How far was Muslim disunity the main reason for the success of the 1st Crusade?
The 1st crusade was an extraordinary event which lasted from 1096 to 1099 and around 100,000 people all
across Europe embarked on this treacherous journey across the Middle East to the Holy Land in the hopes
of recapturing Jerusalem for Christendom. Almost unbelievably, the first crusade was a massive success
and the crusaders were able to successfully recapture Jerusalem. The reason for their overwhelming
success can be attributed to three key factors: Muslim disunity, motivation and military ability. However,
the significance of these three factors and which one was the main reason for success has been debated
amongst historians for many centuries. In this essay, I will be arguing that Muslim disunity was the most
significant factor although motivation and military ability are also both important.
Before the first crusade, the Muslim world was divided in two key ways: religiously and politically, and this
disunity contributed hugely to the success of the first crusade. The Muslim world was divided religiously
due to the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims, both of which had contrasting views to one another.
Also, the Seljuk Turks were divided politically because their leader, Malik Shah, had died in 1092 and with
no heirs, there was conflict over who would be the new leader and the heads of the different city states
argued over power and struggled for supremacy. As a result of this disunity, the Muslim world failed to
come to each other’s aid and unite against the crusaders and this massively contributed to the crusader’s
success. This was evident throughout the whole crusade at most of the sieges and battles. For example, at
the siege of Antioch, Yaghi Siyan, the leader of Antioch, sent for help but, as a result of disunity, only one of
the three city state leaders he reached out to, Kerboggha, responded and even when he did, it was too
late. If Kerboggha and his army would have arrived sooner or more armies had responded, Antioch would
likely not have been captured. Also, at Jerusalem the Seljuk Turks refused to help the Fatimids and even
offered to help the crusaders as they loathed the Fatimids more. The Seljuk Turks and Fatimids refused to
cooperate and, as a result, it was easier for the crusaders to be successful. Therefore, this factor is arguably
the most important in contributing to the success of the first crusade because, if the Muslim world had
united against the crusaders and come to each other’s aid then the crusaders would have likely been
defeated. Previously, before their political disunity and rivalry amongst the Seljuk Turks, they had been
undefeatable due to their military tactics that were previously unheard of such as firing off horse backs.
Therefore, had the Muslims been united, the first crusade would have been less likely to succeed.
Another key factor which contributed to the success of the first crusade, although not as significantly as
Muslim disunity despite still being important, was military ability. The crusader army was very militarily
able in a variety of ways. First of all, their large numbers, around 100,000, worked greatly to their
advantage because at sieges like Nicaea, they were able to fully surround the city walls. The crusaders
were also under the great leadership of people like Godfrey, Bohemond and Raymond who helped to lead
them to victory and used military tactics and strategies. For example, at Jerusalem, Godfrey was able to
find a weakness in the city wall and besiege the city using this weakness. Also at Jerusalem, they used the
strategy of Raymond using a diversion attack to divert the Egyptian’s attentions whilst Godfrey’s army
besieged the city. Moreover, the crusaders had great technical ability as they were able to build siege
weapons such as catapults and siege towers which assisted them at their variety of sieges. However, this
factor has its limitations because without other factors such as motivation and in particular Muslim
disunity, the crusade would have been less likely to succeed. Also, despite their military ability, they still
almost lost certain battles and sieges and only Muslim disunity allowed them to be successful. For
example, at the Battle of Dorylaeum, the crusader army was nearly defeated by the Seljuk Turks due to
their arguably superior military abilities such as using foot archers and lighter armour. The Muslim world
disunited nearly defeated the crusaders at this very early stage so, had the Muslims been more united,
their military ability would have far outweighed that of the crusader army’s and the crusade may have not
been as successful. Therefore, whilst military ability is a very significant factor, it is arguably less important
than Muslim disunity.