StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The riot you are probably thinking of happened during the first crusade, when a few crusaders got out of hand and started looting. They had the idiotic idea to do that in plain view of the escorting Pecheneg riders and the rest of the Imperial troops escorting the crusaders, who promptly proceeded to show the crusaders how that had not been a good idea at all. The crusaders were forced to give battle and promptly got their heads bashed in. The Imperial troops then took all their equipment and horses and forced them to march the rest of the way. The crusaders who were captured/killed were followers of Raimond of Tolouse, who at that time was actually preparing for his audience at the Imperial court. I would have liked to see his face when the news arrived.

The incident with the princes who tried to storm Constantinople was an even more momentous display of stupidity than your words make them out to be. What happened was that Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin (later Baldwin I., Count of Edessa), refused to swear fealty to Alexios. So when they arrived at Constantinople, he stopped sending them provisions. Godfrey and Baldwin then mustered their troops and attacked Constantinople. Since it was a religious holidy (the holy thursday), Alexios first ordered his troops to only fire warning shots. When that tactic failed, he sent the imperial field army out, including his Warangian Guard, which promptly routed the crusaders. Godfrey and Baldwin surrendered and swore fealty almost immediately.

The only crusaders who were little trouble were the followers of Bohemund (later Bohemund of Antioch), who prevented his soldiers from any marauding by threatening them with summary execution.

Anna Komnena has a good deal of Book X of the Alexiad devoted to that particular episode, though she insists the brouhaha started due to a rumor reaching the Crusader armies that Alexios had thrown their commanders in prison. While it's a little flowery, I enjoy reading it because of the sheer contempt you can detect in her narrative ("impudent barbarians" etc). She devotes about a paragraph to comparing her husband Nikephoros' archery to that of Apollo, which is an amusing read, and then compares the archery of experienced Byzantine troops to that of Teucer. Also of pointed note is that she specifically mentions the lack of a siege train and goes so far as to call them stupid for trying to force a gate by setting fire to it.

She writes that the episode occurred on a Good Friday, though.

Hmmm. Are you working from an online source? If so, would you mind posting the link?

Thanas wrote:Hmmm. Are you working from an online source? If so, would you mind posting the link?

Not at all. I'm at work so my hard copy is elusive, and in lieu of that I looked it up here. Content with relevance to the First Crusade as a whole begins at section V, whereas the narrative specifically regarding the attempt by the Latins to storm the walls commences with section IX.

Well, that translation is usually very reliable, so it is quite possible that I am misremembering things with regard to the dates.

The essay title is:

Was the Third Crusade a failure

Well what would you consider as a success? The resounding victory of the Western armies against Saladin? Or perhaps the continued propping up of the Christian presence in Outremer? If the latter, then the Third Crusade was not a total failure.

Plus, the crusades spurred the Muslims into action, a mobilization of forces previously unheard of occurred under Saladin.

That's the ironic thing isn't it. The First Crusaders achieved such incredible results because of the disunity of the Muslim world, and yet the Crusader's very presence lead to Saladin forcibly unifying the Muslims.

Ironically the way most people see the third crusade as a failure - not recapturing Jerusalem - would have been a stupid idea anyway.

I think this is an issue with the common perspective on history. Was xyz a failure? No, there was more land/power/money afterward. Whoops, it was untenable and underendable, caused political problems, lost irreplaceable troops etc. Nothing ends, so I'd say that whether the 3rd crusade was a 'failure' depends on your perspective and just saying 'they won LOL' doesn't address the long term or broad scope.

While I agree with Stark, in general one can make an assessment of the resources spent and was doing so worth it. With that regard, considering that half the army wasted away doing nothing besides carrying a dead emperor and that a lot was lost to political disunity, one can make the argument that for the amount of resources spent, the gain was too little. However, Akkon certainly was a valuable strategic gain.