The Success Of The Second Crusade

Thomas F. Madden defines the crusade as a “war against the Muslims for the defence of the Christian faith and people.” Although, the Christians were successful in the First Crusade in establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as Jonathan Riley argues this was particularly because the crusaders faced little opposition from the Muslims. Consequently, with the rise of the emir of Mousl and Alepp, Imad ad-Din Zengi, who called for a jihad against the crusaders resulted in the fall of Edessa in 1144 and the defeat of the crusaders after the siege of Damascus in 1148. Riley regarded that the Second Crusade altered into a wider movement for Christian liberation. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the factors the crusaders lacked after the
The poor execution of the crusaders plan in an attempt to capture Damascus is another perspective that demonstrates why the Second Crusade did not achieve much success, as it strengthened the position of Nur ad-Din. Martin Hoch argued that the decision to capture Damascus in July 1148 was in fact reasonable and justified by the strategic situation, since the relationship between the ruler of Damascus, Mu‘in ad-Din Anar, and Nur ad-Din developed with an alliance in the spring of 1147 could be interpreted as a threat to the crusaders by a united Muslim force. The crusaders, however, failed in the four-day siege to achieve their objective in capturing Damascus. For example, on 27th July the crusaders decided to shift the position of attack to the eastern wall as it was supposed to be less fortified. This was not the case, since they discovered the “there were no better chances of success as the fortifications at the new point of attack were no less formidable” and provided with no water and food. Madden wrote: “They had no choice but to retreat, intensely humiliated.” From this one can interpret that the Second Crusade was a failure because of poor