The conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 marked a successful end to the First Crusade. Within the next hundred years, however, two more Crusades were launched. Yet these other two Crusades never managed to achieve the same success as the first one. This is caused, in no small measure, by the fact that many participants of the Second and Third Crusades ended up being fuelled by political and personal gains, rather than the religious zealotry that pushed the First Crusaders toward victory. Another major change that occurred after the conquest of Jerusalem was the rapid unification of the Muslim kingdoms against the Christians. It could be said that, without the Crusaders as a common foe, key Muslim leaders such as Saladin and Nur ad-Din of Aleppo would …show more content…
Many of the participants of the Second crusade developed feudal ambitions, leading to discord within the ranks of the crusading armies. It is worth mentioning, however, that there was still significant religious enthusiasm among those who either weren’t mature enough or failed to join the First crusade, and the view of the crusade as a holy pilgrimage remained powerful. (HOUSLEY, 54). Nevertheless, the new crusaders were set on replicating and even surpassing the achievements and glory of their predecessors. This desire for glory, however, made them oblivious to the need for cooperation amongst themselves. The importance of leadership in crusades is perfectly illustrated through the example of Frederick I Barbarossa, who, despite being quite old, embarked on the Third Crusade with much enthusiasm. However, he met his end when he drowned in the river Saleph in Anatolia, far from Jerusalem. Severely demoralised by the death of their monarch, a vast majority of Frederick’s army disbanded and returned home. Arguably, it was the leaders and religious drive that resulted in a successful first crusade, and prevented the crusading army from falling