Jerusalem itself isn`t the problem, Freddy II won it by negotiation in the 6th Crusade against the wishes of the locals, who knew that Jerusalem was indefensible without control of Oultrejordain. The question is can the 3rd Crusade not only take Jerusalem (which if Barby had made it to the Holy Land alive I think they can) but can it capture more cities and towns to the east to rebuild a defensible KoJ?
AHC: Third Crusade Takes and Holds Jerusalem
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
The reason Jerusalem was not taken was because the Crusaders did not have enough troops. While the Europeans were willing to risk the losses in taking it, the native Crusaders knew that Jerusalem was indefensible without also getting the castles and towns past the Jordan. Richard also needed a quick resolution as the King of France was causing trouble back home, and Richard couldn't tarry any longer in the Outremer.
However, the Third Crusade has all sorts of things, that if they had gone differently, could have changed the outcome of the war.
1) If Barbarossa had lived, you not only have one of the greatest kings of Europe helping lead the Crusade, you also have a lot more soldiers.
2) If the siege of Acre had gone better, Crusaders could have taken Acre earlier and saved the lives out of a lot of Crusaders who died during the siege.
3) If Richard didn't have to rush back to France, his leadership might have have saved more of the situation. Perhaps the King of France dies while in the Holy Land, so Richard doesn't have to worry. Or Richard never becomes King of England, and he travels there just as Duke of Aquitaine, Or the presence of Barbarossa serves to pacify the King of France so he continues to stay there since he doesn't need to feel to be in an inferior position to Richard, but is comfortable with Barbarossa being the senior figurehead and both Richard & Philip as equal seconds.
4) If William II of Sicily lives and lends his navy and forces to the Crusaders.
5) If Barbarossa lives, then maybe both Armenia and Antioch contribute to the Crusade as they are more confidant of success.
6) Saladin barely lived through the Crusade, dying soon afterwards. He had run into constant problems with keeping his own troops in the field. A more significant defeat at some point, might not only cause him to lose most of his army, he might die of a broken heart.
If all of these happen, and you only need two PODs - Barbarossa living and William II living - then the Third Crusade could easily become an overwhelming success that re-establishes the old borders. Even one of those PODs might be sufficient.
The strategic situation still remains poor, but the Crusaders had sufficient room to survive and expand as long as the Muslims around them remained divided. It was only when they were united that the Crusader strength proved insufficient.
Furthermore, although unknown to the Crusaders - but known to us - they only need to hang on for another 60 years. At that point, the Mongols arrive and totally change the strategic dynamic of the Middle East. At that point, the only hostile Muslim power is Egypt, and they are no longer caught in a vice. If the Mongols arrive and the Kingdom of Jerusalem is at the old 1187 borders, they just bought themselves another 100 years at least (some of this as nominal vassals of the Mongols, but that's OK). That's a long time to build up strength. At this point, the survival of a Christian Levant (in some form) becomes a real possibility. By the 20th Century, it might just be a super Lebanon from the coast to the highlands from Antioch to Ascalon, but it'll have strong roots.
However, the Third Crusade has all sorts of things, that if they had gone differently, could have changed the outcome of the war.
1) If Barbarossa had lived, you not only have one of the greatest kings of Europe helping lead the Crusade, you also have a lot more soldiers.
2) If the siege of Acre had gone better, Crusaders could have taken Acre earlier and saved the lives out of a lot of Crusaders who died during the siege.
3) If Richard didn't have to rush back to France, his leadership might have have saved more of the situation. Perhaps the King of France dies while in the Holy Land, so Richard doesn't have to worry. Or Richard never becomes King of England, and he travels there just as Duke of Aquitaine, Or the presence of Barbarossa serves to pacify the King of France so he continues to stay there since he doesn't need to feel to be in an inferior position to Richard, but is comfortable with Barbarossa being the senior figurehead and both Richard & Philip as equal seconds.
4) If William II of Sicily lives and lends his navy and forces to the Crusaders.
5) If Barbarossa lives, then maybe both Armenia and Antioch contribute to the Crusade as they are more confidant of success.
6) Saladin barely lived through the Crusade, dying soon afterwards. He had run into constant problems with keeping his own troops in the field. A more significant defeat at some point, might not only cause him to lose most of his army, he might die of a broken heart.
If all of these happen, and you only need two PODs - Barbarossa living and William II living - then the Third Crusade could easily become an overwhelming success that re-establishes the old borders. Even one of those PODs might be sufficient.
The strategic situation still remains poor, but the Crusaders had sufficient room to survive and expand as long as the Muslims around them remained divided. It was only when they were united that the Crusader strength proved insufficient.
Furthermore, although unknown to the Crusaders - but known to us - they only need to hang on for another 60 years. At that point, the Mongols arrive and totally change the strategic dynamic of the Middle East. At that point, the only hostile Muslim power is Egypt, and they are no longer caught in a vice. If the Mongols arrive and the Kingdom of Jerusalem is at the old 1187 borders, they just bought themselves another 100 years at least (some of this as nominal vassals of the Mongols, but that's OK). That's a long time to build up strength. At this point, the survival of a Christian Levant (in some form) becomes a real possibility. By the 20th Century, it might just be a super Lebanon from the coast to the highlands from Antioch to Ascalon, but it'll have strong roots.
At that point, no, it isn't. OTL, the Muslims kept Syria. If they lose it, that's because the Ilkhanate is stronger than OTL - not a good outcome for its neighbors, which will be more than nominal vassals.
And this assumes that the Mongols have no interest in bearing down on the feeble crusader states (even at full strength, the best the Kingdom of Jerusalem is "feeble" compared to the Ilkhanate or Turkey - defined as some sultanate over Anatolia).
This is greatly overrating the strength of the Franks (for want of a better term for the inhabits of the Crusader States) and how deep their roots went.
The Crusader states were feeble, but that needn't have always been so, if they had conquered a more sizable population base and or managed to get a more populous (through immigration most likely) more united version of the original KOJ. The main problem with the OTL crusader states was that more often than not they were lead incompetently and tended to be very decentralized. These are problems that can be fixed, it's just the how that needs to be taken care of. Perhaps a more successful 3rd crusade puts a competent ruler on the throne and he and his heirs hold a stable and moderately prosperous KoJ for a century, then we might see more significant civillian immigration to be in the holy lands, and a stronger KoJ.
The problem is that the population base they drew on would have been small no matter how many people lived within the Frankish states - most of their subjects are not useful for purposes of "manpower needs", unless they decide to arm and train Muslim subjects on a large scale (which will happen when Hell freezes over).
Which is why a century or two of stability would be vital, as it would allow conversion efforts to (possibly) take hold of the natives, and would make the CS a much more appealing destination for potential European immigrants. There is also (assuming the 4th crusade gets butterflied) a chance that the ERE survives the Angeloi and is able to aid the CS considerably, as pre 1204 they were a hair's breadth from reconquering Anatolia in full, and would still have a large population and powerful navy.
1) Because we all know how enthusiastically Muslims converted to Christianity (or heterodox Christians into the mainstream) when in Christian ruled territory.
2) . . . why would any great supply of Europeans particularly want to go to the Levant, again?
3) I hate to put down anything that makes my favorite empire look good, but this (1190) http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/sh26_70.htm
is not "a hair's breadth" from reconquest, and the situation is not better a decade later.
Not to mention that the Byzantines really don't have a great interest in bailing out the CS. No, being fellow Christians - nevermind the Catholic-Orthodox squabble - isn't a reason. This is the state that invented realpolitick before the term was coined.
The problem with local Christians was that for 500 years they had been forbidden to ride a horse, carry a weapon and even build a house taller than a Muslim. In a time when armies recruited people with innate military skills, often whole tribes or nations, the local Christians in KoJ were military duds. Unless this is changed there will never be enough soldiers to defend the KoJ nor will the locals have a real stake in the Kigndom.
Well, there's no such thing as being born with a spear in one's hand, but this is certainly a problem - especially given the whole feudal organization of things, which does not help fixing the situation (as training the average male in arms and riding is not part of the program anyway).
Not sure how much you could - plausibly - do to fix the part about not having a stake in the kingdom though. Even if you can keep persecution out of this, will the native to Outremer Christians see a change between a Frankish lord and a Muslim lord changing more than the name of their masters?
Not necessarily.
(1) In general there are converts whenever a new national religion comes to power, and being Muslim doesn't really change that. We tend to overlook the potential for anyone to convert Muslims because of the OTL arab invasions, and later the Rise of the Ottoman Empire (both mainly against the Byzantines too
), but the reality is that in areas that were later recaptured by Christians, there tended to be conversion to Christianity proportional to the number of years that the Christian regime stayed in power. Spain is a prime example, although even the later European colonies in Africa had quite an effect (some estimate that there are more African christians than Muslims now) on religious demographics. The CS had difficulty because it was always in danger of collapsing, and because it really didn't last long, especially when we consider continuous control of a region (since many were periodically lost and regained, further hampering any conversion effort).
(2) Holy land is the obvious draw, since there really were quite allot of pilgrims OTL, and at least enough of them stayed to help support the KoJ throughout it's lackluster existance. If the Kingdom was stable, and the fresh immigrants weren't almost immediately cut down by war, then we could see a significand change in the ethnic demographic.
(3) Sorry, "a hairs breadth" was an oversite on my part, although there was still considerable cooperation between the empire and the CS on and off until the 4th crusade, so if the empire should happen to get another (perhaps slightly more competent) Manuel I style emperor then there could be quite a bit of cooperation.
), but the reality is that in areas that were later recaptured by Christians, there tended to be conversion to Christianity proportional to the number of years that the Christian regime stayed in power. Spain is a prime example, although even the later European colonies in Africa had quite an effect (some estimate that there are more African christians than Muslims now) on religious demographics. The CS had difficulty because it was always in danger of collapsing, and because it really didn't last long, especially when we consider continuous control of a region (since many were periodically lost and regained, further hampering any conversion effort).(2) Holy land is the obvious draw, since there really were quite allot of pilgrims OTL, and at least enough of them stayed to help support the KoJ throughout it's lackluster existance. If the Kingdom was stable, and the fresh immigrants weren't almost immediately cut down by war, then we could see a significand change in the ethnic demographic.
(3) Sorry, "a hairs breadth" was an oversite on my part, although there was still considerable cooperation between the empire and the CS on and off until the 4th crusade, so if the empire should happen to get another (perhaps slightly more competent) Manuel I style emperor then there could be quite a bit of cooperation.
Not exactly born with a spear in ones hand, but learning to use hunting weapons from an early age provides the basic skills that the army needed. They didn`t have boot camp and the like, recruits just showed up and the unit added to their existing skills, the army didn`t show someone who couldn`t ride how to.
In my mind the best way to ensure as large a number of people having a stake in the kingdom is to have the largest Poulain class possible, and you know how I think that would happen.
But anyway, back to the OP, if the 3rd crusade can capture Jerusalem and other captured cities and fortification to the east then I think the KoJ can bounce back for a while.
Alex Richards
Donor
If we go for a 'Barbarossa lives, Richard and Phillip are able to get along and therefore Saladin dies earlier' situation, then Richard's analysis that capturing Egypt, would be key to ensuring the survival of the KoJ probably swings into effect. Even if it's a case of capturing the coastal cities, any ruler in Cairo is going to be putting effort into retaking Damietta/Alexandria rather than going for Jerusalem, and that has a big effect on allowing the CS to dig in and secure their position, particularly if the royal house of Jerusalem returns to a more cooperative stance with local minor muslim states.
(1) In general there are converts whenever a new national religion comes to power, and being Muslim doesn't really change that. We tend to overlook the potential for anyone to convert Muslims because of the OTL arab invasions, and later the Rise of the Ottoman Empire (both mainly against the Byzantines too
Spain is one of the few examples of success by Christianity here, and that took extensive use of force and pressure that simply isn't a possibility for a cut off outpost in the middle of the Levant.
Pilgrimages and actual interest in settling are two entirely different things, however.
Possible, yes. But not enough to rely on even with a whole string of competent emperors - again, the Byzantines don't really care.
1,Spain was no more forceful early on than any other conquest, as the Spanish inquisition took place after most of the Islamic population had fled or converted, but if another example is needed, we could say sicily. To be honest, Islam had scant success against Western Catholicism, with all formerly Christian islamic territories being the traditional domain of Greek and Eastern Orthodoxy. The one possible exception is the province of Africa, but it was under the control of the ERE government at the time, so it's all a bit muddy. As to why Islam was much more successful in traditionally orthodox areas than Roman Catholic ones, any number of factors can be blamed. But in any event, my point still stands that when a new, strong stable government takes over, converts to the rulers' religion will be made in direct proportion to the time that they spend securely on the throne.
2, There obviously were some settlers, since the CS depended on them for it's military between the crusades, and that was with an almost constantly warring, territorially unstable CS. A stable CS will attract at least twice as many settlers, and these will not immediately be killed in battle before they've had a chance to procreate.
3, At the POD they don't care, but that can change very quickly, and in all honesty they did have pretty close ties. Andronicus I actually lived in the CS for awhile, and there were numerous intermarriages. That doesn't mean closeness, that means potential counterweight to whatever new danger has come from the east or the islamic world.
2, There obviously were some settlers, since the CS depended on them for it's military between the crusades, and that was with an almost constantly warring, territorially unstable CS. A stable CS will attract at least twice as many settlers, and these will not immediately be killed in battle before they've had a chance to procreate.
3, At the POD they don't care, but that can change very quickly, and in all honesty they did have pretty close ties. Andronicus I actually lived in the CS for awhile, and there were numerous intermarriages. That doesn't mean closeness, that means potential counterweight to whatever new danger has come from the east or the islamic world.
Spain had to impose it by the sword nonetheless. This was going on well before the Inquisition - that "fled or converted" part was not by choice, it was by force on the part of the Christian kingdoms.
No, it won't. There's not much incentive for there to be settlers, which has to be fixed before people come - why would anyone want to move hundreds or thousands of miles to settle?
And the CS being more stable after a successful Third Crusade than before Saladin broke its army at Hattin seems remarkably unlikely - periods of stability, yes, the overall position, no.
That means bupkiss. Sure, there might be individual emperors who care. But no emperor - not even Manuel I - is going to put the interests of the Crusader States as a top priority.
They're, at most, one of the powers in the region the Byzantines will use for their purposes - to use another 19th century line, Byzantium has no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
And given that the empire's survival depends on that attitude, I don't see any feasible POD changing it.
Of cource there was government coercion in the matter, just like their was when the Muslims conquered it from the Christians in the first place, but that is still conversion, and the children and grandchildren of these unwilling first converts often become loyal members of the religion in question. I don't consider forced conversion to be invalid, and though it might piss of their Islamic neighbors, I thoink that we've already established that weak and divided Islamic neighbors will be nesessairy anyways.
Once again, there already were settlers, even with the CS in it's poor OTL condition, so with a more stable and capable CS, one can assume more settlers, and more of the settlers surviving upon arrival. It's not hard. In North America, Jamestown didn't do as well as Massachusets because the former was less stable, more disease ridden, and on less friendly terms with the natives than the latter, so it didn't attract as many people. In other words, Massachusets had greater stability, despite being a colder place with lower agricultural potential, and recieved more settlers as a result.
The CS was a permanent interest, and so long as it was a useful counterweight to Islam there would be a kind of relationship between them, since it improved their chances of regaining Antioch and southern Anatolia. If the CS failed to do this then Byzantium would not use them, but a stable, non expansionist CS is somewhat of an ideal situation for the border.
The problem is, how is the Kingdom going to impose conversion? It doesn't have the strength to deal with rebellions and its external foes taking advantage of them, and the Muslim states around it being weak and divided can only go so far.
Comparing North America to the Levant is more distant than apples and oranges. There's not much interest in settling the Levant on the part of Europeans, and making the Crusader states stable doesn't magically motivate Europeans to be so interested or clear out the native population.
It improved their chances? No, it was the main problem the Byzantines had with regaining Antioch. Southern Anatolia? Will be regained by Byzantine efforts and energies or not at all.
And the idea of a "counterweight to Islam" is missing the whole bloody principle of Byzantine foreign policy, which is aggressively indifferent to religion and zealously in favor of who is a useful ally - if that means Mosul, Mosul. If that means Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
But what the Byzantines want is not an ally "against Islam" but an ally serving their purposes of regaining control of Anatolia, Armenia, and maybe the Levant in that order - which is why the Principality of Antioch attracted more hostile Byzantine armies than the Emirate of Mosul did.
Last edited:
I`ve long belived that the only way for the CS to survive is to have more Latin residents, not only for their own sake but to create a hybrid Poulain class. The best way to get this class is for the Crusade of 1101 to succeed, to bring a further batch of immigrants to the CS eary on and to open the route across Anatolia so the poor can reach the CS under their own power.
Yeah. If this had happened, both for its own sake and encouraging later immigrants, I am willing to cede the point that the CS have a chance - I don't think they will succeed, but it's a possibility we can actually explore given how much adding such manpower strengthens their ability to stand on their own (because being dependent on outside aid is just not going to work).
Post-Hattin, the question is when the Crusader States are finally ground to dust, not if - even with the Ayyubids leaving them alone, they're left alone to the extent they're not worth the trouble, and the Ayyubids aren't going to be in power forever
That is a problem, but I imagine that without constantly demanding men and resourses for war, they would be able to devote those same men and resources to converting the populace. Being a state based around religious intolerance (realistically on both sides), I imagine that as soon as their situation no longer demanded that they tolerate other religions in their lands, they wouldn't, so conversion (forced or otherwise) would be near the top of the govenment to do list
I suppose I fail to see much differance between the two situations, since the Europeans were not too keen on travelling to north america either. The difference IMO is that the new settlers were not immediately eaten alive by the war effort to combat the natives, since the North American natives were nothing compared to the Islamic nations. The collonies were either founded by opportunists looking to make money, or religious zealots (and some who were both), which is definitely allot like the CS, since they had the Italians (money and opportunism) and the French/English (religious zealots)
Firstly, I dont mean help as in send armies in to give land back to the empire, I mean help by being a stable and non-expansionist country on the frontier. Secondly, of course they will stop supporting the CS whenever it suits them, but that may or may not be soon, and if it isn't soon, then the CS may have time to develope it's own infrastructure and possibly centralize somewhat.