3. The Wrath of Bohemond (1098)

bohemond.jpg


Sing, Goddess, sing of the rage of Bohemond, son of Robert Guiscard, that murderous anger which condemned Latins to countless agonies and threw many warrior souls, deep into Hell, leaving their dead bodies carrion food for dogs and birds".

*****

Whatever were Alexios’ motivations to help the Crusaders and intentions towards the Crusade itself, his arrival with a substantial military contingent proved to be the salvation of the so-called “pilgrimage”, and certainly ensured its short-term success from the mouths of complete annihilation. By vanquishing Kerbogha of Mosul and neutralizing the enmity of the hateful brothers Radwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus, the path from Antioch towards Jerusalem was much more secure for the soldiers and pilgrims of Europe.

Yet, the unexpected presence of the emperor created another serious contend between the princes of the expedition, mainly Bohemond of Taranto and Raymond of Toulouse. So far, Bohemond – whose interest in acquiring the possession of Antioch for himself had recently become too evident – had been strengthening his own standing among the princes by deceitfully smearing Alexios’ and Tatikios’ reputations, arguing that the treacherous Greeks had been secretly conspiring with the accursed Turks to destroy the faithful pilgrims in that godforsaken siege. With careful and perfidious persuasion, he wanted to ensure that whatever triumph came from the conquest of Antioch was ascribed to himself. After the Crusaders successfully entered the city and slaughtered its inhabitants (mainly due to the machinations of Bohemond) it became all too clear that the Norman warlord intended to crown himself prince of Syria, with prized Antioch as his capital. In this regard, he immediately found in Raymond of St. Giles a staunch opponent, because the Provençal lord also secretly harbored a desire of becoming lord in Antioch.

Now that Alexios made himself present, in full imperial regalia, like a gilded archangel of God descended from the heavens to purge the impious besiegers, Bohemond’s carefully structured intrigue was suddenly terminated, as a house of cards blown by the wind, and he grew increasingly desperate.

Alexios I Komnenos, in his first act once he arrived in Antioch – hardly demonstrating his consternation towards the grim fate of its citizens – bestowed his patronage over John the Oxite (the [Syriac] Patriarch of Antioch) who had been imprisoned by the Turkish governor Yaghi-Siyan before the siege began. In the next day, Alexios presided over a solemn ceremony in the palace of the slain emir, and reaffirmed the oaths of fealty that had been pronounced by the Latin princes a couple years earlier, in Constantinople. Some of them, like Raymond of St. Giles and Godfrey of Lorraine, had been reluctant to swear an oath towards what they saw as a haughty oriental despot, but, now, even them seemed to be gladly accepting imperial overlordship, recognizing the valor of the emperor.

In a display of magnanimity that overjoyed the Latins, when offered the suzerain’s share of the spoils of Antioch, the Emperor vehemently refused to accept it, and ordered it to be distributed among soldiers and pilgrims alike, in reward to their services to the Empire.

Bohemond, in a fit of frustration, even tried to claim the overlordship of Antioch on the grounds that he personally had alone allowed it to be captured, by obtaining the collaboration of the traitor Firouz, and that he had ensured the city’s safety by leading the Crusaders against the Turks. Even so, realizing that he had little chance in a direct opposition to the emperor, he masked his own ambition in a façade of having fulfilled his duty as a vassal toward his liege, and that he expected a just reward. This custom, of course, was much more meaningful in the feudal Latin Europe than in Rhomanía, and Bohemond possibly expected to gain the ears and the support of his Crusader colleagues by insisting on the “matter of honor” that the suzerain was obliged to compensate his vassals.

The emperor did not fall for the bluff, however. He might not have fathomed the extent of Bohemond’s ambitions – it is likely that Alexios, until now, did not suppose that some of the Crusaders intended to remain in the Near East after they achieve Jerusalem – but, nevertheless, he distrusted the Norman prince’s ploys, and took measures to curb his transgressions.

By careful diplomacy, Alexios I Komnenos immediately sought to acquire the support of his colleagues so as to isolate Bohemond’s standing. Count Raymond of Toulouse was a rival of the Norman prince, and vehemently supported Alexios’ rights over Antioch, while Godfrey of Lorraine, Robert of Flanders, Stephen II of Blois and Robert Curthose of Normandy, and even Bohemond’s own nephew Tancred were successfully persuaded by gifts and honors, and failed to support Bohemond’s pretense.

*****​

Frustratingly delayed at receiving a response to his vocal requests of receiving Antioch as a fief, Bohemond was infuriated when he realized, in September 1098, that his case would have no support beyond his own (severely outnumbered) Italo-Norman subordinates. When the emperor offered him the lordship over the border fort of Harim – a derelict citadel that had been surrendered by Radwan of Aleppo in exchange for a truce – Bohemond took insult, and stormed away from Antioch with his followers.

At first, it seemed that he intended to return to Europe, but then he followed a northeastern course, and it became clear that he intended to seek his fortune in the no man’s land in eastern Syria, where Baldwin of Boulogne – Godfrey of Lorraine’s brother – had recently acclaimed as suzerain of the native Armenians in the frontier stronghold of Edessa.

It is likely that Bohemond intended to emulate Baldwin’s enterprise, and, indeed, his fame as the vanquisher of the Turks spread quickly, attracting bands of adventurers, mainly Syrians and Armenians, seeking riches and glory. Considering that the fort of Turbessel was nominally in Baldwin’s hands, and seeing no use in becoming hostile to the Lorrainer lord, Bohemond and his Italo-Norman soldiers and native mercenaries committed themselves to the siege of Samosata, an ancient city located on the banks of the Euphrates River, currently in the hands of a vassal of the Turkish Emir of Amida [Diyarbakir], called Sökmen Artuqid.

The Latins gave up the siege when a Turkish relief force arrived in late October 1098, and retreated to Turbessel, where they were found by bishop Adhemar of Monteil himself, who had voyaged to the east with a company of Frankish knights to rendezvous with the Italo-Normans.

After some days of cordial dialogues, the soft-speaking Provençal bishop successfully convinced the disgruntled Norman lord to rejoin the expedition going to Jerusalem, reminding him of his solemn vow to retake the holy city from the infidels, and promising that God would give the just reward for the agents of His holy enterprise.

Until November, Basileus Alexios I Komnenos remained in western Syria, personally leading his own Rhomaioi forces, supported by Pecheneg and Turcopole mercenaries, and by the Crusader allies, against the fragmented Arab and Turkish governments in the region. Now that Radwan of Aleppo had been beaten, no potentate remained to rule over the myriad of castles and towns in Mediterranean Syria, and most of these places accepted the Rhomaioi hegemony, conceding tribute and much needed goods (mainly food, but also horses and daily utensils) to reinforce the Crusaders, who, nevertheless, became increasingly restless to resume their march to Jerusalem.

Not long after Alexios returned to Cilicia (in November 1098), and from there to Constantinople, leaving his trusted general Tatikios to rule over Syria as the Doux of Antioch, Bohemond of Taranto rejoined the Crusaders in the city of Ma’arrat al-Numan, whose intimidated population gave free passage and supplies to the foreigners.

Adhemar de Monteil, still revered as the overall leader of the Crusade, voicing the concerns of the minor knights and many of the pilgrims, all uninterested in the petty grievances of their chiefs, pressed for his followers to continue on their joyful procession to the holy land, and after a brief winter sojourn in Laodicea, in late January 1099 the combined European army, assisted by a flotilla of Rhomaioi warships, marched south along the Mediterranean coast.

_______________

Chapter Notes: OTL Bishop Adhemar de Monteil – widely considered the de facto leader of the 1st Crusade until the Siege of Antioch – died in early August 1098, likely of typhus, contracted inside the city. Afterwards, Raymond of Toulouse and Godfrey of Bouillon were regarded as the leaders of the expedition, and their rivalry provoked some unnecessary contends that almost undermined the success of the Crusade (like their failure to take Ascalon/Ashkelon due to a petty feud over who would assume the lordship of the city). IOTL, thus, Bishop Adhemar was in Antioch when the city was struck by a plague and died there, but ITTL, he was campaigning in Syria with his fellow Crusaders, thus ensuring that he does not catches the sickness that would cause his deceasing. His longevity will prove to be fundamental to the foundation of the *Kingdom of Jerusalem", as we'll see, and he remains the official leader of the First Crusade, as a Papal representative.

Also, Bohemond succeeded in pressing his own claim towards Antioch, and thus became the first Prince of Antioch, in spite of Alexios Komnenos’ designs over the city. Unquestionably, Bohemond’s triumph owed to the Crusaders’ distrust against the Byzantine Emperor after he supposedly betrayed his own obligations towards them, abandoning the expedition to its fate as Kerbogha marched from Mosul – as they had sworn fealty to him – and thus Alexios’ appearance ITTL prevents Bohemond to grab Antioch for himself, and, thus he is forced to continue together with the army towards Jerusalem (which he did not do in OTL).
 
Last edited:
4. To the Shores of Tripoli (1099)
Crusade_1.jpg

Map of the route of the Crusaders in the Levant (right-click and open in another tab to see full-size)


Considering the numerous size of the pilgrimage group, and the need of feeding men and auxiliary animals, perhaps the route directly south following the valley of the Orontes River might have been, in theory, an interesting option, as it contained some of the most fertile places in Syria, ensuring that the Crusaders would not lack supplies. Yet, the region was firmly in control of hostile polities, namely the Emir of Damascus, Duqaq, who, despite the humiliation in Antioch, was still a formidable enemy. Being impeded by no truce with the Latins or Greeks, unlike his brother Radwan of Aleppo, this unrestrained and vengeful antagonist, believing himself to be the true champion of Dar-al-Islam against the invading barbarians, would be happy to promote raids and petty skirmishes to harass the Latins.

Thus, the Crusaders, following the earnest advice of the general Tatikios (who had remained in Antioch), decided to march through the safer path along the coast. There was an ancient Roman road that connected Antioch directly to the port of Caesarea, and from there the path branched: one road continued along the coast directly to Egypt, while another route would take the Crusaders to Jerusalem, the ultimate destination.

Overall, the trek was uneventful. There was no political hegemon over the region, as the former Fatimid overlords had been expelled from Syria, Lebanon and Palestine by the sudden invasion of the Turks in the previous decades, who, even now, had collapsed in a myriad of warring principalities. Jerusalem itself until a relatively recent period had been under Fatimid rule, but had since been wrestled from their control by the Turkish Ortoqids, and was now, again, under control of the Shia Sultans of Cairo.

In March 1099, an embassy from Egypt met the Crusaders in the outskirts of Sidon, and was received by their paramount leaders: Bishop Adhemar, Count Raymond, Duke Godfrey and Prince Bohemond. So far, the Fatimids had conceived the Latins as nothing but an army of mercenaries hired by the Rhomaioi to fight against the Seljuks, and simply did not fathom the idea that their ultimate purpose was the reconquest of Jerusalem. The negotiations broke down quickly after an exchange of gifts and honors, as the Fatimids were unwilling to relinquish the control of Palestine, promising but limited rights for the Christian pilgrims coming from Europe, while the Latins furiously demanded the whole city to be placed under protection of the Pope. Some days later after their arrival, the disgruntled Egyptians hurriedly returned overland to Cairo, empty-handed.


*****​


Lebanon was inhabited since the eldest eons of mankind, and most of its Mediterranean emporia – built millennia ago by the ancient Phoenicians, the founders of Carthage – were still impressive, prosperous and heavily populated. Nevertheless, despite being protected by apparently invincible fortifications, the local potentates saw no use in resisting the advance of the Crusaders, and were more than content with paying them tribute with money, food, horses and other useful supplies so they could move ahead soon enough. The close presence of the Rhomaioi ships coming from Cyprus discouraged any kind of resistance, because these Levantine princes, while being under nominal control of the Caliphate of Cairo, in practice were left to their own designs, and none of them had war-fleets able to oppose the Imperial navy.

Also, it is worth noting that, despite the centuries of Islamic domination, many of the cities in the coast, like Beirut [Beyrit] and Tyre, had substantial (Syriac) Christian and Jewish populations, and were actually very used to receiving Latin Christian pilgrims from Europe (with the ports of Tyre, Acre and Jaffa being common destinations for the ships coming from Italy and Greece).

Count Raymond of Toulouse had even fancied plans of taking the coastal metropolis of Tripoli [Ṭarābulus al-Sham], whose orange orchards produced a blissful perfume in the spring, but Duke Godfrey of Lorraine and the other princes saw no use in wasting resources, lives and time in a seemingly futile enterprise. The Qadi of Tripoli, Fakhr al-Mulk Abû ’Ali ’Ammâr, had provided useful resources and gifts to the advancing Christians, and, according to the legend, even promised to convert to Christianity if Jerusalem fell to the Christians.

Bishop Adhemar de Monteil urged them to avoid delays and to persecute a dedicated course to the holy sepulcher of the Savior, and so they went along, easy on supplies and trying to reach the city before any proper defenses could be mounted.

The tired men and women who had attended to Pope Urban II’s summon then passed through Beirut, Sidon, Tyre and Acre, a city where they were commemorated by a group of pilgrims and merchants who had recently arrived from the distant cities of Genoa and Pisa, with some of them joining the trek to Jerusalem. The Rhomaioi fleet anchored in Caesarea, and the Crusader army was bolstered by a detachment of Cuman recruits loyal to the Emperor, before their whole column finally turned inland, going bythe centuries-old Roman road that went to the east.

In the middle of April, the Crusaders finally arrived in Jerusalem and sent heralds to meet with the Fatimid governor, a Nubian officer named Iftikhar ad-Dawla. To the chagrin of the newly arrived Christians, the governor outright refused to receive their messengers, keeping the gates closed, and even ordered the archers in the walls and towers to attack on sight. As the Latin messengers desperately ran back to the Crusader camp, having tossed their white flag in the ground, the infuriated armed pilgrims prepared for the siege of the Holy City.


_______________

Chapter Notes: The Crusaders IOTL delayed their march to Jerusalem by about two months due to Count Raymond’s ambition to capture the fortified city of Tripoli, and then the fort of Arqa, which, ITTL, are completely ignored due to the hurry of Bishop Adhemar de Monteil. This also means that the siege occurs a bit differently, as the delay of the Crusaders allows the Fatimid governor to prepare for the siege, and he cleared a expansive forests to prevent the besiegers from collecting timber to build siege engines.

Another point is that the Crusaders are somewhat better supplied due to the assistance of the Byzantine fleet, while IOTL they were only helped fortuitously by the sudden arrival of a Genoese fleet in the middle of 1099, led by Guglielmo Embriaco.

IOTL, the Emir of Tripoli, Fakhr al-Mulk, did receive the Crusaders and promised to convert to Christianity if they succeeded in capturing Jerusalem. Afterwards, he reneged on his promise, and was later dethroned by the son of Count Raymond of Toulouse, Bertrand, who established himself as Count of Tripoli.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the Crusaders will have a lot more gas left in the tank after Jerusalem compared to OTL. Will be interesting to see where go from there.
 
Looks like the Crusaders will have a lot more gas left in the tank after Jerusalem compared to OTL. Will be interesting to see where go from there.
Maybe they will capture more of Levant in their first phase and perhaps Damascus as well (even if it's not immediately).
So, Antioch is Byzantine. Wich is Edessa status? I suppose is in Muslim hands, isn't?
 
Looks like the Crusaders will have a lot more gas left in the tank after Jerusalem compared to OTL. Will be interesting to see where go from there.

Indeed, they are in a somewhat better shape. This, of course, doesn't means that the capture of Jerusalem will be a walk in the park...

Maybe they will capture more of Levant in their first phase and perhaps Damascus as well (even if it's not immediately).
So, Antioch is Byzantine. Wich is Edessa status? I suppose is in Muslim hands, isn't?

That's the idea. At least the Levantine coastal cities (such as Jaffa, Arsuf and Caesarea) will be turned to Crusader hands much sooner than OTL, and the grand strategy of the Franks in KOJ will be much more focused on Damascus after the littoral is secured, but the modern Syrian capital is well-guarded by the Turkish elite, so it will indeed take longer for it to fall.

EDIT: Edessa is exactly like OTL, as it has not yet been affected by the PoD, meaning that it is still ruled (at least some parts of it) by Baldwin of Boulogne, Godfrey of Lorraine's brother. Baldwin rules as a self-proclaimed Count (with but a very vague vassalage towards the Basileus, but a de facto sovereignty) and married into the Armenian aristocracy that rules that region of western Mesopotamia. Baldwin ITTL won't become King of Jerusalem, as you'll see, but he still has a significant role to play, especially after the end of the First Crusade.

Damascus is always an option.

It is, indeed! THE option, in fact, due to its relative geographic proximity and the fact that Duqaq, the Emir of Damascus, will remain a persistent foe of the Crusaders, in comparison to the farther enemies such as the Rûm Turks and the Seljuk remnants in Mesopotamia and Persia.

Or if they're really crazy the Hejaz or Egypt.

Well, that would be rather crazy indeed. Egypt will be a serious long-term goal, but Hedjaz might escape due to the sheer geographic and logistical constraints, with an extremely adverse terrain and a very hostile population.
 
Last edited:
5. The Siege of Jerusalem (1099)

Jerusalem.jpg


CGI rendering of Jerusalem in the eve of the siege (screenshot from "The First Crusade" video on Epic History TV Channel on YouTube)​


Much like Antioch, the city of Jerusalem was a sprawling and cosmopolitan metropolis (according to the European point of view), and the weakened military contingent of the Crusaders – by now perhaps numbering 15.000 able soldiers out of an estimated total of 30.000 men-at-arms and knights that had been present in Constantinople years before – could not afford to encircle the city and starve it into surrender.

Iftikhar ad-Dawla had plenty of time to prepare for their arrival, and hoarded supplies to withstand a siege, and had even tried to deforest the nearby countryside so as to prevent the Crusaders from collecting lumber to build siege engines, but they arrived just in time to chase away the Jerusalemite woodcutters in the outskirts of the city. The topography would not help, as Jerusalem was cradled comfortably in a rugged and hilly terrain, making it impossible to establish a useful besieging perimeter.

The Holy City would have to be taken by storm, and, indeed, a number of these armed pilgrims accepted with grim determination the fact that they might sacrifice their lives to reconquer the sacred temple of God from the impious.

The Rhomaioi ships that had accompanied by sea all the way to Caesarea had brought a disassembled battering ram, as well as three humongous catapults named “trebuchets”, and various ladders, ropes and sapping tools. The terrain was too hard and rocky to permit sapping maneuvers to collapse the walls, but the leaders of the army accepted Bohemond’s suggestion of employing a small group of laborers in digging works near the western gate-tower as a means of diverting attention of the defenders from the places that would in fact be attacked. The diversion worked, apparently, as some infantry troops from the defending garrison were detached to attack them during a night sally, but were repelled by a Frankish cavalry charge led by Robert of Flanders.


*****

At first, the besiegers trusted the trebuchets would serve as their entrance ticket – as it had proved to be a very useful engine in the siege of Nicaea, some years previously – but after a couple days of successive throws, they realized the Jerusalemite circuit of walls was solid enough to make their efforts a failure. At least they managed to break two towers near the north gate, burying alive in the ruins some dozens of militiamen, and, in another spot, even breached a part of the northern wall, but the defenders, after repelling a daytime attack, obstructed the small entrance by collapsing nearby houses and filling it with spare wood and rubble during the night.

As it happened, in the end, the fate of the city was decided by the oldest instruments of war available: the battering ram – that breached the northern gate – and the ladders – as the soldiers en masse orchestrated escalades in various points along the circuit of walls to pulverize and weaken the divisions of the city garrison, forced to deal with simultaneous intrusions. In the southern wall, the Franks led by Stephen of Blois managed to place a siege tower and after a bloody showdown against infantrymen and archers in the ramparts, successfully entered the city.

As soon as the defenses were breached, the fate of Iftikhar ad-Dawla’s forces was sealed, as his troops were mostly light infantry, and lacked the necessary organization and discipline to resist the offensive, especially as the carnage spread through the tight alleys and tunnels near the circuit of walls and in the emptied market streets, where the Crusaders conducted a merciless bloodbath.

Some days after Easter, then, in the fateful year of 1099, the great city of Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders. They had already commemorated the religious festival of Christ’s resurrection in their war camp, and now that they had arrived in the Holy City, for various consecutive days they renewed the festivities with even greater joy, with sumptuous banquets, masses and acts of adoration in the sacrosanct places, culmination with a procession led by Bishop Adhemar of Monteil and Arnulf of Chocques going to Mt. Calvary, all while the hundreds of slain inhabitants of the city were given away as a tribute to vermin and crows in the gutter outside the walls, or simply incinerated in great pyres.

_______________

Chapter Notes: IOTL, Iftikhar ad-Dawla, the Fatimid governor of Jerusalem, had more time to prepare for the siege, as the Crusaders only arrived in June (whereas ITTL they came in the midst of April), and, according to Runciman and Tyeman, he deforested the whole country around Jerusalem to prevent the Crusaders from harvesting wood. ITTL, the Crusaders already have siege engines brought by the Byzantines, and this explains why the capture of the city was even quicker than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Good update. I'm very interested to see who becomes king of Jerusalem, if there even is a Kingdom and King, with Bishop Adhemar still alive and with the Byzantines and Bohemond still involved in the Crusade.
 
How is the Siege body count compared to OTL (particularly in regards to the massacre of civilians after? Would the presence of Adhemar, the Romans and a better supplied force tempered the Crusaders or gave them greater capacity to kill?
 

takerma

Banned
Very nice. This episode in OTL is one of the most ASB things to have ever happened. Here it is still unlikely but much more reasonable outcome. Interesting how this TL is more likely then OTL I bet here there would be AH forum where someone would suggest that Crusaders could win without Roman help.. and would be laughed out.
 
The fate of Byzantium is now very different from OTL. Hopefully it will recover.

Byzantium is a somewhat better shape, indeed, and it will have some more vigor to face the breakdown of the Seljuk empire. This means that it will be able to at least restore (piecemeal) the dominion over Anatolia... but don't expect anything well beyond it, especially not as the "successor" kingdoms in Islam consolidate their own dominions, especially in Mesopotamia and Persia.

Good update. I'm very interested to see who becomes king of Jerusalem, if there even is a Kingdom and King, with Bishop Adhemar still alive and with the Byzantines and Bohemond still involved in the Crusade.

The kingship of Jerusalem will be disputed, and, indeed, will be addressed in detail in the next chapters. For the time being, the "kingship" will be a de facto, even if not de jure concept, much like what happened in OTL Godfrey's very short reign.

The fact that Adhemar of Le Puy is still alive does changes a lot, because he has the legitimacy needed to create the (short-lived, as you'll see) idea of a theocratic state in Jerusalem, nominally headed by the Pope in Rome (do not forget that the Investiture Controversy was still raging off in Europe).

IOTL, it seems the Patriarchate of Jerusalem did not have a lot of strength, but my intention is to have a Kingdom of Jerusalem closer to the concept of "caesaropapism" in the relationship between the future Kings of Jerusalem and the clergy of Jerusalem.

How is the Siege body count compared to OTL (particularly in regards to the massacre of civilians after? Would the presence of Adhemar, the Romans and a better supplied force tempered the Crusaders or gave them greater capacity to kill?

Good question. The aftermath of the siege goes more or less like OTL. Civilian casualties are very high - and this will be detailed in the next chapter, that I'm going to post now - but military casualties among the Crusaders are substantially smaller, not necessarily due to the battle, but also due to the fact they suffered much less attrition in their way through Palestine. I really hope the next update answers your question, as I intended to give more attention to the aftermath of the battle than to the siege itself.

Very nice. This episode in OTL is one of the most ASB things to have ever happened. Here it is still unlikely but much more reasonable outcome. Interesting how this TL is more likely then OTL I bet here there would be AH forum where someone would suggest that Crusaders could win without Roman help.. and would be laughed out.

I agree! After months of exhaustion and attrition, they successfully took one of the largest and better defended cities of the eastern Mediterranean... that's really ASB. I myself took this as an evidence that the Fatimids had not placed substantial defendind forces in the city after they captured it from the Turks a few years previously, so I took this as a premise when I wrote the chapter.

The Roman/Byzantine assistance, in this regard, was indeed substantial, even more from a simple "material" standpoint than manpower.
 
6. The Abode of Peace (1099)
3d6b790ca4290f199fd0ca998bfff1ca.jpg


In 1099 A.D., Jerusalem fell after a siege, yet again, a couple days after Easter, in which both Christians and Jews gave their tribute and veneration to God.

The first two days after the siege of the Crusaders were days of anarchy and mayhem, as the vanquished pleaded the heavens for deliverance against these barbarians – called al-Franj – but the fiery angels of vengeance remained sleeping beyond the abode of the sky as the Franji made their ways into houses and sanctuaries, bloodied and red-eyed.

Blood. Fire. Ash. Screams. Pain. Hatred. Prayer. Silence.

A glimpse of Hell, in the very city that had been consecrated by so many faiths, which housed the temples built by the followers of David, of Jesus, and of Muhammad.

Alas, how can a city be so holy if its houses and temples forgot the sound of the voice of God? For it seemed, after millenia, that God had forsaken that place of sinners and wretches to suffer that very fate so many times. Throughout the whole universe, the holy books, written in different languages and versions and narratives by the Jews, and then by the Christians, and, later, by the Muslims - each of them tell of the last days of mankind, when all of those alive and dead will be summoned to the final judgement, presided by God Himself - but the tormented peoples of Jerusalem for so many times had suffered their own final judgement, seemingly prosecuted by God in absentia, His ultimate will manifested in the triumph of foreign armies of conquerors and barbarians, as punishment for the cursed sins of the Jerusalemites.

In the third day, an eerie silence descended upon the city, as if the exhausted Franji finally found their long-sought peace, having, in their eyes, purged the sacred realm of the impious souls, and then they retired to their new houses and churches.

In the midst of the silence, however, one could perhaps hear the agonizing murmurs of those phantoms who had witnessed the same fate befall the holy land, eons ago.

Yes… the laments of the ghosts of those who had lived there millennia ago;

Of those who had seen and suffered the wrath of the golden soldiers of the Pharaohs of the Nile;

Of those who had been etched into the grisly canvas of flayed skins and forests of impaled corpses by the Assyrians, who had perfected the art of excruciation;

Of those who had been butchered like animals by decree of Antiochus Epiphanes, after he had proclaimed himself a living god and defiled the Holy of Holies;

Of those who had incinerated or crucified to death when Titus Flavius Vespasianus’ legionaries made the synagogues into furnaces and the orchards into cemeteries of crosses, and then departed back to Rome leaving no stone above stone in Jerusalem;

Of those who had been left to die in the dirt after the victorious hosts of Persia led by Shahrbaraz carried away the cross of Christ as a spoil of war;

Of those who were quartered and eviscerated after failing to impede the mad Caliph al-Ḥākim from destroying the holy sepulcher.

The laments of the dead echoed through the stained corridors and sanctuaries of the Holy City, none to be heard, though, by the victorious Crusaders, who earnestly believed that their loud chants and tearful prostrations in the places where Christ had suffered and died would reach the ears of the Almighty in Heavens, and perhaps award them the entrance into the eternal kingdom.


*****​


The Jews probably suffered worse than the Saracens, as their houses were viciously ransacked and the synagogues were torched while the most prized Arabic sanctuaries were preserved after having their wealth plundered, including the Qubbat al-Sakhrah – the Dome of the Rock – where the Prophet had ascended to the heavens.

Afterwards, many children and women were enslaved, but the Muslims and Jews were expelled from the city, forced to migrate to lands far away from their savage conquerors, thus leaving it only to the Latins and to the native Christians.

The pilgrims of lowly background made their homes into the now emptied houses of Jerusalem, becoming neighbors with the frightened native Christians (and some converted Muslims and Jews) allowed to remain in the city, who, despite religious differences, for generations had coexisted peacefully with Muslim and Jew alike, and were appalled by the horrendous fate their former fellow citizens had suffered.

The noblemen with their retinues furnished for themselves new palaces into the larger buildings, such as the Tower of David (claimed by Duke Godfrey after his Lorrainer vassals stormed it during the siege) and the former Jewish sinagogues and Islamic madrassas, repurposed to suit their needs.

_______________

Chapter Notes: This is a very significant divergence from OTL, in which the massacre that occurred to the Jerusalemite population forever stained the memory of the 1st Crusade, and would be the precedent that disallowed any kind of long-lasting settlement with the Muslims. ITTL, however, the atrocities happen – as they were the norm in the Middle Ages after the capture of a city – but not on the apocalyptic scale that our TL sources describe (with the most common designation being “ankle-deep rivers of blood). Thus I mentioned specifically that it was not worse than the ruin of Antioch, considering that the Antiochenes also suffered a brutal massacre in 1098 C.E.
 
Last edited:
but not on the apocalyptic scale that our TL sources describe (with the most common designation being “ankle-deep rivers of blood). Thus I mentioned specifically that it was not worse than the ruin of Antioch, considering that the Antiochenes also suffered a brutal massacre in 1098 C.E.
I frankly don't see how IOTL is any different from the average prolonged and medieval siege. We can't really take romantization like "rivers of blood" seriously. To me it seem like taking single historical examples and not actually seeing the surrounding trend.
 
I frankly don't see how IOTL is any different from the average prolonged and medieval siege. We can't really take romantization like "rivers of blood" seriously. To me it seem like taking single historical examples and not actually seeing the surrounding trend.
I would agree that the massacre at the end of the Siege of Jerusalem was likely exaggerated. Was it worse than any other medieval siege, maybe, but it wasn't a complete slaughter of the cities inhabitants as depicted in the narrative of the battle. Medieval writers are also notorious for exaggerating numbers for armies, casualties, and what not. That being said it was pretty ruthless in OTL so a more limited killing in TTL should improve relations between the Crusaders and Muslims somewhat.
 
I would agree that the massacre at the end of the Siege of Jerusalem was likely exaggerated. Was it worse than any other medieval siege, maybe, but it wasn't a complete slaughter of the cities inhabitants as depicted in the narrative of the battle. Medieval writers are also notorious for exaggerating numbers for armies, casualties, and what not. That being said it was pretty ruthless in OTL so a more limited killing in TTL should improve relations between the Crusaders and Muslims somewhat.
Maybe, but at the same time I fail to see how even the massacres would have affected the opinion of the people not living in Jerusalem or generally not directly affected by it. I mean after all the post-siege social situation was quite mild, I don´t recall seeing massive dissent, more so decades after the fact.

I mean not having too many people massacred is good for the economy, but not sure it changes much on the relation aspect. More so when the entire population was affected in the sieges and not specific demographics.
 
Top