AHC: Third Crusade Takes and Holds Jerusalem

[Elfwine]

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

Except that the situation will always demand that, and devoting the men and resources to converting the populace is the same as internal war.

People are not going to choose conversion over opposition if opposition is viable, and making that untrue would require a far stronger CS than they could possibly have been after Hattin and Muslim states gimped to the point of irrelevance - and if the Muslims and native Christians just leave instead, that's a serious blow to the population of the CS.

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)

Except that they were a lot more keen on doing so than going to the Levant. Except that North America didn't have a large native population unfriendly to the Europeans and on the same tech level as them and able to fight them on their terms.

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.

So, utterly unlike OTL, in all regards.

 

[Avitus]

Except that the situation will always demand that, and devoting the men and resources to converting the populace is the same as internal war.

People are not going to choose conversion over opposition if opposition is viable, and making that untrue would require a far stronger CS than they could possibly have been after Hattin and Muslim states gimped to the point of irrelevance - and if the Muslims and native Christians just leave instead, that's a serious blow to the population of the CS.

Yes, it would be a bad situation, and yes, it might lead to some serious uprisings, but if it were successful it would make a positive impact on the states chances of survival. Since they had managed to survive up to that point while infighting, I can't imagine that it would be any harder if they stopped infighting for a while and started forced conversions instead.

Except that they were a lot more keen on doing so than going to the Levant. Except that North America didn't have a large native population unfriendly to the Europeans and on the same tech level as them and able to fight them on their terms.

What America's are you thinking about,? North america is cold and inhospitable, and very few people wanted to come there, which is why so many colonies failed. A couple didn't, and they are the ancestors of the modern civilization in the America's. The CS was a colony in a very similar situation, the main difference being the military tech of the Muslims, which IMO is not an insurmountable obstacle, especially given how much less isolated they are from their homelands.

So, utterly unlike OTL, in all regards.

Well, I generally consider the Crusader states to be nonexpansionist, but capable of defending themselves (at least at their best), which IMO is an ideal nation to use as a space filler on the border. Other than that, hell yeah it would be different than OTL, as weather or not they hold half their territory is a fundamental change to the layout of the CS (if not the idealism of the same). If they were exactly the same after a successful third crusade, I would consider it incredibly ASB, and in general when you give a nation considerably more success at a key point in it's history it does better than it's OTL counterpart.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes, it would be a bad situation, and yes, it might lead to some serious uprisings, but if it were successful it would make a positive impact on the states chances of survival. Since they had managed to survive up to that point while infighting, I can't imagine that it would be any harder if they stopped infighting for a while and started forced conversions instead.

Except that forced conversions will just change who they're fighting within their own lands.

What America's are you thinking about,? North america is cold and inhospitable, and very few people wanted to come there, which is why so many colonies failed. A couple didn't, and they are the ancestors of the modern civilization in the America's. The CS was a colony in a very similar situation, the main difference being the military tech of the Muslims, which IMO is not an insurmountable obstacle, especially given how much less isolated they are from their homelands.

The Americas that were neither cold and inhospitable or only settled by a handful of hardy fools. OTL, in other words.

The CS were in a very, very different situation - far more dangerous natives and far more natives alone make a wildly different scenario.

And I'm not sure if in practice the CS are less isolated than the North American colonies were.

The only way a comparison between North America and the Levant works is if the Crusaders have considerably superior military tech, have diseases on their side, and their enemies disunited and weak (something that can be maintained for a while but which cannot be expected to last forever)

Well, I generally consider the Crusader states to be nonexpansionist, but capable of defending themselves (at least at their best), which IMO is an ideal nation to use as a space filler on the border. Other than that, hell yeah it would be different than OTL, as weather or not they hold half their territory is a fundamental change to the layout of the CS (if not the idealism of the same). If they were exactly the same after a successful third crusade, I would consider it incredibly ASB, and in general when you give a nation considerably more success at a key point in it's history it does better than it's OTL counterpart.

An ideal nation to serve as a space filler no more than any other power similar to that would be - which is to say, from the Byzantine perspective, who cares who owns Jerusalem? Obviously if its a choice between the Mamluk Sultanate and the CS, the Mamluks are more of a problem - but if its a choice between the Ayyubids as they were OTL and a bounced back CS, six of one, half a dozen the other at best (for the CS).

Having the Third Crusade claw back the territory the Kingdom of Jerusalem lost is not the same as making a change to the Kingdom itself or its (internal) problems.

 

[Riain]

Just a thought. With the huge losses at Hattin if Barbarossa did make it to the KoJ and capture Jerusalem and surrounds there would be a huge number of empty fiefs with no local Franks to occupy them.

Barby`s army was supposed to be 100,000 strong, but modern historians say that is an exaggeration that 3000 knights and 15000 infantry is closer to the mark. I`d add about an equal number of camp followers and the like to boost the numbers up to maybe 35,000 Germans.

Added to this were 8000 English, 2000 French and 2000 Hungarians.

So we have maybe 30,000 fighting men and maybe 20,000 followers in the KoJ and a large number of recaptured fiefs with no residents. That to me as a recipie for the partial repopulation of the Latin Kingdom. Surely there would have been a significant number of landless nobles that would take up empty holding in the Kingdom and many commoners for whom the KoJ would be a better deal than going home.

 

[Elfwine]

Just a thought. With the huge losses at Hattin if Barbarossa did make it to the KoJ and capture Jerusalem and surrounds there would be a huge number of empty fiefs with no local Franks to occupy them.

Barby`s army was supposed to be 100,000 strong, but modern historians say that is an exaggeration that 3000 knights and 15000 infantry is closer to the mark. I`d add about an equal number of camp followers and the like to boost the numbers up to maybe 35,000 Germans.

Added to this were 8000 English, 2000 French and 2000 Hungarians.

So we have maybe 30,000 fighting men and maybe 20,000 followers in the KoJ and a large number of recaptured fiefs with no residents. That to me as a recipie for the partial repopulation of the Latin Kingdom. Surely there would have been a significant number of landless nobles that would take up empty holding in the Kingdom and many commoners for whom the KoJ would be a better deal than going home.

Don't forget casualties among those forces. Barbarossa's army suffered heavily crossing Anatolia - even if it has twice as many survivors arrive around Acre as OTL, that's only 10,000 men (I'm not sure if that's fighting men or total, presumably the former) or so. And that's not counting engagement with Saladin.

Still, even a couple hundred knights and a few thousand commoners would be no small gain on the scale of the Kingdom of Jerusalem's fighting strength - a little larger than Barbarossa's starting army (fewer knights, more infantry) if I'm mistaken, as the figure with every garrison stripped to the bone before Hattin.

 

[Riain]

Barbarossa had crossed Anatolia during the 2nd Crusade and distinguished himself during that debacle. His crossing of Anatolia in the 3rd Crusade was successful other than they ran short of food, his army suffered lightly in the Battle of Iconium. The army wasn`t destoyed in battle in Anatolia, it fell apart upon the death of the man the other leaders were personally loyal to because they went home. As such I think to suggest that Barby would only get just over half of his army to Outremer is selling this experienced leader short.

 

[Elfwine]

Barbarossa had crossed Anatolia during the 2nd Crusade and distinguished himself during that debacle. His crossing of Anatolia in the 3rd Crusade was successful other than they ran short of food, his army suffered lightly in the Battle of Iconium. The army wasn`t destoyed in battle in Anatolia, it fell apart upon the death of the man the other leaders were personally loyal to because they went home. As such I think to suggest that Barby would only get just over half of his army to Outremer is selling this experienced leader short.

I don't. Barbarossa is marching through Anatolia in summer, with Turkish raiders making the situation even worse.

"Other than they ran short of food" is devastating in a way that mere fighting isn't.

I'll concede I'm estimating on the low end, but the idea that Barbarossa will arrive with closer to 15,000 (assuming about 18,000 fighting men when he entered Asia Minor) is on the high end.

Split the difference and call it 13 thousand? About two thirds of his starting army. A lot of dead horses are going to make things problematic, too - although presumably even dismounted knights are still there.

Either way, a pretty significant force. I presume the 2,000 French is those left after Philip left, by the way - that sounds low for Philip's starting contribution.


And not specifically related to this (although it might influence how many men he is able to bring with him if he isn't marching through summer heat as much), but - do you think that a more friendly (well, less hostile) response to his march by the Byzantines would have changed anything on the dates for Frederick's march?

Frederick seems to have spent time dealing with the kind of things he'd have to deal with whether the official (as sdistinct from popular) Byzantine response was friendly or hostile, so he probably still reaches Thrace in November - and with his experience in the Second Crusade, I'm not sure a winter march through Anatolia would sound appealing.

 

[Riain]

I`m interested to know where you think Barbarossa lost 5,000 men?

From what I`ve read he was properly organised for the march with cavalry in the van and crossbows in the rear, so the Turks tactics weren`t very effective against him. His success in the Battle of Iconium with only half of the German army would seem to confirm this.

I`ve also read that he ran short of food rather than ran out of food, the Army had a couple of hungry days before arriving at Iconium and pigging out there. Again the Battle of Iconium would confirm this since the the Turks would starve their marching enemies for some time before attacking them. But Barbarossas victory is not the result I`d expect from a starving army, Hattin is closer to what I`d expect.

I`m also a bit dubious of the modern and quite precise claim that he had 18,000 men; not 17,000, 19,000 or 22,000.

Either way the German army was vast and followed by an equally vast number of pilgrims and camp followers, with plenty of opportunity for thousands of people to stay on the the recaptured KoJ, which would go some way toward mitigating the weakness of the Kingdom.

 

[Elfwine]

I`m interested to know where you think Barbarossa lost 5,000 men?

From what I`ve read he was properly organised for the march with cavalry in the van and crossbows in the rear, so the Turks tactics weren`t very effective against him. His success in the Battle of Iconium with only half of the German army would seem to confirm this.

"Over the course of the course of the march". Disease, men straggling and being killed, skirmishing, food shortages, heat stroke . . .

And even if he lost only say, a tenth of his army at Iconium (or let's say 5% of the total, - 1 out of ten men with him), that's 900 down right there - I'm counting wounded as seriously wounded men recovering in these conditions isn't something I'd bet on. Some will, but probably not most.

This is assuming the 18,000 is entering Asia Minor, if its the force he set out with, count the losses in the Balkans too. No single substantial encounter, just a steady trickle of the least hardy.

I`ve also read that he ran short of food rather than ran out of food, the Army had a couple of hungry days before arriving at Iconium and pigging out there. Again the Battle of Iconium would confirm this since the the Turks would starve their marching enemies for some time before attacking them. But Barbarossas victory is not the result I`d expect from a starving army, Hattin is closer to what I`d expect.

I agree. That sounds like an army that is "hungry" in the same sense the Army of Northern Virginia was - hungry enough to eagerly embrace the opportunity at abundant supplies for once, but generally intact.

But it might have gotten worse after Iconium.

I`m also a bit dubious of the modern and quite precise claim that he had 18,000 men; not 17,000, 19,000 or 22,000.

Either way the German army was vast and followed by an equally vast number of pilgrims and camp followers, with plenty of opportunity for thousands of people to stay on the the recaptured KoJ, which would go some way toward mitigating the weakness of the Kingdom.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm using your statement about "3,000 knights and 15,000 infantry is nearer the mark" and running with it for discussion's sake. Qubbling if it was 17,583 or 22,021 or 19,005 wouldn't make a substantial difference to either defeating Saladin or there being more potential settlers..

And we agree there. Even if most of the stay-on folks are from the camp followers and pilgrims, that's still Latin manpower.

This naturally raises the question. Why didn't the OTL Crusade make much of a dent here? Or did it? Frederick (Barbarossa's son) did bring five thousand men to Acre, there's the twelve thousand of the others - there ought to be some fresh blood.

 

[Riain]

You`re right about Fredrick. We hear about Richard and Phillip, but with 5000 men you`d think we`d also hear about Frederick.

 

[Elfwine]

You`re right about Fredrick. We hear about Richard and Phillip, but with 5000 men you`d think we`d also hear about Frederick.

He died in January at Acre, but you'd think there'd be at least passing mention of him instead of "Barbarossa died, the German contribution fizzled out, on to the Lionheart."

 

[Riain]

Wow, the German campaign really fizzled out. I imagine that without the Duke of Swabia most of the Germans went home or did their own thing.