Effecta of a surviving kingdom of Jerusalem

Just vassalize the Holy Orders for 500 gold and some piety, then ally Byzantium, wait for the Seljuks or the Fatimids to be weakened, and start using your free Holy War CBs on duchy titles around you. Go for Egypt first. The Fatimids can call the Mamluks for free and raise the Hashshashin.

More seriously, I'd think a surviving Kingdom of Jerusalem means the Crusades were significantly more successful. Maybe it's the centre of a network of related crusader states. A Kingdom of Egypt, maybe, with a significant Coptic presence.
 
Not sure of how it could be done, but say that the kingdom of Jerusalem, including the actual city, remains in tact past the thirteenth century, what consequences could this have?
First, it would imply a massive Islamic-screw.

Latin States mostly survived until the XIIIth century because they were a convenient buffer zone between Egypt and Syria. When this ceased to be a thing, or when Crusaders prooved to be too much of a threat, the justification for their existence ceased to be that pressing for Islamic states.
You'd need something quite big to prevent Arabo-Islamic states to simply stop caring about the region.

Of course, you'd have an alternative with a Mongol wank in Near-East, that would make whatever remains of the Yerosolemite Kingdom a subject of the khan, but how long could it last? At best you end up with maritime republic protectorates.

You have as well the constant problem of military manpower that plagued Latin states. Most of the crusaders just turned back to France or Germany after the capture of Jerusalem and at best, the Latin population most probably didn't managed to represent much more than 5% of the population (on a population of 3 millions, approximatly) a number that most than probably includes "temporary" settlers and/or long-dwelling pilgrims.
Even if successful Crusades of 1101 and subsequent reinforcements would help, you'd need Crusaders to really capture more than they did, including Homs and Damascus (which is really hard to do without good supplies, that were more or less tied up to the coast).

Basically : you need to screw Arabo-Islamic world on YUUUUGE proportions. And that's only the causes, not the consequences.

For what matter them, the region would be basically unreckognizable after some centuries, both politically and socially, so...

Well, if the historical experience is any good, you'd probably see a "roughly tolerant" (as MacEvitt put it) Latin rule over the region, not actively trying to convert the population. Some sort of reversed Muslim Egypt, with a sizable Islamic population.
Near-East may turn to be more prosperous in the Late Middle Ages and subsequent centuries than it was IOTL, with a middle-class made of (probably antegonist) two groups : local native Christians and Armenians, and Italians.

Who would rule it?
It would be such a mess...

Being an "idealized" feudal kingdom, Jerusalem never really made it well with successions. Between important nobiliar power (that was essentially castellan and urban elite, close to the centers of power), important foreign influence and Italian meddling...

I'd go with "anyone with enough ressources and a big sword could rule it". Of course it might changes with a different TL, but really, it doesn't starts well.

Would this maintain crusading fervour?
Probably not.
Crusades were profoundly tied up with a "feudal" conception of the world. With the appearance of bureaucratic states in Western Europe, crusades ceased to be a real possibility, except as legimizing features.

You could count the blessed expeditions as Spanish expeditions against Turks or the Madhia Crusade and then add more expeditions as "Crusades", but they were hardly crusades in the common sense : even by stretching the definition as much as humanly possible, the blessing were made IOTL a-posteriori, and the expeditions would probably have been made nevertheless even without pontifical agreement.

Frankly, I'd be extremely surprised to see the Yerosolemite Kingdom surviving, even as a token kingdom based on some coastal strongholds and cities that would be basically Italian protectorates. Not without a massive decline of the Arabo-Islamic world because of...reasons.
 
Would this maintain crusading fervour?

Probably not.
Crusades were profoundly tied up with a "feudal" conception of the world. With the appearance of bureaucratic states in Western Europe, crusades ceased to be a real possibility, except as legimizing features.

You could count the blessed expeditions as Spanish expeditions against Turks or the Madhia Crusade and then add more expeditions as "Crusades", but they were hardly crusades in the common sense : even by stretching the definition as much as humanly possible, the blessing were made IOTL a-posteriori, and the expeditions would probably have been made nevertheless even without pontifical agreement.

Perhaps not a formal crusade but I'd expect to see at least a handful of aggressive European actions in North Africa that would fall under the "Crusade" category. Their motive would likely be wealth or land considering the much weaker Muslim world that this POD requires but an ulterior motive doesn't necessarily negate the "crusade" title as religion would still be a primary casus belli. And a much weaker Muslim sphere could certainly encourage a more aggressive stance from Rome regarding preemptively sanctioned actions.
 
Interesting, the nearest comparison I could make is with Algeria - Franks ruling over Muslims.

I'd assume with the Kingdom being prominently Christian that it would convert people over time, but really, it can't exist in a vacuum. If its survival is tied to the Romans, then there will be more Orthodoxy, if it is tied to Crusaders, then Crusader-Settlers might become a long-lasting phenomenon, perhaps moving into Egypt, North Africa and Mesopotamia over generations.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that the Patriarch of Jerusalem becomes a useful political tool. Don't like the Pope? Go to Jerusalem. Ostensibly Catholic, but with a bit of give for Crusaders. Good way to get rid of younger sons or bastards. Give them a sword, and send them east.

With the greater part of Crusaders going to settle in Jerusalem, and defend it, those who are on the offensive might have to resort to partnering with local Christians. I.e. Crusaders working with a Coptic revolt, or a Nestorian Uprising. Having a Christian Patchwork in the East, with an Orthodox Roman Empire, Crusader-Coptic Egypt, Crusader-Nestorian Mesopotamia and a Crusader-Catholic Jerusalem would be a mess, but certainly interesting.

Keep in mind that at the time of the Crusades, there was a significant native Christian population in the Holy Land, and in the Middle East in general. (Egypt was likely still Christian-majority at this time.) IOTL, the Crusaders didn't necessarily get along with the Palestinian Christians as well as one might assume, as the former were Catholic and latter were mostly Orthodox. If the Schism of 1054 doesn't happen, perhaps things unfold differently.
 
I'm personally more interested in the scientific and cultural impact this might have on Europe. Even in a failed attack like OTL, the cultural shifts brought to Europe by Islamic ideas, products, and spices sent shockwaves through the continent. I would be very interested to see how a Catholic trading post connected to the East would influence European cultural development, and how many scientific ideas would make their way faster across the Med.
 
I'm personally more interested in the scientific and cultural impact this might have on Europe. Even in a failed attack like OTL, the cultural shifts brought to Europe by Islamic ideas, products, and spices sent shockwaves through the continent. I would be very interested to see how a Catholic trading post connected to the East would influence European cultural development, and how many scientific ideas would make their way faster across the Med.
I can see a Delay in reaching the new world. With Crusader Egypt/Jerusalim/Syria/whathaveyou the route to eastern spices would be open and cheaper than going around Africa for a longer period. And without a desire to go around Africa the desire for going around who ever controls that route goes too
 
I can see a Delay in reaching the new world. With Crusader Egypt/Jerusalim/Syria/whathaveyou the route to eastern spices would be open and cheaper than going around Africa for a longer period. And without a desire to go around Africa the desire for going around who ever controls that route goes too

Very true, if Jerusalem is willing to sell to any and all
 
Very true, if Jerusalem is willing to sell to any and all
Jerusalem would be as cash strapped as it would be for manpower. The lands are not nearly as fertile as Egypt or Stria, and it wouldn't have that much of a minning sector. Wealth for Jerusalem would be in Trade and leveraging the religious value for all that it is worth.
 
A surviving Crusader state, assuming it lasts long term for at least several centuries, will have lots of butterflies.

1) Unlikely that the Byzantines suffer as they did as the Turks will have Christian powers to their north (Georgia) and south (Crusader States). Some form of an independent Greek power will exist on the European mainland and western coast of Anatolia. The Turks may become a major power, but they won't achieve anything like the dominance the Ottomans had. It is probably the lack of a Ottoman superpower which drives most departures rather than the presence of a Christian shore on the Levant.

2) Cilician Armenia is likely to survive for the same reasons.

3) The spice trade will continue to flow to Europe via Egypt and the Levant. That may delay the discovery of the Americas. When it happens, it may be from the north through discovery of the cod fisheries in NE North America.

4) Ethiopia will not be as culturally isolated from Christian Europe. At some point, a Crusader state which has access to the Red Sea via the Gulf of Aqaba will open up some form of permanent trade and cultural exchange. IOTL, there was existing Ethiopian involvement with Jerusalem and the ecumenical councils in Europe, but there were limits to the exchange because of the distance involved. With a Christian outpost so near them, there will be much greater contact. I imagine Ethiopia will close some of the technological and institutional gap with its Mideast neighbors as a result.

5) Not having an Ottoman Empire threat that controls the Eastern Mediterranean will mean a much greater chance that western North Africa falls to the rising European powers in the 16th-17th centuries. Egypt is probably strong enough to remain independent.

6) Likewise, Hungary remains an important independent state in Europe. Instead of a French-Ottoman axis against the Holy Roman Empire, we will have a French-Hungarian one possibly with the Poles as well.

7) Without Ottoman support, the Poles/Lithuanians and Russians will move south into the lands of the Crimean Tatars and Golden Horde more quickly.

8) The big regional power in the Middle East might be the Persians.

9) If the Crusader States survive long term until the 18th century or so, they may end up controlling Damascus and Aleppo, the two nearby inland Muslim cities. This may mean some kind of super Christian "Syria" which encompasses all the Crusader states. The eastern part of Syria based along the Euphrates will be separate, likely remaining part of Muslim Mesopotamia.

10) In Europe the lack of an Ottoman threat may mean that the establishment is able to crack down on any Martin Luther style reformation. We will likely see some kind of internal reforms, but not one that splits West Christian Europe in two.

11) It is possible that if Christian trade with India can happen via a Crusader Aqaba-Ethiopia -India trade axis, that they discover the Christians of Socotra and help them maintain their religion. While not a major POD, this is something I find interesting. It might become an important stop on the Christian trade with India - used not just by the Crusaders-Ethiopians, but also the Portuguese when they finally round the Cape. It might become an important entrepot for the western Indian Ocean.
 
Very true, if Jerusalem is willing to sell to any and all

The Italian merchant republics (especially Venice) had a significant presence in Outremer IOTL, and they can probably strong-arm/blackmail/induce/negotiate some deal with regards to spices flowing through the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Top