The Second Crusade (1147–1149) collapsed due to fractured leadership, strategic misjudgements, and mistrust among allies, particularly between Western leaders and Byzantines.
The Roles of Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany
Louis VII of France
King of France (r. 1137–1180), deeply influenced by religious devotion and a sense of penitential duty following a dispute with the Church over his burning of Vitry.
Accompanied by his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who added political complexity and later controversy due to her influence and entourage.
Displayed limited military expertise, relying heavily on advisors and barons such as Thierry of Alsace.
Saw the Crusade as an opportunity to fulfil his vows, atone for sin, and extend Capetian prestige abroad.
Conrad III of Germany
Holy Roman Emperor (King of the Romans), ruling a fragmented realm requiring delicate political balance.
His motivations were more pragmatic and secular, driven by pressure to maintain imperial authority and a response to papal calls under Bernard of Clairvaux’s preaching.
Took the initiative in leading the first wave of the Crusade, which suffered disastrously in Asia Minor due to poor planning and logistics.
His army, composed largely of German knights, was unprepared for the terrain and tactics of the Seljuk Turks.
Contrasting Strengths and Limitations
Both kings possessed prestige and authority, but neither had the military command skills needed for complex operations in the East.
Their ambitions were undercut by lack of coordination, inexperience, and a failure to establish a clear, shared strategic objective.
Rivalries and Fractured Cooperation
Personal and Political Rivalries
Louis and Conrad’s relationship was marked by suspicion and unspoken rivalry:
As kings of major European realms, neither was willing to defer to the other.
There was no unified chain of command, which led to disjointed planning and repeated failures to act in concert.
Their armies marched separately, and when they did combine, communication broke down.
Clashes in Tactics and Priorities
Conrad insisted on following a northern land route through Byzantine territory and Asia Minor; Louis favoured a coastal route and more diplomatic engagement.
After the defeat of Conrad’s forces near Dorylaeum (1147), he joined Louis, but the lack of cohesion between their military councils continued.
Eleanor of Aquitaine’s involvement in decision-making caused internal tensions within Louis’ court, with some blaming her for disruptions and misadvice.
Failure to Consolidate Crusading Aims
The two kings lacked a long-term objective beyond vague notions of reclaiming lost territory.
They refused to follow local advice from the crusader states and instead made independent, reactive decisions based on immediate circumstances.
Interactions with Byzantine Emperor Manuel I
Diplomatic Tensions and Mistrust
Both monarchs passed through the Byzantine Empire en route to the Levant, encountering strained relations with Emperor Manuel I Komnenos:
Manuel was wary of Western armies threatening Byzantine territory and sought to assert imperial control over them.
The Byzantines insisted on oaths of homage, which particularly offended the Germans.
Conrad’s army was not well received and his campaign faltered partly due to Byzantine reluctance to offer full support.
Louis’ arrival was handled more diplomatically, but mutual suspicion remained.
Accusations of Betrayal
After the disastrous German defeat at Dorylaeum, Conrad blamed Byzantine treachery, believing they had failed to provide promised guides and support.
There was a widespread belief among Western crusaders that the Byzantines were colluding with Muslim forces, particularly the Seljuk Turks.
This mistrust deepened the East–West schism, weakening any notion of a united Christian front.
Byzantine Strategic Priorities
Manuel was focused on maintaining the integrity of his empire and preventing Western dominance in Anatolia and Syria.
His refusal to support large-scale Western military operations frustrated the crusaders, leading to unilateral and uncoordinated campaigns.
Tensions with the Crusader States
Disunity Between Western Leaders and Local Nobility
The leadership of the crusader states (Jerusalem, Tripoli, Antioch) viewed Louis and Conrad’s arrival with mixed feelings:
On one hand, they welcomed reinforcements; on the other, they feared foreign interference in their affairs.
Prince Raymond of Antioch, Eleanor’s uncle, sought Louis’ support for an attack on Aleppo to secure Antioch's position.
Louis refused, focusing instead on Jerusalem, causing a rift and Eleanor’s prolonged stay in Antioch, sparking rumours and scandal.
Limited Coordination with Local Commanders
The local barons had intimate knowledge of the region, but their advice was often ignored by the Western monarchs.
King Baldwin III of Jerusalem supported a campaign against Damascus, but this decision was more politically driven than strategically sound.
Fragmentation of Crusading Forces
The failure to establish a unified leadership structure with the native nobility meant that crusading forces acted without coordination, leading to wasted resources and missed opportunities.
The Failed Siege of Damascus, 1148
Choice of Target
Damascus was a long-standing ally of the crusader states and had previously helped check Zengid expansion.
Choosing to attack it in 1148 was strategically controversial:
The city was well-fortified, well-supplied, and capable of calling on Nur ad-Din for reinforcements.
Attacking Damascus pushed it into Nur ad-Din’s camp, worsening the geopolitical situation.
The Siege: Poor Planning and Swift Collapse
The siege was launched hastily in July 1148, with the combined forces of Conrad, Louis, and Baldwin III.
The crusaders initially camped to the west of the city, where water was plentiful, but shifted to the less-defended eastern side under pressure—an ill-advised move:
The eastern approach had scarce water and difficult terrain.
The defenders regrouped quickly and launched effective counter-attacks.
Within four days, morale collapsed, and the crusaders abandoned the siege in disarray.
Internal Divisions and Betrayals
Accusations flew among the Westerners and crusader barons that bribes or secret negotiations had led to the decision to retreat.
The failure highlighted deep mistrust, lack of planning, and political infighting.
Broader Failure of the Second Crusade
Strategic Confusion
No clear, overarching objective united the crusade:
Some leaders wanted to retake Edessa, others aimed to defend the Holy Land, and some sought glory in their own right.
The shifting aims and ad hoc decision-making undermined progress.
Inadequate Logistical Support
Both armies suffered from poor provisioning, especially during the march through Anatolia:
Food was scarce, weather conditions harsh, and local hostility high.
Disease and attrition weakened morale and fighting strength before any major engagement.
Religious Disillusionment
The defeat shocked Christendom.
Bernard of Clairvaux, who had preached the crusade as divinely sanctioned, faced intense criticism.
Many contemporaries saw the failure as a sign of moral decay among the crusaders or a test of faith.
Political Fallout
The failure undermined the prestige of Louis and Conrad:
Louis returned to France in disgrace, with his marriage to Eleanor deteriorating rapidly afterward.
Conrad’s authority weakened within the Holy Roman Empire, and he abandoned plans for further campaigns.
Tensions between Byzantium and the West worsened, laying groundwork for future distrust and hostilities, including during the Fourth Crusade.
Legacy
The Second Crusade failed to regain any significant territory and weakened the position of the Latin East:
It alienated allies, exhausted resources, and eroded popular support for future expeditions.
Crucially, it solidified Nur ad-Din’s position in Syria, setting the stage for the rise of Saladin in the following decades.
FAQ
Bernard of Clairvaux was the chief spiritual promoter of the Second Crusade, using his influence as a renowned Cistercian monk and advisor to European monarchs to galvanise support. He claimed divine endorsement for the Crusade, preaching that participation would earn spiritual rewards and ensure success. When the campaign failed spectacularly, many questioned his credibility and blamed his overly optimistic rhetoric for encouraging an ill-prepared and directionless mission. Bernard initially deflected responsibility, attributing the disaster to the sins of the crusaders themselves. However, his reputation suffered across Christendom as both secular and religious leaders sought scapegoats. The Church faced a crisis of confidence as believers began to doubt whether divine favour truly lay behind crusading. Bernard's experience highlighted the risk of fusing religious enthusiasm with military action, especially when political rivalries and poor planning undermined outcomes. The fallout marked a turning point in how future crusades would be preached and organised.
The Second Crusade exacerbated existing tensions between Western Christendom and the Byzantine Empire. Both Louis VII and Conrad III grew suspicious of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, believing he had prioritised his empire's safety over supporting their mission. The Byzantines, wary of large foreign armies marching through their lands, provided minimal support and required oaths of allegiance, which many Western knights resented. The disastrous German campaign in Asia Minor, where Byzantine guides allegedly abandoned Conrad's army, deepened these suspicions. Western crusaders accused the Byzantines of colluding with Muslim enemies, especially after the failure at Dorylaeum and the ineffective support at the siege of Damascus. Byzantine officials, in turn, saw the crusaders as unruly and arrogant. This mutual distrust damaged diplomatic relations and reinforced stereotypes that would worsen during subsequent crusades. The cultural and strategic divide between East and West became more entrenched, contributing to the eventual schism and hostility exemplified by the Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople.
Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen of France and wife of Louis VII, accompanied her husband on the Second Crusade and became a controversial figure due to her active involvement and influence. She brought her own entourage from Aquitaine and asserted a degree of independence unusual for a queen at the time. Her presence challenged traditional gender norms and provoked criticism, particularly from Church figures and conservative nobles. In Antioch, she stayed with her uncle, Prince Raymond of Antioch, who sought to redirect the crusading focus toward Aleppo. Eleanor reportedly supported his proposal, clashing with Louis who insisted on continuing to Jerusalem. Her closeness to Raymond led to rumours of impropriety, which, although likely exaggerated, further strained her marriage. After being forced to leave Antioch, her relationship with Louis deteriorated rapidly. Though she held no official command, Eleanor’s political assertiveness and influence over Louis’ decisions played a subtle but important role in the Crusade’s internal discord and ultimate lack of cohesion.
Attacking Damascus in 1148 was a deeply flawed decision, given the city's previous role as a cautious ally of the crusader states against the Zengids. An alternative strategy could have focused on recapturing Edessa, whose fall in 1144 had triggered the Second Crusade. Although Edessa was heavily fortified and deep in enemy territory, reclaiming it would have had symbolic and strategic value. Another viable option was to target Aleppo, the base of Zengi’s son, Nur ad-Din, which posed a direct threat to Antioch and northern Syria. Aleppo’s capture could have disrupted Zengid consolidation in the region. Additionally, coastal campaigns to secure trade routes and reinforce vulnerable ports such as Tortosa or Latakia could have strengthened the Latin East’s long-term defence. These alternatives were discussed but ultimately ignored due to conflicting agendas among crusader leaders. A more measured and diplomatically coordinated strategy, possibly in alliance with local lords, could have avoided the disaster at Damascus.
The Second Crusade profoundly influenced the evolution of crusading ideology and military planning. Its failure undermined the notion that crusading was a guaranteed path to victory through divine favour, forcing Church leaders and monarchs to reassess how crusades were justified and organised. The experience demonstrated the need for clear objectives, unified leadership, and logistical foresight, lessons taken more seriously during the Third Crusade. The campaign also showed that papal authority alone was insufficient to resolve internal rivalries among monarchs. Ideologically, it encouraged a shift toward more pragmatic and diplomatic approaches, with increasing emphasis on negotiating truces, securing bases, and understanding local politics. Militarily, Western commanders recognised the importance of adapting to unfamiliar terrain and enemy tactics. Furthermore, the Second Crusade's failures fostered a narrative of Christian suffering and martyrdom that reinvigorated future calls to arms, particularly under figures like Saladin, whose later victories were seen as consequences of the West’s earlier missteps.
Practice Questions
To what extent did the rivalry between Louis VII and Conrad III contribute to the failure of the Second Crusade?
The rivalry between Louis VII and Conrad III significantly contributed to the Second Crusade’s failure due to their lack of coordination and competing priorities. Their refusal to cooperate meaningfully resulted in fragmented military efforts and conflicting strategies, weakening the overall campaign. Separate marches, differing objectives, and failure to establish unified leadership undermined morale and logistics. However, the campaign also suffered from Byzantine mistrust, strategic miscalculations—especially at Damascus—and poor supply planning. Therefore, while their rivalry was a major factor, it was one of several causes that collectively doomed the Crusade.
How far was the failed siege of Damascus in 1148 the main reason for the failure of the Second Crusade?
The failed siege of Damascus in 1148 was a pivotal moment in the failure of the Second Crusade, symbolising poor leadership and strategic misjudgement. The attack on a former ally, chosen hastily and executed with flawed planning, alienated local support and led to rapid retreat. Yet, broader factors were equally important: the lack of cooperation between Western kings, mistrust of Byzantium, and failure to coordinate with crusader states created long-term structural weaknesses. Thus, while the siege was the most visible failure, it reflected deeper systemic issues within the crusading effort.
