Kingdom of Heaven

cbrunish

Banned
12 July 1099 outside of Jerusalem

Raymond IV of Toulouse looked at the other leaders of the crusade. What he was about to say, had already been discussed with the papal legate Bishop Adhemar*.

"Gentlemen, Jerusalem will fall tomorrow. We must not extract violence against the local population."

Immediatly he was interupted by the council. Robert of Flanders stood up and looked at him.

"What nonsense is this! The local population are muslim and jews. The local christians have already been sent out of the city."

At this point Bishop Adhemar stood up and held his hands out for the group to quiet.

"Nay, we may be conquerors but we are not murderers! If we are to hold this Kingdom of Heaven then we must also be compassionate! "

The assembled leaders looked around at each other, but not would argue with the Bishop. They agreed to leave the non-combatants alone.


13 July 1099-The city of Jerusalem fell to the invading crusaders. There were some localized brutality but the masssacre did not occur.

22 July 1099-The assembled nobles and clergy met to decide on leadership of the new kingdom. Raymond IV of Toulouse was offered the kingdom. After discussion with Bishop Adhemar (whom became the first latin Patriarch of Jerusalem), he accepted the throne as Raymond I of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

12 August 1099-Battle of Ascalon was to become the last battle of the First Crusades. Ascalon would surrender to King Raymond within the week.

*Bishop Adhemar does not die in 1098
 
Last edited:

cbrunish

Banned
1118-Hugues de Payens meets with Pons, King of Jerusalem about starting a holy order for the protection of travellers. After discussion it agreed that a knightly order would be formed by Hugues and his fellow 8 knights. The order would be called The Poor Knights of the Temple of King Solomon, also known as the Knights Templar. This was not to be a "holy" order but a secular order that swore allegience to the King personally. The king would support them out of the kingdom's coffers. The order was given the Temple Mount as their headquarters. The head of the order Hugues de Payens was named Earl Marshal of Jerusalem. All heads of the Knights Templar would hold this title.

Within a year they would begin recruiting all over Europe. Mostly lessers sons of the nobility would join. These knights would forever renounce any past claims and swear allegience to the King. But as it was not a monastic order these knights would be able to marry. Most of these knights would marry local women (either local christians or converted muslims). This order would become the backbone of the military for the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
I'm guessing that the reason for a purely military order of templars is to create a reliable source of trained men for the kingdom of jerusalem that doesn't have any outside interests save that of protecting the kingdom. In other words (and not to put words in the mouth of the writer of this TL) to create a core of professional soldiers for the crusader kingdom. This is not something the kingdom ever had and should produce more unity in the kingdom and hopefully provide a longer lasting crusader kingdom that is semi-indpendant of Europe.
 

Onyx

Banned
This is neat.
A TL in which the Crusaders arent total assholes to the Muslims and Jews and become a surviving kingdom, if Saladin doesnt mess it up
 
I'm guessing that the reason for a purely military order of templars is to create a reliable source of trained men for the kingdom of jerusalem that doesn't have any outside interests save that of protecting the kingdom. In other words (and not to put words in the mouth of the writer of this TL) to create a core of professional soldiers for the crusader kingdom. This is not something the kingdom ever had and should produce more unity in the kingdom and hopefully provide a longer lasting crusader kingdom that is semi-indpendant of Europe.

I know that. I want to know why Payens wants this instead of OTL's monastic order.
 
I don't think it's going to work. Yes, Adhemar was the most in charge but by the time the Crusader reached Jerusalem they were running on fumes and high on their religious destiny. A lot of the time the rank and file soldier demanded they march in Jerusalem in opposition to the leadership and this is not going to change.

The slaughter was as much cathartic release as anything.

Anyhow, so an ASB change at Jerusalem. Could be interesting results though I'm kind of doubtful that a more peaceful capture is going to make much difference.
 

cbrunish

Banned
The idea actually came from a wikipedia article I had read on the capture of Jerusalem. Some of the leaders (especial Tancred) were angry at the wholesale slaughter. Also it is theorized since that there was no actual eyewitness accounts to the slaughter. It is thought that the massacre was more of exaggeration of later muslims. So to stop the slaughter is not really asb.

And after much study, I felt that the monastic knights were actually working against a possible stable Kingdom of Jerusalem. They would not stop attacking muslims, which made it hard for the Kingdom to work with muslim states. Which also pushed the muslim states to more unity.

And I thought it would also give the king a loyal fighting force. I plan on making the Knights Templar in this TL just as devout and fanatical, but to the king. And after researching the family of Godfrey, it seems that they had problem producing male heirs. But Raymond's family seemed to not have a problem.

I'm happy you guys enjoy this TL. And I will be posting some new threads to this TL soon.:)
 
Some of the leaders (especial Tancred) were angry at the wholesale slaughter.
Evidence?

Also it is theorized since that there was no actual eyewitness accounts to the slaughter. It is thought that the massacre was more of exaggeration of later muslims. So to stop the slaughter is not really asb.

The numbers who were killed may have been exaggerated on both sides. Firstly because the counting of populations, cities and armies was never an exact science in those times. Second, purposefully by the Latins because they wanted to emphasise their great deed in cleansing Jerusalem, and by the Muslims because they wanted to emphasise the horrific slaughter. But the massacre itself happened, and to suggest otherwise is complete and utter tosh. We have concurring accounts from many different sources, both Muslim and Western.

I've actually read the Western accounts of the massacre (e.g. Albert of Aachen's Historia Ierosolimitana) and let me tell you they are disturbing:
Moreover, as the Christian victors came back out of the palace after the very great and cruel slaughter of the Saracens, of whom ten thousand fell in that same place, they put to the sword great numbers of gentiles who were running about through the quarters of the city, fleeing in all directions on account of their fear of death: they were piercing through with the sword’s point women who had fled into the turreted palaces and dwellings; seizing by the soles of their feet from their mother’s laps or their cradles infants who were still suckling and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks; they were slaughtering some with weapons, or striking them down with stones; they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.

...

After they heard this advice, on the third day after the victory, judgement was pronounced by the leaders and everyone seized weapons and surged forth for a wretched massacre of all the crowd of gentiles which was still left, bringing some out from fetters and beheading them, slaughtering others who were found throughout the city streets and districts, whom they had previously spared for the sake of money or human pity; they were beheading or striking down with stones girls, women, noble ladies, even pregnant women, and very young children, paying attention to no one’s age. By contrast, girls, women, ladies, tormented by fear of imminent death, and horror-struck by the violent slaughter, were embracing the Christians in their midst even as they were raving and venting their rage on the throats of both sexes, in the hope of saving their lives. Some were wound about the Christians’ feet, begging them with piteous weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children of five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they intensified the weeping and wretched clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to the slaughter, so that not a suckling little male child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape alive the hand of the murderer. And so the streets of the whole city of Jerusalem are reported to have been so strewn and covered with the dead bodies of men and women and the mangled limbs of infants, that not only in the streets, houses, and palaces, but even in the places of desert solitude numbers of slain were to be found.
 
Top