WI Frederick Barbarrosa hadnt drowned.
- Thread starter Seraphiel
- Start date
If he reaches the Holy Land after that, he could prove a decisive factor and possibly capture Jerusalem.
Well, sources back then said 100,000 men (whether soldiers or civilians, doesn't say), but I think 30,000 when he left Germany on the Crusade and when he drowned, around 20,000 left maybe? Which is still larger than what the Crusader States can put together.
Barbarrosa
Richard of England and Phillippe of France are known to have argued alot in the Holy Land. Adding a third king in the mix would possibly have led to further disagreements. With Frederick arriving from the north, perhaps he could have assisted in recovering some of the territories that the Prince of Antioch had lost to Saladin in recent years.
Richard of England and Phillippe of France are known to have argued alot in the Holy Land. Adding a third king in the mix would possibly have led to further disagreements. With Frederick arriving from the north, perhaps he could have assisted in recovering some of the territories that the Prince of Antioch had lost to Saladin in recent years.
Possibly, how long was the difference in the arrival to the Holy Land from the 3 kings? That can give us a indication of how the kings could've reacted.
Also, Saladin burnt several towns and had a general scorched earth policy in the north to deny those towns to Barbarossa, to make it harder for him to march south.
I, too, think that the contemporary chronicles of Barbarossa's army are greatly inflated. Tongera's estimate seems far more plausible to me.
20K more troops put into play might be decisive against Saladin. But would active cooperation with the French and English be any more than OTL? I doubt it. See: the Siege of Acre aftermath.
Also, larger armies have more logistical requirements, something the Frankish armies had trouble with.
Also, Freddy Redbeard was getting old. He could have kicked it anyway on campaign.
20K more troops put into play might be decisive against Saladin. But would active cooperation with the French and English be any more than OTL? I doubt it. See: the Siege of Acre aftermath.
Also, larger armies have more logistical requirements, something the Frankish armies had trouble with.
Also, Freddy Redbeard was getting old. He could have kicked it anyway on campaign.
Frederick's forces OTL reached Acre by October, Philip by the following April, and Richard at the beginning of May.
But only around five thousand survived the march and desertions after Barbarossa's death.
In my timeline, I'm estimating closer to 15,000.
The siege of Acre could be over quicker, leaving more Crusader troops alive to march south, probably meaning the actual capture of Jerusalem with the addition of Barbarossa and his troops.
Personally, I think 20-25,000 men from Barbarossa that reaches the Holy Land.
It could. My timeline it falls in January, f'instance.
That sounds high. Keep in mind Barbarossa was crossing eastern Anatolia in summer, which is not fun.
1. With additional capture of other towns as well?
2. I know he lost troops by raids from the Turcomans and battling the Seljuks, but I still think 25,000 men is still right.
1: Yes. Not much attention to the north, however.
I need to go over that and elaborate, since I have some ideas that are rather important to what goes on with Richard (in the short term) I don't think I spelled out.
Expect an update/restarted timeline soon.
2: Sure, if we don't count losses from the march. Summer, low supplies, bad combination.
Alex Richards
Donor
15,000 seems a bit low though (I know the situation was bad, but half the army?)
20,000 looks like a reasonable figure (about the same number of deserters as losses otherwise).
In any case, being an Emperor he would outrank both the Kings and having arrived first would have been the logical leader of the crusade both by rank and by this.
The issue would probably be more along the lines of if he can persuade Richard and Phillip to work under him than the OTL diffiulties between them.
20,000 looks like a reasonable figure (about the same number of deserters as losses otherwise).
In any case, being an Emperor he would outrank both the Kings and having arrived first would have been the logical leader of the crusade both by rank and by this.
The issue would probably be more along the lines of if he can persuade Richard and Phillip to work under him than the OTL diffiulties between them.
That can lead to splits, maybe the armies of the monarchs splitting and doing their own thing?
Again, OTL we see it going from ~30,000 to five thousand. It's not just deserters - its casualties from fighting, casualties from the heat, casualties from disease, casualties from a lack of supplies . . .
And 30,000 is from when he left Germany, which is all the way back in the end of April 1189. That over the course of eighteen months he'd lose half his army one way or another isn't that far fetched.
Philip might still want to go home "early". Wonder how Barbarossa would take that.
He seems to have been a serious crusader, but he isn't really hurt by Philip being away - especially given the lack of friendship between Angevins and Hohenstaufens.
Riain
Banned
We discussed this earlier this year. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=241310&highlight=barbarossa+crusade
I think the most important things that need to occur are the capture of Oultrejrodain and the repopulation of empty fiefs.
Personally I think that Barbarossa could have managed that as leader of such a large group of crusaders.
I think the most important things that need to occur are the capture of Oultrejrodain and the repopulation of empty fiefs.
Personally I think that Barbarossa could have managed that as leader of such a large group of crusaders.
Yeah. Certainly in part.
The first is going to be challenging - not impossible, but a fair amount of campaigning, and Barbarossa is old enough to croak before too long even if he survives the crossing.
Enough to build on, not enough on its own, IMO, but we could discuss this for pages.
The thing is though, he was already 68 when he drowned. Ancient for those days, and going on a major military campaign in the Middle East in the middle of summer wouldn't have be conducive for further longevity.
How much longer could he have realistically lived for?
How much longer could he have realistically lived for?
He seems to have been in fine health up until he drowned, which suggests it's feasible.
Not something I'd bet on, but I wouldn't have bet on a 68 year old going on crusade unless they were a fanatic.
Barbarossa is almost cool enough to get a nickname like Johnny K. Almost.