Damascus Falls in 1148

Suppose that the Crusaders decided to stay on the Western side of Damascus, facing stronger defences but having continued use of the orchard for food and water. Could the Crusaders have defeated Nur ad-Din when he arrived scarcely four days after the siege began? What if Nur ad-Din was killed at the battle, and Damascus fell to the Crusaders?

This itself opens a vast amount of other questions. What would the Zengid Dynasty do now that their primary rival had been conquered by Christian invaders? How would the victory affect the Crusaders other exploits in Egypt?

I'm not an expert on the Crusades (our course doesn't cover them until the second semester :() so I am relying on you to help paint a picture of what might have been.

What can you come up with?
 
Damascus

This would make good strategic sense, since Damascus was the largest and richest Muslim city in Syria. I do see some possible arguments as to who the city actually goes to. I see a vassal of Lous
VII rather than having it as a fief of Jerusalem .
 
From what I can remember Charles Oman suggests this was the biggest strategic blunder of the Crusading era. Taking Damascus would have cut the contiguous territory held by the Muslims between Syria and Egypt, making eventual unification by the Zengids more difficult or impossible. As it was armies could travel from Egypt to Syria and back, or assemble in friendly territory to drive into Outremer.

The biggest failure in the 2nd Crusade was the failure of the 3 armies to cross Anatolia intact or largely so.
 
Last edited:
Top