Second Crusade

Definition and stakes

T. F. Tout,  The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273

“ Bernard, the Third Crusade was due to the prompt action of the great kings of Europe, and above all 297to Frederick Barbarossa. In the First Crusade the leadership of the Christian host fell to the lesser feudal princes, like the Count of Toulouse or the Count of Flanders. In the Second Crusade the Emperor and the King of France took the lead, but they went with insufficient resources, and left their dominions in disorder and anarchy. In the Third Crusade the three chief monarchs of Europe appeared at the head of well-equipped and fairly disciplined armies. ”
Source: Gutenberg

J. Fr. Michaud,  The History of the Crusades (vol…

“ The second crusade, although unfortunate, procured several advantages for Europe. The peace which reigned in the West, caused states to flourish, and repaired, in some sort, the disasters of a distant war. It was held [378] shameful to carry arms in Europe, whilst the Crusaders were contending with the Saracens in the East. Religion itself watched over Germany, which had been so long troubled by civil wars. Conrad, a weak monarch without character, who had lost his army in Asia, was more powerful on his return from Palestine than he had been before he quitted his dominions. ”
Source: Gutenberg

J. H. Kurtz,  Church History, Volume 2 (of 3…

“ The bishops returning home preached the crusade as they went, and in a few weeks a glowing enthusiasm had spread throughout France down to the provinces of the Rhine. Then began a movement which, soon extending over all the West, like a second migration of nations, lasted for two centuries. The crusades cost Europe between five and six millions of men, and yet in the end that which had been striven after was not attained. ”
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature