What Would the Effects of a Failed Crusade Be?

What Would the Effects of a Failed First Crusade Be?

Thought they are largely ignored by many people, the crusades were a very important event in Western history-they opened the door to a new age of trade with the East and with Africa, and started Europe on the sugar-and-spice craze, which in turn led to slavery and exploration. Unfortunately, pretty much every discussion on the subject tends to go toward surviving Crusader states, i.e Christowank.

For the sake of discussion, let us say that the First Crusade is declared under circumstances in Europe pretty much identical to OTL. The army raised is almost 100,000 men strong, as in OTL. However, for whatever reason the journey to the Holy Land is even worse than OTL, with only 7000 men arriving (14,000 OTL). With worse leadership and luck (and some good luck on the part of the Muslims) the First crusade fails utterly to make any kind of gains in the Levant, and certainly doesn't get to Jerusalem.

So, what happens next? Does the Christian world embark on another Holy War, or will their ardor be cooled? Might the West be less dominant?
 
Last edited:
If the First Crusade gets that depleted, it MIGHT, just MIGHT, be enough to persuade the leaders of the Crusade to honour their agreement with the Byzantines rather than going off in search of their own goals, and thus leading to a united crusade with the Byzantine army and a success of Byzantine foreign policy in an era which OTL was setting them up for a fall.

Just MIGHT. Maybe. Not an expert on this period.
 
Ummm.... So what do you call the:

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, Aragonese, Alexandrian, Mahadian, Varna, Children's, 1101, People's and First and Second Shepherd's Crusades?

Heck, the only Crusade to the Holy Land that was successful was the First one. And if that fails then they'll just call another one.
 
Ummm.... So what do you call the:

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, Aragonese, Alexandrian, Mahadian, Varna, Children's, 1101, People's and First and Second Shepherd's Crusades?

Heck, the only Crusade to the Holy Land that was successful was the First one. And if that fails then they'll just call another one.

Yes, and the First Crusade established a European presence in the Holy Land that lasted for quite a while. I've edited the title to the First Crusade. As for calling another one, deaths and failure in OTL cooled the Crusading ardor quite a bit by the time of the Third Crusade. Europe has by my estimation maybe one more large crusade left in it if the First Crusade failed. What I'm asking is the long term effect of no crusade getting a foothold in the Holy Land.
 
Since we have all agreed that we're only talking about the first crusade, then i'll say it would depend on how big the failure is. That would aslo depend on which leaders died.

Take Count Raymond IV of Toulouse for example. He was probably one of the most notable figures on the crusade for varied reasons : the fact he didn't swore fidelity to the Byzantines but gave his word he would not attack them (and he and his descendants did kept their word), the fact he succeded in motivating the crusaders to go forward at one point, the fact he was one of the candidates to the throne of Jerusalem (even though he lost) and the fact that he created the County of Tripoli. He was also one of the most powerful noble in Southern France : he was rich, was considered as one of the six peers of France and had a large domain. His death will not be without consequences in Europe, particularly in France.

Before considering the possibility of another crusade on the Holy Land, I'd say we would have to consider the consequences back in Europe first.

I am pretty sure though that the failure of the First Crusade will see the calling of another one which will be better prepaired than the previous.
 
Here's the thing. There wasn't really a solid concept of Holy War until the Crusades. If the First Crusade is a total failure, then you can't say "oh they'll call more" with any confidence. Yes they kept trying after the others failed but that was because of the first's great success, they had interests to protect etc.
 
Since we have all agreed that we're only talking about the first crusade, then i'll say it would depend on how big the failure is. That would aslo depend on which leaders died.

Take Count Raymond IV of Toulouse for example. He was probably one of the most notable figures on the crusade for varied reasons : the fact he didn't swore fidelity to the Byzantines but gave his word he would not attack them (and he and his descendants did kept their word), the fact he succeded in motivating the crusaders to go forward at one point, the fact he was one of the candidates to the throne of Jerusalem (even though he lost) and the fact that he created the County of Tripoli. He was also one of the most powerful noble in Southern France : he was rich, was considered as one of the six peers of France and had a large domain. His death will not be without consequences in Europe, particularly in France.

Before considering the possibility of another crusade on the Holy Land, I'd say we would have to consider the consequences back in Europe first.

I am pretty sure though that the failure of the First Crusade will see the calling of another one which will be better prepaired than the previous.

Of the foot soldiers,lets say maybe 100 make it back alive and uncaptured (its a long way through Muslim lands to Byzantium, let alone Western Europe) and pretty muc all of the leaders are captured or killed.

Here's the thing. There wasn't really a solid concept of Holy War until the Crusades. If the First Crusade is a total failure, then you can't say "oh they'll call more" with any confidence. Yes they kept trying after the others failed but that was because of the first's great success, they had interests to protect etc.

Especially since the First Crusade raised about 100,000 men to the standard-in 1095. That would be a reasonably-sized army today. After a total failure, there will still be religiousity, yes, and peasants who are willing to go on a crusade, but will the great kings of Europe really be willing to let vast amounts of their nobles and peasantry go off and be slaughtered in a far-off land that doesn't concern them?
 
Top