If the 3rd Crusade recaptures Jerusalem...

Yeah. That sort of thing pretty much ensures that unless the crusading pattern changes, even if it continues the long run chances are poor.

I don't think the crusading pattern will change much in the long term so even if there's a major success in the Third Crusade and in the subsequent crusade, the conditions are already in place for the conquest of the Crusader states by whichever Muslim power is strong and organized enough at the right time to conquer them. I would give them until the early 1300s until they're in serious trouble again and that's being extremely optimistic. The Muslims aren't fond of Crusader states and the local Eastern Christians weren't so favorable of being looked upon as heretics by the Catholics.

On the armies, they're not horrible, but something like the Mameluke army that beat the Mongols at Ain Janut vs. a Crusader army would be an epic curbstomping...by the Muslims.

Is this on a basis of the Mamelukes having more men to throw at the Crusaders or better organizational skills?
 
That's not because the Crusaders sucked, that's because the Mamelukes were that good. And it depends on the leadership and discipline. Given the right leadership the Crusaders would not be crushed.

I'll put it this way: The Crusaders were not the kind of army to beat that kind of army.

Were they good at what they did? Yes. Problem is that half-disciplined heavy cavalry and ineffectual use of infantry (Hattin is an extreme case, admittedly) is...insufficient.

Richard seems to have shown how to make the Western style army of crossbow and lance-knight work, though, so it isn't undoable.

Unlikely (odds of getting a great warrior king are never good), but not impossible.

I don't think the crusading pattern will change much in the long term so even if there's a major success in the Third Crusade and in the subsequent crusade, the conditions are already in place for the conquest of the Crusader states by whichever Muslim power is strong and organized enough at the right time to conquer them. I would give them until the early 1300s until they're in serious trouble again and that's being extremely optimistic. The Muslims aren't fond of Crusader states and the local Eastern Christians weren't so favorable of being looked upon as heretics by the Catholics.

Yeah. Bad combination for an underdog state, as the underpopulated Crusader state would be.

Is this on a basis of the Mamelukes having more men to throw at the Crusaders or better organizational skills?
#2. Western European armies (and I'm counting the KoJ as Western European) have a mixed record on even basic organization not breaking down. Crecy comes to mind as an example.

Seriously, what part of "charge as a coordinated body" is so hard to keep one's ego in check for?

Obviously Crecy was lost for other reasons as well, but that not working is the kind of failure that I'm referring to.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Bad combination for an underdog state, as the underpopulated Crusader state would be.

Well exactly. Not wanting to divert the conversation but how would the relations be between the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the other Crusader kingdoms in the Levant, and the Eastern Roman Empire? That's if the OTL Fourth Crusade is butterflied in OTL; it's likely that it would since the Venetians and Crusaders wouldn't be looking at Egypt to conquer but perhaps reinforcing the local Christians in the Levant.
[/QUOTE]
 
Well exactly. Not wanting to divert the conversation but how would the relations be between the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the other Crusader kingdoms in the Levant, and the Eastern Roman Empire? That's if the OTL Fourth Crusade is butterflied in OTL; it's likely that it would since the Venetians and Crusaders wouldn't be looking at Egypt to conquer but perhaps reinforcing the local Christians in the Levant.

Your guess is as bad as mine as a generic, but to use my timeline (which involves such a successful Third Crusade):

Other Crusader states: What other Crusader states are left besides Antioch? Said principality is reabsorbed by the ERE a century or so later.

Cyprus is part of the ERE, so that's out.

ERE: Lukewarm at best. Alexius II helped the crusaders of the Third Crusade, but it was done in the interests of the ERE, not the KoJ, and his successors are busy with Anatolia and the Mongols for most of the 13th century.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem will sink or swim by the efforts of those who made such a thing exist to begin with.
 
For the KoJ to hold Jerusalem it has to hold Oultrejordain. This is why when Henry later negotiated the return of Jerusalem the locals weren't keen and it reverted to Muslim control soon after, as it was untennable. If the 3rd Crusade can knock Saladin and co back that far then well and good, if not then any gains around Jerusalem itself will be fleeting.
 
For the KoJ to hold Jerusalem it has to hold Oultrejordain. This is why when Henry later negotiated the return of Jerusalem the locals weren't keen and it reverted to Muslim control soon after, as it was untennable. If the 3rd Crusade can knock Saladin and co back that far then well and good, if not then any gains around Jerusalem itself will be fleeting.

How far is "that far" in terms of how well they have to do?

That is, are we looking at something that a major victory over Saladin's army should achieve relatively easily, or additional and extensive campaigning?

Also: Why?

Not arguing, but what exactly is so vital about Oultrejordain to holding Jerusalem?

What is it protecting against, basically.
 
Jerusalem

The main problem is man power. The army destroyed at Hattin was mainly local and having Jersualem recaptured by foreign troops won't solve the kingdom's critical lack of manpower. Then there is the issue of the Jordanian castles which had already fallen to Saladin and were critical for the defense of Jerusalem. Perhaps there would a stronger role of the Military Orders such as the Templars and Hospitalers for defense of the kingdom, since they would be in a much stronger position to recruit.
 
Also: Why?

Not arguing, but what exactly is so vital about Oultrejordain to holding Jerusalem?

What is it protecting against, basically.

My understanding is that control of Oultrejordan can potentially cut the easternmost road between Egypt and Syria, effectively cutting them into two separate states, which obviously helps the Crusaders. Also it was Reynald of Chatillon's position as Lord of Oultrejordan that allowed him to make such noise since he was perfectly positioned to attack pilgrims on the hajj.

As for taking the area, Saladin destroyed the Crusader castles which should make it easy to take, but until they're rebuilt the area would be impossible to hold without an army nearby.
 
Top