PC/WI: The Second and/or Third Crusades succeed.

See above. How plausible is it that the Crusaders could accomplish their goals in the Second and Third Crusades, and thus establish Christianity in the holy land in a way that they were unable to in OTL? If this is plausible, what are the potential effects?
 
I don't how plausible having the second and third crusades succeed. But I can imagine that if they are, we will see a lot more and maybe some crusades started without Papal approval.
 
The Second Crusade in a lot of ways didn't even really have goals, and what they did do only succeeded in alienating all of crusader states Muslim allies. You'd really need to totally change the entire way the 2nd crusade happened. And the third crusade could succeed, but it's a matter of time until a middle eastern power beats the crusader kingdoms at that point. They relied on support from the outside for a large part of their existence as a state.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Frankly, the 2nd Crusade really needs both Germans and Franks to work together and arrive in Antioch at sea together. Either that, or help the ERE first. If they can persuade the ERE to fully contribute in exchange for helping in Anatolia (and Manuel I honours the agreement) then we could see a different 2nd Crusade, which has more chance to succeed.

Fundamentally though, the crusaders need to build a power base, or connect themselves to a power base. Which means they need to rule Egypt, and strengthen the Copts into a power base, or attach themselves to the ERE. Their homelands proved in OTL that they weren't the most reliable backers, source of strength, or overlords.
 
Fundamentally though, the crusaders need to build a power base, or connect themselves to a power base. Which means they need to rule Egypt, and strengthen the Copts into a power base, or attach themselves to the ERE. Their homelands proved in OTL that they weren't the most reliable backers, source of strength, or overlords.

Basically, this.

The Crusades sent armies to the Holy Land, conquered territory, and then most went back to Europe. How do you get enough men to stay? How do you get them to keep a strong enough power base to defend themselves? And, of course, how do you keep the area 'Christian' when the population is largely Muslim?

Swearing fealty to the ERE would have been politically unpalatable (possibly impossible), but it might be one of the few ways to get the 'Holy Land' to stay Christian. IOTL, the various crusaders set up dozens of squabbling statelets (which, given the nature of Europe at the time is probably hard to avoid), which made 'divide and conquer' a lot easier when the Muslims attacked.

Having everyone under the aegis of Constantinople, and having coordinated defence, and 'nearby' reserves and logistics support MIGHT have enabled the Frank ruled areas to survive.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Perhaps a PoD to help make the 2nd or 3rd crusades succeed would be to implement land redistribution after the first crusade, not just distributing titles and fiefs, but actually seizing land and giving it to the army. For most this could be more wealth than they ever had at home, and may well send for their families to join them.

Essentially, go Roman - pay your armies in land. Offer the same to the locals, or make it conditional that they convert first if they are feeling particularly zealous.
 
But it's not possible. The Crusader States in the Levant were Roman Catholic, the ERE was Greek Orthodox. There's kind of a great disconnect between the two realms.

Personally, I think the Crusades was doomed to fail, only succeeding initially because the Fatimid Empire was checking out. Not to say that a successful Second and Third Crusade wasn't impossible, but once you ailenated all your Muslim allies, plus taking on Egypt, which practically became the great Muslim power of the High Middle Ages. I have my doubts on the Crusader's success rate.
 
I'd also add the Crusade of 1101 to that list.

The basic problem of the Crusader states is demographic. So the injection of large armies from Europe provides these states with a fresh injection of European blood in the form of the people that stayed on in Outremer. If only 10% of the soldiers and pilgrim camp followers who made it to Outremer stayed on that could increase the European population by 5-10,000 people each time.

As for how it could occur, in the second crusade I'd have the French and Germans swap routes, the German heading south to Attalia through Byzantine territory and the later arriving French cutting through Anatolia directly. That would put the Turks on the horns of a dilemma having two armies in the field at the same time, and engaging one will mean that there isn't time to engage the other before it arrives in Armenian Cicilia, or perhaps splitting forces and not having enough strength to defeat either army. Once these big armies get to Outremer and join with the forces there anything is possible.

As for the Third Crusade, just have Barby not die in that river, his army will remain intact and presumably such extra strength will make great things possible.
 
Yeah, the Third Crusade is fairly easy; it accomplished quite a bit IOTL. If Barbarossa survives, his army is certainly strong enough to allow for more victories, and his authority can prevent Richard and Philip from falling out as much. I could certainly see Jerusalem being recaptured, and possibly other successes as well. Even without Barbarossa it could probably be more successful if Philip and Richard get along somewhat better.

None of which changes the essential difficulty that the Crusaders faced: too many Muslims, and not enough Crusaders. Eventually Europe will grow tired of sending armies over to try to reverse each Crusader defeat, and the reinforcements will dry up (or get diverted elsewhere).
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Basically, this.

The Crusades sent armies to the Holy Land, conquered territory, and then most went back to Europe. How do you get enough men to stay? How do you get them to keep a strong enough power base to defend themselves? And, of course, how do you keep the area 'Christian' when the population is largely Muslim?

Swearing fealty to the ERE would have been politically unpalatable (possibly impossible), but it might be one of the few ways to get the 'Holy Land' to stay Christian. IOTL, the various crusaders set up dozens of squabbling statelets (which, given the nature of Europe at the time is probably hard to avoid), which made 'divide and conquer' a lot easier when the Muslims attacked.

Having everyone under the aegis of Constantinople, and having coordinated defence, and 'nearby' reserves and logistics support MIGHT have enabled the Frank ruled areas to survive.

Actually, it's totally doable.

Just don't have Alexios I think the Crusaders in the 1st Crusade failed. Then he won't turn back and the Crusaders won't think they were abandoned.

I mean, the Crusaders were effectively glorified mercenaries working for Emperor Alexios I Komenos and any land they conquered was meant to be governed indirectly from Constantinople. They only reason why they broke off from the Empire was because they thought Alexios abandoned them.

Boom. Any consequent crusade, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, would be under the aegis of a Latin-Greek coalition.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Actually, it's totally doable.

Just don't have Alexios I think the Crusaders in the 1st Crusade failed. Then he won't turn back and the Crusaders won't think they were abandoned.

I mean, the Crusaders were effectively glorified mercenaries working for Emperor Alexios I Komenos and any land they conquered was meant to be governed indirectly from Constantinople. They only reason why they broke off from the Empire was because they thought Alexios abandoned them.

Boom. Any consequent crusade, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, would be under the aegis of a Latin-Greek coalition.

Why did he think they failed IOTL?

Assuming this works, it'd be interesting to see

a) A Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem

b) A Patriarch of Jerusalem that changes doctrine away from Rome when it suits the Crusaders.

c) The remaining dynamics within Christendom. Lets not pretend that there won't be efforts to take Egypt - and then we'll have three very different forms of Christianity all closely tied together. (Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic, although Catholic might change into a Crusader variant if the Pope goes anti-Crusader)
 
I feel the trick would be taking Syria, in either crusade.

Crusader states holding Damascus/Aleppo are left with only an Egyptian flank (so long as the Turks are somewhat contained by Cilicia/Byzantines). Mesopotamian muslim rulers usually have other concerns.

While holding off Egypt isn't super-easy, it's also a lot easier than defending against a Syria-Egypt coalition (when that one formed, it all went downhill rather fast for the crusaders). And in due time, the growing power of the Italian republics might even turn that into a winnable fight, as the route between Egypt and Jerusalem is a lot easier with naval support.
 
Top