I meant Baldwin V, nephew of Baldwin IV, and son of Sybilla of Jersusalem and William of Montferrat.Baldwin the leper not being a leper? It might've given the Kingdom of Jerusalem a boost, but in the end, they're simply in an untenable strategic situation - and their military superiority is eroded every day they remain in the Levant, with Islamic armies' modernising.
Even a united KoJ's days are numbered when they're exposed on all sides to Islamic juggernauts. Barring some magical resurgence of the Byzantines, or a succession of crusades for which the political will will diminish, the levant will become muslim ruled eventually.
I meant Baldwin V, nephew of Baldwin IV, and son of Sybilla of Jersusalem and William of Montferrat.
Um, the Kingdom of Jerusalem did last until nearly the end of the 13th century OTL.
Fall of Acre, 1291.
Let's not be pedantic, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was ended as an important state well before then.
It's not pedantic to point out that the KoJ lasted through the 13th century.
Being "an important state" really isn't relevant to how long it held on, but if we have to go for that, I would nominate La Forbie (1244) as the last gasp.
I feel that it should honestly be considered a different state after the loss of Jerusalem, it was such a massive shift that you really couldnt consider them the same state.
What shifted in terms of its identity or nature as a state?
Nature as a state didnt really change much, one french model feudal country tends to look like another french model feudal country. The identity in the KoJ though was based so much on Jerusalem (as much identity as there was given how practically no-one but the people coming in from europe cared about the kingdom), after that city was lost there wasnt much identity left to them beyond a few scraps. That and on just a purely nitpicking note I just dont like calling them the Kingdom of Jerusalem when they had long ago lost control of Jerusalem, perhaps they should have been demoted to the Duchy of Acre or something.
Um, the Kingdom of Jerusalem did last until nearly the end of the 13th century OTL.
Fall of Acre, 1291.
Well, I was referring to a fall from power and the fall of Jerusalem rather than of the Kindom, but given that when Richard arrived with the Third Crusade the Kingdom had been reduced to the besieged city of Tyre, I'd say that a fall is a pretty valid way of putting it anyway. I've even come across a 'First Kingdom, Second Kingdom' division at this point as Richard essentially recreated the new Kingdom virtually from scratch.
Given that the kingdom after the Third Crusade was resurrected, at least to some extent, I wouldn't.
And it's hardly just Richard at work or even just those who took the cross.
I was using Richard as a shorthand. In any case his somewhat abrasive personality meant that it was largely him in charge after a while having caused the others to leave in protest.
But, back to the matter in hand, would you claim that the Byzantine Empire did not fall in 1204 despite losing Constantinople, because the Empire of Nicea still existed and would regain the city in 1261?
Because seriously there was basically nothing left of the Kingdom.