable organised power) and return them part of their lands to become rich again and co-fight together in their battles would have made a huge difference in favour of the Christendom. The Christians population of the Levant and Egypt would have participated (at least in the support) if not in the actual fightings against the muslims. That population was mostly of the Greek Orthodox sect as the Byzantines army is and not Catholic as the Crusaders were. What happened actually is most of the Levant Christians either refused to intervene and stayed neutral or even helped/supported the muslims as they hated the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, and as usual, the arab Christians paid the high price for their antagonism to the crusaders. After defeating the Crusaders, the muslims (arabs and turks) mistreated and still mistreating the Greek-Orthodox Christians till today. Till today, every 50 to 75 years, we face some kind of genocide against the Christians by the muslims rulers in somewhere in the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor.
Well I'm muslin from Egypt and we have orthodox Christians and idk what the hell you talking about mass killings coz they are alive and well here lol
For me some reasons :
1) Economic reassons
2) They attack and plundering Constantinopoly
3) In 13th century the Mongols invaded in Middle East
4) Europians monarches started great wars with others Kingdoms.
crusader were ally of mongols
@@tawkirthehan3503 also we call them Crusaders
No man it’s all about Egypt, Specially Cairo , That was the center of Rule , wealth , Troops the keep supplying levant with the needs to resist 7 consecutive Crusades for 150 years
Why did the crusades fail? For the same reason anyone loses a war, over extended supply lines.
Conquest of North Africa and Anatolia would have to occur 1st.
John rockwell
No man it’s all about Egypt, Specially Cairo , That was the center of Rule , wealth , Troops the keep supplying levant with the needs to resist 7 consecutive Crusades for 150 years
@@heshamk4824
Of course but North Africa is the way to get there. Taking Egypt from the West.
Next time someone says the crusades were about imperialistic expansions I shall respond - if only...
I'm glad they happened. After the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman Turks continued their expansion westwards, occupying Eastern European countries and turning others into vassals. The Crusades gave Central European countries time to become stronger and push them back.
Edit: I forgot to add I'm Romanian.
@@daniel-zh9nj6yn6y Absolutely!
I was probably unclear, but what I meant was that if the European rulers had committed more, as they likely would have if there had been more worldly benefits and not mere spiritual ones, then the crusades in the holy land would have been more successful long term.
The righteous Crusades failed because in my opinion the Kings of Europe were too busy fighting each other rather than to come together and take on the muhammadan threat in the holy land and take the holy land back from them.
The Sack of Constantinople certainly didn't help.
Europeans need to stop fighting each other and start foxusing on the true enemy in the Middle East.
@@blakebridges1030 'true enemy'what did they do to you?
Blake Bridges Jesus calm down man
man it’s all about Egypt, Specially Cairo , That was the center of Rule , wealth , Troops the keep supplying levant with the needs to resist 7 consecutive Crusades for 150 years.
And any way they weren’t Righteous! They were Simply Invaders
I live in Portugal, yes the crusades were a success here!
Very interesting
today I would like to address the issue of Less then 1080hd video even being an option
awesome channel
Would say the Crusades succeed in at least delaying the invasion of the Balkans by centuries.
Somewhere I remember being told that the real loss at Hattin was the loss of the population required to support the Crusader Kingdoms
Our timeframe is not God's. He is patient and it will be completed when the Lord wills it. 😉
It's silly. aligning your self with people from the distant past. French people today are more similar to the Malaysians of today than they are to the French of the first crusade. In terms of culture, behaviour, societal structure, perspectives. You've imposed a relationship between yourself and people from 1000 years ago that isn't really there
@@edwingrove1442 what are you talking about
Lol
Aka 2020
Lol
So as many army throughout time, Logistics 🙂.
Real crusade history: why did the crusades fail?
King Baldwin IV and richard the lionheart: good question
No doubt there were many successes. But eventually, the holy land was lost. So I'm just looking at that.
Why not?
Manpower first. They could take cities when the muslims were not to unified, But then that would unify them to take them back. Rivalries and disunity didnt help. Little help sent from back west.
The arguments do not seem so convincing about logistics and distance for example. If we take the results of the journeys of Cortez or Pissarro, they seem to have operated in harsher conditions than those of the Crusaders but Cortez and Pissarro had the advantage of a firearm that the Crusaders did not have.
They failed bc a man of J Stephens stature was not on hand!
I love your narration my friend superb 🙏🙏.. feel like i need to learn more about it...are you religious??.iam unshure lol
It's like asking why the Muslims failed in Spain or the Turks (Ottoman) holding the Balkans, same can be said for the crusaders.
One the first target should have been the Sultanate of Rum that had to be destroyed first but just as important if not more so the differences between the Eastern and Western Christianity had to be set aside. Also, the backstabbing between the HRE and the Papacy and the ERE had to stop. Country simple Europe had to get its act together it never did witness the latest mess it created in that area.
Major reason why the Holy Land was lost: The Greek Romans were too inefficient, corrupt, and self-sabotaging to sustain themselves against the religiously fervent Turks. Since the rump Eastern Rome was the only power capable of supporting the Crusaders long term, the Crusaders had to rely on regular reinforcements from Europe until their own kingdoms became strong enough. The problem is that their own kingdoms never became strong enough, European help was limited and in waves, and Byzantine assistance was severely lacking.
Barbarossa died!
;(
The thing about the crusades to the Levant is that there was a nearby christian power. The Byzantine Empire. I'd argue the biggest failure was not working effectively with the Byzantines. Now that goes both ways, the Byzantines certainly weren't always great allies and more often than not worked towards their own demise from the volatile political situation in Constantinople, the occasional massacre of Latins didn't help either. I'd argue that it would have been better if the Byzantine's got Antioch during the first crusade instead of the Normans. Now yes, the Byzantine's did basically nothing to take the city and could have claimed it if they put even the minimum effort towards it. However, if they had taken Antioch, it could have given them a greater stake and concerns in Syria. Conflict between them and the Normans over Antioch could have been directed elsewhere. The Latins could have focused more on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The 4th Crusade might not have happened. In my opinion, if the Byzantine's retook all of Anatolia, created a stable political situation, and created a lasting friendship with Jerusalem the Kingdom may have survived and even risen to be a dominant power in the region(possibly, it is speculation).
I almost included a discussion of the Byzantines in this video. I think the Byzantines were mostly a liability to the Crusades. The Byzantines never took the idea of the Crusades seriously. They always viewed the Latins as sort of heroic barbarians at best, but mostly they just viewed them as despicable rebels who refused to acknowledge them as the universal empire. While the west had this idea of Christendom, the Byzantines didn't buy into that, they viewed themselves as the only legitimate Christian state, and saw little difference between the Turks and the westerners. The truth is, the Byzantines mostly inhibited every crusade that passed through their territory, and by the time we get to Frederick Barbarossa they are openly allying with the Muslims and actively attacking the crusaders. Perhaps if there had been a successful Latin state in Constantinople, that could've been helpful longterm. Think of a state like Hungary, which was a Latin kingdom and would send men to join crusader forces.
@@RealCrusadesHistory I do almost find it hilarious that the Byzantine's hated the idea of Latin's conquering territory they lost to the Turks as if it were still theirs. "How dare they take land temporarily lost to us. We would have reclaimed it after failed attempt number ten, after civil war twenty, and palace coup number 400."
You made a great point that if Byzantium and the Latins could've cooperated better, things would've turned out better long term. In terms of why the relationship was always so strained, I think it mainly has to do with Byzantine attitudes. Even Manuel Comnenus, who was mostly pro-Latin in his outlook, still sabotaged the Second Crusade when it was marching through his lands. They always viewed the whole thing as a balancing act - what's the best way to balance the power of the Latins against the power of the Turks. That was a dangerous attitude long term.
@@RealCrusadesHistory Didn't some Byzantine Emperors let the Turks into the Empire to destroy their political rivals? You see I always attributed the Byzantine's downfall to their inability to stop fighting each other more than anything else.
It really wasn't successful.
Another reason is a too much religious fanaticism and not enough diplomacy. During the Fifth Crusade sultan Al Kamil offered the crusaders Jerusalem as part of a peace treaty, but the religious orders refused because they thought Jerusalem should be taken by force.
That's not correct. They refused al-Kamil's offer because he wouldn't include the hinterland castles like Kerak, which the military orders believed were necessary to hold Jerusalem. Basically, they felt that al-Kamil was offering them a city that couldn't be defended, and that he could easily retake later once he got rid of the crusade.
I will lead the army.
You are almost a thousand years too late.
Whats your qualifications☺
Who is asking?
Any Rause fans here ?
i read somewhere: If god did not strike down the king of the Germans when he did, people would say of Syria and Palestine "These places once belonged to islam". Maybe. Fundamentally the Europeans were fighting a foreign war, not a local war. Local sultans and emirs had much more vested interest in defending their land or reconquering their ancestors' territory. Foreign wars, Like Vietnam for the French and the Americans, are losing propositions.
It failed Cause God is not on the side of rapers /killers in the name of religion .
You know 0 about the crusades. Take your stupidity elsewhere!
@P.O nope
@P.O but europe years later controlled the middle East and Africa
@@chadmonk163 Yeah but you could argue years later the Muslims reclaimed it all again
@@Michael_the_Drunkard turn the other cheek said Jesus
Despite the losses its important to remember that God always does. These men have earned their eternal reward.
how many of you renald de chattalion he was one of the major reasons for the faliure of the 3rd crusade he broke the truces with saladin thats why he was a big faliure for the hole crusader army
The Third Crusade succeeded. Raynald was dead well before the Third Crusade began.
Sees title: which ones?
Indeed, and I addressed that at the beginning.
"Genoese" "Galley" Please check out Age of Empires II
I am not sure that the "european crusaders" helped significantly the iberian kingdoms.
Because the vikings left
The Army of Saladin was outnumberd by Richard's seriously man ???
Saladin's forces always outnumbered Richard's.
@@RealCrusadesHistory even in the siege of acre ? So why did Saladin send for more men to the king of Morocco back then?
@@bubaq3713 dude Saladin always have the larger army if i remember correctly...
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 yeah i checked, i was wrong tnks
Greed and selfishness. Period.
Dues Valt
British did conquer Jerusalem in 1917
Yes they did
That was more due to empire building and greed.
British empire wasn’t a Christian empire not even closw