Pros And Cons Of The Second Crusade

When the Crusader states were carved out in 1109, it was already apparent that the last Crusade was only going to fuel the desire to have many more because the Holy Land had to be protected from the Turks. The Second Crusade can be described as different European Kings who’s only intentions were to accumulate more land for the Crusader states and Wealth for themselves. Rather than preserving the Holy Land with Christianity as the First crusade was primed to do, the Second Crusade was an unorganized mess that ended up being a failure. The First Crusade was called upon by Pope Urban the second at the council in Clermont. There he stated, “On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to …show more content…
By July 29th, 1148, the attack had failed after 5 days, leading the two armies to retreat and ending the second crusade. While many believed the first crusade replenished ones sins and was necessary to go upon because the Byzantines needed aid, the Second crusade held none of these beliefs, yet the only belief or goal it held was the desire to keep crusader control in the small crusader states occupied along the Mediterranean sea. There were no counts and dukes leading the people who fearlessly abandoned their homes for the first crusade, yet there were Monarchs leading their armies who were forced to make the harsh journey to Asia Minor, only to find out that the Turkish forces were no match for their unorganized mess. The Second crusade was so unorganized because no one felt the need to ban together as one, the Monarchs wanted all the wealth and land for themselves, believing the turkish forces were weak and that their army could withhold them alone. If the Monarchs possessed the smallest sense of chivalry, they would have marched together to Asia Minor, allowing them to first take back the lost crusader state of Edessa, and then accomplish what “god had brought them there for,” which was taking back the holy