Using the search function I found a somewhat old thread, but there were few replies, so I see no harm in bringing this topic, although I imagine it might have been discussed already.
So, the First Crusade by modern assessments was an unexpected game-changer for Western Christendom and Islam. Yet, it had some close calls which could have spelt the defeat of the entire expedition. Indeed, the so-called People's Crusade failed miserably, while the Nobles' army was marred by internal rivalries.
For the sake of convenience, let's put the PoD on the Siege of Antioch (1097-1098 A.D.). The Crusaders had advanced through Anatolia, and now had less support from Alexios Komnenos. After an extremely lenghty and exhausting siege of the metropolis of Antioch, a large Muslim army under Kerbogha arrives to take the city. Let's suppose the Muslims gain a decisive victory and the Crusade is effectively defeated.
So far there were no Crusader States established (forget about the County of Edessa), and the "pilgrims in arms" failed their purpose of reaching the Holy City. Now what?
So, the First Crusade by modern assessments was an unexpected game-changer for Western Christendom and Islam. Yet, it had some close calls which could have spelt the defeat of the entire expedition. Indeed, the so-called People's Crusade failed miserably, while the Nobles' army was marred by internal rivalries.
For the sake of convenience, let's put the PoD on the Siege of Antioch (1097-1098 A.D.). The Crusaders had advanced through Anatolia, and now had less support from Alexios Komnenos. After an extremely lenghty and exhausting siege of the metropolis of Antioch, a large Muslim army under Kerbogha arrives to take the city. Let's suppose the Muslims gain a decisive victory and the Crusade is effectively defeated.
So far there were no Crusader States established (forget about the County of Edessa), and the "pilgrims in arms" failed their purpose of reaching the Holy City. Now what?