You are on page 1of 3

Miller 1

Danielle Miller
Maureen Kochanek
Western Cultures I
The Second Crusade

During our War Council, I took the role of Cyril, a Syrian Orthodox Christian who

worked as a physician in Jerusalem. Syrian Orthodox Christians, also known as Jacobites,

practice religious freedom in all Crusader states but find themselves most frequently in

Jerusalem. They believe in God, but not in His physical form. While this a stark contrast to the

beliefs of the Catholics, I did not realize previously that the Crusades involved many followers of

Christ, not just the Catholic church. Before our reenactment even started, I was already learning

about who the key parties were during this event. As an indeterminate, my role was crucial to the

factions for success. Because of my role as an indeterminate, my objectives were largely

undefined. My plan from the beginning was to align myself with the Jerusalem faction. I knew

this faction had historical ties with my character. I also knew this faction had many supporters.

Due to this, the chance of success was higher. I knew it would be easier to convince the rest of

the indeterminates to follow my lead and join this faction because I could persuade them that this

was what everyone else was doing. As the first debate began, it was easy to see where

everyone’s loyalties were. I knew that the German faction was against a crusade at that time

because they cited that their troops were depleted from the First Crusade. However, there were

more in support than against. Due to everyone was taking their role so seriously, the debate was

difficult to engage in as an indeterminate. At this point, the other factions did not realize the

power I held and even I neglected to utilize that. During the first day, I regret my slow start and

not taking advantage of the opportunity to speak. If I were to do this again, that is the only thing I

would change. Perhaps, if I was more vocal, there would have been even more in support of a

crusade. However, I felt as though I made up for this absence in later debates. The decision was
Miller 2

made to hold a crusade. One of my objectives was to ensure that a crusade was declared and

determined as “just” in alignment with Christian beliefs. To solidify this point, reference to

Fulcher of Chartres, especially Book I and the success of the First Crusade, was noted. This

document helps to argue that the First Crusade was a success because it was God’s will and the

Second will be the same because it is declared as “just” by Christian morals and necessary to

protect the faith. For the rest of the debates, William of Tyre was used. This document supports

the Crusade by illustrating how dangerous Nur-al-Din is, why Queen Melinsede should be in

power, how Edessa should be the target of the crusade and why the truce with Damascus should

not be violated by attack. While the support from these documents and others was immense, the

debates did not go as planned. During the second debate, Conrad was elected to lead the crusade

by one point, not Queen Melinsede as I had hoped. From this point, I knew I would have to do

some problem solving. If more people had voted for him, then the larger majority would support

him in his attack of Damascus during debate three. I now had to adjust my research to support

Damascus instead of arguing against it. I had to imply some creative thinking to do this. I knew

that the justification for attacking was largely based on Damascus being a very large city in a key

location with many resources and riches. Whoever controlled this, controlled a key

geographical, economical, and militarian location. However, the alliance was a factor that could

not be overlooked. On the day of the third debate, Conrad was absent from the council along

with his second-in-command Frederick Barbarossa. This was a relief to myself and the

Jerusalem faction. Queen Melinsede was then elected to led the crusade, a decision in my favor.

The absence of these two men hurt the German faction greatly. Because those two votes were

lost, the numbers fell in favor of the Jerusalem faction. Because no one was expecting this to

happen, many had to change their game plans, including me. More problem solving, analysis
Miller 3

and critical thinking was needed to think in the moment and compile a winning game strategy.

After speaking and inquiring with the indeterminates, I was able to determine that success was in

our favor with the new numbers. I learned throughout this process about not only the events of

the First and Second Crusades but the implications of these. However, I think I learned the most

about the process of negotiation. In these debates, there was a lot of bargaining. Factions turned

against each other and alliances were made. It was unpredictable but it helped me to think on my

feet and think outside of the box to make decisions.

You might also like