Also desired by Pope Innocent III in 1215 (Fourth Council of the Lateran), the Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) was preceded by the Children’s Crusade (1212). The resounding failure of the Fourth Crusade, which saw it diverted to Constantinople, dealt a heavy blow to the crusading spirit. Nevertheless, popular movements also emerged, suggesting that only the humble could liberate the tomb of Christ. It was in this curious context, but also in one where Latins and Muslims were negotiating in the East, that the Fifth Crusade was launched, once again with Egypt as the objective.
A Children’s Crusade?
After the barons, sovereigns, and the powerful failed to liberate the Holy Sepulcher, the idea emerged that only the poor could achieve this miracle. Thus, starting in the early 1200s and continuing until the 14th century (even after the fall of Acre in 1291, generally marked as the end of the Crusades for the Holy Land), popular crusades formed, somewhat reminiscent of Peter the Hermit’s crusade, which had ended so poorly.
Among these was the so-called Children’s Crusade of 1212, where bands of children appeared in the Vendômois and northern France, led by Étienne de Cloyes and Nicholas of Cologne, who claimed to be miracle workers. They traveled in processions but were not supported by the Church or the king; however, the people seemed enchanted.
The young French “crusaders” went to Marseille, where they boarded ships but were sold into slavery by the shipowners. Their German companions attempted to walk across the sea (!), but they were stopped in Genoa by more hostile populations than those in northern Europe. Ultimately, they dispersed. The Children’s Crusade thus quickly fizzled out, but paradoxically, it somewhat rekindled the crusading spirit by purifying it. However, some historians, such as Nikolas Jaspert, argue that the term “Children’s Crusade” may have resulted from a mistranslation and that this “crusade” may have actually been processions of the poor, not just children.
The Fragile Truce in the East
Following the agreements between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, relations between Latins and Muslims had slightly warmed at the start of the 13th century. The crusader leaders, having never seen the Fourth Crusade materialize, chose to maintain good relations with the Ayyubids (Saladin’s successors), also taking advantage of their internal divisions. There were still pressures to break the truce, particularly from the crusaders’ side. In 1204, piracy by a Muslim emir provided an ideal pretext, but despite some skirmishes and displays of force on both sides, full-scale engagement did not occur.
Two years later, the Hospitallers from Krak des Chevaliers attacked toward the County of Tripoli to recover a fortress, prompting Sultan Al-Adil I to intervene and impose a new truce. The Templars were also unwilling to renew the truces proposed by the sultan in 1210, and fighting resumed in 1211. Al-Adil then built a fortress on Mount Tabor, a strategic position that put the crusaders in a difficult situation. The new King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne, agreed to a six-year truce.
Innocent III’s Determination for a Crusade
Pope Innocent III had not gotten over the failure of the previous crusade and the shame of the capture of Constantinople. In 1213, he convened a council at the Lateran, and the crusade quickly became the focal point of his concerns. He sent preachers throughout Christian Europe to garner support from the powerful, urging them to take up the cross as a moral and religious duty, somewhat echoing Urban II’s original call.
It’s also worth noting that the pope had full latitude to initiate a crusade; while there was peace in the East, the same could not be said in the West, where the French and English were at odds, as were the emperor and anti-emperor within the Holy Roman Empire, not to mention the Albigensian Crusade starting in 1209. This may partly explain the relative weakness of the upcoming crusade.
Innocent III set the final framework for the crusade at the end of the Lateran Council in 1215, but he died in 1216, not knowing whether his crusade would actually happen this time.
A New “Barons’ Crusade”?
His successor, Honorius III, naturally took up his work. The call was answered, primarily by countries that had not significantly participated in previous crusades, and no major sovereign took up the cross, except for Frederick II, who seemed in no hurry to organize, preoccupied with internal issues.
It was Duke Leopold VI of Austria who first set out for Acre, joined by the King of Hungary and Hugh I of Cyprus. Despite Frederick II’s absence, an army from the Holy Roman Empire was already present in Palestine by 1217. The crusaders waited through the winter of that year, carrying out a few targeted attacks to “get acquainted” with the Muslims.
However, they failed to take the fortress of Mount Tabor. The crusade began to weaken as early as 1218, with the departure of the Hungarians. Fortunately, additional reinforcements arrived from Northern Europe, particularly fleets. The crusaders then decided to conquer part of Egypt to negotiate a territorial exchange with the sultan, naturally including Jerusalem.
The Capture of Damietta, but the Failure of the Fifth Crusade
The idea wasn’t so bad, especially since al-Kamil wasn’t in a very comfortable position, and the crusader reinforcements were substantial (including Teutonic Knights). The Latin armies laid siege to Damietta in 1218, and by autumn, they were reinforced by contingents from Italy, France, England, and even Spain, further putting the Muslims in difficulty. Al-Kamil then decided to negotiate, as his predecessors had since Saladin, and offered Jerusalem, which the crusaders had been waiting for.
However, deep tensions arose within the Latin camp, reflecting the growing gap between Westerners and Eastern Latins. The papal legate, Pelagius of Albano, who considered himself the leader (both spiritual and temporal) of the crusade, clashed with King John of Brienne of Jerusalem. The latter, accustomed to negotiating with Muslims, was ready to accept the sultan’s terms, while the former categorically rejected them, believing there was no need to negotiate with infidels.
The crusaders eventually captured Damietta on November 5, 1219, and Pelagius decided to push the crusade further, counting on the arrival of Frederick II, who never came! During the nearly two-year wait, the Egyptians had time to regroup and halted the crusaders at Mansoura after breaking the Nile’s dikes.
The legate gladly handed over command to John of Brienne, who was forced to capitulate as Damietta was far too isolated. The city was evacuated in September 1221, marking the end of this crusade. It was clearly a failure, mainly due to the inflexibility of the papal legate, but also to the divisions among the crusaders and the weakness of their army, a failure for which Frederick II was blamed. However, he hadn’t given up, and the idea of recovering Jerusalem through negotiation was not entirely abandoned. On the other hand, this was the last crusade where the pope played a central role.