A Crusader ATL Discussion

Recently I've been thinking about an ATL in which the crusades are more successful. Looking through old threads it seems that although various crusades could have been more successful and the crusaders states lasted a little longer, without a strong Christian state nearby to help them, they were probably doomed. So he's my rough idea for a TL in which Egypt, at the time greatly weakened, falls to the Crusaders, who are able to use the region to prop up their holdings in the Levant. I'll go further along if there's interest and once I've taken into account any initial thoughts you guys have on the start. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated and hopefully I'll be posting a revised version shortly with your help. Many thanks! :D

---

1145 - 1240

The second crusade aims for Aleppo and captures the city, followed shortly after by Edessa
Fighting breaks out between the crusaders and Damascus which is now fearful for its survival
The crusaders succeed in repelling a Moslem siege of Aleppo and lay siege and fight a major battle near Damascus, which they win with heavy casualties. The daunting prospect of a long siege of the city and the fact that the crusaders are much reduced results in them falling back
The third crusade is called in Europe. The Germans and the French arrive at the same time and lay siege to Damascus, eventually capturing the city. They begin campaigning in the surrounding area to seize the numerous smaller cities and castles
The English arrive and looking for glory decide on an invasion of Egypt. The Fatimid army attempts to halt the crusaders but is decisively defeated, allowing them to lay siege to Damietta, which quickly falls
Reinforced by the arrival in Egypt of the crusaders who had been campaigning around Damascus, they succeed in taking Cairo, the rest of Egypt following soon after as the last few Moslem territories are incorporated into crusaders states
Negotiations with Ethiopia begin and various wars are fought in support of their new allies and against the surrounding Moslem territories
Further crusaders are generally focused on Iberia and the Baltic as interest in a now more stable Levant begins to die away among the Kings of Europe, although a steady stream of pilgrims and settlers continues to arrive

1240 - 1340

The Mongols arrive and they open negotiations with the crusaders, but swiftly turn sour after Mongol raids into Syria are launched
A Mongol invasion is launched that captures some of the north-eastern crusaders territory and succeeds in defeating the crusader army send to repel the invasion, although they are eventually halted
This leads to a second Mongol invasion which devastates the Levant but causes the calling of a Fourth Crusade to reclaim lost territory
The crusade ends in failure as although the succeed in making some small territorial gains, their armies are all-but wiped out
Wars between the two entities continue for some time as the crusaders struggle against the Mongols in a losing battle that’s sees their cities and castles in the Levant destroyed one by one
Eventually the tide begins to turn and the Mongols (by now in the form of the Ilkhanate) are pushed back and ultimately defeated

1340 –

The Black Death arrives and kills much of the population of the crusader kingdoms, hitting the Levant especially hard as it is still attempting to recover from the Mongol invasions
A revolt in Upper Egypt is put down with help from the Ethiopians, itself not a particularly rare occurrence, but notable for its size and the presence of Coptic Christians in the rebel ranks
 
First, sorry if I go a bit too much in details and you'd have preferred a more general point of view?

It could be a good idea to reinforce the Crusade in Syria. I don't think you could prevent Saxons to pull a Crusade against Wendes, as unefficient it may be, but doing something about England or Germany could be good.

No Anarchy would allow Stephen (or whoever is ruling) to participate more importantly to the Crusade, instead of having a contingent of diverse nations going in Spain.
Having Conrad be in better terms with Manuel I (It's not going to be easy, I admit) or more interestingly, having him going by sea instead of land, could allow the fractionning of not only Franks and Germans, but as well Germans, in different armies and their annihilation by Seljukids.


1145 - 1240
The second crusade aims for Aleppo and captures the city, followed shortly after by Edessa
I know that butterflies may change that, but the Council of Acre decided to attack Damascus, mostly because the Prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli (that had more interest on attacking Aleppo) weren't present and were actually quite discredited as Raimond of Poitiers.

Damascus was more favoured by Jerusalem (in political crisis, and in need of geostrategical safety) and Crusaders, mostly because of the importance of Damascus in Christianity. Granted attacking a possible ally (I doubt any formal alliance would have been really enforced anyway) doesn't look that wise for Jerusalem, but they had to count on Crusaders, and Damas regularly switched his alliances (in the past, they had favoured Zengi).

There, you should have a clear decision on who would rule the city after its conquest during the siege, that was a major point of dissension. Thierry d'Alsace was preferred by Crusaders, but Gautier de Brisebarre by Jerusalem (whom he was constable).
The lack of ravitail was an huge problem as well, and would certainly have to be dealt with, critically if the army is larger than IOTL.

Having Nur al Din having more troubles with his brother that ruled Mossul could have consequences on how many troops he could send to support Damascus. As well, a shorter pilgrimage of Louis VII in Jerusalem would give him less time to organize.

Afterwards, going to Edessa by Aleppo may be more doable (I would suspect the army will divide at this point).

But I agree that they couldn't hold all of this, if any. Ravitail and dissenssions would be simply too important, while Muslims would unite sooner or later. That qaid, I think that Homs and Aleppo could be possibly held.

The third crusade is called in Europe. The Germans and the French arrive at the same time and lay siege to Damascus, eventually capturing the city. They begin campaigning in the surrounding area to seize the numerous smaller cities and castles
That wouldn't be possible. A crusade asked for a large mobilisation and was limited in time. Calling a third when the current one seemed to be rather successful (or even if it wasn't) wouldn't have been followed, and people would answer they did their time.

The English arrive and looking for glory decide on an invasion of Egypt. The Fatimid army attempts to halt the crusaders but is decisively defeated, allowing them to lay siege to Damietta, which quickly falls
Strategically, or diplomatically, it wouldn't make any sense.
IOTL, Crusaders tried to go for Egypt for different reasons : a more easy way to re-capture Jerusalem, weaken the base of Ayyubids (that managed to unify Syria and Egypt, aka surrounding Latin States).

I would think, furthermore, that no contingent acting on its own would have a remote chance to take over Egypt without being crushed back into a marmelade.
 
Thanks for the reply, you've already been really useful :D Got a few questions on your points if you don't mind...?

I think I read somewhere that the French King let a Byzantine traitor or usurper or something travel with him which lost him some support from the Byzantines. Perhaps if a POD is that he refuses to allow this, they get at least a little Byzantine support and are able to take the land route without it becoming the disaster it did OTL?

Were there any notable historical figures that had they gone on the crusade might have pushed for an attack on Aleppo/Damascus? Perhaps if Stephen goes on the crusade (assuming no anarchy) as you suggested, he gets convinced by someone in the Levant that it's the better target and pushes the other crusaders to go for it. Else just have the Count or the Prince present at the decision making somehow.

As for who would rule, I'd probably go with Thierry d'Alsace, as it seems to me that the crusaders were generally able to dictate things to the Levantines (albeit with a lot of shouting).

Would marching to Aleppo be easier or worse on their water supplies than going to Damascus?

Supposing that in this ATL they still go to Damascus first, would you say that moving faster (i.e. short pilgrimage as you suggested) and not moving out of the orchards halfway through the siege might be enough to win it for them, supposing they have at least a little more men than OTL?

You mentioned that the army would probably divide after Damascus if they were successful, half going to Aleppo/Edessa, but where would the other half aim for? unless you just mean they would aim for the smaller cities in the Emirate of Damascus?

When I mentioned a Third Crusade I meant that it was called a good time after the end of the Second, probably around a decade. Sorry for not making that clearer.

As for Egypt, at the time weren't the Fatimids in a state of decay? assuming a more successful second crusade managed to stabilise the Levant and conquer most of the major cities, wouldn't the next logical step be an invasion of Egypt?

Sorry for peppering you with questions :eek: hope you don't mind too much and thanks again for the help! :)
 
I think I read somewhere that the French King let a Byzantine traitor or usurper or something travel with him which lost him some support from the Byzantines.
I don't remember this, but I can be wrong.

Thinking about it, you may be speaking about Thoros II of Armenian Cilicia, that was seen as a local usurper by Byzantines.
I don't remember that he accompanied Louis VII, but he was certainly seen as an ally by Latin States (well, understood as being considered as as much close than another Latin State, including inner infighting). So outright rejecting him, critically at the benefit of Byzantium would be "niet".

Were there any notable historical figures that had they gone on the crusade might have pushed for an attack on Aleppo/Damascus?
Well....Having Louis VII not being enfuriated by Raimond of Poitou, maybe being less jealous, could help. But giving this may likely have happen after Louis took this decision...
Having Raimond dying before the Crusade could help, making Louis VII relativly more encline to listen to Antioch's interests.

That said, I would think that Crusaders and the king of Jerusalem would still favour Damascus (I don't see which reason Stephen would have to promote Aleppo) for aforementioned reasons.

Would marching to Aleppo be easier or worse on their water supplies than going to Damascus?
The same to worse : the problem was ravitail in general, water and food.

Supposing that in this ATL they still go to Damascus first, would you say that moving faster (i.e. short pilgrimage as you suggested) and not moving out of the orchards halfway through the siege might be enough to win it for them, supposing they have at least a little more men than OTL?
It *could*, but I won't expect a crushing victory. We're talking of really important cities, core of power and well fortified. I think it could be done, but there's no given.

You mentioned that the army would probably divide after Damascus if they were successful, half going to Aleppo/Edessa, but where would the other half aim for? unless you just mean they would aim for the smaller cities in the Emirate of Damascus?
No I meant, divide for reaching both Aleppo and Edessa. Maybe Aleppo and Homs, then Edessa.

When I mentioned a Third Crusade I meant that it was called a good time after the end of the Second, probably around a decade. Sorry for not making that clearer.
Crusade remained essentially a "defense" measure, at least up to the clear establishment of an hegemonic royal power in Europe. You'd need an incitative, such as Damascus being reconquered by Muslims for exemple.

As for Egypt, at the time weren't the Fatimids in a state of decay? assuming a more successful second crusade managed to stabilise the Levant and conquer most of the major cities, wouldn't the next logical step be an invasion of Egypt?
There was, but I don't think Crusaders would be able to really exploit it, at least no more than they were able IOTL.
Egypt isn't a logical further step to Crusades, at least understood as "mainstream" Crusades, but rather IOTL concieved as a step to Palestine, easier than going through Syria.
Some crusades or religious expeditions comparable to Wendish, Baltic Crusades or Reconquista could appear of course, from Latin States, but would these be able to not only advance but fight-back a counter-Crusade while being surrounded?
 
There was, but I don't think Crusaders would be able to really exploit it, at least no more than they were able IOTL.
Egypt isn't a logical further step to Crusades, at least understood as "mainstream" Crusades, but rather IOTL concieved as a step to Palestine, easier than going through Syria.
Some crusades or religious expeditions comparable to Wendish, Baltic Crusades or Reconquista could appear of course, from Latin States, but would these be able to not only advance but fight-back a counter-Crusade while being surrounded?

During the Mongol Conquests they might have a chance, what with all the other Muslim powers in the Middle East being subjugated. Hell, a crusader-Mongol alliance could end up carving out a nice little Levantine empire for the crusaders!
 
During the Mongol Conquests they might have a chance, what with all the other Muslim powers in the Middle East being subjugated. Hell, a crusader-Mongol alliance could end up carving out a nice little Levantine empire for the crusaders!

Crusader-Mongol Alliance was essentially a subjugation, rather than a partership. At the time of Mongol conquests, Latin States were but a handful of coastal principalities, de facto italian city-states protectorates.
That's clearly not the best context for a conquest of their own.

Even if one of the Latin States could pull an expedition, they would never ever have the capacity to occupy the region : Lain States IOTL were only superficially settled by Franks, and Egypt was far more inhabited than Palestine.
 
Do you guys think that the crusaders marching on Aleppo now would be a reasonable idea? I was thinking of a short siege (maybe just the surrender, considering the armies supposed to defend the city were just defeated) of Baalbek, followed by a longer siege of Homs, before a final and epic siege of Aleppo, in which they would have to face the combined Moslem armies once again :D a battle like that could certainly go either way...
 
Also, does anyone have any suggestions for which men to take the various lordships and counties that may be created?
 
Top