• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

The Danish King

Defender of Denmark
83 Badges
Mar 28, 2001
932
254
Visit site
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
Lets talk about the first and only Crusade that actually was succesful! Who was the leaders? How many soldiers was in it? How many battles did they win? Which route did they take? Did they looted on the way? ect ect


Let the debate begin about this great crusade!
 
Take a look at this site and look at wars. There you will find info about the crusades. I copy and paste from that site:

First Crusade, 1096-1099
The first crusade marks a major turning point in the history of Europe, marking the first major war of conquest launched from western Europe since the decline of the Roman Empire. The period immediately before the crusade saw the rise of the Seljuk empire. 1071 saw both the defeat of Byzantium at Manzikert, and their conquest of Jerusalem, which made pilgrimage much more dangerous - previously the pilgrim remaining in Christian lands almost until reaching the Holy Land, but the lose of Anatolia to the Turks made the journey far more dangerous, while tales of attacks on pilgrims circulated throughout Europe. Thus when the Emperor Alexius Comnenus made an appeal for aid from western Europe, there was an audience ready to respond to Pope Urban II's call to arms at the Synod of Clermont (1095). The resulting enthusiasm had several results, including the People's Crusade, and a series of anti-Jewish atrocities committed in Germany, but the main crusade was better organised. However, there was never a proper command structure, in part because the crusade attracted a series of important leaders, but no crowned monarchs, who could have assumed overall control. The principal leaders were the Normans Duke Bohemund of Taranto, his nephew Tancred, and Duke Robert of Normandy, along with Count Reymond of Toulouse, Duke Godfrey de Bouillon of Lorraine, his brother Baldwin, Duke Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the king of France, Count Stephan of Blois, and Count Robert of Flanders. From the start there were tensions between these leaders, but at least until his death, the Papal legate, Bishop Adhemar de Puy, was able to keep these tensions from causing too many problems. The various groups agreed to assemble at Constantinople, and each group travelled separately, some travelling along the Danube, others down the Dalmatian coast, and still more down Italy and then by sea to Greece. The assembly at Constantinople was troublesome - Alexius had not expected an army of 50,000 enthusiasts, having probably hoped for a few thousand mercenaries, and over the winter of 1096-7 the two sides bickered. Alexius wanted to re-conquer Anatolia, lost after 1071, but that was of little interest to the crusaders, but eventually they came to an agreement, with Alexius agreeing to aid their march to the Holy Land, while the crusaders agreed that any lands they conquered would be held from the Byzantine Empire, a promise they probably never intended to honour.
Finally, in the spring of 1097 the crusaders finally came to grips with the Moslems. Despite their lack of interest in the re-conquest of Anatolia, the crusaders still had to cross it, and the Turks controlled most of the area. The first target for the crusaders was Nicaea, dangerously close to Constantinople. The siege of Nicaea lasted from 14 May-19 June 1097, and just when the crusaders were about to break into and sack the city, Alexius negotiated its surrender and managed to get troops into the city, once again souring relations between the Byzantines and the crusaders. The crusaders now began their march across Anatolia, marching in two parallel columns, with no overall command. At the battle of Dorylaeum (1 July 1097), Bohemund's column was nearly annihilated by a much larger Turkish force, and was only saved by the arrive of Godfrey and Reymond from the other column. Soon after, the first contingent left the army, when Baldwin left to carve out his own principality centred on Edessa. Meanwhile the main crusader army reached Antioch. The resulting siege of Antiioch lasted from 21 October 1097 to 3 June 1098. Once again, the crusade came close to disaster, this time from starvation, and were only saved by late arriving English and Pisan fleets, before finally capturing the city with the aid of a Turkish traitor on 3 June, only two days before a 75,000 strong Turkish army arrived, trapping the crusaders inside the city, where they were themselves besieged from 5-28 June. The siege was ended on 28 June, when the massively outnumbered crusaders sallied from the city, with at most 15,000 combatants. Despite being heavily outnumbered, the crusaders won the resulting battle of the Orontes (28 June 1098). At this point disaster stuck, with the death of Bishop Adhemar, after which tensions between the leaders grew worse. When the crusaders moved on to march against Jerusalem, Bohemund and the Normans remained in Antioch, where they founded their own principality.

The remaining crusaders now found themselves facing a new foe, the Fatimids, who had re-conquered Jerusalem. The remaining 12,000 crusaders reached Jerusalem in far too weak a condition to maintain a siege similar to that at Antioch, and the siege of Jerusalem (9 June-18 July 1099) was dominated by preparation for the successful assault, which defeated the more numerous Fatimid defenders. After the fall of the city, the crusades sacked the city, massacring much of the population, not limiting themselves to the Moslems, shocking even their contemporaries with the violence of the sack. Godrey of Bouillon was now elected Guardian of Jerusalem, but faced one more threat, when a Fatamid relieving army arrived from Egypt. Despite outnumbering the Crusaders 5 to 1, the Fatamid army was nowhere near as dangerous as the Turks had been, and Godrey won a crushing victory at the Battle of Ascalon (12 August 1099). The crusade had been an overwhelming success, but the seeds of eventual failure were already present. The crusaders established four principalities - Jerusalem, Edessa, Tripoli and Antioch - which were often at odds with each other, while many of the crusaders returned home soon after their victory, reducing the crusader strength in the east. Despite that, the crusader kingdoms managed to survive until the fall of Acre in 1291.
 
Originally posted by The Danish King
Lets talk about the first and only Crusade that actually was succesful!

The Fourth Crusade wasn't successful? It may have not been what the Crusaders had originally envisioned when they set out, but it can hardly be denied that it wasn't a success from the Crusaders' point of view.
 
Re: Re: Lets talk about the first Crusade!

Originally posted by Demetrios


The Fourth Crusade wasn't successful? It may have not been what the Crusaders had originally envisioned when they set out, but it can hardly be denied that it wasn't a success from the Crusaders' point of view.

True! It was the second most successful crusade. The objective (admittedly a seconday objective) was held for almost 60 years. The first crusade objective was held for 88 years - only a little longer.:)
 
Re: Re: Re: Lets talk about the first Crusade!

Originally posted by Sonny


True! It was the second most successful crusade. The objective (admittedly a seconday objective) was held for almost 60 years. The first crusade objective was held for 88 years - only a little longer.:)

And looking from another point of view, it was far more successful. The last bit of land gained in the First Crusade was lost around 200 years later. Venice still held some of the land it gained in the Fourth Crusade until the end of the republic - nearly 600 years later...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets talk about the first Crusade!

Originally posted by Demetrios


And looking from another point of view, it was far more successful. The last bit of land gained in the First Crusade was lost around 200 years later. Venice still held some of the land it gained in the Fourth Crusade until the end of the republic - nearly 600 years later...

But from another point of view the 4th crusade was a failure, as the Pope definitely didn't like it's end and in the context of the long term aim of the crusade, namely to oppose the expansion of Islam, it was a disaster as it weakened Byzantium and caused it to spend time fighting Christians instead of Turks.

In the long run it was probably even bad for Venice, since they were unable to gain such good trading priviledges or exercise as much power with the Ottomans as they did with the Byzantines.
 
Well, using those criteria, the First Crusade wasn't successful either, as it too failed in the end to permanently achieve its goals. So I guess we are reduced to saying that the First and Fourth Crusades were the least unsuccessful then? ;)
 
Originally posted by Demetrios
Well, using those criteria, the First Crusade wasn't successful either, as it too failed in the end to permanently achieve its goals. So I guess we are reduced to saying that the First and Fourth Crusades were the least unsuccessful then? ;)

Hmmm, that award should probably go to the second crusade. Their final objective was secondary and they didn't even obtain it. In fact they didn't do any thing to speak of (this of course does not count Eleanor who from all accounts did do something;) ).
 
Other succesfull crusades

On the Sixth crusade, Emeror Frédérick get back Jerusalem, mainly throught a diplomatic agreement (1229).
But it was not full success because, the diplomatic agreement was not clear about the possibility of the Jerusalem Kingdom to rise the city wall.
And Frédérick had much more to do in Italy, (pope called a political crusade against him) so he left the oriental kingdom alone without a strong poltical leader who could have put together the feodality strenghts in the aim to defend Jerusalem.

On the seventh crusade, Holy Louis the XI, toke Damietta (1249)to the sultan who propose a diplomatic agreement to give back Jérusalem and its land to the crusaders. But they refused, lost a battle, Louis XI get captured.

The succes of the first crusade and the unsucces of the other is mainly due to the midset of the leaders.
When crusaders came for "colonisation" (get installed in a land) they try to understand the diplomatic paterns and they play with the different mulsuman powers ans usually get succes on the middle term (1st and 6th crusade).
When crusaders came for fighting battle against musulman, they usually win some battle but, actually, get no succes on the long term.
 
Re: Other succesfull crusades

Originally posted by Lolo
On the Sixth crusade, Emeror Frédérick get back Jerusalem, mainly throught a diplomatic agreement (1229).
But it was not full success because, the diplomatic agreement was not clear about the possibility of the Jerusalem Kingdom to rise the city wall.
........................

On the seventh crusade, Holy Louis the XI, toke Damietta (1249)to the sultan who propose a diplomatic agreement to give back Jérusalem and its land to the crusaders. But they refused, lost a battle, Louis XI get captured.

...............

Another part of the success of the Sixth Crusade was a ten year truce with al-Kamil.

:)

P.S. it was Louis IX (St. Louis). I think you got your I and X transposed.
 
P.S. it was Louis IX (St. Louis). I think you got your I and X transposed.

Sorry about that, you are right. I was so concentrate about trying to make understandable english sentences that I did this mistake.

How could I make confusion between the Holy Louis and the one with iron cages...
 
Re: P.S. it was Louis IX (St. Louis). I think you got your I and X transposed.

Originally posted by Lolo
[B..............

How could I make confusion between the Holy Louis and the one with iron cages... [/B]

It is real easy to get them mixed up when writing them (at least for me it is) because of the roman numerals. If I write Louis the 9th and Louis the 11th I don't get mixed up but IX and XI are easy to transpose.:)
 
Re: Other succesfull crusades

Originally posted by Lolo
On the Sixth crusade, Emeror Frédérick get back Jerusalem, mainly throught a diplomatic agreement (1229).
But it was not full success because, the diplomatic agreement was not clear about the possibility of the Jerusalem Kingdom to rise the city wall.
And Frédérick had much more to do in Italy, (pope called a political crusade against him) so he left the oriental kingdom alone without a strong poltical leader who could have put together the feodality strenghts in the aim to defend Jerusalem.
IIRC Frederick was excommunicated before he arrived in the Holy Land. That did not give him much room to maneuvre among the Christians in the area... In addition, the truce he signed with the Egyptian Sultan el-Kamil also forced him to support the Sultan agains any enemies - even the Christians! In addition the city of Jerusalem was not to be fortified, the agreement was quite clear on that from what I've seen.



The succes of the first crusade and the unsucces of the other is mainly due to the midset of the leaders.
When crusaders came for "colonisation" (get installed in a land) they try to understand the diplomatic paterns and they play with the different mulsuman powers ans usually get succes on the middle term (1st and 6th crusade).
When crusaders came for fighting battle against musulman, they usually win some battle but, actually, get no succes on the long term.
The first crusade was all about fighting musulmans... The reason they succeeded was the sheer number of their troops, the surprise (and internal strife) among the local muslim rulers and the fact that it was a "Pilgrimage" - a sacred travel to Jerusalem. They couldn't stop until they had taken the city!

The failure of the later crusades was caused by many elements.
- By e.g. the time of the third crusade the muslim powers had united under a strong leader (first Nur ad-Din, then Saladin).
- The hopeless complex diplomacy/internal feuding of the crusader states where every lord could sign separate truces with the Muslims, fight agains each others (even allied with Muslims!) and so on...
- Sheer bad luck/stupidity - what if Emperor Frederick I hadn't drowned?
 
I was going to give some information regarding the First Crusade from the Seljuk point of view, but was too distracted lately by work. Might still do that if anyone's interested :)
 
Re: Re: Other succesfull crusades

Originally posted by Havard

.................

- what if Emperor Frederick I hadn't drowned?

Then Richard I probably would not have spent 18 months (can't remember if it was exactly 18 months) imprisoned in Germany.;)
 
Originally posted by tuna
I was going to give some information regarding the First Crusade from the Seljuk point of view, but was too distracted lately by work. Might still do that if anyone's interested :)

Please do! :)

I read a very interesting book about the Crusades by an Egyption bloke whose name escapes me. It's most recommended, and called something like "The Crusades from the Arabs' point of view".