Hattin 1187- Crusader victory ?

Could the Crusaders have won at Hattin in 1187, and thereby hold onto their possessions in the Holy Land more securely than OTL ? WI the local Crusader army hadn't taken Saladin's bait by marching to Lake Tiberias, across the scorching desert, in order to give battle ?
 
Perhaps the Christian army could have avoided battle as they did in 1183 and Saladin would have been obliged to disolve his army again, as it happened in the mentioned year. Perhaps this tactic could have worked once, twice, but in the end Saladin would have found the way to oblige them to fight a battle.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem was short of almost eerything, and the European poers were to busy fighthing each other to help it to survive, so, in the long run, it was just a question of time until the Kingdom was defeated, I think :(
 
I agree that in the long run, the Kingdom was doomed, but battles are by nature uncertain affairs. I don'tv think the Crusaders had any chance of winning Hattin, but if the battle had not been held at Hattin things might have gone differently. The Franks had a way of winning battles by doing the unexpected, and if competently led they could have given Saladin's army a bad bloody nose. Which might sound the death knell to Ayyubid dominance. That was the weakness of most Islamic rulers at the time - they headed uneasy coalitions depending on victory and charisma. Saladin had bags of it, but there are limits to everything.

And imagine he was killed :eek:

Which brings us to the next set of questions: Who replaces the Ayyubids in Egypt at this date? What are the chances of the Crusaders helping along each and every factional struggle among their enemies (not likely, given the average quality of government in Jerusalem)? And will whoever comes next decide that the chivalrous approach doesn't work and stage a replay of 1099?
 
Perhaps the death of Saladin could bring a period of inestability to the Muslim side similar to the pre 2nd Crusade period. That might give the Crusade kingdom a time to refit, provided the internal quarrelling stops, of course.
 
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was short of almost eerything,
I am not sure what the Kingdom of Jerusalem was short of. It plainly had plentiful wealth due to very dense castle construction. It also had plentiful manpower, as witnessed by Guy De Lusignan's ability to besiege Acre very soon after the defeat at Hattin, despite the fact that a large force was in Tyre.
 
Being in the middle of rereading 'Crusades' by Terry Jones...

I reckon the best hope it had was if Richard's suggestion for his sister to marry Saladin's brother and for them to rule an enlarged Kingdom of J together had been taken seriously:) Imagine the flag and cultural mix of an Anglo-French-Arab, Christian-Muslim kingdom..
 
Wozza said:
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was short of almost eerything,
I am not sure what the Kingdom of Jerusalem was short of. It plainly had plentiful wealth due to very dense castle construction. It also had plentiful manpower, as witnessed by Guy De Lusignan's ability to besiege Acre very soon after the defeat at Hattin, despite the fact that a large force was in Tyre.

Let me remind you that, once the main Crhistian army was destroyed at Hattin, Saladin conquered almost all the reign without having to fight a single battle or siege, as all the garrisons were used to made up the army. For instnace, Jerusalem was garrisoned but just two knights, as the the of the troops were with Guy. Runciman in his book "The kingdom of Jerusalem" (vol 2 of his History of the Crusades) goes over this and proves that the Latin inhabitants -and by extension the army- was never enough to colonize the country.
 
Let me remind you that, once the main Crhistian army was destroyed at Hattin, Saladin conquered almost all the reign without having to fight a single battle or siege, as all the garrisons were used to made up the army. For instnace, Jerusalem was garrisoned but just two knights, as the the of the troops were with Guy. Runciman in his book "The kingdom of Jerusalem" (vol 2 of his History of the Crusades) goes over this and proves that the Latin inhabitants -and by extension the army- was never enough to colonize the country.

Then could you explain where the troops besieging Acre and garrisoning Tyre come from please?
Runciman's view is (was, sob) simply out of date on this topic. If there was a manpower shortage why did they have such a dense rate of castle construction?
 
I don't know, but it was a year after Hattin, at least, and may have time to recover, but I wonder why Ibelin had such a shortage of soldiers and knights to defend Jerusalem once it got under siege.
 
Top