Why Did the Second Crusade Fail?
The Second Crusade (1147–1149) failed for several interconnected reasons. The standard scholarly account is now Jonathan Phillips’s The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom (2007), with Hans Mayer’s Geschichte der Kreuzzüge im Mittelalter and Marcus Bull’s Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade providing useful older and newer perspectives. In summary, the failure was due to: poor strategic planning, weak coordination between the French and German armies, the disaster of the march through Anatolia, the wrong choice of target at the Siege of Damascus in 1148, and the resilience of Zengi’s successor Nur ad-Din. The failure of the expedition was a turning point in the history of the Crusades, marking a shift in the balance of power between the Latin East and the Muslim world that would eventually lead to the rise of Saladin and the loss of Jerusalem in 1187.
For the broader context, see the main article on the Second Crusade, the role of Bernard of Clairvaux, and the causes of the Crusades.
The Original Objective Was Abandoned
The Second Crusade had been called in response to the fall of the County of Edessa to Zengi in 1144. The bull Quantum praedecessores of Pope Eugene III had been explicit: the expedition was to recover Edessa and to defend the Latin East. By the time the Crusader army arrived in the Holy Land in 1148, however, Edessa was no longer a realistic target. The march to recover Edessa would have required a major expedition into northern Mesopotamia, beyond the logistical reach of the Latin East. The Latin leaders chose instead to attack a local target: Damascus.
The abandonment of the original objective was a major strategic error. The recovery of Edessa would have required a long and difficult campaign, but it would have addressed the original problem. The choice of Damascus was a different kind of campaign: a quick strike against a wealthy city. The choice was made by the Latin rulers of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, who were more interested in expanding their own territory than in helping the distant county of Edessa.
The Disaster in Anatolia
The march through Anatolia was a catastrophe. The German army under Conrad III was attacked by the Seljuk Turks and suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Dorylaeum in October 1147. Conrad himself was wounded, and the German army was reduced to a small remnant. The French army under Louis VII, which set out later, fared no better. The Turks used the same tactics of feigned retreat and ambush that had proved so effective against the People’s Crusade in 1096.
The disaster in Anatolia was a result of poor planning and poor leadership. The Crusaders had hoped to follow the route of the First Crusade, but they did not have the support of the Byzantine Empire, which had refused to provide the same level of logistical support it had provided in 1096. The Crusaders were also slower and more vulnerable than the armies of the First Crusade had been, and they had not learned the lessons of the earlier expedition.
The Choice of Damascus
The choice of Damascus as the target of the Second Crusade has been much criticized by historians. The city had been a useful counterweight to the Zengid dynasty, and its emir had been a sometime ally of the Latin East. The attack on Damascus alienated a potential ally and opened the way for the Zengid dynasty to dominate Syria.
The choice of Damascus was made by the Latin rulers of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, with the support of the royal leaders of the expedition. The decision was politically motivated: the Latin rulers wanted to expand their own territory, and Damascus was a tempting target. The strategic implications of the choice were not fully considered, and the failure at Damascus was a direct result of the decision.
The Failure at Damascus
The Siege of Damascus in 1148 was a four-day affair. The Crusader army arrived before the city on 24 July 1148, and the siege collapsed on 28 July. The reasons for the failure are complex: the Crusaders chose the wrong side of the city, they had no access to water, the local Christian community did not support them, and the Muslim forces were better organized than expected.
The failure at Damascus was a turning point in the history of the Crusades. It exposed the limits of the expeditionary ideal, and it emboldened the Muslim leaders of the East. The Latin East was in a worse position than it had been before, and the recovery of Edessa was now a distant prospect.
The Resilience of the Muslim World
The Second Crusade also failed because the Muslim world was better organized than it had been during the First Crusade. In 1097, the Muslim Near East was divided among multiple small emirates, and the Crusaders had been able to exploit their disunity. By 1147, however, the Zengid dynasty of Aleppo and Mosul was a formidable power, and its ruler Nur ad-Din was a brilliant and determined leader.
The failure of the Second Crusade at Damascus gave Nur ad-Din the opportunity to consolidate his power in Syria and to launch a campaign of jihad against the Latin East. Nur ad-Din’s victory at the relief of Damascus, where he defeated a Crusader detachment under Baldwin III, was a turning point. The Muslim world was now on the offensive, and the Latin East was in retreat.
The Long-Term Consequences
The failure of the Second Crusade had long-term consequences for the Latin East. The resources that had been raised for the expedition were largely wasted, and the Latin East was in a worse position than it had been before. The fall of Edessa was not reversed, and the Latin territories came under increasing pressure from the Zengid dynasty. The failure of the Second Crusade also emboldened the Muslim leaders of the East, including Saladin, whose victories in the 1180s would lead to the loss of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade.
In Europe, the failure of the Second Crusade damaged the prestige of the papacy and the Cistercian order. Bernard of Clairvaux, who had been the public face of the expedition, was widely blamed. The Latin rulers of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, who had chosen Damascus as the target, were also criticized. The expedition had been a major investment of resources, and its failure was a heavy blow to the prestige of the Latin Church and the Latin East.