05b. The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Part 2/2.
Saladin, having consolidating his power in Egypt, sought to expand by taking Damascus and, eventually Jerusalem, which he did successfully, because he was an amazing general. And then the loss of Jerusalem caused Pope Gregory VIII to call for a third crusade. Three of the most important kings in Europe answered the call: Philip "cowardly schemer" the Second of France, Richard "Lionheart" the First of England, and Frederick “I am going to drown anticlimactically on the journey while trying to bathe in a river” Barbarossa of the not-holy, not-roman, and not-imperial Holy Roman Empire. Both Richard and Saladin were great generals who earned the respect of their troops.
And while from the European perspective the crusade was a failure because they didn't take Jerusalem, it did radically change crusading forever by making Egypt a target. Richard understood that the best chance to take Jerusalem involved first taking Egypt, but he couldn't convince any crusaders to join him because Egypt had a lot less religious value to Christians than Jerusalem. So Richard was forced to call off the Crusade early, but if he had just hung around until Easter of 1192, he would've seen Saladin die. And then Richard probably could have fulfilled all his crusading dreams, but then, you know, we wouldn't have needed the 4th Crusade. Although crusading continued throughout the 14th century, mostly with an emphasis on North Africa and not the Holy Land, the 4th Crusade is the last one we'll focus on, because it was the crazy one. Let's go to the thought bubble. So a lot of people volunteered for the fourth crusade — more than 35,000 — and the generals didn't want to march them all the way across Anatolia, because they knew from experience that it was A. dangerous and B. hot, so they decided to go by boat, which necessitated the building of the largest naval fleet Europe had seen since the Roman Empire. The Venetians built 500 ships, but then only 11,000 Crusaders actually made it down to Venice, because, like, oh I meant to go but I had a thing come up... etc. There wasn't enough money to pay for those boats, so the Venetians made the Crusaders a deal: Help us capture the rebellious city of Zara, and we'll ferry you to Anatolia. This was a smidge problematic, Crusading-wise, because Zara was a Christian city, but the Crusaders agreed to help, resulting in the Pope excommunicating both them and the Venetians.
Then after the Crusaders failed to take Zara and were still broke, a would-be Byzantine emperor named Alexius III promised the Crusaders he would pay them if they helped him out, so the (excommunicated) Catholic Crusaders fought on behalf of the Orthodox Alexius, who soon became emperor in Constantinople. But it took Alexius a while to come up with the money he'd promised the Crusaders, so they were waiting around in Constantinople, and then Alexius was suddenly dethroned by the awesomely named Mourtzouphlos, leaving the crusaders stuck in Constantinople with no money. Christian holy warriors couldn't very well sack the largest city in Christendom, could they? Well, it turns out they could and boy, did they. They took all the wealth they could find, killed and raped Christians as they went, stole the statues of horses that now adorn St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice, and retook exactly none of the Holy Land. Thanks, Thought Bubble.
So you'd think this disaster would discredit the whole notion of Crusading, right? No. Instead, it legitimatized the idea that Crusading didn't have to be about pilgrimage: that any enemies of the Catholic Church were fair game. Also, the fourth crusade pretty much doomed the Byzantine Empire, which never really recovered. Constantinople, a shadow of its former self, was conquered by the Turks in 1453. So ultimately the Crusades were a total failure at establishing Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land long term. And with the coming of the Ottomans, the region remained solidly Muslim, as it (mostly) is today.
And the Crusades didn't really open up lines of communication between the Christian and Muslim worlds, because those lines of communication were already open. Plus, most historians now agree that the Crusades didn't bring Europe out of the Middle Ages by offering it contact with the superior intellectual accomplishments of the Islamic world. In fact, they were a tremendous drain on Europe's resources. For me, the Crusades matter because they remind us that the medieval world was fundamentally different from ours. The men and women who took up the cross believed in the sacrality of their work in a way that we often can't conceive of today. And when we focus so much on the heroic narrative or the anti-imperialist narrative, or all the political in-fighting, we can lose sight of what the Crusades must have meant to the Crusaders. How the journey from pilgrimage to holy war transformed their faith and their lives. And ultimately, that exercise in empathy is the coolest thing about studying history. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. Our graphics team is Thought Bubble, and the show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. If you enjoyed today's video don't forget to like and favorite it. Also, you can also follow us on Twitter or at Facebook. There are links in the video info. Last week's Phrase of the Week was: Ali-Frazier. You can guess at this week's Phrase of the Week or suggest future ones in comments where you can also ask questions that our team of historians will endeavor to answer. Thanks for watching. I apologize to my prudish fans for leaving both buttons unbuttoned and as we say in my hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome. Whoah! Globe, globe, globe...
