Longest Lasting Kingdom of Jerusalem

[Yossarian]

I've been playing a bit of Crusader Kings lately and have gotten to researching the Kingdom of Jerusalem. IOTL the kingdom was formed after the first crusader in 1099, and lasted until 1187, with a remnant in Acre making it to 1291.

What's the longest the Kingdom of Jerusalem, or some similar crusader state in the holy land, could feasibly last? It seems to me that there's a finish line of sorts: if a crusader state made it to the era of European world dominance it could count on existing quite a bit longer, probably until the rise of nationalism and decolonization. The challenge then is bridging those few hundreds years between the fall of Jerusalem and the point when the Muslim world can no longer really threaten a European supported state.

 

[Alex Richards]

Well, you can definitely extend it for longer by having the Third Crusade regain Jerusalem and the forts on the Jordan river, or even avoiding their fall entirely. Potentially if it survives at that size till the Mongol invasions then there could be scope for some sort of alliance/vassalisation that could extend the lifespan into at least the 14th Century.

But the biggest issue really was the lack of manpower- there was a relatively small pool of people to fight for the kingdom in Outremere, and while a steady flow of younger sons from Europe was needed to boost the numbers up, these were also the ones most likely to cause border frictions, disrupt trade and generally give the kingdom a much poorer job with her neighbours.

 

[jlk7e]

If we're saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted from 1099 to 1187, it's pretty easy to imagine it lasting considerably longer - either by getting rid of Hattin, or having a more successful Third Crusade, or whatever.

If we're saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted from 1099 to 1291, I'd say that's about as long as can be expected.

Also worth noting: the crusader states were certainly colonialist endeavors, but they weren't really colonialist endeavors with Western European Christians ruling over Muslims. They were colonial endeavors with Western European Christians ruling over Middle Eastern Christians, with only a small Muslim minority, at least in most parts of Outremer.

 

[Yossarian]

If we're saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted from 1099 to 1187, it's pretty easy to imagine it lasting considerably longer - either by getting rid of Hattin, or having a more successful Third Crusade, or whatever.

If we're saying the Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted from 1099 to 1291, I'd say that's about as long as can be expected.

Also worth noting: the crusader states were certainly colonialist endeavors, but they weren't really colonialist endeavors with Western European Christians ruling over Muslims. They were colonial endeavors with Western European Christians ruling over Middle Eastern Christians, with only a small Muslim minority, at least in most parts of Outremer.

To me the 1187 date makes more sense. Once they've lost the city of Jerusalem it's tough for me to keep calling them the 'Kingdom of Jerusalem.'

As for the numbers, the impression I've gotten is that the Muslim population wasn't insignificant, though probably still a minority compared to the Christians when you add up all the different groups, from the Armenians to the Greeks to Arab Christians to the crusaders themselves.

 

[Hattusas]

The Ninth Crusade had one of the largest crusading armies. If it was successful, the Crusading mentality might be revived and with Mongol assistance the Kingdom of Jerusalem could survive for a while longer.

And that would automatically make the Kingdom of Jerusalem long-lasting even if it only buys a few more decades of existence.

 

[jlk7e]

To me the 1187 date makes more sense. Once they've lost the city of Jerusalem it's tough for me to keep calling them the 'Kingdom of Jerusalem.'

As for the numbers, the impression I've gotten is that the Muslim population wasn't insignificant, though probably still a minority compared to the Christians when you add up all the different groups, from the Armenians to the Greeks to Arab Christians to the crusaders themselves.

Well, they recovered Jerusalem from 1229 to 1244, so even if we're not counting the Kingdom centered at Acre (which was certainly a state), 1187 isn't exactly the date.

I'm not sure about the Muslim population - it wasn't negligible, but my sense was that it was a significant minority. IIRC, the area around Nablus was heavily Muslim, and Galilee was mixed, but most of the rest was predominantly Christian.

 

[LSCatilina]

As for the numbers, the impression I've gotten is that the Muslim population wasn't insignificant, though probably still a minority compared to the Christians when you add up all the different groups, from the Armenians to the Greeks to Arab Christians to the crusaders themselves.

Pre-Crusade, you have a Muslim absolute majority, with an important Oriental Christian minority, in towns. In countryside, probably more a Muslim plurality, while Christian presence itself shouldn't be much that lower.

Latin settlement was relativly low, and usually absent where Oriental Christians weren't present before the crusades.

Regarding the OP.

The regular and most important problem of Latin States were their lack of military forces : most of the crusaders just turned back to France or Germany after the capture of Jerusalem. 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.

The fact Latin Christians began to look more alike local Christians (without really or entierly assimilating themselves) doesn't help.

What you need is more regular arrivals of manpower, so securing the road. Mediterranea Sea is already in large Latin control, but Anatolian roads need to be more securised.

Sucessful 1101 Crusades would be really a good PoD if it manages to break Kilij Arslan's power, eventually allowing Byzantines to take back more of Anatolia than OTL.
Of course, it would put another problem for northern crusader states (as Antioch) that would have an even harder time to avoid Byzantine takeover (by vassalisation), but Jerusalem itself could have a more regular tie with Latin Europe.

Eventually, what saved so long Latin Jerusalem is that its existence benefited to each side. Christians controlled the land, and it served as a buffer-state between Egypt and Syria, without whom each would have fought each other.
Once Saladin tookover both regions, its existence became irrelevant : so, you need to preserve Muslim division and especially Egyptian/Syrian (maybe a lasting Shia presence).

Finally, having the crusaders controlling Damascus would make Muslims loosing an important political and military base in ME.

It's not a given, and certainly not a solution for a Crusader Jerusalem living on to nowadays, but would certainly work for making it lasting more than IOTL.