Plausibility Check: [1st Crusade] Another ruler of Jerusalem instead of Godfrey?

As the title says, let's suppose that Godfrey for whatever reasons you want does not becomes the first ruler of Jerusalem (maybe he dies of illness, as he had suffered previously with sickness in the Levant; dies in battle, or maybe he simply packs his stuff and goes back to Europe, and so forth). Who can become the first ruler - even if does not picks the title "King" like Baldwin I did?

= Raymond of Toulouse? The Wiki says that he outright refused to be crowned, out of genuine piety, and, yet, his desire was to remain in the Holy Land, so he made an effort to wrestle Tripoli from the Arabs. Nevertheless, despite his refusal, perhaps we can imagine him being convinced by the secular and ecclesiastic authorities to adopt a neutral honorific, like Godfrey did (let's say, something like Prince of Galilee, Protector of the Holy Land, Defender of the Holy Sepulcre, or whatever), due to the real necessity of preserving the Holy Land against the Fatimids.

The advantage is that Raymond, like Godfrey, had heirs to be pointed out, like his minor son Alfons-Jordan, his elder (bastard, IIRC) son Bertrand (who was still in Europe, but IOTL claimed the County of Tripoli) or even his nephew William (who was in the Levant at the time and was likely to be known among the Crusaders).

= Bohemond of Taranto? If Raymond is not an option, I find likely that the other Crusaders might look to Bohemond. He didn't have the pedigree, neither the wealth, but his sheer charisma and apparent leadership of the expedition during the Siege of Antioch would count on his favor. As of yet, he wasn't a prisoner of the Turks, and Tancred, his nephew, wouldn't be the first choice. Now, a Norman Jerusalem could be an interesting scenario, especially if Bohemond preserves a territorial unity between Antioch and Jerusalem, it will be a much more formidable realm than OTL with the Boulogne Dynasty. Bohemond proved historically to be a very ambitious character, so I don't find it a stretch to assume that he might assume an invitation to become ruler of the Levant.

Also, due to his kinship with the Norman rulers of Sicily, Bohemond out of all the Crusader princes is the one that could, at least in theory, count on the support of the "closer" Mediterranean power in the face-off against the Egyptians and the Byzantines.

= Other minor noble? If none of the options above are possible, could we see another of the Crusader leaders being elected? Perhaps Robert Curthose, in spite of his poverty and the few number of men he committed to the expedition, he is still the son of the King of England, and a proved military leader. After him, what's the likelyhood of Robert of Flanders or even Tancred of Sicily being chosen? Perhaps in the end we might reach the same scenario of OTL, with Baldwin of Edessa becoming the very first king.

= An ecclesiastic authority? Now that Adhemar of Le Puy and Pope Urban II were already dead, I don't find this too likely, but perhaps Jerusalem could become an official theocracy with a de facto military rule by a lay prince. Possibly this arrangement might suit someone like Raymond of Toulouse or even Tancred.
 
I quite like the idea of either Raymond or Bohemond. I suspect if Bohemond is brought up it might convince Raymond to accept authority even if he doesn't accept a Royal one.
 
If Raymond is chosen there is a potent butterfly effect : William IX of Aquitaine had views on Toulouse in right of his wife, Philippa. Alfons managed to keep his domains thanks to his continuous presence. If his father is King of Jerusalem, he would be kept as an heir in the East, allowing William IX to conquer Toulouse relatively unopposed (Bertrand, being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church, had less legitimacy). The Aquitaine-Toulouse principate will be quite a big chunk, possibly butterflying away Alienor's marriages. I could well see a marriage of Aliénor and Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona, creating a southern France principate able to resist the French kings' appetite.
 
I quite like the idea of either Raymond or Bohemond. I suspect if Bohemond is brought up it might convince Raymond to accept authority even if he doesn't accept a Royal one.

That's exactly what I thought about, Professor. Fearing that Bohemond might become the ruler of Jerusalem could be a potent incentive for Raymond to accept the lay authority of the region. With Bohemond he had a serious rivalry since their "who will get Antioch" debacle... one that didn't happen between Raymond and Godfrey until the siege of Ascalon, a year later.

I'm toying around a scenario in which Raymond becomes "advocatus sancti sepulcri" instead of Godfrey, but I'm working around with a bit tad earlier PoD than the siege of Jerusalem. This posits another question: how would Bohemond react to Raymond becoming the sovereign of Jerusalem? If Raymond maintains his historical friendship/alliance with Alexios, Bohemond's ambitions of expanding at the expense of the Byzantines could very well be cut short by facing enemies on both fronts.

Alexios Komnenus if he made a large contribution to the crusade.

Hum... that's an interesting proposal. I really hadn't considered Alexios. I was under the impression that he had the hands full with the Seljuks in Anatolia to bother with an administrative/military presence in the Levant, and he had good relations with the Fatimids so far... becoming the ruler of Jerusalem would certainly antagonize them. I also am not sure how the Crusaders themselves would react if Alexios tried to assert a claim over Jerusalem.

On the other hand, if he indeed had a larger contribution, for example, participating on the battle of Antioch against Kerbogha (it seems that he was already on march to relieve the besieged Crusaders, and was turned back by the appearance of Stephen of Blois), the Crusaders might be more accepting of a Byzantine rule in the Levant, even more if they reached an agreement regarding the safe passage of pilgrims from Europe.

If Raymond is chosen there is a potent butterfly effect : William IX of Aquitaine had views on Toulouse in right of his wife, Philippa. Alfons managed to keep his domains thanks to his continuous presence. If his father is King of Jerusalem, he would be kept as an heir in the East, allowing William IX to conquer Toulouse relatively unopposed (Bertrand, being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church, had less legitimacy). The Aquitaine-Toulouse principate will be quite a big chunk, possibly butterflying away Alienor's marriages. I could well see a marriage of Aliénor and Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona, creating a southern France principate able to resist the French kings' appetite.

I knew about William IX of Aquitaine's attempt of conquering Toulouse (he actually held the city for a while, didn't he), but hadn't considered this point thoroughly.

Would Alfons-Jordan really be the heir to Jerusalem? At the time of Raymond's death he was a minor (and Raymond was old), and he was sent back to Europe to rule Toulouse, which instead forced the bastard Bertrand to go to Tripoli. I could very well see a dispute similar to OTL between Raymond's son Bertrand and his nephew William/Guilhèm... now for the sovereignty of Jerusalem. Was Bertrand a capable ruler (OTL he died barely four years after arriving in Tripoli), after all?

Any PoD involving Eleanor not marrying Henry II of England surely impacts in the long-term History of Medieval Europe (butterflying away the Barons' Rebellion in England, the Hundred Years War and so forth). Now that we are on it (as I'm a sucker for successful Occitania TLs), was there a plan for her to marry Ramon Berenguer IV, as you mentioned?
 
Last edited:
If Raymond is chosen there is a potent butterfly effect : William IX of Aquitaine had views on Toulouse in right of his wife, Philippa. Alfons managed to keep his domains thanks to his continuous presence. If his father is King of Jerusalem, he would be kept as an heir in the East, allowing William IX to conquer Toulouse relatively unopposed (Bertrand, being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church, had less legitimacy). The Aquitaine-Toulouse principate will be quite a big chunk, possibly butterflying away Alienor's marriages. I could well see a marriage of Aliénor and Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona, creating a southern France principate able to resist the French kings' appetite.
I'm in, but I'm a sucker for a good Aquitaine wank.
 
I'm in, but I'm a sucker for a good Aquitaine wank.

That would be also a great idea. I confess I've a fascination for a divided France, and it's impact in European history.

Anyone else has any idea?

Would Jerusalem benefit from the early acquisition of Tripoli, if Raymond becomes ruler of Jerusalem? AFAIK, the county was de facto autonomous while ruled by the de Toulouse dynasty, but it was a rather prosperous region
 
I knew about William IX of Aquitaine's attempt of conquering Toulouse (he actually held the city for a while, didn't he), but hadn't considered this point thoroughly.

Would Alfons-Jordan really be the heir to Jerusalem? At the time of Raymond's death he was a minor (and Raymond was old), and he was sent back to Europe to rule Toulouse, which instead forced the bastard Bertrand to go to Tripoli. I could very well see a dispute similar to OTL between Raymond's son Bertrand and his nephew William/Guilhèm... now for the sovereignty of Jerusalem. Was Bertrand a capable ruler (OTL he died barely four years after arriving in Tripoli), after all?

Any PoD involving Eleanor not marrying Henry II of England surely impacts in the long-term History of Medieval Europe (butterflying away the Barons' Rebellion in England, the Hundred Years War and so forth). Now that we are on it (as I'm a sucker for successful Occitania TLs), was there a plan for her to marry Ramon Berenguer IV, as you mentioned?

Philippa's right to the Toulousain were upheld during a long time - even Louis VII ousted Raymond V out of Toulouse for a time, in right of Eleanor. William IX only left the Toulousain to Bertrand in order to go crusader, we can think he would never have done the same thing if the King of Jérusalem is the same man he just robbed of his lands. So William will not go and kept the Toulousain, maybe giving a bone to Bertrand, such as Venaissin.

I do think, given the "holy" nature of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the undoubted birth of Alfons would be an advantage.

There were not plans to marry Eleanor and Ramon Berenguer IV, as far as I know, IOTL they were not neighbours, so the marriage was less advantageous than the two heirs of Aragon and France. ITTL, inheriting Aquitaine+Toulousain was so much better than the poor Aragon for the Catalans, while it will definitely help enforce the Aquitaine's domination on the Toulousain, given the various rights of the Catalans counts on Carcassonne and Provence.

Will it lead to a divided France ? Not sure, as it would be natural to the descendants of Eleanor and Ramon Berenguer (Duke William X, Duke Ramon Berenguer V ?) to look north for matrimonial alliances. ''Bella gerant alii. Tu, felix Francia, nube"
 
Ok, this thread is roughly four months old, so I suppose it doesn't counts exactly as "necroing" if I bring the matter again instead of creating a new one, right?

I need a plausibility check for a short story I have been elaborating in the previous months:

1) The main POD: Alexius goes all the way to relieve the Crusaders in Antioch in June 1098. By then, the Crusaders had already entered the city, and were besieged by the Turkish warlord Kerbogha. IOTL, Alexius was already in Tarsus when he met the deserter Stephen of Blois, and decided to retreat. ITTL, for the sake of argument, Stephen of Blois stays in Antioch and Alexius, still expecting to be able to save the Crusaders, arrives just in time to give battle to Kerbogha, whose forces are pinced between the Latins and Greeks. Let's say that, just OTL, the other Muslim leaders - Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus abandon Kerbogha in the battlefield, thus fragmenting the Islamic forces.

2) IOTL, Bohemond was only successful in obtaining control of Antioch (against the wishes of the other Crusader Princes) due to his abuse of the anti-Alexius rhetoric, and the fact that Alexius became to be regarded as a violator of the oaths between liege and vassal. Now, with this POD, Alexius' position is stronger than ever, and he successfully reoccupies the city. Bohemond's voice becomes a minor one, as the other Princes press for the Crusade to march forward south.

3) While the Crusaders march south, Alexius makes a truce with the neighboring Muslim princes, Ridwan and Duqaq, and refortifies the region of Antioch before returning back to Constantinople. His lieutenant Tatikios, who had more experience with dealing with the Crusaders, is left as governor of the city.

4) The Crusaders go south much like they did IOTL, going along the coast, and are better received by the petty Islamic rulers in the Levant (such as Beirut), and might be ressupplied by Byzantine ships coming from Cilicia and Pamphilia.

5) Due to the immediate butterflies, Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy might still be alive (considering that the illness that took his life was contracted due to a longer stay in Antioch). Thus, the Crusader leadership is somewhat more unified, as every lay prince accepted the Bishop's authority.

6) The Crusaders arrive in Jerusalem a bit tad earlier than IOTL, and this possibly impedes the Fatimid governor of the city of mounting a large-scale defense. Historically, indeed, the governor took down entire forests in the outskirts of Jerusalem to deny necessary wood for the construction of tools and siege engines.

7) Jerusalem is captured by storm, as OTL, as the Crusaders cannot risk to await the arrival of an Egyptian army of relief.

8) Even if I don't have reasons to believe the aftermath of the capture wouldn't be violent, we certainly can think about reasons for it to be less brutal. IOTL, the capture of Jerusalem was pure nightmare fuel, even by Medieval standards.

9) With Jerusalem in Crusader hands, and possibly a Byzantine reinforcement, the Latins are able to fend off the Fatimids with even better results than we've seen in our TL. This, in turn, could spell into a much earlier capture of Ascalon (which the Crusaders failed to conquer due to a petty grudge between Godfrey of Lorraine and Raymond of Toulouse). Another (lesser) POD I wanted to work with was getting Godfrey sick after the capture of Jerusalem. It seems that there is some plausibility in this regard, as he had previously fell ill to the Levantine diseases, and would die barely a couple years after the First Crusade due to a sickness contracted in Jerusalem.

10) Now, the second biggest POD: the rulership of Jerusalem is offered to Raymond of Toulouse, who was the wealthiest and possibly the most powerful prince of the expedition. He might at first refuse the honor (just like OTL), but, later, fearing that the crown might be given to his rival Bohemon, he decides to accept it and thus becomes Advocatus Sancti Sepulcri instead of Godfrey (who by now can be dead or alive, doesn't matter).

11) Raymond does exactly what Godfrey attempted to do, forming a secure region of fortifications around Jerusalem, by capturing Jaffa, Ascalon and Hebron.

12) From this point onwards, the TL will seriously diverge from our own, as Bohemond is left landless and decides to seek fortune in another place, likely the Phoenician coast or even the Orontes valley, attempting to escape the pervasive influence of Alexius in the north and Raymond in the south.

13) Historically, Alexius and Raymond fostered a diplomatic and friendly relationship, and Raymond supported Alexius' interests in Antioch years after the First Crusade. Now, with him as "de facto" King of Jerusalem, its almost certain that a savvy ruler like Alexius will want to foster a friendly relationship with Latin Jerusalem, while Raymond (being relatively moderate) will secure the safety of the Orthodox peoples in his domain.

14) With a safer birth, without the rift that OTL witnessed between Jerusalem and Byzantium, we have much better chances of further weakening the Fatimids and then (given a century, perhaps) facilitating a complete conquest of Egypt.

15) As many posters usually discuss in "How to keep the Crusader States alive" threads, the capture of Damascus is a necessity, and will be much more facilitated by the Jerusalemite/Byzantine alliance, with perhaps an alternate version of the Second Crusade being more successful.

How is this for a short TL creating a stronger Kingdom of Jerusalem? Any tips on the subject?
 
Would Robert Curthose want to stay in the Holy Land? He has trouble in Normandy to sort out and might want to claim England after William Rufus is killed.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As the title says, let's suppose that Godfrey for whatever reasons you want does not becomes the first ruler of Jerusalem (maybe he dies of illness, as he had suffered previously with sickness in the Levant; dies in battle, or maybe he simply packs his stuff and goes back to Europe, and so forth). Who can become the first ruler - even if does not picks the title "King" like Baldwin I did?

= Raymond of Toulouse? The Wiki says that he outright refused to be crowned, out of genuine piety, and, yet, his desire was to remain in the Holy Land, so he made an effort to wrestle Tripoli from the Arabs. Nevertheless, despite his refusal, perhaps we can imagine him being convinced by the secular and ecclesiastic authorities to adopt a neutral honorific, like Godfrey did (let's say, something like Prince of Galilee, Protector of the Holy Land, Defender of the Holy Sepulcre, or whatever), due to the real necessity of preserving the Holy Land against the Fatimids.

The advantage is that Raymond, like Godfrey, had heirs to be pointed out, like his minor son Alfons-Jordan, his elder (bastard, IIRC) son Bertrand (who was still in Europe, but IOTL claimed the County of Tripoli) or even his nephew William (who was in the Levant at the time and was likely to be known among the Crusaders).

= Bohemond of Taranto? If Raymond is not an option, I find likely that the other Crusaders might look to Bohemond. He didn't have the pedigree, neither the wealth, but his sheer charisma and apparent leadership of the expedition during the Siege of Antioch would count on his favor. As of yet, he wasn't a prisoner of the Turks, and Tancred, his nephew, wouldn't be the first choice. Now, a Norman Jerusalem could be an interesting scenario, especially if Bohemond preserves a territorial unity between Antioch and Jerusalem, it will be a much more formidable realm than OTL with the Boulogne Dynasty. Bohemond proved historically to be a very ambitious character, so I don't find it a stretch to assume that he might assume an invitation to become ruler of the Levant.

Also, due to his kinship with the Norman rulers of Sicily, Bohemond out of all the Crusader princes is the one that could, at least in theory, count on the support of the "closer" Mediterranean power in the face-off against the Egyptians and the Byzantines.

= Other minor noble? If none of the options above are possible, could we see another of the Crusader leaders being elected? Perhaps Robert Curthose, in spite of his poverty and the few number of men he committed to the expedition, he is still the son of the King of England, and a proved military leader. After him, what's the likelyhood of Robert of Flanders or even Tancred of Sicily being chosen? Perhaps in the end we might reach the same scenario of OTL, with Baldwin of Edessa becoming the very first king.

= An ecclesiastic authority? Now that Adhemar of Le Puy and Pope Urban II were already dead, I don't find this too likely, but perhaps Jerusalem could become an official theocracy with a de facto military rule by a lay prince. Possibly this arrangement might suit someone like Raymond of Toulouse or even Tancred.
Apologies for not giving you a detailed answer right now, but I believe that the book Armies of Heaven discusses some other candidates for the throne of Jerusalem in 1099. Indeed, hopefully this helps! :)
 
Apologies for not giving you a detailed answer right now, but I believe that the book Armies of Heaven discusses some other candidates for the throne of Jerusalem in 1099. Indeed, hopefully this helps! :)

Thanks, I didn't know about that. I'll be checking this out!
 
Could Jerusalem be ruled by a council of nobles in a quasi-republican style of government?

I think this would in the long-run do more harm than good, considering that the Jerusalemite government would be run by individuals from distinct cultural, linguistic and geographic backgrounds.

Sooner or later, someone will point out that Jerusalem needs its own de facto (if not with this name) King, and the vassals will be subordinated to him. Now, it might be interesting if the monarch of Jerusalem is an European noble who rules in absentia, and the nobles in the Levant are the ones that decide the fates of the king. Even so, I believe in this case some kind of viceroy or constable would be indicated to govern the country in a more centralized fashion.
 
Top