Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Hope" data-source="post: 3127254" data-attributes="member: 27051">This is wholly inaccurate.The loss of Jerusalem following the debacle of the Battle of the Horns of Hittin (itself the consequence of a degenerating situation in the Levant, catalysed by raids carried out by Reynald de Chatillon) led to a call for Crusade.  Pope Gregory insisted that the loss of Jerusalem was a punishment for Christian impiety across Europe - his first act as Pope was actually to issue the papal bull (decree) calling for Crusade.Although Henry II supported the Crusade, he died before ever embarking upon it.  It was his son Richard who took the English on Crusade.  Phillip II did go, but eventually departed the Holy Land, due to a combination of poor health and political and military disagreement with Richard.  Richard didn't leave just due to worries about Phillip (although these will have been a lesser factor) - he left because Saladin outmaneuvered him in the larger crusade.  Although Richard was able to win battle after battle, he was unable to take Jerusalem and was forced into a truce, leaving the Holy Land somewhat dejected.  He subsequently spent a long period imprisoned by rivals from the Crusade whom he had insulted, and was ransomed for something like 150,000 marks (which was one of the causes for all the taxes being levied back in England, something which is not often mentioned in Robin Hood stories).So calling it "Gregory's Crusade" is not that inaccurate after all.  It was the case that only Popes could call for Crusade, and not kings.  The Fourth Crusade is a perfect example of what happens when this goes wildly awry.</blockquote>

Verification