Crusader Jerusalem
- Thread starter el t
- Start date
My initial instinct is a big NO. Whilst, sure, the Orders aren't going to be directly involved in dynastic conflicts, but the nobles who took part will be pissed that they're effectively given nothing. That basically kneecaps it without some other form of support - perhaps the Roman Emperor if they'll allow the Orders to stay Catholic - which makes them perfect protectorates. (In fact, a Catholic Patriarch in Jerusalem is a favourite idea of mine, and makes a perfect Antipope if the Orders feel hamstrung by the Pope)
However, the Orders having a huge demand for manpower are a perfect outlet for exiles, sons of nobility that aren't going to be inherited. Effectively an alternative to becoming a Monk. If they can survive to start conversions, then I expect it'd be stronger, because of the more realistic situation of adopting converts into their leadership structure. Being a Levantine convert that speaks Frankish is easier than being imported Franks or Frankish nobility. It wouldn't surprise me if in practical terms, apart from some Frankish spoken at the top, the majority of the members spoke to each other either in Arabic, or Syriac. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see an emergence of a Romanji-esque version of Syria that is effectively the common language, effectively a merger of French, Syriac, Arabic and maybe Greek.
But the start is the major problem. Until its founding there weren't any extranational orders. Sure Jerusalem led to the founding of two, the Knights Hospitaller and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, but they have no power during the founding.
Sure, you could have a PoD where the Pope changes how the Crusade happens. Rather than simply going on Crusade, they call for all willing to come to [Insert Port City Here] to be inducted into a holy order. Same idea of being forgiven of your sins, etc. Whilst this might ward off some of the more wealth-hungry nobles, it may also attract members of the Peoples Crusade. This could lead to your desired outcome, but also can lead to a more organised crusade as a whole. Even a small amount of time drilling them, sending word to Constantinople to expect them, and ask where they should land, and you have the potential for a more successful and united First Crusade, potentially larger and more dangerous to boot. Plus, sending people in waves after training means less logistic strain, and those veterans from the first wave can become the leadership of the orders, and may be more naive, and less likely to cause the Romans trouble.
No Antioch, Edessa, etc. Only the Theocratic Orders of Jerusalem. It could work, but its long-term survival, like Jerusalem itself, relies on developing a local population to recruit from, which means settlement, conversion, immigration, the lot. But it is effectively a Teutonic Order, much earlier, but also in a more hostile environment, against a more organised resistance.
Godfrey of Bouillon actually refused to be called King of Jerusalem, despite leading the Crusade to victory. So never say never- had Baldwin I not taken the crown after Godfrey's death, Jerusalem might still be considered a domain of the Papacy. I don't see how it'd become a monastic state, though, given that the Templars and Hospitallers were established decades after the conquest and creation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It'd probably be ruled by a king in all but name who might have a fancy title like "Regent of Christ" with only token acknowledgement of the Pope as a liege. Honestly, I don't think it'd actually change much.
Last edited:
Isn't this backwards history though? Didn't the great orders come AFTER the conquest? If they aren't in existence at the time that Jerusalem is conquered, then they can't be up for running the place.