Another insignificant Crusades POD

I have to agree with Anaxagoras, an important butterfly like that is bound to cause the specific Battle of Hattin to be different. IIRC Guy led his army across the desert when he could have waited for Saladin to do the same, even that would have serious consequences.

What I wonder is what was Byzantium doing in those years? How would Stephen go deal with Manny K?

He did. And assuming the same siege, why would Stephen necessarily do differently? (We can say "Stephen is a better king than Guy" and able to control the hawks, but "Stephen is different than Guy, therefore things go differently purely because he's not-Guy" is unconvincing).

Its certainly possible - but this "butterflies would do it" is giving them the power to change events on their own that I find very implausible.

When is Stephen becoming king, in this scenario?

Baldwin (IV) is still born, is still alive, still the heir (unless the barons decide to go for elective monarchy and no one supports the poor guy) and there's no particular reason his leporsy is going to be worse than OTL.

Wondering since if he becomes king at the same time as Guy did OTL, Manny K (which is a less jarring image than Johnny K, if still weird for a Byzantine emperor :eek:) is dead already.
 
One of the chief reasons why Guy led his forces across the desert was that having led the Kingdom in a highly inconclusive battle at al-Fule back in 1183, and been blamed for being overly cautious, he felt he needed to both prove and assert himself. King Stephen is unlikely to have exactly the same experience, in part because the marriage of Guy and Sybilla that propelled him into the regency was a much rushed job in the face of a prospected forced marriage that wouldn't be an issue here.

Simply put, a more secure King Stephen, without having question marks over his capability both to lead forces in battle and to be king at all, means that it becomes much less likely for an advance across the desert. Raymond of Tripoli actually advised against the advance OTL, despite the fact his own wife was under siege, so it's clear that there there are powerful groups aligned against the advance even then.
 
One of the chief reasons why Guy led his forces across the desert was that having led the Kingdom in a highly inconclusive battle at al-Fule back in 1183, and been blamed for being overly cautious, he felt he needed to both prove and assert himself. King Stephen is unlikely to have exactly the same experience, in part because the marriage of Guy and Sybilla that propelled him into the regency was a much rushed job in the face of a prospected forced marriage that wouldn't be an issue here.

Simply put, a more secure King Stephen, without having question marks over his capability both to lead forces in battle and to be king at all, means that it becomes much less likely for an advance across the desert. Raymond of Tripoli actually advised against the advance OTL, despite the fact his own wife was under siege, so it's clear that there there are powerful groups aligned against the advance even then.

But there are also powerful reasons to make the advance, and Stephen might well be one of those in the camp that thinks more like de Ridefort (we can/should attempt to attack Saladin and destroy his army) than Raymond (let's try to avoid a confrontation if we can avoid it).

And if he's one of the more cautious guys, wouldn't he make the same 1183 decision as Guy?

Not saying its inevitable, just pointing out how this sort of thing is a problem even for a stronger king.
 
But would the specific events which led to Hattin have occured? The structural issue of Saladin uniting Egypt and Syria won`t go away and I`m certain a showdown would occur. But it might happen at a different time and/or different place which puts different options on the table for all parties in the specific event. Maybe Stephen wins the battle, maybe they stalemate, maybe he loses but a large portion of the army escapes to fortresses and walled cities which don`t fall readily.

At the time of this marriage deal Manny K was fighting alongside Outremer in Egypt. In 1177 Manual sent a fleet to Acre to invade Egypt, presumably Stephen would be well married to Sybilla and would have a say in the events of this aborted cooperation attempt.
 
But would the specific events which led to Hattin have occured? The structural issue of Saladin uniting Egypt and Syria won`t go away and I`m certain a showdown would occur. But it might happen at a different time and/or different place which puts different options on the table for all parties in the specific event. Maybe Stephen wins the battle, maybe they stalemate, maybe he loses but a large portion of the army escapes to fortresses and walled cities which don`t fall readily.

At the time of this marriage deal Manny K was fighting alongside Outremer in Egypt. In 1177 Manual sent a fleet to Acre to invade Egypt, presumably Stephen would be well married to Sybilla and would have a say in the events of this aborted cooperation attempt.

Specific: Its possible, but I'd like to see how exactly Stephen makes the castle in question less valuable or more defensible.

And the battle if it takes places where it does with the forces of OTL...will unfold pretty much like OTL.

The disadvantages the Crusaders had are just staggering.

As for Manuel: Stephen is still only the king's in law, not yet king. But its something - maybe.
 
Byzantium is a major player until 1176, then disaster strikes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myriokephalon
By the time of Hattin, the crusaders are on their own.

That's after the PoD though. Still a possibility to happen given that there's only so many victories the Byzantines can have before a they're forced to stop reclaiming Anatolia, but it's quite possible to shift things about a bit, and have a smaller battle later that merely convinces the Emperor to take a breather, build up forces and such in the currently occupied area, and then attack again in a few years time, in which case they might still be interested in the Levant.
 
Specific: Its possible, but I'd like to see how exactly Stephen makes the castle in question less valuable or more defensible.

And the battle if it takes places where it does with the forces of OTL...will unfold pretty much like OTL.

The disadvantages the Crusaders had are just staggering.

As for Manuel: Stephen is still only the king's in law, not yet king. But its something - maybe.

The whole of Outremer was stripped of garrisons to field the huge army. If the army scatters after a defeat then the nearby fortified sites will have garrisons again.

For what structural reason does the showdown between Outremer and Saladin have to occur at Hattin? There are plenty of places for battle in the region.
 
Top