Baldwin IV of jerusalem never contracts leprosy.

HI, everyone!
So, it's been a while. Earlier today I watched a review of kingdom of heaven, and looked into Baldwins life. Apparently, he was actually a very good king and commander, but sadly died young, due to his leprosy.
If he had survived, what would have happened?
Well, he probably would have continued his largely succesful campaigns against Salah al din, and the disastrous events of guy de lusignans reign would have been prevented.
For marriage prospects, a rather famous figure comes to mind. It's a bit of a Longshot, but what if baldwin married tamar of Georgia? They were almost the same age, and she was only married after Baldwins death. So, if baldwin had been healthy, could we see Georgia at its peak allied with jerusalem, when it had its greatest king?

I apologise for my grammar. Nowhere near my computer at mm so I'm on tablet.
 
HI, everyone!
Hi!

So, it's been a while. Earlier today I watched a review of kingdom of heaven, and looked into Baldwins life. Apparently, he was actually a very good king and commander, but sadly died young, due to his leprosy.

If he had survived, what would have happened?
Giving he was stricken by leperosy at a really young age...He's still going to die young, as it's generally considered a small wonder of its own he did lived this long already.

Eventually, I wouldn't call him a very good king, not much because of his capacities (which still seems relatively average if well aplied), than because his leprosy provoked a real political unstability at middle term with political pressure, prevented him to fill his military role (which lead to some defeats), and even turned part of the native population against him (which was relatively unheard before).

Sure, Baudouin did have a good political sense, as how he balanced the various ambitions points : but really, due to its illness, he more or less held on the Yerosolemite Kingdom rather than reinforcing it, IMO.

Well, he probably would have continued his largely succesful campaigns against Salah al din
I disagree with "largely successful". A good part of Yerosolemite tactics against Arabs included raiding, which eventually backfired as Baudouin had little possibilities to tell his vassals when to and when not to doing so on their own, as well as defensive tactics.
Montgrisard, for exemple, while a Yerosolemite victory wasn't really exploited as much as it could, which allowed Saladin to resume its attack shortly after wards before the general attrition forced everyone to a short peace.

and the disastrous events of guy de lusignans reign would have been prevented.
I'm not entierly sure why Guy de Lusignan's reign have such a bad reputation on this board.
Not that he was particularily bright as a regent, but he admittedly was stuck with a poor situation : the illness of Baudouin made the great nobles of the kingdom more independent-minded (admittedlt it was a definied trait of the Latin States) and an outsider coming to make terms was not going to be that welcomed.
The prize for having avoided an Hattin-like disaster at the Fountains was more or less considered as cowardice and bad military management at this point (arguably, it's not clear if it was his decision, but he got blamed for it anyway).

Again, I don't consider him as a particularily skilled person, but most of the blame he gets come from the really unstable politics of the kingdom, mostly due to largely independent and fierce Latin nobility.

For marriage prospects, a rather famous figure comes to mind. It's a bit of a Longshot, but what if baldwin married tamar of Georgia?
Baudouin IV, for all that we know, was sterile and unable to not only have offsprings, but to...ah, well, consummate.

Even if a mock-union was enabled, it would certainly have concerned with western Europe nobility : almost all the matrimonial policy of the kingdom at this point was to tie links with powerful families to get some reinforcement hope.

Really, the best chance you could have to significantly change Baudouin IV's reign would have been him not contracting leprosy in first place.
 
Going by the title, I think Superninja76 was asking what would have happened if Baldwin hadn't contracted leprosy in the first place, not just what if he had lived a bit longer.
 
I'm not entierly sure why Guy de Lusignan's reign have such a bad reputation on this board.
.

Blame Kingdom of Heaven

KoH_2.jpg
 
HI, everyone!
So, it's been a while. Earlier today I watched a review of kingdom of heaven, and looked into Baldwins life. Apparently, he was actually a very good king and commander, but sadly died young, due to his leprosy.
If he had survived, what would have happened?
Well, he probably would have continued his largely succesful campaigns against Salah al din, and the disastrous events of guy de lusignans reign would have been prevented.
For marriage prospects, a rather famous figure comes to mind. It's a bit of a Longshot, but what if baldwin married tamar of Georgia? They were almost the same age, and she was only married after Baldwins death. So, if baldwin had been healthy, could we see Georgia at its peak allied with jerusalem, when it had its greatest king?

It certainly would have avoided one (of many) situation that caused political instability in Outremer (the crusader states). He certainly tried hard and did a moderately good job, but he knew his leprosy was hindering him. He tried to find some decent successor plan, but his plans kept falling through so he kept the job long after he was ineffective.

If he had fine health, he certainly would have done better and the area would have been more stable longer. However, there were many things that contributed to political confusion in Outremer and this would only eliminate one. That being said, if he had been healthy, lived long, and produced a clear, strong heir, that would have reduced instability for decades.
 
I'm not entierly sure why Guy de Lusignan's reign have such a bad reputation on this board.
Not that he was particularily bright as a regent, but he admittedly was stuck with a poor situation : the illness of Baudouin made the great nobles of the kingdom more independent-minded (admittedlt it was a definied trait of the Latin States) and an outsider coming to make terms was not going to be that welcomed.
The prize for having avoided an Hattin-like disaster at the Fountains was more or less considered as cowardice and bad military management at this point (arguably, it's not clear if it was his decision, but he got blamed for it anyway).

Again, I don't consider him as a particularily skilled person, but most of the blame he gets come from the really unstable politics of the kingdom, mostly due to largely independent and fierce Latin nobility.

While he's certainly not the only one to blame for Hattin, but he was the guy (primarily) in charge. He acted prudently at the Fountains, but received complaints from the nobility. So, at Hattin, he did NOT act prudently and got an utter disaster. Marching an army into the desert to do battle against desert people is typically a bad idea. Allowing your army to get cut off from the only water is horrid logistics and stupid.
 
While he's certainly not the only one to blame for Hattin, but he was the guy (primarily) in charge. He acted prudently at the Fountains, but received complaints from the nobility. So, at Hattin, he did NOT act prudently and got an utter disaster. Marching an army into the desert to do battle against desert people is typically a bad idea. Allowing your army to get cut off from the only water is horrid logistics and stupid.

To be fair, the vast majority of Frankish/Crusader victories in the Levant are also attributable to the same kind of imprudence. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead is brave and brilliant when you win, dumb and disastrous when you lose. Richard the Lionheart's forced landing at Jaffa was pretty much insane from any objective perspective, but because he pulled it off even his enemies thought him heroic. If he'd died in the surf he'd be remembered as stupid. It's a fine line, and in particular the Norman/Frankish/Crusader tactics of 'when in doubt, a good cavalry charge trumps everything including overwhelming numbers' often danced it to remarkable effect.
 
To be fair, the vast majority of Frankish/Crusader victories in the Levant are also attributable to the same kind of imprudence. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead is brave and brilliant when you win, dumb and disastrous when you lose. Richard the Lionheart's forced landing at Jaffa was pretty much insane from any objective perspective, but because he pulled it off even his enemies thought him heroic. If he'd died in the surf he'd be remembered as stupid. It's a fine line, and in particular the Norman/Frankish/Crusader tactics of 'when in doubt, a good cavalry charge trumps everything including overwhelming numbers' often danced it to remarkable effect.

While they often tended to that tactic, over time they got pretty good at a better tactic -- stay together, hold strong, and don't try to chase the muslims. When they did that, they did pretty well. When they forgot it was often disaster.
 
While they often tended to that tactic, over time they got pretty good at a better tactic -- stay together, hold strong, and don't try to chase the muslims. When they did that, they did pretty well. When they forgot it was often disaster.
Oh, absolutely. Not really a Lionheart fan as it might seem, but again he's the prime example of that tactic at Arsuf...though in truth the victory actually came about when discipline finally broke down and they went back to Plans A through Y, ie see ball hit ball. But anyways, I agree and I'm not saying that the Fanks were only/always set on 'charge', just that many of their improbable victories were down to their doing that in seemingly idiotic situations. So I think that to a degree mitigates the blame associated with the times seemingly idiotic became provably idiotic; take out idiocy and they're pretty much all back home in Europe or dead by attrition at various places along the way.
 
Going by the title, I think Superninja76 was asking what would have happened if Baldwin hadn't contracted leprosy in the first place, not just what if he had lived a bit longer.
Ah, I guess I mssed that.

It's significantly harder to answer, giving that he contracted leprosy really young : it would likely change significants features of his reign, personality, etc. So while we could argue that it would make him a better or a worse king without much to contradict either, I'm going to be relatively vague, and more focused on geopolitics rather than how *Baldwin IV would directly change history.

First, Ayyubid takeover of Egypt and Syria is a given ITTL. Meaning the whole set of military pressure, harassment and threat of reconquest is still there, and it's not something easy to deal with. While during Amaury's reign, Latins could count on the important rivality between whoever controlled Egypt and whoever controlled Syria, this strategy is moot then.

The big changes would be about the Yerosolemite Kingdom, eventually.
We could argue that Amaury would live longer than IOTL, due to the absence of stress knowing his successor contracted leprosy (an illness that, for what matter medieval public opinion could be compared to the perception of AIDS in the 80's), possibly allowing a smoother succession.

I do think, tough, that Amaury's expedition in Egypt isn't really going to work out, probably significantly less so than the expedition of 1167-1168 before the clear hostility of the population, the Ayyubid control (altough Saladin doesn't have control of Northern principalties) and general weariness of Latin resources (the Armenian expedition wasn't exactly stellar). At best, tough, I could see it as a successful raid.

The lack of more or less constant intrigues around Baudouin, due to his sterelity and his incompetency (in the medical sense) is certainly going to embetter the political situation of the kingom, making it more unified. It's a relative observation, tough : the Yerosolemite Kingdom was concieved as an idealized feudal entity, with a top-down/down-top vassalic relationship, meaning that the great feudataires had a large independence from the crown, and even vavassors (vassals of vassals) could intervene in the High Court (which shared much of the rulership with the king who, at times, was stuck with a more or less purely redistributive, military and of course vassalic role).

The interesting part there is which alliances Baudouin would eventually favour : it would certainly go with a matrimonial union. Now, I know that medieval match-making is one of the best way to have a teraload of posts in pre-1900, so I won't spoil anyone's pleasure. I'd just point that such alliances were generally searched for possibility of military support.
A new alliance with Byzzies seems a bit overstretching, especially giving the latter reign of Amaury, and the familial closeness (such marriage could be frowned upon due to cosanguinity as defined trough clerical perception).
An alliance with Montferrat still seems likely, due to their ties with Capetians and Honestaufen, with a union with one of the three daughters of Guilhèm V, instead of a marriage with the IOTL Guilhèm Lungaspada. One could argue, tough, that this union would be particularily anambitious.

But few of Yerosolemite marriages were really about trying directly with great lines after all. If not Montferrat, then maybe Bourgogne with an union with Mahaut daughter of Eudes. The point is that it would search support among French and Imperial nobility.

Now, as said above, I do think that Saladin is still going to have the upper hand on the conflict with Latin States by sheer ammount of ressources, political strength and skills. Maybe ITTL, tough, a safe and sound king that can assume the military function of his charge, and with a significantly (if not wholly, as pointed above) realm might simply do better, and avoid giving Saladin too much opportunities.
The whole pressure on Latin States since decades, a pressure that will go growing, would still ITTL lead the kingdom in deep crisis up to a *Third Crusade IMO. But with a significantly better hold for Poulains and Crusaders (in the same time, it's not that hard to think of a better hold than IOTL Third Crusade situation), it just might turns out better. Possible no civil war, more unified Poulains and more territory are good assests : we might even see a recapture of Jerusalem ITTL.
 
While he's certainly not the only one to blame for Hattin, but he was the guy (primarily) in charge. [...] Allowing your army to get cut off from the only water is horrid logistics and stupid.
Thing is, he wasn't exactly in charge at this point. While Yerosolemite king had a clear military role (often the only that was more or less untouched), Guy suffered from a real legitimacy problems, and Latin nobles weren't really going to obey as they should have done.
Raimond de Tripoli demonstrated a really cool-blooded but sound advice before the battle, which technically gained precedence over the council (which, even in military matters, was able to impose its decisions before the king), but the sheer pressure of other great nobles and critically Templars (who represented an elite force among Latins). At some point, when a part of your army more or less declares it would leave if you don't attack, there's little choice to be made (altough Guy seems to have embraced it more than he sould have IMO).

I do not dispute than Guy wasn't a bright king and that, maybe, someone else would have dealt with the crisis better : but I think less Guy's personal fault there, than a really shitty situation within the Yerosolemite Kingdom whom princes where already pretty much independent to begin with, and due to succession crises devolved as an ensemble to the point even the High Council's decisions could be unappliable with enough pressure.

But anyways, I agree and I'm not saying that the Fanks were only/always set on 'charge', just that many of their improbable victories were down to their doing that in seemingly idiotic situations.
I dispute it was particularily idiotic in the context of Latin States military situations. While battles were relatively rare, and decisive battles even more so, for what matter Latin medieval Europe, it was because medieval warfare was eventually about territorial control or at least to ravage enough your opponent's territories (often before attempting control).
In Europe, you didn't really needed (it could actually be logistically unsound) to maintain big armies as long you could effectively control a given territory.

But in Syria, Poulains and Crusader alike were stuck with the big problem of Latin States which was the constant lack of military manpower, which made control of the territory hard enough, not even mentioning taking over some more. Hence, Latin princes tended to search the battle significantly more than in Europe, even if they generally tried to force the opponent to strike first in a uncomfortable position for his army.
At Hattin, Guy was under pressure and probably felt he couldn't really waste the potential that a large army had, in the context of Syrian warfare.
 
Yeah, fighting battles seems like a pretty good idea from a crusaders point of view.
But, regarding my tamar idea. Could this result in a earlier collapse of rum? After all, Georgia coming in from the north, crusaders from the south and maybe West.. just doesn't seem like the sultans of rum could throw the Christians back. The sultans of rum probably would not have much luck in battles, as the crusaders had already adapted to Muslim tactics by then.

Of course, the real question is: what happens when the mongols come? Assuming baldwin lives long enough, which is not unlikely, he would probably understand just how overwhelmingly powerful the mongols were, and submit. If he fought, well, it would not end well.
There's also the Latin empire. How would baldwin and his allies react, if it goes as otl? I would think the Georgians would react opportunistically, and the crusaders who would have expanded at the expense of rum would, perhaps, support it? They wouldn't do very much against the Bulgari, but without having to fight on two fronts, the Latin empire could perhaps last.

Will post on computer tomorrow.
 
But, regarding my tamar idea. Could this result in a earlier collapse of rum? After all, Georgia coming in from the north, crusaders from the south and maybe West..

Well, an union with Georgia makes not much sense, at least from a Yerosolemite point of view.
First, she's a bit too young to be realistically married early on to *Baudouin IV that, for reasons aformentioned, can't reallt wait too long to draw matrimonial alliances.
Then, Georgia in the 1170's was undergoing a civil unrest that would certainly not look good on the "searching an alliance" resume.

Eventually, I don't think it would be an alliance searched for Georgians themselves, whome the geopolitical horizon seems to have been quite different from Latin States. While Georgia's policies were much more driven onto Caucasus and a bit in Anatolia, Latin States had to focus on Syria and Egypt as Ayyubids domination represented an actual existential threat to them.
A bit like, if you allow me the comparison, an alliance between England and Norway to take over the HRE. Neither would have a real interest on this, and probably wouldn't have the force to do so.

The sultans of rum probably would not have much luck in battles, as the crusaders had already adapted to Muslim tactics by then.
Even assuming that Saladin and Ayyubids more or less freeze in the meantime, and that Georgian nobles don't react (while they seem to have been really revolt-happy IOTL), I'm not to sure why you think Turks were particularily weak in this period.
At the contrary, they demonstrated they could hold their own against Byzantines on the same era, and giving that neither Latins or Georgians had would it be a significant part of the military resources Byzantium had... Remember that even as the First Crusade was successful, Turks were more than capable to crush the reinforcement in 1100 and 1101.

Of course, would it be only for what matter Baudouin IV, the Ayyubid threat is very real and prevents any real possibility to campaign against Turks, or even in Little Armenia as his father did.

Of course, the real question is: what happens
Following what I proposed above as a possible outcome of no leperosy for Baudouin, we could see a significantly more successful *Third Crusade, which a probably still unique Yerosolemite Kingom, slightly more unified, and that might have kept Jerusalem.
It would be still a relatively weakened kingdom by the 1190's, still prone to desunity, and that would have suffered from Saladin's tactics and warfare. Effectively, the kingdom would be essentially limited to a coastal band with some hinterland strongpoints IMO.

I'd expect the kingdom to be a bit more like the Kingdom of Cyprus IOTL (altough not exactly like it : the nobiliar organisation is well too ingrained), so maybe a bit more able to hold its own in the immediate future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_the_Levant
when the mongols come?
Mongols wouldn't come in Syria before a bit less than one century : I admit that a non-leper Baudouin will live longer than IOTL, but not this long, to be aware of the Mongol threat or not.

There's also the Latin empire.
It might be butterflied ITTL, if Jerusalem is still under Latin dominance. Even if it's not, the whole tribulations of the Fourth Crusade doesn't make the appearance of a Latin Empire super likely with a PoD in the 1170's (especially as Syria remains still a more obvious crusading target ITTL)
If it still happens, tough, I won't see big changes happening : the Latin Empire is still barely able to take care of itself, not even talking of reinforcing Syria.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Yeah, fighting battles seems like a pretty good idea from a crusaders point of view.
But, regarding my tamar idea. Could this result in a earlier collapse of rum? After all, Georgia coming in from the north, crusaders from the south and maybe West.. just doesn't seem like the sultans of rum could throw the Christians back. The sultans of rum probably would not have much luck in battles, as the crusaders had already adapted to Muslim tactics by then.

Of course, the real question is: what happens when the mongols come? Assuming baldwin lives long enough, which is not unlikely, he would probably understand just how overwhelmingly powerful the mongols were, and submit. If he fought, well, it would not end well.
There's also the Latin empire. How would baldwin and his allies react, if it goes as otl? I would think the Georgians would react opportunistically, and the crusaders who would have expanded at the expense of rum would, perhaps, support it? They wouldn't do very much against the Bulgari, but without having to fight on two fronts, the Latin empire could perhaps last.

Will post on computer tomorrow.

There wouldn't BE a Latin Empire.

With the Holy Land very much secured by the Latins on the ground there, the Pope would be far less likely to call a crusade. Every crusade up to the 4th Crusade was declared in an effort to secure or recapture Jerusalem for Christianity.

Maybe there could be seen a need to declare a Crusade for Egypt, but that's it.
 
Top