Richard the Lionheart Becomes King of Jerusalem

Disclosure: I copied this from Quora.
What chance did the Crusader states have of surviving into the 1400 s , were they just too outnumbered and disunited?


Helena Schrader
, PhD History, University of Hamburg
Answered 12h ago


Alright, I generally don’t like answering speculative questions. The course of human history is very complex, and I have experienced at first hand how a single personality — a great leader, or a selfish fool, a minor miscalculation or a sudden discovery — can utterly alter the “equation” making the unthinkable possible, salvaging victory from the jaws of defeat … or vice versa.

But the temptation on this question was just too great.

As David Bonin points out below the disaster at Hattin was truly a turning point in the history of the Crusader states. They had been increasingly viable up to that point. A Christian victory at Hattin followed, as it was, by Saladin’s death within five years, would almost certainly have given the crusader states a very strong chance of long-term survival. But allow me to throw out another intriguing “what if.” (Even if it is a little against my principals as a historian….)

What if Richard the Lionheart could have been persuaded to do as his great-grandfather had done and renounce his inheritance in England and France, and taken the crown of Jerusalem instead?

main-qimg-9863b7072c3a273bcf71a508f92a94c3

As I note, his great-grandfather Fulk of Anjou had done exactly this in 1129. Since the High Court of Jerusalem elected the kings, there was not even an absolute need to marry the widowed heiress, although it had become tradition. Alternatively, an excuse could have been found for him to set aside his wife Berengaria. (It was done all the time for dynastic reasons.)

For England and the Angevin empire, the fate would ultimately have been the same: John would have killed his nephew, ruled England badly causing a revolt and giving England Magna Charta in the process. He would also have lost most of his father’s continental possession. The only difference is the whole process would have started five years earlier — and without England first having to pay for Richard’s ransom.

For the Holy Land, on the other hand, it could have been a Godsend.

Richard was a brilliant strategist and if he had agreed to stay in the Holy Land he would have united all the barons of Jerusalem behind him. He would have easily commanded the support of the Templars and Hospitallers, as well, and both Orders were at this time still very powerful and capable of recruiting substantial numbers of fighting men. He could have taken his time to build up defenses and forces, and when he was ready he could have gone on the offensive until the Kingdom was restored within defensible borders.

main-qimg-1d2f151e77b44a7456b9a21f4f054fbd

As for financing himself and his campaigns, Richard had all of Cyprus at his disposal, an immensely rich island which was going to be bread-basket of the Holy Land for the next hundred years anyway. Richard had conquered the island in just six weeks largely because he’d been welcomed as a liberator. (See: The Conquest of Cyprus: Part 1 and The Conquest of Cyprus -- Continued.) To be sure, he’d then sold it to the Templars, who had managed to make themselves so unpopular that they provoked an armed rebellion. This meant, however, they had given him back the island just when he needed it. (For more on this ignominious episode in Templar history see: True Tales of the Knights Templar 7: A Lost Opportunity ) There can be little doubt that Richard would have been able to re-pacify the island and then use it as a power-base, bread-basket, recruiting ground, and treasury.

main-qimg-a1a242589edd6448c5cc6e52db059291

Just as Aimery de Lusignan did historically, Richard would have given land on Cyprus to those Frankish lords and knights who had lost land on the mainland. In doing so he would have: 1) thereby bound them to him as his vassals, and 2) given them the means to buy horses, armor, and raise men for the struggle on the mainland. Cyprus would have become the “aircraft carrier” from which to launch further assaults on the Saracens until enough territory had been won back on the mainland for it to become both self-sustaining and defensible.

If necessary (as he was already contemplating when he left), Richard could have launched a campaign against Egypt that would have forced Salah ad-Din to abandon comparatively unimportant Jerusalem and Palestine to defend his power-base. Or, if Saladin died when he did anyway, all Richard would have had to do was take advantage of the disarray in the enemy camp.

I think there is little doubt that, presuming Richard avoided getting himself killed at an early stage of the fighting, he would have eventually (I’d give him ten years at most) have recaptured Jerusalem and all the former territory of the Kingdom — if not more.

In my novel about the Third Crusade, Envoy of Jerusalem, the proposal is put to Richard during the second assault on Jerusalem, which he is forced to break off. The novel, of course, follows the course of history and Richard turns the proposal down.
 
Disclosure: I copied this from Quora.
What chance did the Crusader states have of surviving into the 1400 s , were they just too outnumbered and disunited?


Helena Schrader
, PhD History, University of Hamburg
Answered 12h ago


Alright, I generally don’t like answering speculative questions. The course of human history is very complex, and I have experienced at first hand how a single personality — a great leader, or a selfish fool, a minor miscalculation or a sudden discovery — can utterly alter the “equation” making the unthinkable possible, salvaging victory from the jaws of defeat … or vice versa.

But the temptation on this question was just too great.

As David Bonin points out below the disaster at Hattin was truly a turning point in the history of the Crusader states. They had been increasingly viable up to that point. A Christian victory at Hattin followed, as it was, by Saladin’s death within five years, would almost certainly have given the crusader states a very strong chance of long-term survival. But allow me to throw out another intriguing “what if.” (Even if it is a little against my principals as a historian….)

What if Richard the Lionheart could have been persuaded to do as his great-grandfather had done and renounce his inheritance in England and France, and taken the crown of Jerusalem instead?

main-qimg-9863b7072c3a273bcf71a508f92a94c3

As I note, his great-grandfather Fulk of Anjou had done exactly this in 1129. Since the High Court of Jerusalem elected the kings, there was not even an absolute need to marry the widowed heiress, although it had become tradition. Alternatively, an excuse could have been found for him to set aside his wife Berengaria. (It was done all the time for dynastic reasons.)

For England and the Angevin empire, the fate would ultimately have been the same: John would have killed his nephew, ruled England badly causing a revolt and giving England Magna Charta in the process. He would also have lost most of his father’s continental possession. The only difference is the whole process would have started five years earlier — and without England first having to pay for Richard’s ransom.

For the Holy Land, on the other hand, it could have been a Godsend.

Richard was a brilliant strategist and if he had agreed to stay in the Holy Land he would have united all the barons of Jerusalem behind him. He would have easily commanded the support of the Templars and Hospitallers, as well, and both Orders were at this time still very powerful and capable of recruiting substantial numbers of fighting men. He could have taken his time to build up defenses and forces, and when he was ready he could have gone on the offensive until the Kingdom was restored within defensible borders.

main-qimg-1d2f151e77b44a7456b9a21f4f054fbd

As for financing himself and his campaigns, Richard had all of Cyprus at his disposal, an immensely rich island which was going to be bread-basket of the Holy Land for the next hundred years anyway. Richard had conquered the island in just six weeks largely because he’d been welcomed as a liberator. (See: The Conquest of Cyprus: Part 1 and The Conquest of Cyprus -- Continued.) To be sure, he’d then sold it to the Templars, who had managed to make themselves so unpopular that they provoked an armed rebellion. This meant, however, they had given him back the island just when he needed it. (For more on this ignominious episode in Templar history see: True Tales of the Knights Templar 7: A Lost Opportunity ) There can be little doubt that Richard would have been able to re-pacify the island and then use it as a power-base, bread-basket, recruiting ground, and treasury.

main-qimg-a1a242589edd6448c5cc6e52db059291

Just as Aimery de Lusignan did historically, Richard would have given land on Cyprus to those Frankish lords and knights who had lost land on the mainland. In doing so he would have: 1) thereby bound them to him as his vassals, and 2) given them the means to buy horses, armor, and raise men for the struggle on the mainland. Cyprus would have become the “aircraft carrier” from which to launch further assaults on the Saracens until enough territory had been won back on the mainland for it to become both self-sustaining and defensible.

If necessary (as he was already contemplating when he left), Richard could have launched a campaign against Egypt that would have forced Salah ad-Din to abandon comparatively unimportant Jerusalem and Palestine to defend his power-base. Or, if Saladin died when he did anyway, all Richard would have had to do was take advantage of the disarray in the enemy camp.

I think there is little doubt that, presuming Richard avoided getting himself killed at an early stage of the fighting, he would have eventually (I’d give him ten years at most) have recaptured Jerusalem and all the former territory of the Kingdom — if not more.

In my novel about the Third Crusade, Envoy of Jerusalem, the proposal is put to Richard during the second assault on Jerusalem, which he is forced to break off. The novel, of course, follows the course of history and Richard turns the proposal down.
Actually, he married Berengaria just during the time they arrived in Cyprus, Richard could repurdiate the betrothal with Berengaria instead of marrying Berengaria and marry Isabella of Jerusalem, instead of his nephew, Henry of Champagne, we can have Henry of Champagne marry Berengaria instead.
 
Best chance for Richard to become king would have been way earlier—like during the reign of his father. He was actually offered the throne at one point in time when he had older brothers,but he was already duke of Aquitaine,so he didn’t want to leave. If one of his older brother William was alive and he was somehow further down the succession,he might have agreed to become king of Jerusalem in return for his father making a bigger donation I suppose.
 
The Lionheart of Jerusalem is an awesome idea. Especially if it can hold. He's easily one of the strongest characters of the time, and is meant to have respected Saladin.

What I'd expect is that you'd need him to agree to take Jerusalem in 1192 IF the Duke of Burgundy would recognise him as King of Jerusalem (with the aforementioned agreement to renounce his inheritance if peace could be achieved).

If that was successful, and the remaining Crusaders stayed to serve, I reckon that Richard would work to ensure that he could disrupt the Ayyubid realm by building a fleet like Raynard, being able to use it as a bargaining chip. (i.e. peace will mean no risk to Muslims travelling to Mecca, etc, etc).

But long term I can only see Jerusalem survive with an alliance with Constantinople and a move to conquer Egypt in a follow-up Crusade. Then Egypt and Jerusalem basically split the Muslim world between the Berber West and Arab/Persian East. I think this would be Richards life goal, he wanted to threaten Saladin by invading Egypt, so it makes sense that he'd want to secure his realm the same way. Whether it WORKS depends on whether he can get the manpower for it. Unless he's VERY tolerant, it is doubtful whether he can get the majority muslim population to join his army. (I had an idea for a Theme system-esque relationship which meant that members of that system were protected and their families had the same rights and opportunities as other non-nobility. Which could garner some troops).

However, I think you'd have a VERY cautious rule, focusing more on trying to establish some sort of popular base. We've got Catholic Kings ruling Copts, Sunnis, Orthodox, Jews and others to boot. Which raises questions as to where this surviving realm would rule from? Jerusalem? Acre? Ascalon? Alexandria? Cairo? (Considering the latter two may be putting the cart ahead of the horse.)

It also means we need Richard to have a good heir - Phillip of Cognac? A legitimate heir in this ATL? This Angevin-Jerusalem Branch needs to establish itself for it to last, and will likely have to marry non-Catholics Trebizond style.

It'd be a very interesting place at the very least.
 
Disclosure: I copied this from Quora.
What chance did the Crusader states have of surviving into the 1400 s , were they just too outnumbered and disunited?


Helena Schrader
, PhD History, University of Hamburg
Answered 12h ago


Alright, I generally don’t like answering speculative questions. The course of human history is very complex, and I have experienced at first hand how a single personality — a great leader, or a selfish fool, a minor miscalculation or a sudden discovery — can utterly alter the “equation” making the unthinkable possible, salvaging victory from the jaws of defeat … or vice versa.

But the temptation on this question was just too great.

As David Bonin points out below the disaster at Hattin was truly a turning point in the history of the Crusader states. They had been increasingly viable up to that point. A Christian victory at Hattin followed, as it was, by Saladin’s death within five years, would almost certainly have given the crusader states a very strong chance of long-term survival. But allow me to throw out another intriguing “what if.” (Even if it is a little against my principals as a historian….)

What if Richard the Lionheart could have been persuaded to do as his great-grandfather had done and renounce his inheritance in England and France, and taken the crown of Jerusalem instead?

main-qimg-9863b7072c3a273bcf71a508f92a94c3

As I note, his great-grandfather Fulk of Anjou had done exactly this in 1129. Since the High Court of Jerusalem elected the kings, there was not even an absolute need to marry the widowed heiress, although it had become tradition. Alternatively, an excuse could have been found for him to set aside his wife Berengaria. (It was done all the time for dynastic reasons.)

For England and the Angevin empire, the fate would ultimately have been the same: John would have killed his nephew, ruled England badly causing a revolt and giving England Magna Charta in the process. He would also have lost most of his father’s continental possession. The only difference is the whole process would have started five years earlier — and without England first having to pay for Richard’s ransom.

For the Holy Land, on the other hand, it could have been a Godsend.

Richard was a brilliant strategist and if he had agreed to stay in the Holy Land he would have united all the barons of Jerusalem behind him. He would have easily commanded the support of the Templars and Hospitallers, as well, and both Orders were at this time still very powerful and capable of recruiting substantial numbers of fighting men. He could have taken his time to build up defenses and forces, and when he was ready he could have gone on the offensive until the Kingdom was restored within defensible borders.

main-qimg-1d2f151e77b44a7456b9a21f4f054fbd

As for financing himself and his campaigns, Richard had all of Cyprus at his disposal, an immensely rich island which was going to be bread-basket of the Holy Land for the next hundred years anyway. Richard had conquered the island in just six weeks largely because he’d been welcomed as a liberator. (See: The Conquest of Cyprus: Part 1 and The Conquest of Cyprus -- Continued.) To be sure, he’d then sold it to the Templars, who had managed to make themselves so unpopular that they provoked an armed rebellion. This meant, however, they had given him back the island just when he needed it. (For more on this ignominious episode in Templar history see: True Tales of the Knights Templar 7: A Lost Opportunity ) There can be little doubt that Richard would have been able to re-pacify the island and then use it as a power-base, bread-basket, recruiting ground, and treasury.

main-qimg-a1a242589edd6448c5cc6e52db059291

Just as Aimery de Lusignan did historically, Richard would have given land on Cyprus to those Frankish lords and knights who had lost land on the mainland. In doing so he would have: 1) thereby bound them to him as his vassals, and 2) given them the means to buy horses, armor, and raise men for the struggle on the mainland. Cyprus would have become the “aircraft carrier” from which to launch further assaults on the Saracens until enough territory had been won back on the mainland for it to become both self-sustaining and defensible.

If necessary (as he was already contemplating when he left), Richard could have launched a campaign against Egypt that would have forced Salah ad-Din to abandon comparatively unimportant Jerusalem and Palestine to defend his power-base. Or, if Saladin died when he did anyway, all Richard would have had to do was take advantage of the disarray in the enemy camp.

I think there is little doubt that, presuming Richard avoided getting himself killed at an early stage of the fighting, he would have eventually (I’d give him ten years at most) have recaptured Jerusalem and all the former territory of the Kingdom — if not more.

In my novel about the Third Crusade, Envoy of Jerusalem, the proposal is put to Richard during the second assault on Jerusalem, which he is forced to break off. The novel, of course, follows the course of history and Richard turns the proposal down.

Looks like one more typical "I love Richard" thingy. :cool:

Blaming John is easy but he inherited the mess left by his brother, including almost complete destruction of the administrative apparatus created by Henry II and, at least England, being thoroughly looted to pay for the Dick's crusading adventure and then for his ransom.

Statement that Richard was a brilliant strategist seems to be a byproduct of the centuries of the English glorification. He was a brilliant tactician (which was proven in a number of battles) but as a strategist he was at best quite mediocre (at least in Outremer). As a politician he was even worse: his record of making enemies out of pretty much everyone who mattered is undisputed.

An idea that resources of Cypress would be enough for his needs is silly. To get on the Crusade he practically looted his territories but by the time he reached Sicily he was out of money again. He already looted Cyprus on the way to the Holy Land and the territory was not big enough to provide for his needs forever. Not sure if he would have free troops to "re-pacify" it but there is a little doubt that in no time the locals would be remembering the Templars as the good masters and rebel again. "Bread basket" means: freedom to loot all grain you need without paying for it. For how long would it work before a new rebellion starts? And Richard seemingly did not even have a navy of his own.

Then, the basic assumption that without Hattin the Outremer would be sustainable for a long period of time seems to be optimistic. It did not have a supporting demographic base (Catholics of the "middle" and "low" classes migrating from Europe) big enough and had to rely on the continuing arrival of the military cadres from Europe. Hardly a reliable schema for a long-term survival. Crusade was supposed to fix the damage caused by Hattin but "the brilliant strategist" was not up to the task.
 
But long term I can only see Jerusalem survive with an alliance with Constantinople and a move to conquer Egypt in a follow-up Crusade. Then Egypt and Jerusalem basically split the Muslim world between the Berber West and Arab/Persian East. I think this would be Richards life goal, he wanted to threaten Saladin by invading Egypt, so it makes sense that he'd want to secure his realm the same way. Whether it WORKS depends on whether he can get the manpower for it. Unless he's VERY tolerant, it is doubtful whether he can get the majority muslim population to join his army. (I had an idea for a Theme system-esque relationship which meant that members of that system were protected and their families had the same rights and opportunities as other non-nobility. Which could garner some troops).

However, I think you'd have a VERY cautious rule, focusing more on trying to establish some sort of popular base. We've got Catholic Kings ruling Copts, Sunnis, Orthodox, Jews and others to boot. Which raises questions as to where this surviving realm would rule from? Jerusalem? Acre? Ascalon? Alexandria? Cairo? (Considering the latter two may be putting the cart ahead of the horse.)
Was Egypt really majority Muslim in the late 12th century?
 
If that was successful, and the remaining Crusaders stayed to serve,

"Serve" means that they has to get lands from which they can support themselves and their bands. But it does not look like there were big resources available in the area. Also, most of the Crusaders were not his subjects and it does not even look like he made himself extremely popular with them or with the local barons. Surely, not with the Germans and most of the French.
 
Was Egypt really majority Muslim in the late 12th century?

I think between Egypt and Syria they are the majority, if not the largest plurality.

"Serve" means that they has to get lands from which they can support themselves and their bands. But it does not look like there were big resources available in the area. Also, most of the Crusaders were not his subjects and it does not even look like he made himself extremely popular with them or with the local barons. Surely, not with the Germans and most of the French.

Hence agreeing to attack Jerusalem as that prevents the alienation of Burgundy.

But yes, serves may not be the best word. But at least remaining to Crusade, and effectively being his allies/support is the aim. I mean, depending on the success of the Crusade, there could be plenty of land for the taking, as long as they serve Richard. Or plenty of loot if peace isn't achieved. We're talking a realm that (IMO) is going to be open to looting the Red Sea, or wrestling control over the trade routes so that they can trade. Sure Venice won't be a fan that they can't "Smuggle Relics from Alexandria" any more, but trade could be made wider, which is a huge way to make money for Jerusalem, and a good way to support any Crusaders.
 
I think between Egypt and Syria they are the majority, if not the largest plurality.



Hence agreeing to attack Jerusalem as that prevents the alienation of Burgundy.

But yes, serves may not be the best word. But at least remaining to Crusade, and effectively being his allies/support is the aim.

But if Jerusalem is taken, then the formal goal is accomplished and majority is leaving the territory (most of which is too inhospitable to be attractive unless there is some tangible "bonus" involved). And, as I said, it does not look like the Dick was very good in creating anybody but the enemies (and allies who were pretty much useless to him). An attempt to rule ruthlessly would alienate the local barons and even during the crusade he managed to make too many enemies by his modus operandi. Even if he was not involved in assassination of Conrad of Monferrate, the suspicion was there. It was not necessary to offend the Duke of Austria just to assert his own "supremacy", etc.

I mean, depending on the success of the Crusade, there could be plenty of land for the taking, as long as they serve Richard.

Short of something totally different from OTL most of that land would be sand: the more or less good lands were outside the scope of the OTL crusade or already owned by the barons/princes of the Outremer. Most of the Germans or French would not stay, anyway, even if just by the political reasons.


Or plenty of loot if peace isn't achieved.
Well, you can loot place only once and there were not too many places which these crusaders could loot. But after the looting is done and the peace is not achieved, leaving area with the loot (while you are still alive) is a prudent solution. ;)


We're talking a realm that (IMO) is going to be open to looting the Red Sea, or wrestling control over the trade routes so that they can trade. Sure Venice won't be a fan that they can't "Smuggle Relics from Alexandria" any more, but trade could be made wider, which is a huge way to make money for Jerusalem, and a good way to support any Crusaders.

IMO, the 3rd Crusade simply did not have enough resources for the plans you outlined, especially after most of its leaders got fed up with Dick. What you are talking about looks like a long-term program that requires establishing of a strong and sustainable crusading state (IMO, rather difficult by that time taking into an account the diverse interests of the local barons, the crusading orders, the visitors, etc.) which would somehow keep attracting the militant and civilian newcomers. With the strength being built up, the successful expansion (within the reasonable limits) may be possible. As for the trade routes, they are useful only if alt-Outremer maintains long-term friendly relations with the Muslim neighbors which is somewhat unlikely on both sides and, as a minimum, requires a skillful diplomacy. Can you imagine Richard as a flexible diplomat?
 
Top