I would argue the First Crusade was the only one which was successful, when judged by the criteria of its achieving its intended objectives. Despite disputes with the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I over provisions, swearing of fealty, conquered lands, and use of the Bosporus Strait, and the utter destruction of Peter the Hermit’s forces, the Crusader forces eventually succeeded in securing numerous military victories and capturing the Holy City of Jerusalem. Of course, the Crusaders were fortunate to have faced a Seljuk army who was subject to at best, a very limited unity of command and prone to internal rivalries and power struggles. Likewise, the Shiite Fatimids from Egypt were clearly no friends of the Turkmen, having recently reconquered
…show more content…
Though Richard I was very much a warrior king who personally led expeditions, had a mind for logistics, and achieved military successes in Europe and the Middle East, he neglected the domestic affairs of his own kingdom in the pursuit of glory in the Holy Land, leaving England at a time when civil unrest, massacres, and anti-Jewish riots plagued multiple English towns. Additionally, Richard I bears partial responsibility for the anti-Jewish violence of the time, as in 1189, his court brutally rebuffed a Jewish delegation to Richard I’s coronation and set off anti-Jewish rioting in London which would spread to other towns. Richard I was reportedly favorable to these developments, and as stated earlier, neglected his nation’s domestic affairs to pursue the Third …show more content…
Likewise, the concept of holy war directed by the clergy or divinely sanctioned rulers and offering spiritual rewards would, in addition to strengthening the position of the Church, further unify the population and create the motivation necessary for embarking on foreign adventures. That said, the concept of holy war during this era created an us versus them mentality among the Crusaders and the Christian population of Europe and contribute to atrocities committed against Europe’s Jews, Muslims, and pagans in places like Lithuania. Additionally, this mentality, when coupled with the lack of unity of command and discipline often found in Crusader forces, greatly contributed to atrocities perpetrated against the inhabitants of cities like Jerusalem and Constantinople, atrocities which I would argue were
Though Richard I was very much a warrior king who personally led expeditions, had a mind for logistics, and achieved military successes in Europe and the Middle East, he neglected the domestic affairs of his own kingdom in the pursuit of glory in the Holy Land, leaving England at a time when civil unrest, massacres, and anti-Jewish riots plagued multiple English towns. Additionally, Richard I bears partial responsibility for the anti-Jewish violence of the time, as in 1189, his court brutally rebuffed a Jewish delegation to Richard I’s coronation and set off anti-Jewish rioting in London which would spread to other towns. Richard I was reportedly favorable to these developments, and as stated earlier, neglected his nation’s domestic affairs to pursue the Third …show more content…
Likewise, the concept of holy war directed by the clergy or divinely sanctioned rulers and offering spiritual rewards would, in addition to strengthening the position of the Church, further unify the population and create the motivation necessary for embarking on foreign adventures. That said, the concept of holy war during this era created an us versus them mentality among the Crusaders and the Christian population of Europe and contribute to atrocities committed against Europe’s Jews, Muslims, and pagans in places like Lithuania. Additionally, this mentality, when coupled with the lack of unity of command and discipline often found in Crusader forces, greatly contributed to atrocities perpetrated against the inhabitants of cities like Jerusalem and Constantinople, atrocities which I would argue were