While I'm no fan of the Abbasid Caliphs I eagerly await the Crusaders falling victim to their own hubris.
Welp it gonna be fun while it lasted butttt here my prediction
It seem the king of France is gonna be a constant source of trouble in the crusades and I suspect that Armenia will become a vassal state with some of it incorporated into Rome
Edessa gonna be a source of trouble between the Roman because you know the romans are annexing as much of that as they can to a point. I suspect that the Roman will help to a degree in the campaign for Babylon but they will not go the whole way and the crusaders will ultimately fail in constant of Babylon but establish many crusaders states in northern meospamtia
The crusade I think will also began to farcture around the point of the invasion of Babylon
the conquest of Babylon; that is, Baghdad.
Even if they fail to take Baghdad the damage they do to its armies and fortresses will give the crusaders some breathing room.
And boy oh boy the Romans are really gobbling up territory. Like some goddamn hungry hungry hippos.
I agree.Hubris is never a good idea. This is glory-seeking, not a sound long-term strategy. (Meanwhile, the Byzantines are getting everything they could wish out of this. Good for them.)
It would be much better to secure Palmyra and Bosra, then restore Edessa and Armenia as planned, give Mosul a kicking from which it it will never recover, and let that be the end of the matter. Forget about Baghdad. Then just consolidate thoroughly, and when you're secure, make a play for Egypt.
I don't expect the Byzantines to fulfill their objectives in restoring the Kingdom of Armenia. Any Armenian state, even if restored by Constantinopolitan armies, will eventually have designs on Edessa and Cilicia down the line, even with the threat of Turkish and Caliphal armies breathing down their neck. Better to take the lion's share of greater Armenia and allot the leftovers to compliant vassals. Get revenge for Edessa, burn Mosul to the ground, grant the remaining towns and cities to King Philip's and Prince Roger's retainers but Baghdad. That's the lion's den and as numerous as the Christian armies are, they're not Alexander's Macedonians nor the Mongols. Taking Baghdad would be in essence like taking Constantinople and even if they did, it would be seen as a rallying cry that would motivate every Islamic power neighboring the Crusader State and Byzantium to attack.
I wouldn't go that far but it would be no easy fight which is understating itDoesn't Baghdad have fortifications to rival Constantinople?
at least a LESS messy HRE would do
dreaded scimitars