Anaxagoras
Banned
What POD is necessary to allow the Christians armies of the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from Saladin? Moreover, what changes are necessary to ensure that the Crusader hold of Jerusalem will be long-lasting?
AHC: Third Crusade Takes and Holds Jerusalem
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Titus_Pullo
Banned
Or, as Richard had proposed, marrying off his sister Joan to Saladin's Brother al-Adil. Too many complications in this proposal.
1.The whole Guy/Conrad issue
2. Joan refused to marry a Muslim
3. Al Adil would have to convert to Christianity (which the Muslims refused to do)
Negotiaions fell through and the whole idea fizzled.
But if there was some way to make all parties come to a mutually beneficial solution in which Joan marries Al Adil and the two of them
could jointly rule Jerusalem would be interesting.
Anaxagoras
Banned
It all sounds ASB, but the very fact that it was seriously considered at all should tell you something.
Titus_Pullo
Banned
Yes it tells me Richard was desperate. Although I believe Al Adil ws receptive to the idea of converting and jointly ruling the kingdom with Joan.
Joan and al-Adil ruling together is not the same as an unambiguous victory for the crusade, though.
Titus_Pullo
Banned
No, but a Crusader presence there would have been more long lasting with a marriage (ASB as it may sound) between the House of Angevins and and the House of Saladin. A resounding military victory by the Crusaders would only goad the Muslims to plot further revenge and so far away from Europe reinforcing Jerusalem always proved to be a challenge. How long before most of the Crusaders go home again after retaking Jerusalem, leaving only a handful to garisson the place? With a marriage, it will be more permanent with Angevin (Crusader) rule solidified by marriage and by their heirs.
I think Richard promised Saladin he was going to return to the Holy Land in a second bid to capture Jerusalem. Unfortunately for Richard, he took a crossbow bolt to the shoulder/neck and died of gangrene.
At least it was not an arrow to knee, or it would be Skyrim almost a Millenium before it existed.
I am not sure, to be honest, on whether or not that would last or not.
But then, the Kingdom of Jerusalem's future is one of the things in alt-history I am most pessimistic on.
Jerusalem
I strongly agree. Most of the soldiers killed at Hattin were natives. And then there is the issue of the Jordanian castles, such as Kerak, which were vital for the defense of Jerusalem. If they are not retaken along with Jerusalem, then the long term effort is doomed.
These are the middle ages, thus having one leader fall from a horse or having a hunting accident - or avoiding an accident such as drowning in a small river can change a lot. Having one leader overhear another talking bad can also change a lot. Getting the crusaders conquer Jerusalem is possible.
Holding it on the long-term, however, is something completely different. The fact that drowning or not-drowning a foreign leader can seriously affect the fate of the crusader states shows their imminent weakness. They have to small a domestic power base. They'd need more European settlers and more domestic christians on their side, they need to alienate the non-Christian population less and they need local allies.
the more fanatic christian knights they get, the better the power base problem is solved. But those fanatics will ruin relations to non-Christian locals and neighbouring countries.
Ultimately, for the crusader states to survive for centuries, IMHO Egypt must be taken, and the Copts must NOT be treated as haeretics, but true Christians. The combination of christian Egypt with Western rulers and crusader states in the Levante could survive. But even if you could come up with a timeline where the crusaders conquer Egypt, I just can't see them behaving as needed...
Holding it on the long-term, however, is something completely different. The fact that drowning or not-drowning a foreign leader can seriously affect the fate of the crusader states shows their imminent weakness. They have to small a domestic power base. They'd need more European settlers and more domestic christians on their side, they need to alienate the non-Christian population less and they need local allies.
the more fanatic christian knights they get, the better the power base problem is solved. But those fanatics will ruin relations to non-Christian locals and neighbouring countries.
Ultimately, for the crusader states to survive for centuries, IMHO Egypt must be taken, and the Copts must NOT be treated as haeretics, but true Christians. The combination of christian Egypt with Western rulers and crusader states in the Levante could survive. But even if you could come up with a timeline where the crusaders conquer Egypt, I just can't see them behaving as needed...
Yeah. The very minimum the Third Crusade needs to get away with is the post-Sixth Crusade situation plus the immediately outlying castles, IMO. Otherwise, "we retook Jerusalem" will last just long enough to need another crusade when the truce expires.
And even those borders aren't a whole lot more than that.
Unfortunately, that's also at the limits of what it can accomplish - conquering more a lot in one go would require a lot more energy and effort than the kings can devote to areas away from their own lands.
Not necessarily the absolutely most, but Philip (Even if he doesn't leave after Acre), Richard, and Frederick can't afford to spend years and years here.
In my timeline, that's what's accomplished - and there's still a drive by Frederick's son (partially because Henry is ambitious) to do more because it really wasn't enough.
Of course, I'm kind of intent in my timeline on having the crusader states ultimately fail, but that comes after this - one can build from that basis and go further if one wants to pursue that right, I think.
Last edited:
And he ordered his men to spare the life of the crossbowman involved, who'd only been serving his own lord properly after all, but Joan countermanded that order afer Richard's death and had the man killed slowwwly... so maybe Saladin's brother was actually better-off not marrying her...
Snake Featherston
Banned
Western Europe gets rich enough to afford to waste money maintaining a colony in Palestine. Otherwise the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem is doomed the moment that the homeland gets in a money crunch and prefers domestic spending to Jerusalem. Barbarossa surviving is the most likely POD as the OTL Crusaders gave it their best shot and never quite made it. More troops gives them a better opportunity, at least.
Although in fairness, it's not quite "the homeland" in the sense of most colonies, it still means Western Europe's willingness and ability to bail out the Kingdom of Jerusalem every so often is a bucket that can only go to the well so many times.
Snake Featherston
Banned
And at some point, too, the wars of Europe are going to be much more relevant than the latest follies of the Jerusalem nobility when they're facing the latest Abbuyid caliph looking to make it big at their expense.
Yeah. Ayyubid, Mamluk, Turk, whoever.
The Crusaders States cannot live on their own if they face a dominant power in the region (though one rising is not inevitable, it is beyond their control to prevent entirely - they can influence things, but their actions might spur one as much as impede one, see OTL), and they cannot expect constant aid.
Still, even lasting until the equivalent the Ottomans would be interesting if probably impossible post-Hattin (it seems the losses of manpower were never entirely made good).
IMO for the crusade to both be effective and have long lasting success for the crusader states Barbarossa needs to live and Saladin needs to die in battle during the course of the crusade, prefferably early on. If these happen then the situation for the muslims becomes destabalized and leaves the crusaders with a chance to retake both Jerusalem and the key fortresses around it. Maybe butterfly in a successful fourth crusade to Egypt and the CS have real potential in the region, provided they do a good job converting the natives and treat the native Christians fairly well
Alex Richards
Donor
How about this one:
Richard is still in the Holy Land when Saladin dies (move the departure back of the death forward by a bit), and then persuades the crusaders that now, with Saladin dead and his sons jockeying for support among eachother, is the perfect time to attempt a conquest of Egypt. I'd give him even odds that Damietta is captured and held along with the coast from Ascalon and hence up to Acre, perhaps Alexandria as well but that's less certain. With a forward base there's then a better position to actually take Egypt and thus have the much needed support base for a Latin Jerusalem.
Richard is still in the Holy Land when Saladin dies (move the departure back of the death forward by a bit), and then persuades the crusaders that now, with Saladin dead and his sons jockeying for support among eachother, is the perfect time to attempt a conquest of Egypt. I'd give him even odds that Damietta is captured and held along with the coast from Ascalon and hence up to Acre, perhaps Alexandria as well but that's less certain. With a forward base there's then a better position to actually take Egypt and thus have the much needed support base for a Latin Jerusalem.